HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0351.000 2016-2018Harry Kim
Mayor
June 30, 2017
Wil Okabe
Managing Director
Barbara J. Kossow
Deputy Managing Director
%L1,11unt of Patual"i
+*ra
25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2603 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553
KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy., Bldg. C • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
� C
(808) 323-4444 • Fax (808) 323-4440
—�
A:;rj
W
v--
Valerie T. Poindexter, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chair Poindexter and Members:
SUBJECT: Ka`u Community Development Plan
As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letter and
enclosures regarding the above -referenced matter.
Please place this matter on the Committee on Planning's agenda for August 15, 2017, for
consideration.
Sincerely,
HARRY KIM
Mayor
MTransCouncilKauCDP
Enclosures
cc: 'Planning Department
Comm No. 35-1
Ref. To:,P (-,
Ref, Dote LD 6 2017
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
Harry Kim
Mayor
County of Hawaii
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
Valerie T. Poindexter, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chair Poindexter and Council Members:
SUBJECT: Ka`u Community Development Plan
Gregory Henkel, Chair
Joseph Clarkson, Vice Chair
Donn Dela Cruz
Donald Ikeda
Myles Miyasato
The Windward Planning Commission, conducted public hearings on May 10, 2017 and
June 1, 2017, to review the draft Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP) as submitted
by Ka`u CDP Steering Committee.
At its meeting of June 1, 2017, the Commission voted to send a favorable recommendation of
the Ka`u CDP, in its entirety, to the County Council.
Enclosed for your favorable consideration is the draft bill adopting the Ka`u CDP. We have also
enclosed the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Reports and the draft
transcripts of the hearings for your information.
Sincerely,
Gregory Henkel, Chairman
Windward Planning Commission
LCouncilKauCDPwpc
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department — Kona
Malia Hall, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Harry Kim
Mavor
West Hawaii Office
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
Phone (808) 323-4770
Fax(808)327-3563
April 20, 2017
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Windward Planning Commission
County of Hawaii
c/o Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Commissioners:
SUBJECT: Ka`u Community Development Plan
Michael Yee
Director
Daryn Arai
Deputy Director
East Hawaii Office
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961-8288
Fax(808)961-8742
We are pleased to submit for your consideration the Background Report and Planning Director's
Recommendation for the draft Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP).
Pursuant to Section 2-28.1 of the Hawaii County Code, within sixty days after receipt of the
Planning Director's recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment
thereof, the Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development
plan or any amendment with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council.
A Windward Planning Commission's hearing for the Ka`u Community Development Plan is
scheduled for Wednesday, May 10, 2017, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Na`alehu Community
Center, 95-5635 Mamalahoa Highway, Na`alehu, Hawaii.
Sincerely,
,X��
MICHAEL YEE
Planning Director
HKS:RW:rl
1lCOH31planning"public '�wpwin60'CDP\Kau CDP\Adoption'WPC Materials Transmittal of CDPAransmittal to PC.doc
Encl: Ka`u CDP Background Report and Planning Director's Recommendation
www.cohplanninedept.com Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
KA'O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BACKGROUND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Director recommends that the Windward Planning Commission send a favorable
recommendation to the Hawai'i County Council for adoption by ordinance of the Ka'u Community
Development Plan (CDP), as presented in Planning Department (P.D.) Exhibit 1, incorporating non -
substantive revisions to the draft recommended by the Ka'u CDP Steering Committee.
CONTEXT
The General Plan (2005 edition, as amended) establishes the County's CDP program to create a
framework for regional planning that provides residents and other stakeholders the opportunity to
actively participate in planning for their communities. CDPs are adopted by ordinance.
The Ka'u CDP is a fine example of robust collaborative planning among community, consultant, and
County partners. It is firmly grounded in the community's objectives and has been vetted by a diverse
array of stakeholders at each step. It was also developed with practicality and clarity in mind, using
existing planning "tools" whenever possible and structured to expedite implementation.
Bearing that in mind, the Windward Planning Commission and the County Council are encouraged to
take great care when considering revisions. Perhaps most importantly, before proposing revisions to
any CDP strategy, review the rationale behind that strategy in CDP Appendix 5 (P.D. Exhibit 2). This
approach would be most consistent with how challenging issues have been addressed throughout the
CDP process — by focusing on community objectives, accurate information, and good analysis rather
than on parochial interests and the number, passion, and volume of commentary.
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
The Ka'u CDP planning process built on the strengths and lessons -learned from the first round of CDPs
adopted in 2008. Specifically, it:
Used many communication channels: Stakeholders were engaged via mail, local newspapers,
neighborhood newsletters, bulletin boards, email, a web site, social media, video, tours, small group
meetings, summits, workshops, focused discussions, and speak -outs.
■ Built on shared community values, vision, and goals: Those were the foundation and drivers of the
planning process. They were developed based on unprecedented, representative community input,
and they were used to evaluate the quality of the CDP.
■ Balanced perspectives: "Community" is never homogenous, so the volunteer, community-based CDP
Steering Committee was diverse, and many community sectors and interests were engaged.
■ Established clear roles: It made the best use of the expertise and knowledge of community
stakeholders, the County, and consultants but deferred to the Steering Committee to make key
decisions.
■ Was comprehensive: It devoted equal attention to natural and cultural resource management,
community building, and economic development.
■ Clarified types of strategies: The authority of a CDP vis-a-vis the General Plan was clear, and the
differences between aspiration, policy controls, County actions, action at other levels of government,
and community actions were made explicit.
■ Combined local knowledge and industry best practices: CDP strategy development drew upon both
local expertise and an extensive "planner's toolbox."
■ Maintained objectivity: Analysis was based on extensive research, and strategies were identified
based on gaps in current policies and programs.
■ Maximized transparency: The rationale behind every product and recommendation during the
planning process was clear, and decisions were made openly after many opportunities for public
input.
■ Identified specific decision points: Following community input during each phase in the planning
process, the Steering Committee made key decisions that served as the foundation for next steps.
■ Facilitates implementation: Corresponding with the different types of strategies, guides to
implementation were developed for planners, agencies, and the community.
K
CONTENTS
The detailed background report contained herein is organized as follows:
RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................................................................
CONTEXT............................................................................................................................................
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES..............................................................................................................
CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAM................................................................................
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER...........................................................................................................
HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN..................................................................................................
PLANELEMENTS.................................................................................................................................
NAVIGATING THE CDP....................................................................................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................
TYPES OF CDP STRATEGIES.............................................................................................................
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS..................................................................................................................
STRATEGY RATIONALE...................................................................................................................
PLANNING PROCESS...........................................................................................................................
INITIATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................................
STEERING COMMITTEE..................................................................................................................
CDP PROJECT TEAM.......................................................................................................................
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................
AGENCY COMMENTS.....................................................................................................................
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................
CDP IMPLEMENTATION.....................................................................................................................
PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXHIBITS......................................................................................................
P.D. EXHIBIT 1: KA'O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P.D. EXHIBIT 2: KA'O CDP STRATEGY RATIONALE
P.D. EXHIBIT 3: CDP PROJECT TEAM'S DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
P.D. EXHIBIT 4: COH, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P.D. EXHIBIT 5: COH, FIRE DEPARTMENT
P.D. EXHIBIT 6: COH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS DIVISION
P.D. EXHIBIT 7: COH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING COMMISSION DIVISION
P.D. EXHIBIT 8: COH, POLICE DEPARTMENT
3
..1
..1
..1
.. 3
.. 5
.. 5
.. 5
.. 5
.. 7
.. 7
.. 7
10
11
12
13
13
13
13
14
15
16
19
21
P.D. EXHIBIT 9: SOH, DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES
P.D. EXHIBIT 10: SOH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.D. EXHIBIT 11: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CLEAN WATER BRANCH
P.D. EXHIBIT 12: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
P.D. EXHIBIT 13: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER BRANCH, FEBRUARY 12, 2016
P.D. EXHIBIT 14: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER BRANCH, MARCH 3, 2016
P.D. EXHIBIT 15: SOH, HUMAN SERVICES
P.D. EXHIBIT 16: SOH, OFFICE OF PLANNING
P.D. EXHIBIT 17: FED, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.D. EXHIBIT 18: CADES-SCHUTTE
P.D. EXHIBIT 19: DISCOVERY HARBOUR RESIDENTS
:l
BACKGROUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAM
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Hawai'i County Charter, the County Council shall adopt by ordinance a
general plan which shall set forth the Council's policy for long-range comprehensive physical
development of the county. Moreover, the Council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and such other
ordinances which shall contain the necessary provisions to carry out the purpose of the general plan.
Likewise, pursuant to Section 6-7.2, the Planning Director shall prepare a general plan, implementation
plans and any amendments thereto in accordance with Section 3-15.
HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, upon adoption of the General Plan in 1971,
the Council laid the foundation for establishing a comprehensive planning program for the County of
Hawaii. This program consists of three interrelated parts arranged in a hierarchy as described below
and illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Figure 11 -91. G—eineral Plan C ompasenis
Functilanal Plan
amrounity 0evelopment I'll Ar -ed Tmprovemt,"I Plan,.
�c
Hila
Plan
Hdo bdWrw�towh lapww wmt
wW��,dmr Kok) Kahale 9K
�V�w
t4
Lamd Use Developmetit
Operating, But Capital lmproveme t,s Program Cade
Other Codes ond kcq,�Iatwm
The General Plan represents the first level and encompasses long-range goals, policies, standards, and
courses of action for the entire County. The General Plan also provides the legal basis for all of the other
elements of the County's planning structure. As such, the General Plan is the highest order, or
"umbrella" plan. It establishes the outer limits or boundaries within which the County must operate.
The second level consists of short and middle range plans that further define the long range goals and
policies of the General Plan. These plans are related to specific regions or districts (Hilo, Kona, Kohala,
Ka'G, etc.), functions (recreation, agriculture, drainage, highways, etc.), and specific areas within a region
(Kailua-Kona, Downtown Hilo, etc.).
The third level consists of specific mechanisms to implement the two higher levels of the planning
hierarchy. These include the Zoning and Subdivision Codes and both the operating and capital
improvement program budgets.
Pursuant Section 14.1.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, 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.
Pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, the Community Development Plans are
intended to be the forum for community input into managing growth and coordinating the delivery of
government services to the community. The Community Development Plans will translate the broad
General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas.
A Community Development Plan should direct physical development and public improvements within a
specific area. The Community development Plan may contain detailed land use and zoning guide maps,
plans for roadways, drainage, parks, and other infrastructure and public facilities, architectural design
guidelines, planning for watersheds and other natural features, and any other matters relating to the
planning area.
In the process of creating the Community Development Plan, it may be determined that the General
Plan should be amended. The Planning Director or County Council may initiate amendments to the
General Plan, and the Steering Committee may recommend amendments, that would be enacted at the
same time as the Community Development Plan, or as a follow-up to the Community Development Plan.
If there is a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the
General Plan shall be controlling.
The Community Development Plans shall focus on action. The courses of action specified in each
element of the General Plan need greater detail and need to be coordinated by district. The Community
Development Plans shall identify appropriate governmental actions that include
■ Regulatory actions: recommend amendments as appropriate to the codes, maps, or administration
and enforcement.
■ Incentive measures to achieve various objectives, as applicable.
■ Acquisition actions: identify acquisition priorities, as appropriate, and seek means to leverage
financing by working creatively with the landowner, other levels of government, land trusts, and/or
nonprofit groups.
■ Capital budgeting actions: identify and prioritize public facility projects important to the community.
■ Programs: identify desired programs and the community's role in planning and implementing the
programs.
■ Development/Redevelopment: identify desired projects for public development or redevelopment.
PLAN ELEMENTS
The Ka'G Community Development Plan is included in its entirety in P.D. Exhibit 1.
NAVIGATING THE CDP
The following are suggested to familiarize the reader with the Ka'G CDP:
■ For an overview, read subsection "1.1: Executive Summary" (also included immediately below).
■ To understand the evolution of the CDP, review the remainder of "Section 1: Introduction."
■ Then read carefully "Section 2: Applicability" to understand the different types of CDP strategies and
their relationship to roles in CDP implementation.
The remainder of the CDP is organized by four main substantive sections:
■ "Section 3: Advance Preferred Conservation and Settlement Patterns," which includes land use policy
maps
■ "Section 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources"
■ "Section 5: Strengthen Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services"
■ "Section 6: Build a Resilient, Sustainable Local Economy."
Use the Table of Contents as well as "Table 1: CDP Strategies by Community Objective" and "Table 2:
CDP Strategies by Place" to explore the CDP. Internal cross-references have also been inserted to
simplify navigation within the document.
To understand the origins of particular CDP strategies, refer to the "The Ka'G CDP Strategy Rationale"
(included below as P.D. Exhibit 2).
You may also find it helpful to review other CDP support documents:
■ "Land Use Policy Guide" is a quick -reference guide for land use planners.
■ "Guidance to Agencies" is a summary of implementation actions to be taken by County, State, and
federal agencies and other organizations.
■ "Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide" includes detail about each of the Community -Based,
Collaborative Actions included in the CDP.
All of these documents, as well as the CDP and other background documents, are available to be
downloaded as PDFs at http:/�www.hawaiicountycd .info/kau-cdp/recommended-cdp-april-2017.
However, only the CDP has been updated to reflect the non -substantive amendments recommended by
the Planning Director.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ka'G CDP planning area includes the Judicial District of Ka'G, not including the Volcano Golf and
Country Club, which is part of the Puna CDP planning area. The planning area includes Wood Valley,
Pahala, Punalu'u, N5'51ehu, Green Sands, Wai'ohinu, Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, South Point,
Ocean View, and all of the agricultural and conservation lands in between.
Sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the CDP serves as an Executive Summary:
Complete, sustainable, vibrant communities do three fundamental things. First, they protect the public
trust — the natural and cultural resources that are fundamental to community character and a strong
community and local economy. Second, they provide public facilities and services to residents and
businesses. And third, they grow local businesses that provide goods, services, and jobs. The Ka'u
Community Development Plan serves as a road map to achieve those three ends.
First, strategies in Section 4 of the CDP focus on protecting and enhancing Ka'u's rich heritage of natural
and cultural resources, including coastal areas, agricultural land, mauka forests, scenic resources,
ecosystems, historic and cultural features, and public access and trails. Four basic approaches are used:
land preservation, land use policy protections, governmental initiative, and collaborative action by
landowners, nonprofits, and the community.
Second, Section 5 prioritizes improvements in water systems, roads, mass transit, emergency and health
services and facilities, waste management, education, and parks. These improvements will require
County, State, and community leadership.
Third, the Ka'u CDP supports economic development in three ways. First, it establishes firm foundations
for growth through the protections and improvements in Sections 4 and 5 and by providing room for
development in Section 3. Second, the CDP outlines strategic steps to seize sector -specific market
opportunities. Third, the CDP provides a road map to guide coordinated, community -led economic
development strategies.
The Land Use Policies in Section 3 of the CDP tie the environmental, infrastructure, and economic
elements of the CDP together by clearly segregating protected areas (coastal areas and mauka forests),
agricultural land, and settled areas.
CDPs do a range of things and are implemented in a variety of ways. Listed below are the specific
strategies included in the Ka'u CDP, clustered by the four sections of the CDP introduced above. In the
list below, policies defined when the CDP is adopted begin with terms like "protects," "preserves,"
"ensures," "concentrates," "identifies," and "allows for." Strategies that require follow-up action begin
with terms like "guides," "prioritizes," "supports," and "advances."
The Ka'u Community Development Plan:
Protects and Enhances Natural and Cultural Resources (Section 4)
■ Guides the expansion of lands held in public trust
■ Protects coastal areas, agricultural land, and mauka forests from development
■ Protects open space, areas with natural beauty, and scenic view planes
■ Guides the development of programs to strengthen protections for coastal and agricultural lands as
well as open space and view planes
■ Preserves historic resources
■ Guides the restoration of historic sites and buildings, the retention of village and town character, and
the documentation of oral, written, and video histories
Ej
■ Supports the preservation of village and town character and guides the enhancement of communities'
unique sense of place
■ Ensures appropriate public access to the shoreline and mauka forests
■ Guides the development of a regional network of trails
■ Guides collaborative stewardship and enhancement of coastal and forest ecosystems, cultural
resources, agricultural lands, public access, and trails
Advances Preferred Conservation and Settlement Patterns (Section 3)
■ Concentrates future development in the existing towns, villages, and subdivisions
■ Identifies specific commercial and industrial areas in Pahala, Na'alehu, and Ocean View
■ Advances redevelopment and growth management with brownfield assessments, a County -wide
affordable housing plan, and community-based development strategies.
Strengthens Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services (Section 5)
■ Prioritizes the improvement of existing potable water systems and wastewater systems to support
infill growth
■ Prioritizes formalizing and improving emergency alternative routes
■ Prioritizes flood prevention
■ Prioritizes the maintenance of County roads as well as safety improvements along Wood Valley,
Kama'oa, Ka'alu'alu, and South Point Roads and Mamalahoa Highway
■ Guides road and park improvements in Mark Twain and Green Sands
■ Prioritizes bus system improvements, including a Ka'u loop route, an Ocean View route, evening trips
to Hilo and Kona, and bus shelters
■ Prioritizes new fire stations, a helipad, and upgraded emergency equipment
■ Prioritizes police station improvements, a new substation in Ocean View, and the maintenance of four
police officers on each shift
■ Prioritizes civil defense sirens, a hazard mitigation plans, and the Kahuku Park Community/Senior
Center, Gym, and Shelter
■ Prioritizes the Ocean View and Pahala transfer stations as well as green waste drop-off and mulch
pick-up sites
■ Prioritizes and guides education improvements, including the development of a school and library in
Ocean View
■ Guides the development of skate parks and an ATV park
■ Prioritizes community input during infrastructure project planning and design
9
Build a Resilient, Sustainable Local Economy (Section 6)
■ Preserves opportunities to live off the land
■ Guides the implementation of regional economic development strategies
■ Guides the development of a regional education, enterprise development, and research network
■ Guides regional strategies to increase "buying local"
■ Guides efforts to strengthen the local agriculture value chain
■ Allows for the diversification of agriculture-based businesses and rural uses on agricultural and rural
lands
■ Guides the development of local, renewable, distributed energy networks and prioritizes greater
public review of commercial renewable energy projects
■ Guides exploratory efforts to secure community payments for ecosystem services
■ Guides the expansion of the regional network of health and wellness services
■ Guides the development of a regional ho'okipa network — a place-based approach to community
tourism.
In addition, a large number of CDP objectives and strategies intersect at Punalu'u, which has a rich
ecological, historical, and cultural legacy and is dear to the hearts of most residents. Section 7 of the
CDP outlines a community-driven, collaborative process for planning the future of Punalu'u.
TYPES OF CDP STRATEGIES
Section 2 of the CDP briefly introduces the types of CDP strategies and the legal applicability of each.
In the case of direct conflicts between a CDP and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be
controlling. In order to bring the Ka'u CDP and the General Plan into alignment, the CDP recommends
specific amendments to the General Plan as a follow-up to the CDP.
The Ka'u CDP employs four types of strategies to achieve Community Objectives: two types of County
policy, an advocacy platform, and community-based, collaborative action.
There are two types of County policies in the CDP:
1. "Land Use Policies" are the official land use policy guidance for the Ka'u CDP planning area and
shall be implemented through all County of Hawai'i actions. In addition, the Land Use Policies
shall inform County recommendations to other agencies, including the State Land Use
Commission regarding district boundary amendments, special permits, and other applications in
Ka'u.
There are two aspects of Land Use Policies:
a. Policy Intent: These are general statements that express policy aims or objectives. From a
legal standpoint, these "hortatory" policies are open to interpretation when applied in
specific instances.
10
b. Policy Controls: These limit the range of decisions that can be made in the future, like land
use policies that specifically designate future settlement or transportation patterns. These
binding, sometimes restrictive policy controls often include use of the term "shall," which,
from a legal standpoint, means the policy is imperative or mandatory.
The CDP distinguishes these two aspects of Land Use Policy.
2. "County Actions" are the official County policies to guide future County priorities and initiatives,
including operating and capital budgets. These policies are not mandated, legally -binding, or self -
implementing; rather, they often require additional legislative and administrative directives
before being implemented (e.g., land acquisition, capital improvement appropriations, code
changes, incentive measures).
In many cases, existing State and County policies support the implementation of Ka'G Community
Objectives. In those cases, in the CDP, the existing policies are reiterated or tailored to the specific
context in Ka'G, and references for the existing policies are included. If the referenced existing policies
are changed following adoption of the CDP, the CDP policies shall stand unless otherwise amended or
unless superseded by prevailing policy in the General Plan or State or federal law.
None of the Ka'G Community Objectives can be achieved by the County alone. Some important policies
fall outside jurisdiction, while other initiatives must be led by the community. Therefore, the CDP
includes two additional types of strategies:
3. "Advocacy" strategies are actions by non -County agencies and organizations that would help
advance implementation of the CDP. It is assumed that the Action Committee, County agencies,
and County, State, and federal elected officials will work in collaboration with agencies and other
organizations to advance the CDP's advocacy program.
4. "Community-based, Collaborative Actions" are initiatives that must be led by the community
with support from a broad range of organizations and agencies.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
Only the Ka'G Community Development Plan will go before the County Council for adoption. All other
Ka'G CDP documents are supporting appendices that are not adopted into law. They currently include:
Appendix
1. CDP Purpose and Scope
2. Planning Process
3. Community Profile
4. Background Analysis
A. Natural and Cultural Resource Management Analysis
B. Community Building Analysis
C. Local Economic Development Analysis
D. Preferred Future Growth Patterns
5. CDP Strategy Rationale
6. Land Use Policy Guide
7. Guidance to Agencies
8. Community Implementation Tools
11
A. Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide
B. Action and Monitoring Matrix
The intent is to keep the CDP as concise and accessible as possible, leaving supporting material and
analysis in the appendix.
All of these documents are available to be downloaded as PDFs at
htt�;�/www,hawaiicount�cd�,info�kau-cdg��recommended-cd�-a�ri1-2017. However, they have not
been updated to reflect the non -substantive amendments recommended by the Planning Director.
STRATEGY RATIONALE
Appendix 5 is an explanation of each CDP policy and advocacy item (included below as P.D. Exhibit 2).
Potential revisions should be considered in light of the strategy rationale.
12
PLANNING PROCESS
INITIATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
Pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, the Planning Director or Council may
initiate a Community Development Plan. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the County Council appropriated
funding for the Ka'u CDP, and the Planning Director initiated the CDP planning process in September
2008.
Pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, the exact boundaries of the planning area
may be determined during the preparation of the plan. The Ka'u CDP planning area includes most of
Judicial District 9 in the County of Hawaii. Eastern portions of the district near and including Volcano
Village were included in the Puna CDP planning area and were therefore not incorporated into the Ka'u
CDP.
STEERING COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, each Community Development Plan shall
have a steering committee composed of volunteer members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by
the County Council. The members shall be broadly representative of the affected communities. The
steering committee shall work in conjunction with the Planning Department and with any professional
consultants hired to assist in the preparation of the plan.
The Ka'u CDP Steering Committee was confirmed in April 2009. The principal roles of the Steering
Committee included:
■ Help tailor the planning process to the unique characteristics of Ka'u and its stakeholders
■ Promote the planning process within various sectors of the community to maximize participation
while maintaining a neutral, approachable posture in the community
■ Monitor the development of the CDP to ensure that the best interests of the Ka'u region as a whole
are incorporated
■ Recommend approval of the CDP.
More information about the Ka'u CDP Steering Committee is available here:
httr�://www,hawaiicou nt�cd�,info/kau-cd�/steering-committee.
Cy0]»: 931:lei09:FA1/
Pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawai'i County General Plan, the CDP Steering Committee shall work in
conjunction with the Planning Department and with any professional consultants hired to assist in the
preparation of the plan.
The Planning Department assigned senior planner Ron Whitmore as the Ka'u CDP project manager
responsible for overall project coordination and guidance. Starting in March 2011, he also coordinated
CDP writing and production. He was supported by the Department's Long Range Planning division
manager April Surprenant and other planners in the division.
During the initial phase of the project, the Department of Research and Development engaged residents
as Community Liaisons to coordinate community input.
13
The Planning Department also engaged a Community Planning Assistant (CPA). The CPA was a Ka'u
resident and supported the project manager and Steering Committee with on -the -ground assistance.
The Planning Department also engaged several consultants to assist with the development of the CDP:
■ PlaceMakers: In May 2009, PlaceMakers, LLC was engaged as the lead consultant to work with the
project team and Steering Committee to design and implement the planning process and prepare the
Ka'u CDP and supporting materials. PlaceMakers engaged as sub -consultants Urban Advisors and
local firms PBR Hawaii (see below), HACBED (see below), and Island Planning.
From December 2009 through October 2010, the County and PlaceMakers put forth great effort into
aligning expectations for contract requirements. In the end, those attempts were unsuccessful, so
in November 2010, the County and lead consultant mutually agreed that it was best to terminate
the contract. After the County received all of the consultant's work products, the contract was
officially terminated at the end of February 2011.
■ PBR Hawai'i & Associates prepared the Ka'u Community Profile for the CDP. PBR also focused on
strategies to develop and preserve Ka'u's "green infrastructure" and to repair its "nonconforming"
subdivisions. PBR Hawai'i has been a full-service planning firm in Hawai'i for 40 years and has an office
in Hilo.
■ The Hawai'i Alliance for Community Based Economic Development (HACBED) led the economic
development and capacity building elements of the CDP. HACBED is a statewide nonprofit that
provides community planning, capacity building, and asset building services.
■ Chris Hart & Partners developed the CDP analysis, policies, and actions related to existing and
proposed resort nodes in Ka'u. Chris Hart & Partners is based on Maui and has extensive experience
with both private and rural community planning.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Ka'u CDP is the product of years of collaborative community, consultant, and County work. It is
firmly grounded in the community's objectives and has been vetted by community stakeholders at each
step.
The project timeline illustrates the CDP phases and steps (httn://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/kau-
cd�/other-information/overview-and-fag/CDP%20Timeline and a 5 -minute orientation
video ) and presentation slides
(htt�://www,hawaiicount�cd ,info/kau-cd�/resolveuid/040179be0571d993f78ba1cc433443cf) are also
available.
The Ka'u CDP was developed in three stages, which are described in Section 1 of the CDP and "Appendix
2: Planning Process" (). Each
stage was driven by extensive community input and concluded with a clear decision by the CDP Steering
Committee.
During the first stage, thousands of "talk story" and survey comments from community members were
used to identify core community values and a vision of what they'd like to see in Ka'u in 2030, as
summarized in Section 1.3 of the CDP. At the end of that stage, the Steering Committee affirmed a
Values and Visions Statement that then served as a compass point guiding the planning process.
14
Next, a detailed profile of the community (Appendix 3) was developed based on community knowledge
and expertise as well as existing data, reports, and studies. Section 1.4 of the CDP summarizes the
community assets and challenges identified in the profile. That stage concluded when the Steering
Committee integrated the Values and Vision Statement with the Community Profile to develop the
twelve Community Objectives that the CDP is designed to achieve (listed in Section 1.5.1 of the CDP).
Between the second and third stages, the project stalled for most of two years due to the consultant
contract deliberations noted above.
In the third stage, extensive research was conducted to identify the range of strategies that could be
used to achieve the Community Objectives (see Appendix 4 of the CDP). From those strategies, a
combination of policies and actions was identified that, when implemented together, will realize the
community's vision for the future. Those strategies were compiled into the preliminary "working draft"
of the CDP. The Ka'u CDP Steering Committee reviewed that draft, discussed it, and made
recommendations for revisions.
Next, the broader community and stakeholders had the same opportunity, and the Steering Committee
used that input to make further revisions before it was satisfied that the CDP truly reflects community
preferences. On October 27, 2015, the CDP Steering Committee made final recommendations for CDP
revisions and adoption.
AGENCY COMMENTS
To initiate the CDP review and adoption process, the Planning Director issued a memo requesting
comment from a wide range of County, State, and Federal agencies on January 25, 2016:
County of Hawaii Agencies: Aging; Civil Defense; Corporation Counsel; Fire; Environmental
Management; Finance; Housing and Community Development; Office of the Mayor; Mass Transit;
Parks and Recreation; Planning: Administrative Permits Division, Planning Division; Police; Public
Works; Research and Development; Water Supply
State of Hawaii Agencies: Accounting and General Services; Agriculture; Agribusiness Development
Corporation; Business, Economic Development & Tourism: Planning, Land Use Commission;
Education; Hawai'i Health Systems Corporation; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Hawaiian Home Lands;
Health; Human Services; Labor & Industrial Relations; Land & Natural Resources: DOCARE, Parks;
Libraries; Transportation; University of Hawai'i; Senator Russell Ruderman; Senator Josh Green;
Representative Richard Onishi; Representative Richard Creagan
■ Federal Agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, Representative Tulsi Gabbard,
Senator Mazie Hirono, Senator Brian Schatz
■ Private Organizations: Kamehameha Schools, Three Mountain Alliance.
Comments were received from the Administrative Permits and Planning Divisions of the Planning
Department, three other County agencies, five State agencies including the State Office of Planning,
Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, and stakeholders with an interest in the Discovery Harbour subdivision
and their attorneys. See P.D. Exhibits 4 through 19.
15
The comments can be roughly summarized as follows:
■ Non -substantive:
o Pointing out typographic errors
o Recommending formatting or style changes
o Recommending revisions based on changes in statute, code, or plans since the CDP was
drafted
o Recommending revisions to improve clarity or correct inadvertent errors or omissions
■ Substantive:
o Support for CDP strategies
o Differences in interpretation or opinion about CDP strategies. Appendix 5 explains any
interpretations made or choices between strategy options.
o Debate in Discovery Harbour over legal issues and a proposed resort
■ Lack of understanding:
o Confusion about the applicability of different types of CDP strategies
o Lack of familiarity with all of the CDP strategies and their inter -relationships
o Confusion about the relationship of the CDP and the GP. Section 2 of the CDP speaks clearly
to that relationship.
o Lack of understanding of the reasoning behind CDP strategies. Appendix 5 includes detailed
explanations of the rationale for each strategy.
■ Implementation challenges. Because there are many options for how and when the Administration
(and other jurisdictions) implement the various actions in the CDP, detailed guidance is not included.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
P.D. Exhibit 3 organizes all of the comment received during agency review by the related section of the
CDP. It also highlights specific recommended revisions and includes comments from the CDP Project
Team in response. After reviewing all of the comments, the CDP Project Team did not recommend any
substantive revisions but saw merit in a number of non -substantive revisions.
The Planning Director concurred. However, the Director saw additional opportunities for strengthening
the CDP, all of which were also non -substantive. To summarize, the Planning Director recommended
the following revisions, all of which are reflected in the version of the Ka'u CDP presented to the
Windward Planning Commission:
Oreanizational Improvements
■ To avoid confusion, refer to all supporting documents as "Appendices" rather than as "Chapters."
■ State in Section 1.1.1 that only the CDP is being adopted, not any of the supporting documents,
whether they were previously referred to as "Chapters" or "Appendices."
■ Re -order Section 1.3 and 1.4 chronologically.
Clarification
■ Reframe the CDP and particular strategies as appropriate to clarify the purpose of CDPs relative to
General Plan (i.e., implement goals, direct physical development, designate detailed development
patterns, further define policies, detail land use and other policies, land use and zoningu� ide maps).
Language was refined in Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4.
■ Refine language in Policies 7, 39, and 93 per the above reframing.
■ Change "shall" to "should" in Policy 13.
■ Change "shall" to "should" in Policy 94.
From Agency Recommendations
■ Typographical errors were corrected.
■ Section 4.1.3.2: Clarified relative to the Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park General Management Plan
(GMP).
■ Section 4.2.4.1: Clarified pursuant Hawai'i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-5-40(b).
■ Section 4.6.4.1: The National Park Service was added to the list of agencies.
■ Policy 71: Revised to be consistent with recent amendments to HRS 6E-42.
■ Section 4.8.4.2: A misleading reference to the Three Mountain Alliance was deleted.
■ Policy 96: Clarified.
■ Policy 112: Clarified.
■ New Section 5.7.3.1: Added to emphasize the role of the National Park Service in emergency response.
■ New Policy 135, replacing Section 6.1.3.1: Clarified agencies roles in implementation of the
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).
17
This page was intentionally left blank.
18
CDP IMPLEMENTATION
There is a strong connection between each type of CDP strategy and roles during CDP implementation.
The success of CDP implementation will largely depend on each partner focusing where it can make the
biggest difference. Therefore, to facilitate CDP implementation,
■ "Land Use Policies" are re -organized in "Appendix 6: Land Use Policy Guide" to provide clear land use
planning and permitting guidance to public and private planners and to policy makers.
■ "County Actions" and "Advocacy" strategies are re -organized by agency in "Appendix 7: Guidance to
Agencies," summarizing action to be taken by County, State, and federal agencies and other
organizations.
■ "Community-based, Collaborative Actions" are explained in detail in "Appendix 8A: Community -
Based, Collaborative Action Guide," including tools to guide and monitor those actions.
All of these documents are available to be downloaded as PDFs at
htt�:�/www,hawaiicount�cd�,info�kau-cd�/recommended-cdr�-a�ri1-2017. However, they have not
been updated to reflect the non -substantive amendments recommended by the Planning Director.
After the CDP is adopted, "Appendix 8B: Action and Monitoring Matrix" will be developed to summarize
CDP strategies, guide implementation, and monitor progress.
19
This page was intentionally left blank.
20
PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXHIBITS
P.D. EXHIBIT 1: KA'U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P.D. EXHIBIT 2: KA'U CDP STRATEGY RATIONALE
P.D. EXHIBIT 3: CDP PROJECT TEAM'S DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
P.D. EXHIBIT 4: COH, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P.D. EXHIBIT 5: COH, FIRE DEPARTMENT
P.D. EXHIBIT 6: COH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS DIVISION
P.D. EXHIBIT 7: COH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING COMMISSION DIVISION
P.D. EXHIBIT 8: COH, POLICE DEPARTMENT
P.D. EXHIBIT 9: SOH, DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES
P.D. EXHIBIT 10: SOH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.D. EXHIBIT 11: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CLEAN WATER BRANCH
P.D. EXHIBIT 12: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
P.D. EXHIBIT 13: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER BRANCH, FEBRUARY 12, 2016
P.D. EXHIBIT 14: SOH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER BRANCH, MARCH 3, 2016
P.D. EXHIBIT 15: SOH, HUMAN SERVICES
P.D. EXHIBIT 16: SOH, OFFICE OF PLANNING
P.D. EXHIBIT 17: FED, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.D. EXHIBIT 18: CADES-SCHUTTE
P.D. EXHIBIT 19: DISCOVERY HARBOUR RESIDENTS
21
as recommended by the Ka'O CDP Steering Committee
for ! i !n by the County of
and incorporating the Planning Director's Non -
Recommendations
April 2017
Planning Dept.
Exhibit I
...the people of Ka'u, who came out in record numbers to ground the CDP in their values and vision and
then continued to provide heartfelt guidance at every step from there. Special thanks to the many
volunteers who supported community meetings and the local organizations who provided meeting
space and assistance.
...the Steering Committee, whose members had the commitment and patience to see things through to
U�UUa
GG�oo
�j rUboGG
Acknowledge me nts
Marino Ramones, Simon Torres, and Donna Ambrose (resigned). Special thanks to Chair
�✓� f0 oGOp�°oor
The Ka'G CDP truly was a "kakou" effort — hundreds of people in and outside the community played a
role in producing this document. It would take volumes to acknowledge everyone by name and
contribution, so only a short summary is included here. Apologies to anyone who was overlooked.��°�
���ULGG,°GGG.
The County of Hawai'i extends a warm Mahalo to...
�o%
...the people of Ka'u, who came out in record numbers to ground the CDP in their values and vision and
then continued to provide heartfelt guidance at every step from there. Special thanks to the many
volunteers who supported community meetings and the local organizations who provided meeting
space and assistance.
...the Steering Committee, whose members had the commitment and patience to see things through to
the end: Patti Barry, John Cross, Bob Da Mate, Ron Ebert, Michelle Galimba, Loren Heck, Eldridge Naboa,
"Aunty"
Marino Ramones, Simon Torres, and Donna Ambrose (resigned). Special thanks to Chair
Leina'ala Enos for her wise leadership and to the Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Center for giving her the
freedom to do the community's work.
...Community Planning Assistant Nalani Parlin, who nurtured the link between the community and the
���ULGG,°GGG.
County with such care and talent.
�o%
...Recorder Isobel Donovan, whose attention to detail helped to maintain transparency and accurancy in
project documentation.
rMM
...Community Liaisons Teresa Alderdyce, Lynn VanLeeuwen, Jesse Marques, and Keola Downing for
helping the County accurately record what the community loves and wants to see in 2030.
...the Ka'u Calendar for regular coverage of CDP events and progress.
...the local staff and maintenance crew of the Department of Parks and Receation for access to, set-up,
and clean-up of meeting space.
...Planning Department staff and leadership, including project manager Ron Whitmore; planner Bethany
Morrison; Manager of Long Range Planning April Surprenant; GIS specialists Gilbert Bailado, Chris
Hardenbrook, and Kevin Reardon; administrative support staff Cathy Stehman and Marty Shimizu; and
Directors Chris Yuen, BJ Leithead Todd, and Duane Kanuha.
...Research and Development Department staff and leadership, including Alex Frost, Frecia Cevallos,
Will Roston, Lois Nishida, Stacie Iwasaki, Marcia Yoshiyama, and Director Laverne Omori.
.Assistant Corporation Counsel Amy Self, Margaret Masunaga, and Bill Brilhante.
...Support Services staff and leadership who always delivered professionally -produced materials —
usually on very short notice.o���o
...many Federal, State, and County agency staff members and leadership for insight into their work in��
Ka'G and how the CDP can support it.��o
...County Council members Guy Enriques, Brittany Smart, Brenda Ford, and Maile David for their trust in
���ULGG,°GGG.
the community process.�oo��o�
�o%
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 i
...Consultants for providing their critical, third -party expertise and experience, including Island Planning,
Chris Hart & Partners, PBR Hawaii, Urban Advisors, PlaceMakers, and the Hawaiian Alliance for
Community Based Economic Development.
...the National Oceanic and Atmoshpheric Administation (NCAA) for providing a detailed hazard risk
profile for the district.
...the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Asssitance (RTCA) program of trhe National Park Service for its
early and steadfast support.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................................... /
TABLEopCONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... III
TableofFigures ................................................................................................................................................... vii wJ�p�*
TableqfTables .................................................................................................................................................... vii
GLosmmv------------------------------------------------------.m
SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 What isoCDP, and what can itdo? .----------------------------------'l
11.2 How does the Ko0CDP strengthen Ko0?............................................................................................... l
1.1.3 What, specifically, does the Ko0CDP do? ............................................................................................... 2
11.4 NVneoe did the Ko0CDP comefrnm? .----------------------------------4
1.1.5 How can / learn more about the Ko0CDP? ............................................................................................. 4 ���
116 CDP Support Documents ----------------------------------------'5 w��"
1.2 MAJESTIC KA'0:LAND, COMMUNITY, AND LIVELIHOOD .------------------------------7 W
1.2.1 People qfthe Land ................................................................................................................................... 7 rMM
1.2.2 NoYJhonoResilienme------------------------------------------J ���
=~�
1.2.3 Create and Share Hoowoiwm/................................................................................................................. 8
1.2.4 Core Values .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 KA'0TOMORROW: COMMUNITY VISION ............................................................................................................... 9 �� �—�
1.3.1 Issues and Priorities ................................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.2Vo�esand V�ionStotemenL-------------------------------------20 Mn
1.4 @A'0TODAY: COMMUNITY ASSETS AND CHALLENGES ............................................................................................ ll ���
� �
1.4.1 Asse�-------------------------------------------------'ll
1.4.2 Challenges .............................................................................................................................................. 22 0
1.5 FROM VISION roACTION ................................................................................................................................. l4 ���
��
1.5.1 [on�mundy0b/ec�ves-----------------------------------------24
1.5.2 Identifying CDP Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 25 --1
1.5.3 Types qfCDP Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 25 M
I.5.4 From Strategies toAction ...................................................................................................................... l5 z
SECTION 2:APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................................... l7
2.1 Poxpos --------------------------------------------------.l7
2.2 RELATIONSHIP roTHE GENERAL PLAN ................................................................................................................. l7
23 PLANNING AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 17
2.4 TYPES opSTRATEGIES .--------------------------------------------'17
2.5 CDP IMPLEMENTATION ROLES AND GUIDES ......................................................................................................... 18
2.6 STRATEGY SUMMARIES .--------------------------------------------18
2.61 CDP Strategies byCommunity Objective ................................................................................................ 22
2.62 CDP Strategies byPlace ......................................................................................................................... 30
SECTION 3:ADVANCE PREFERRED CONSERVATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ............................................... 37
4 fill
3.1 PREFERRED SETTLEMENT PATTERN ..................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 GENERAL PLAN ALIGNMENT .............................................................................................................................. 37
33 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES -------------------------------------------38
3.4 LAND USE POLICY ........................................................................................................................................... 38
3.5 COUNTY ACTION ............................................................................................................................................. 40
3.6 [oMMomm+BAsoD,COLLABORATIVE ACTION ..................................................................................................... 4l
SECTION /kPROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 49
iv
4.1
EXPAND THE LOCALSYSTEM OF PRESERVES..........................................................................................................50
4.1.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................50
4.1.2
County Action.........................................................................................................................................50
4.1.3
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................50
4.1.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................51
4.2
PROTECTTHE COAST FROM DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................52
4.2.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................52
4.2.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................52
4.2.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................54
4.2.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................54
4.2.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................54
4.3
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS & OPEN SPACE...................................................................................................55
4.3.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................55
4.3.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................55
4.3.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................57
4.3.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................58
4.3.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................58
4.4
PROTECT MAUKA FORESTS...............................................................................................................................59
4.4.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................59
4.4.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................59
4.4.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................59
4.4.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................59
4.4.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................59
4.5
PRESERVE SCENIC AREAS..................................................................................................................................60
4.5.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................60
4.5.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................60
4.5.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................61
4.5.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................61
4.6
PROTECT AND ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS.................................................................................................................62
4.6.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................62
4.6.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................62
4.6.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................62
4.6.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................63
4.6.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................63
4.7
PROTECT AND ENHANCE CULTURALASSETS..........................................................................................................65
4.7.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................65
4.7.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................65
4.7.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................66
4.7.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................66
4.7.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................66
4.8
ESTABLISH AND MANAGE PUBLIC ACCESS............................................................................................................67
4.8.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................67
4.8.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................67
4.8.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................67
4.8.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................67
4.8.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................68
4.9
ESTABLISH AND MANAGE A REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM .............................................................................................69
4.9.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................69
4.9.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................69
4.9.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................69
4.9.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................69
4.9.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................69
4.10
ESTABLISH AND MANAGE ACCESS AND TRAIL FACILITIES.........................................................................................70
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
4.10.1 Community Objective........................................................................................................................70
4.10.2 County Action....................................................................................................................................
70
4.10.3 Advocacy............................................................................................................................................70
4.10.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...........................................................................................70
SECTION 5: STRENGTHEN INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES.............................................................71
5.1 COORDINATE INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITY, AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................72
5.1.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................72
5.1.2 Land Use Policies....................................................................................................................................72
5.1.3 County Action.........................................................................................................................................72
5.1.4 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................73
5.1.5 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................73
5.2 IMPROVE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE....................................................................................................................74
5.2.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................74
5.2.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................74
5.2.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................74
5.2.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................74
5.3 ENHANCE THE ROADWAY NETWORK...................................................................................................................75
5.3.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................75
5.3.2 Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................75
5.3.3 County Action.........................................................................................................................................75
5.3.4 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................75
5.3.5 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................76
5.4 FORMALIZE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES......................................................................................................................77
5.4.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................77
5.4.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................77
5.4.3 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................77
5.5 EXPAND MASS TRANSIT FACILITIES AND SERVICES.................................................................................................75
5.5.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................78
5.5.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................78
5.6 STRENGTHEN EMERGENCY AND HEALTH FACILITIES................................................................................................79
5.6.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................79
5.6.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................79
5.6.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................79
5.6.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................79
5.7 EXPAND EMERGENCY SERVICES..........................................................................................................................SO
5.7.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................80
5.7.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................80
5.7.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................80
5.7.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................80
5.8 IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FACILITIES...........................................................................................H1
5.8.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................81
5.8.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................81
5.8.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................81
5.8.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................81
5.9 STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND EDUCATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES.............................................................................52
5.9.1 Community Objective.............................................................................................................................82
5.9.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................82
5.9.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................82
5.9.4 Community-Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................82
5.10 EXPAND PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES........................................................................................................H3
5.10.1 Community Objective........................................................................................................................83
5.10.2 County Action....................................................................................................................................83
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 v
5.10.3 Community -Based, Collaborative Actions.........................................................................................83
SECTION 6: BUILD A RESILIENT, SUSTAINABLE LOCAL ECONOMY.........................................................................85
6.1
COORDINATE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................................86
6.1.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................86
6.1.2
County Action.........................................................................................................................................86
6.1.3
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................86
6.2
PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIESTO LIVE OFF THE LAND.................................................................................................87
6.2.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................87
6.2.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................87
6.2.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................87
6.2.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................87
6.3
STRENGTHEN LOCAL AGRICULTURE.....................................................................................................................88
6.3.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................88
6.3.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................88
6.3.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................88
6.3.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................89
6.3.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................89
6.4
DEVELOP COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY........................................................................................................90
6.4.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................90
6.4.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................90
6.4.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................90
6.4.4
Advocacy................................................................................................................................................90
6.4.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................90
6.5
PILOT PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES..........................................................................................................91
6.5.1
Community Objective.............................................................................................................................91
6.5.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................91
6.5.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................91
6.5.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................91
6.6
GROW HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES............................................................................................................92
6.6.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................92
6.6.2
County Action.........................................................................................................................................92
6.6.3
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................92
6.7
PROMOTE THE CREATIVE, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH SECTORS..............................................................................93
6.7.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................93
6.7.2
County Action.........................................................................................................................................93
6.7.3
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................93
6.8
DEVELOP THE LOCAL VISITOR SECTOR.................................................................................................................94
6.8.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................94
6.8.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................94
6.8.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................94
6.8.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................94
6.9
EXPAND LOCAL RETAIL.....................................................................................................................................95
6.9.1
Community Objectives...........................................................................................................................95
6.9.2
Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................95
6.9.3
County Action.........................................................................................................................................95
6.9.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions..............................................................................................95
SECTION 7:
PURSUE POTENTIAL SYNERGISTIC PROJECTS.....................................................................................97
7.1 DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PLANS FOR PUNALU'U.................................................................................................97
7.1.1 Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................97
7.1.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................97
7.1.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................97
vi Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
Z1.4 Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................97
a IWI e of Iiii giu�iir
Figure 1: Ka'G CDP Planning Area................................................................................................................19
Figure 2: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional.....................................................................................43
Figure 3: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: Pahala........................................................................................44
Figure 4: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: N5'51ehu....................................................................................45
Figure 5: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: Wai'ohinu..................................................................................46
Figure 6: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green Sands......................47
Figure 7: Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View...............................................................................48
II a IlWI e of "°III"'°a IlWI e fl,a
Table 1: CDP Strategies by Community Objective...................................................................................... 21
Table 2: CDP Strategies by Place (east to west).......................................................................................... 30
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 vii
viii Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Ahupua'a: Hawaiian Land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea
'Aina: land, earth
APD: Agricultural Project District, pursuant HCC section 25-6-50
BLNR: Board of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of
Hawai'i
Brownfield: abandoned or underused site where redevelopment or reuse is complicated by the
presence or perceived presence of contamination
Capital improvements: major, nonrecurring expenditure like infrastructure improvements, new
buildings, and related land acquisition and planning
CBED: community-based economic development
CEDS: Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
Cesspool: an underground container for the storage of liquid waste and sewage
CIP: Capital Improvements Program. Both the State and the County adopt annual CIP budgets
COE: Army Corps of Engineers
Conservation Area (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)):
Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, areas in active management for conservation
purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space
uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations, and lands within the State Land Use Conservation
District.
CTAHR: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai'i
CZM: Coastal Zone Management, pursuant HRS Chapter 205A
DAR: Division of Aquactic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i
DBEDT: Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State of Hawai'i
DHHL: Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, State of Hawai'i
DLNR: Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i
DOA: Department of Agriculture, State of Hawai'i
DOBOR: Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of
Hawai'i
DOCARE: Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawai'i
DOE: Department of Education, State of Hawai'i
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 ix
U�UUa
GG�oo
��fiyoGGG o
//✓I" r�U�„ r
DOFAW: Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i
DOH: Department of Health, State of Hawai'i
DOT: Department of Transportation, State of Hawai'i
EA: Environmental Assessment, pursuant HRS Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11-200
Ecosystem services: the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including food, fresh water, fuel,
recreation, education, etc.
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement, pursuant HRS Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11-200
Extensive Agriculture (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG)): 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.
Some areas that meet the criteria for important agricultural lands on an irrigated basis only were
included in the "Extensive Agriculture" category due to their remoteness from potential sources of
irrigation.
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map
General Plan: the policy document for the long range comprehensive development of the County of
Hawai'i (http://www.cohplanningdept.com/general-plan/)
HAR: Hawai'i Administrative Rules
Hawaiian Ocean View Estates: the Ocean View Subdivision mauka of the highway
HCC: Hawai'i County Code (_http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/lb-countycode/)
HCEL Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative
Ho'owaiwai: wealth
HOVE: Hawaiian Ocean View Estates subdivision
HRS: Hawai'i Revised Statutes (_http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/)
HTA: Hawaii Tourism Authority
HVNP: Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park
IAL: Important Agricultural Lands, pursuant HRS sections 205-41 thru 52
Important Agricultural Land (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG)): Important agricultural lands are those 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:
X Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
■ 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 Hawai'i (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 USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service's study of suitability for various crops.
■ In North and South Kona, the "coffee belt", a continuous band defined by elevation, according to
input from area farmers.
■ State agricultural parks.
Because of the scale of the Land use Pattern Allocation Guide maps used to designate Important
Agricultural Land, the location of these lands should be verified by more detailed mapping when
considering specific land use decisions.
Industrial Area (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)):
These areas include uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and
transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial -commercial uses.
Infill: development of vacant land — or rehabilitation of existing structures — in already urbanized areas
where infrastructure and services are in place
Kahakai: coastal areas
Kula: agricultural areas
Low Density Urban (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)):
Residential, with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type
commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre.
LUC: Land Use Commission, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State of
Hawai'i
LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map): a broad, flexible design intended to guide the
direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. As the land use
policy map in the General Plan, it indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each
other.
Makai: toward the ocean
Mauka: toward the mountain
Medium Density Urban (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG)): Village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family residential and
related functions (multiple family residential -- up to 35 units per acre).
NAR: Natural Area Reserve
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 xi
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS: National Park Service
NRCS: Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture
OCCL: Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of
Hawai'i
Ocean View: the subdivisions between Manuka and Kahuku, including Hawaiian Ocean View Estates,
Hawaian Ranchos, and others
OEQC: Office of Environmental Quality Control, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i
'Ohana: family
Oikonomia: the root of the word "economics," meaning "management of the household" in Greek
Open (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)): Parks and
other recreational areas, historic sites, and open shoreline areas.
ORMP: Ocean Resources Management Plan
PES: payment for ecosystem services
PONC: Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission, County of Hawai'i
PUC: Hawai'i State Public Utilities Commission
PUD: Planned Unit Development, pursuant HCC section 25-6-1
Pu'u: cinder cone
Resort Area (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)): These
areas include a mix of uses such as hotels, condominium hotels (condominiums developed and/or
operated as hotels), and support services. Intermediate Resort, Minor Resort, and Retreat Resort Areas
are identified as Resort Areas on the LUPAG Map.
Rural (in the County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)): This category
includes existing subdivisions in the State Land Use Agricultural and Rural districts that have a significant
residential component. Typical lot sizes vary from 9,000 -square feet to two acres. These subdivisions
may contain small farms, wooded areas, and open fields as well as residences. Allowable uses within
these areas, with appropriate zoning, may include commercial facilities that serve the residential and
agricultural uses in the area, and community and public facilities. The Rural designation does not
necessarily mean that these areas should be further subdivided to smaller lots. Most lack the
infrastructure necessary to allow further subdivision.
Septic system: a drainage system incorporating a septic tank, in which sewage is collected and allowed
to decompose through bacterial activity before draining by means of a leaching field
SHPD: State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i
SLU: State Land Use, referring to the SLU districts defined in HRS Chapter 205
xii Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
SMA: Special Management Area
SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District
TMA: Three Mountain Alliance
TMK: Tax Map Key — the identifier used by the Real Property Tax division of the County Department of
Finance for each individual parcel or lot of record
TNC: The Nature Conservancy
UHERO: University of Hawai'i Economic Research Organization
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Wao: mauka forest lands
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 xiii
Jgo�a�
'✓J�/ oGGGGGGOpoa
%✓O���JLD`UGGGGOpoGG✓
011
xiv Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
�any°�0�
GGGG°°
�o °poi
Ua mau ke ea o ka 'aina i ka pono.
The very life of the land is perpetuated in the proper relationship of humans and nature.��°��
Hawaii State Motto
1m1m" WI"Iliawit is 8wi CM3, awi111°'lld W111a't i alll°II it don,
"CDP" is short for "Community Development Plan." CDPs are the forum for community input into
County policy at the regional level and the delivery of County services to the community. They generally
employ four types of strategies and require considerable coordination and collaboration to be
implemented successfully:
1. Detail County policy, particularly for land use and development. CDPs can direct settlement
where the community wants it and protect cultural resources, public access, and valuable areas
like the coast, agricultural land, and forests. County land use policies are implemented primarily
through the County's actions on permit applications.
2. Direct County actions related to land and open space protection, water, roads, transit,
emergency services, and parks. These CDP strategies are implemented through County
legislative and administrative processses like budgeting, capital improvements, and code
amendments.
3. Guide the policy and actions of State and federal agencies, whose work impacts resource
protections, public access and trails, settlement patterns, and education. It is assumed that the
CDP Action Committee, County agencies, and County, State, and federal elected officials will
collaborate to encourage agencies and other organizations to advance these CDP strategies.
4. Focus and guide community action in pursuit of community goals. These CDP strategies will be
led by the community with support from a broad range of organizations and agencies.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the Ka'u CDP, see Appendix 1 and Section 2:
Applicability below.
Hawai'i County Community Development Plans are adopted by ordinance. This document — the Ka'u
Community Development Plan — is what will go before the County Council for adoption. All other Ka'u
CDP documents are supporting materials that are not adopted into law.
1.1. 11 bw does t[,iiie IlKWOIII�����w��On
Complete, sustainable, vibrant communities do three fundamental things. First, they protect the public
trust — the natural and cultural resources that are fundamental to community character and a strong°°°°°
community and local economy. Second, they provide public facilities and services to residents and
�QDyo r
businesses. And third, they grow local businesses that provide goods, services, and jobs. The Ka'u
Community Development Plan serves as a road map to achieve those three ends.
First, strategies in Section 4 of the CDP focus on protecting and enhancing Ka'u's rich heritage of natural��°
and cultural resources including coastal areas agricultural land mauka forests scenic resources
ecosystems, historic and cultural features, and public access and trails. Four basic approaches are used:
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 1
land preservation, land use policy protections, governmental initiative, and collaborative action by
landowners, nonprofits, and the community.
Second, Section 5 prioritizes improvements in water systems, roads, mass transit, emergency and health
services and facilities, waste management, education, and parks. These improvements will require
County, State, and community leadership.
Third, the Ka'G CDP supports economic development in three ways. First, it establishes firm foundations
for growth through the protections and improvements in Sections 4 and 5 and by providing room for
development in Section 3. Second, the CDP outlines strategic steps to seize sector -specific market
opportunities. Third, the CDP provides a road map to guide coordinated, community -led economic
development strategies.
The Land Use Policies in Section 3 of the CDP tie the environmental, infrastructure, and economic
elements of the CDP together by clearly segregating protected areas (coastal areas and mauka forests),
agricultural land, and settled areas.
1.1.3 Whiiat, °awl,,,ieci"Fiica lllll , does tII[,ii eIll,�a'O CD i) do,?
As noted in Section 1.1.1 above, CDPs do a range of things and are implemented in a variety of ways.
Listed below are the specific strategies included in the Ka'G CDP, clustered by the four sections of the
CDP introduced in Section 1.1.2 above. In the list below, policies defined when the CDP is adopted begin
with terms like "protects," "preserves," "ensures," "concentrates," "identifies," and "allows for."
Strategies that require follow-up action begin with terms like "guides," "prioritizes," "supports," and
"advances."
The Ka'G Community Development Plan:
Protects and Enhances Natural and Cultural Resources (Section 4)
■ Guides the expansion of lands held in public trust
■ Protects coastal areas, agricultural land, and mauka forests from development
■ Protects open space, areas with natural beauty, and scenic view planes
■ Guides the development of programs to strengthen protections for coastal and agricultural lands as
well as open space and view planes
■ Preserves historic resources
■ Guides the restoration of historic sites and buildings, the retention of village and town character,
and the documentation of oral, written, and video histories
■ Supports the preservation of village and town character and guides the enhancement of
communities' unique sense of place
■ Ensures appropriate public access to the shoreline and mauka forests
■ Guides the development of a regional network of trails
■ Guides collaborative stewardship and enhancement of coastal and forest ecosystems, cultural
resources, agricultural lands, public access, and trails
2 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
Advances Preferred Conservation and Settlement Patterns (Section 3)
■ Concentrates future development in the existing towns, villages, and subdivisions
■ Identifies specific commercial and industrial areas in Pahala, Na'alehu, and Ocean View
■ Advances redevelopment and growth management with brownfield assessments, a County -wide
affordable housing plan, and community-based development strategies.
Strengthens Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services (Section 5)
■ Prioritizes the improvement of existing potable water systems and wastewater systems to support
infill growth
■ Prioritizes formalizing and improving emergency alternative routes
■ Prioritizes flood prevention
■ Prioritizes the maintenance of County roads as well as safety improvements along Wood Valley,
Kama'oa, Ka'alu'alu, and South Point Roads and Mamalahoa Highway
■ Guides road and park improvements in Mark Twain and Green Sands
■ Prioritizes bus system improvements, including a Ka'G loop route, an Ocean View route, evening
trips to Hilo and Kona, and bus shelters
■ Prioritizes new fire stations, a helipad, and upgraded emergency equipment
■ Prioritizes police station improvements, a new substation in Ocean View, and the maintenance of
four police officers on each shift
■ Prioritizes civil defense sirens, a hazard mitigation plans, and the Kahuku Park Community/Senior
Center, Gym, and Shelter
■ Prioritizes the Ocean View and Pahala transfer stations as well as green waste drop-off and mulch
pick-up sites
■ Prioritizes and guides education improvements, including the development of a school and library in
Ocean View
■ Guides the development of skate parks and an ATV park
■ Prioritizes community input during infrastructure project planning and design
Build a Resilient, Sustainable Local Economy (Section 6)
■ Preserves opportunities to live off the land
■ Guides the implementation of regional economic development strategies
■ Guides the development of a regional education, enterprise development, and research network
■ Guides regional strategies to increase "buying local"
■ Guides efforts to strengthen the local agriculture value chain
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 3
��///�oGGGGOpoGGs
�GGGGGGGG��
110
0
o
�GGGGGGGG��
■ Allows for the diversification of agriculture-based businesses and rural uses on agricultural and rural
lands
■ Guides the development of local, renewable, distributed energy networks and prioritizes greater
public review of commercial renewable energy projects
■ Guides exploratory efforts to secure community payments for ecosystem services
■ Guides the expansion of the regional network of health and wellness services
■ Guides the development of a regional ho'okipa network — a place-based approach to community
tourism.
In addition, a large number of CDP objectives and strategies intersect at Punalu'u, which has a rich
ecological, historical, and cultural legacy and is dear to the hearts of most residents. The CDP outlines a
community-driven, collaborative process for planning the future of Punalu'u.
1.1.4 W,,ieire did t],'ie KWO CU' coiiii ire fiiioiiii ii
The Ka'G CDP was developed in three stages, which are described in Appendix 2. Each stage was driven
by extensive community input and concluded with a clear decision by the CDP Steering Committee, the
volunteer advisory committee charged with recommending a CDP to the County.
During the first stage, community members identified core community values and a vision of what
they'd like to see in Ka'G in 2030, as summarized in Sections 1.2.4 and 1.4.1 below. At the end of that
stage, the Steering Committee affirmed a Values and Visions Statement that has since served as a
compass point guiding the planning process.
Next, a detailed profile of the community (Appendix 3) was developed based on community knowledge
and expertise as well as existing data, reports, and studies. Section 1.3 below summarizes the
community assets and challenges identified in the profile. That stage concluded when the Steering
Committee integrated the Values and Vision Statement with the Community Profile to develop the
twelve Community Objectives that the CDP is designed to achieve (listed in Section 1.5.1 below).
In the third stage, extensive research was conducted to identify the range of strategies that could be
used to achieve those objectives. From those strategies, a combination of policies and actions was
identified that, when implemented together, will realize the community's vision for the future. Those
strategies were compiled into the preliminary "working draft" of the CDP. The Ka'G CDP Steering
Committee reviewed that draft, discussed it, and made recommendations for revisions.
Next, the broader community and stakeholders had the same opportunity, and the Steering Committee
used that input to make further revisions before it was satisfied that the CDP truly reflects community
preferences.
1.1.5 II bw caiiirii III 1eaiiriiiii uririoure abaiurt t],,iie IlKWO CM)
The following sections are designed to orient the reader to the CDP:
■ Table of Contents, starting on page iii
■ 1.1.6 CDP Support Documents, starting on page 5
■ 1.2 Majestic Ka'G: Land, Community, and Livelihood, starting on page 7
4 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
■ 1.3 Ka'G Tomorrow: Community Vision, starting on page 9
■ 1.4 Ka'G Today: Community Assets and Challenges, starting on page 11
■ 1.5 From Vision to Action, starting on page 14.
Section 2 briefly introduces the four types of CDP strategies and the legal applicability of each.
The remaining sections organize CDP strategies by focus area:
■ Section 3: Advance Preferred Conservation and Settlement Patterns
■ Section 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources (coastline, agricultural lands, mauka
forests, scenic areas, ecosystems, cultural assets, public access, and trails)
■ Section 5: Strengthen Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services (water, roads, transit, emergency &
health facilities & services, transfer stations, education, and parks)
■ Section 6: Build a Resilient, Sustainable Local Economy (agriculture, renewable energy, ecosystem
services, health & wellness, education & research, visitor, and retail)
■ Section 7: Pursue Potential Synergistic Projects (Punalu'u).
Each of the sub -sections in Sections 3 through 7 starts with a brief synopsis of that element of the CDP.
1.1.5.1 Navigating the CDP
Internal cross-references have been inserted to simplify navigation within the document.
It also includes "Bookmarks," which can be seen by opening the Bookmark navigation pane in Adobe
Acrobat Reader: View/ Navigation Panels/ Bookmarks.
After following an internal link, it is easy to return to the previous point in the document by using either
the Bookmark navigation pane or the "Previous View" button, which can be added to the "Page
Navigation" toolbar in Acrobat Reader.
Note also that some of the formatting is required to keep the document compliant with the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, complete hyperlinks have to be inserted so that reading
machines for the visually -impaired can correctly interpret Internet addresses.
The Ka'G CDP is currently organized as follows:
The Ka'u Community Development Plan (this document)
Appendix
1. CDP Purpose and Scope
2. Planning Process
3. Community Profile
4. Background Analysis
A. Natural and Cultural Resource Management Analysis
B. Community Building Analysis
C. Local Economic Development Analysis
D. Preferred Future Growth Patterns
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 5
:
5. CDP Strategy Rationale
6. Land Use Policy Guide
7. Guidance to Agencies
8. Community Implementation Tools
A. Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide
B. Action and Monitoring Matrix
Hawai'i County Community Development Plans are adopted by ordinance. This document — the Ka'u
Community Development Plan — is what will go before the County Council for adoption. All other Ka'6
CDP documents are supporting materials that are not adopted into law.
The intent is to keep the CDP as concise and accessible as possible, leaving supporting material and
analysis in the appendix. Appendices 6, 7, and 8 are designed to facilitate and expedite CDP
implementation. Appendix 6 is a quick -reference guide for land use planners. Appendix 7 is a summary
of action to be taken by County, State, and federal agencies and other organizations. Appendix 8
includes detail about each of the Community -Based, Collaborative Actions included in the CDP as well as
tools to guide and monitor those actions.
Other materials in the appendix set the context for and provide the detailed analysis and rationale
behind the body of the CDP. For an explanation of each CDP policy and advocacy item, see Appendix 5.
6 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
111 1
I *" / �' 0 * # i.
1. . 1 MI5 eq,,i III e of t III°°ii e IIL..a iiirii d
Even though Ka'u was one of the original settled areas in the Hawaiian Islands, it remains a vast, remote
landscape. The modern district of Ka'u encompasses 922 square miles, with over 80 miles of virtually
undeveloped coastline. Nearly two thirds of its total land area is in the Conservation district, a fraction
of a percent is settled, and the remainder is largely agricultural.
For the people of the district, Ka'u is more than just a home. For some, Ka'u is a place where their
ancestors flourished for centuries and where the spirits of their native past live on. For others,
agricultural employment drew them to emigrate from foreign lands. Here they raised their children and
learned to love the land and sea as their own. Still others have come in search of a simpler way of life,
drawn by inexpensive land and a host of personal stories that testify to the magical attraction that draws
people to places where they feel at home. Together, these groups form the modern communities of
Ka'u.
Regardless of their background, the people of Ka'u share a strongly held belief that the district's future is
tied to the preservation of its current way of life — its rural lifestyle, its strong family ties, and its
protection of the natural and cultural resources that sustain that way of life. There is an almost militant
sense among many residents that Ka'u needs to protect the places and resources it values as the basis
for building a future on what already is, as opposed to what someone else would make it.
1. 2.2 Pyla'Uiaiiiia 1I1,e"°,awuiIIIiiieiii°iice
Embedded in this understanding is an innate awareness that the three pillars of rural life — land,
community, and livelihood — are inseparable. In The Polynesian Family System in Ka'u, Mary Kawena
Puku'i referred to this as the "management of the household," known in Hawaiian as the institution of
'ohana. According to Tutu Puku'i, features of 'ohana include a cohesive force tied by ancestry to the
'aina, genuine community spirit of mutual benefit, economic exchange regulated by relationships, and
voluntary giving of food, possessions, services, and communal labor.
The 'ohana system sustained generations of families in Hawai'i and remains a vital force that gives the
people of Ka'u their resilience. People live off the land, and the medium of exchange is reciprocity. The
people of Ka'u grow food in gardens, gather it from the shoreline and forest, fish for it in the ocean, and
hunt for it mauka. More importantly, the people of Ka'u share what they have. Bounty from the garden
or hunt is shared with 'ohana, which includes far more people than those connected by blood. As one
resident put it, "Only in Ka'u. We share, that's the Ka'u style — with our family, our neighbors,
everyone."
These practices feed families, bring communities together, and create a means for sharing cultural
wisdom from one generation to the next. By sustaining and nurturing this relationship with 'aina that
families have used to survive and thrive in Ka'u for generations, the local economy is built on the
foundation of the region's unique natural, cultural, and social assets.
1 The narrative in this section and others that follow was, in part, inspired by and borrowed from the introduction
to the 2005 Ka'u Community Plan drafted by Charlene Hart and Keith Yabusaki.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 7
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
9
1.2.3 Cii,ea'te � ir'iid 5II°°Iiaiii,e III°°IIWowaiuwail
Na 'ohana resilience in Ka'u creates genuine wealth. In Hawaiian tradition, wealth is not simply the
accumulation of money and goods. Rather, genuine wealth — ho'owaiwai — is malama 'aina (caring for
the 'aina, that which feeds), the ability to make it in difficult times with the help of community, and the
chance to share with others and to leave a legacy for future generations.
1.2.4 Cft;,;'iti III"'e Va III III a e flta
These elements of the community character are strongly reflected in core community values. Early in
the CDP process, extensive community input was gathered about what residents love most about Ka'u
(see Appendix 2), and the Ka'u CDP Steering Committee summarized these core values as follows:
A (pelople, community, Mimily, schools,o.
diversity, church)
COUNTRYR. ,
small, agriculture, iso,lation, little tiraff�ic, culture, uncrowded,
These values summarize what the CDP must absolutely preserve.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
o
1.3.1 I;aw;,iwliiju es a iii°,ii d i3 iid o iil iii t iii es
Early in the CDP process, extensive community input was also gathered about what Ka'u should look like
in 2030. The Ka'u CDP Steering Committee summarized this community vision into six clusters of key
issues and priorities:
(access, naturalo
natural
PUBLIC SERVICES (wateri, roaids, mass transit, public safety,
solid a
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
J1/ y,/,`
:R
jr�LG%Gpp
W
��y �ray��0p�oo
�yGGG°oGGo
Z��
✓I %%%��
/Z,LGGGpppppf
✓('� oppp m
1. 3.2 Va III i�ju es a iii°�iii dVi;� i o iii°�iii S't:a'tae iiia°°iu,"iii e iiia°"iiit
Building on core community values and these six priorities, the CDP Steering Committee adopted the
following Values and Vision Statement:
Protect and , or r to natural
forests, the, coastline, open spaces, and park facilities
programs.
Strengthen f ill s, communities, and the diversity
f Vocal cultures.
Importantly, though economic development was clearly the community's highest priority for the future,
the five additional priority areas focused on areas related to quality of life and place — recreation,
education, health care, 'aina, and public services. Though greater economic opportunity is critical, the
people of Ka'u do not want to sacrifice their other values and priorities for the sake of the economy.
This balance is well -reflected in the Values and Vision Statement, which emphasizes the need to "honor
Ka'u's unique rural lifestyle, its connection between people and place, and its distinctive Hawaiian
cultural heritage."
Importantly, many of the same themes resonate when the people share what they love about Ka'u and
what hopes they have for its future:
■ Preserve our lifestyle rooted in the unity of land, community, and livelihood
■ Building a future on what already is, as opposed to what someone else would make it
■ Continue to create and share ho'owaiwai.
10 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
1.4 Ka'Fj Today: Community Assets and Challenges
G�
To achieve the community's vision while preserving its core values, one must first be clear about the
current state of affairs. To that end, research was undertaken to compile and organize what is known
about current conditions in Ka'G. There were two tracks for this effort (see Appendix 2). One employed�y
data analysis, mapping, and research into past studies and plans. The other invited a community
conversation to tap into oral histories and local expertise. The products of these two tracks were edited
into a single document — the Community Profile — which is provided in its entirety in Appendix 3.
Findings from the Community Profile are organized in the next section into categories that reflected
issues of concern to Ka'G residents and assets likely to support long-range goals.
1.4.1 Assets
1.4.1.1 Natural and Cu/tura/
■ Ka'G is a World Heritage Site of global significance.
■ Dramatic geological features expressed in the landscape.
■ Mauka forests, rich in biodiversity and native species habitat.
■ Prevalence of springs, seeps, and ponds along the coast fed by groundwater.
■ Pristine coastline and off -shore waters supporting unique habitats and ecosystems.
■ Rich archaeological features, especially along the coast.
■ Large extent of natural areas already protected.
■ Tradition of recreational and cultural access to natural resources.
■ Existing and proposed trail systems promise to increase connections to and through unique natural
landscapes.
1.4.1.2 Settlement Patterns
■ Historic settlements, ranch lands, mauka forests, and shorelines that exemplify rural character and
lifestyle.
1.4.1.3 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services
■ Elementary, Intermediate, and High Schools in Na'alehu and Pahala.
■ Hospital and clinics in Pahala, Na'alehu, and Ocean View, providing clinical, emergency, and long-
term care.
y
■ County Park Facilities: Kahuku Park, Wai'ohinu Park, Na'alehu Park & Community Center,
Whittington Beach Park, Pahala Park & Community Center, Pahala swimming pool, Punalu'u
lifeguard tower, Punalu'u Beach Park.
■ Both the County and the Boys and Girls Club offer after school programs in Pahala, Na'alehu, and
Ocean View.
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 11
1.4.1.4 Economic Development
■ Access to healthy local food from the ocean, mauka forests, and agricultural lands.
■ `Ghana traditions of self-reliance and sharing.
■ Agricultural tradition and capacities (coffee, mac nuts, truck farms).
■ Co-op to assist in the management of old fresh water resources previously used for plantation
agriculture.
■ Potential for renewable energy production.
■ Global significance as an eco -tourism destination because of the unique landscape and cultural
heritage.
1. 4.2 CII,14IIIIIea°°ugefl,a
1.4.2.1 Natural and Cultural Resources
■ Mauka forests are threatened by feral animals and invasive flora and fauna.
■ Shoreline and off -shore resources lack coordinated management.
■ Mauka and makai access is sometimes limited and/or unmanaged.
■ Unregulated human activities — off-road vehicles, unsanitary waste, rubbish — threaten sensitive
coastal and mauka forest areas, including historic and cultural sites.
■ Natural disasters — lava flow, vog, wildfire, earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, flooding — are a
consistent threat.
1.4.2.2 Settlement Patterns
■ Open space, working agricultural lands, and the coastline are vulnerable to inappropriate
development.
■ The bulk of build -out potential is in the pre -code subdivisions of Ocean View, Discovery Harbour,
Green Sands, and Mark Twain, which mostly lack infrastructure and entitlements to create viable
village centers.
■ Potential for existing and new developments to build out in ways that could undermine the
community's unique character and rural lifestyle.
1.4.2.3 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services
■ Long commutes for school children from Ocean View.
■ Limited opportunities for adult, vocational, and higher education.
■ Undefined strategies for locating and funding emergency facilities; rural road networks; water and
other infrastructure; schools, clinics, and other public facilities; and parks.
1.4.2.4 Economic Development
■ Barriers to agricultural sustainability, including land tenure, water, and infrastructure.
12 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
■ Available workers far exceed available jobs in Ka'u, so many people commute to Kona or Hilo for
work.
■ Because of limited retail, service, and entertainment businesses in Ka'u, the majority of local dollars
are being spent outside the community.
■ Limited capture of high volume visitor traffic.
J y GGG%
�UO
���GG BGG
✓r��bGGG�GGGG
�N OOp
/�L� OOOO
G�OOOOG
��IIp�OOOOOOO
",% ��GGGGGOOOOO
///// fIbOGOOOO
✓%I �OOO,OOOO
�>vOGOOOOOOO
�LGGG�o
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 13
®
From Vision to Action
1.5.1 Objectives
Building on the community's values and vision as well as insights from the Community Profile (see
Appendix 3), the Steering Committee established the following Community Objectives:
ENCOURAGE SUSTAINABLE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
■ Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of Ka'G's historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
■ Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and preserve and enhance
viewscapes that exemplify Ka'G's rural character.
CONSERVE AND MANAGE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'G's unique cultural assets, including archeological and
historic sites and historic buildings.
■ Objective 5: Establish and enforce standards for development and construction that reflect
community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
■ Objective 6: Encourage community-based management plans to assure that human activity doesn't
degrade the quality of Ka'G's unique natural and cultural landscape.
ENHANCE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
■ Objective 8: Establish a rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway 11,
a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system.
BUILD A RESILIENT LOCAL ECONOMY
■ Objective 9: Preserve and greatly enhance na 'ohana economy.
■ Objective 10: Encourage and enhance agriculture, ranching, and related economic infrastructure.
■ Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs and
entrepreneurial opportunities that complement Ka'G's ecology, culture and evolving demographics.
■ Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages
and towns capable of supporting Ka'G-appropriate growth.
Throughout the CDP, references to "Community Objectives," "CDP Objectives," or "objectives" are
referring to these Community Objectives adopted by the Steering Committee.
14 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
1.5.2 CM�)Stirategies
The Community Objectives are the foundation of the CDP. All of the CDP strategies are designed to
implement one or more of the objectives. Appendix 2 explains the process followed to identify
strategies to achieve Community Objectives.
To make that process as transparent as possible, supplements to Appendices 4A, B, and C include a
"strategy identification matrix" that was developed using (and makes specific references to) the
comprehensive content included in that appendix. The matrix summarizes current policies and action
that are aligned with community objectives, remaining policy and action gaps, and the new policy,
advocacy, and community-based, collaborative action needed to achieve community objectives.
In addition, Appendix 5 includes summaries of the rationale behind each of the CDP policies and
advocacy strategies. Each rationale is based on the process represented in the corresponding strategy
identification matrix.
To keep the CDP as concise as possible, only limited information from the appendix is repeated, though
references direct the interested reader to relevant sections of the analysis.
1.5. 11 <IIITities of CM3' Stiiirati„n`giefl,a
The process of identifying CDP strategies made it clear that strategies fall into three basic categories:
1. Those that are the responsibility of County government
2. Those that are governmental responsibilities but not the County's — they fall under the
jurisdiction of the State or the federal government
3. Those that are not core functions of government and require community leadership and
initiative.
To focus and expedite CDP implementation, the CDP strategies are organized into those categories.
Because the CDP is most fundamentally a County policy document, County responsibilities are further
organized into two aspects of land use policy and County actions, which include regulatory changes,
infrastructure improvements, and programs.
However, the County cannot achieve Community Objectives on its own. Those objectives will not be
achieved without coordinated effort from other levels of government and the community. Therefore,
the CDP also clearly outlines steps that need to be taken outside of County government.
Section 2 of the CDP elaborates on these types of strategies in more detail, including the legal
implications of each.
1.5.41IIIrolllluli St:urategides to Am tiuoui°'ii
The clear distinctions between the different types of CDP strategies are also important because they
GG GGGGG
leave leadership and control where they belong — in the community's hands. Government policy and � GG
actions in the CDP are based on Community Objectives. Their focus is primarily on protecting critical �lG�
resources and providing basic infrastructure which serve as a foundation upon which the community
can build.
LpaG°°GGGs
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 15
From there, things are in the community's hands. That's important in any community, but particularly
crucial in Ka'u, the home of fiercely proud, independent, and self-sufficient people who do things in
their own way, in their own time, and only as they can — Ka'u Style!
Appendix 8 is designed to support the community -led CDP implementation process.
16 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
like aku, like mai, kokua aku kokua mai; pela iho la ka nohona 'ohana.
Recognize others, be recognized, help others, be helped; such is a family relationship.
Mary Kawena Puku'i, 'Olelo no'eau
=0-
Community Development Plans (CDPs) are introduced in Chapter 15 of the Hawai'i County General Plan.
The purpose of CDPs is to implement the broad goals within the General Plan on a regional basis and to
translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions. CDPs are the forum for community
input into managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services to the community.
CDPs designate detailed development patterns and direct physical development and public
improvements by detailing land use policies and infrastructure priorities.
In the case of direct conflicts between a CDP and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling.
In order to bring the Ka'u CDP and the General Plan into alignment, the CDP recommends specific
amendments to the General Plan as a follow-up to the CDP (see Policy 15 on page 40, Policy 16 on page
40, and Policy 101 on page 75).
The Ka'u CDP planning area includes most of Judicial District 9 in the County of Hawai'i. Eastern portions
of the district near and including Volcano Village were included in the Puna CDP planning area and were
therefore not incorporated into the Ka'u CDP. See "Figure 1: Ka'u CDP Planning Area" on page 19.
Throughout the CDP, references to "Ka'u" are to the Ka'u CDP Planning Area.
The Ka'u CDP employs four types of strategies to achieve Community Objectives: two types of County
policy, an advocacy platform, and community-based, collaborative action.
There are two types of County policies in the CDP:
"Land Use Policies" are the official land use policy guidance for the Ka'u CDP planning area and
shall be implemented through all County of Hawai'i actions. In addition, the Land Use Policies
shall inform County recommendations to other agencies, including the State Land Use
Commission regarding district boundary amendments, special permits, and other applications in
Ka'u.
There are two aspects of Land Use Policies:
Policy Intent: These are general statements that express policy aims or objectives. From
a legal standpoint, these "hortatory" policies are open to interpretation when applied in
specific instances.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 17
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
9
b. Policy Controls: These limit the range of decisions that can be made in the future, like
land use policies that specifically designate future settlement or transportation patterns.
These binding, sometimes restrictive policy controls often include use of the term
"shall," which, from a legal standpoint, means the policy is imperative or mandatory.
The CDP distinguishes these two aspects of Land Use Policy.
2. "County Actions" are the official County policies to guide future County priorities and initiatives,
including operating and capital budgets. These policies are not mandated, legally -binding, or
self -implementing; rather, they often require additional legislative and administrative directives
before being implemented (e.g., land acquisition, capital improvement appropriations, code
changes, incentive measures).
In many cases, existing State and County policies support the implementation of Ka'G Community
Objectives. In those cases, in the CDP, the existing policies are reiterated or tailored to the specific
context in Ka'G, and references for the existing policies are included. If the referenced existing policies
are changed following adoption of the CDP, the CDP policies shall stand unless otherwise amended or
unless superseded by prevailing policy in the General Plan or State or federal law.
None of the Ka'G Community Objectives can be achieved by the County alone. Some important policies
fall outside jurisdiction, while other initiatives must be led by the community. Therefore, the CDP
includes two additional types of strategies:
3. "Advocacy" strategies are actions by non -County agencies and organizations that would help
advance implementation of the CDP. It is assumed that the Action Committee, County agencies,
and County, State, and federal elected officials will work in collaboration with agencies and
other organizations to advance the CDP's advocacy program.
4. "Community-based, Collaborative Actions" are initiatives that must be led by the community
with support from a broad range of organizations and agencies.
2.5 CDP Implementation Roles and Guides
There is a strong connection between each type of CDP strategy and roles during CDP implementation.
The success of CDP implementation will largely depend on each partner focusing where it can make the
biggest difference. Therefore, to facilitate CDP implementation,
■ "Land Use Policies" are re -organized in "Appendix 6: Land Use Policy Guide" to provide clear land
use planning and permitting guidance to public and private planners and to policy makers.
■ "County Actions" and "Advocacy" strategies are re -organized by agency in "Appendix 7: Guidance to
Agencies."
■ "Community-based, Collaborative Actions" are explained in detail in "Appendix 8A: Community -
Based, Collaborative Action Guide."
To simplify searches for CDP strategies by Community Objective and by place and to demonstrate the
intersection and complementarities of CDP strategies, "Table 1: CDP Strategies by Community
Objective" and "Table 2: CDP Strategies by Place" are included below.
18 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
CDP PlanningAm@
hauPlanning Area
Q kidicial District Boundary
CDP Planning Areas
CDP—Name
Puna CDP
Kona CDP
North Kohala CDP
South Kohala CDP
Figure 1: Ka`u CDP Planning Area
c" '
0 5 10 20
Miles
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 19
20 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Table 1: CDP Strategies by Community Objective
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
1) Encourage future
Settlement Patterns
Policy 15 (page 40)
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 1 (page 38)
settlement patterns
Policy 16 (page 40)
that are safe,
Policy 2 (page 38)
Policy 17 (page 40)
sustainable, and
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 18 (page 40)
connected. They should
Policy 4 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
protect people and
Policy 5 (page 39)
Policy 93 (page 74)
community facilities
Policy 6 (page 39)
Policy 120 (page 81)
from natural hazards,
Policy 7 (page 39)
and they should honor
Policy 8 (page 39)
the best of Ka'u's
Policy 9 (page 39)
historic precedents:
Policy 10 (page 40)
concentrating new
Policy 11 (page 40)
commercial and
Policy 12 (page 40)
residential development
Policy 13 (page 40)
in compact, walkable,
Policy 14 (page 40)
mixed-use town/village
Protect the Coast
Policy 22 (page 50)
4.1.3.1 U. S. Congress (page 50)
Community Action 2 (page 51)
centers, allowing rural
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 31 (page 54)
4.2.4.1 Department of Land and
development in the rural
Policy 25 (page 52)
Natural Resources (page 54)
lands, and limiting
Policy 27 (page 52)
development on
Policy 29 (page 53)
shorelines.
Shoreline Setback
Policy 30 (page 54)
Policy 23 (page 52)
Policy 26 (page 52)
Policy 28 (page 52)
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 21
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Mauka Forests
Policy 21 (page 50)
4.2.4.1 Department of Land and
Community Action 2 (page 51)
Policy 25 (page 52)
Policy 64 (page 62)
Natural Resources (page 54)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 52 (page 59)
4.4.4.1 Office of Planning,
Policy 62 (page 62)
Department of Business,
Policy 69 (page 65)
Economic Development and
Tourism (page 59)
2) Preserve prime and
Agricultural Land
Policy 21 (page 50)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 2 (page 51)
other viable agricultural
Policy 32 (page 55)
Policy 45 (page 57)
58)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
lands and preserve and
Policy 33 (page 55)
Policy 47 (page 57)
enhance viewscapes
Policy 34 (page 55)
Policy 48 (page 58)
that exemplify Ka'u's
Policy 35 (page 55)
Policy 49 (page 58)
rural character.
Policy 36 (page 55)
Policy 50 (page 58)
Policy 37 (page 55)
Policy 51 (page 58)
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 143 (page 90)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 150 (page 94)
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 42 (page 57)
Policy 43 (page 57)
Policy 44 (page 57)
22 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Viewscapes
Policy 59 (page 61)
Community Action 4 (page 61)
Policy 12 (page 40)
Policy 60 (page 61)
Policy 14 (page 40)
Policy 61 (page 61)
Policy 27 (page 52)
Policy 28 (page 52)
Policy 33 (page 55)
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 53 (page 60)
Policy 54 (page 60)
Policy 55 (page 60)
Policy 56 (page 60)
Policy 57 (page 60)
Policy 58 (page 60)
3) Protect, restore, and
Policy 12 (page 40)
Policy 64 (page 62)
4.6.4.5 Department of Land and
Community Action 2 (page 51)
enhance ecosystems,
Policy 14 (page 40)
Policy 68 (page 63)
Natural Resources (page 63)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
including mauka forests
Policy 25 (page 52)
Policy 129 (page 83)
Community Action 5 (page 63)
and the shorelines,
Policy 62 (page 62)
Community Action 6 (page 64)
while assuring
Policy 63 (page 62)
Community Action 19 (page 83)
Land Preserves
Policy 20 (page 50)
4.1.3.1 U. S. Congress (page 50)
responsible access for
Community Action 29 (page 97)
residents and for
Policy 21 (page 50)
4.1.3.2 National Park Service
visitors.
Policy 22 (page 50)
(page 50)
Policy 82 (page 67)
Coastal Management
Policy 30 (page 54)
4.6.4.2 Army Corps of Engineers
Policy 23 (page 52)
Policy 31 (page 54)
(page 63)
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 65 (page 62)
4.6.4.6 Department of Hawaiian
Policy 26 (page 52)
Policy 66 (page 62)
Home Lands (page 63)
Policy 27 (page 52)
Policy 67 (page 62)
Policy 28 (page 52)
Policy 29 (page 53)
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 23
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Nearshore Waters
4.6.4.3 State Legislature (page
63)
4.6.4.4 Department of Health
(page 63)
Agricultural Land
4.6.4.1 U.S. Congress (page 63)
4.6.4.3 State Legislature (page
63)
Mauka Forests
4.6.4.7 Three Mountain Alliance
Policy 52 (page 59)
(TMA) (page 63)
Public Access
Policy 22 (page 50)
4.8.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 13 (page 68)
Policy 70 (page 65)
Policy 82 (page 67)
67)
Policy 79 (page 67)
Policy 83 (page 67)
4.8.4.2 Three Mountain Alliance
Policy 80 (page 67)
(TMA) (page 68)
Policy 81 (page 67)
4) Protect, restore, and
Policy 12 (page 40)
Policy 20 (page 50)
4.1.3.1 U. S. Congress (page 50)
Community Action 2 (page 51)
enhance Ka'u's unique
Policy 14 (page 40)
Policy 21 (page 50)
4.1.3.2 National Park Service
Community Action 4 (page 61)
cultural assets, including
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 22 (page 50)
(page 50)
Community Action 7 (page 66)
archeological and
Policy 27 (page 52)
Policy 31 (page 54)
4.7.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 8 (page 66)
historic sites and historic
Policy 52 (page 59)
Policy 76 (page 66)
66)
Community Action 9 (page 66)
buildings.
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 129 (page 83)
Community Action 10 (page 66)
Policy 70 (page 65)
Community Action 11 (page 66)
Policy 71 (page 65)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Community Action 19 (page 83)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
5) Establish and enforce
Policy 71 (page 65)
Policy 77 (page 66)
Community Action 10 (page 66)
standards for
Policy 72 (page 65)
Policy 78 (page 66)
development and
Policy 73 (page 65)
construction that reflect
Policy 74 (page 66)
community values of
Policy 75 (page 66)
architectural beauty
and distinctiveness.
24 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
6) Encourage
Community Action 3 (page 51)
community-based
Community Action 4 (page 61)
management plans to
Community Action 5 (page 63)
assure that human
Community Action 6 (page 64)
activity doesn't degrade
Community Action 7 (page 66)
the quality of KaVs
Community Action 8 (page 66)
unique natural and
Community Action 9 (page 66)
cultural landscape.
Community Action 10 (page 66)
Community Action 11 (page 66)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Community Action 13 (page 68)
Community Action 14 (page 70)
Community Action 19 (page 83)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
7) Identify viable sites
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 89 (page 72)
5.1.4.1 Department of
Community Action 15 (page 73)
for critical community
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 90 (page 72)
Accounting and General
infrastructure, including
Policy 4 (page 39)
Policy 91 (page 72)
Services, State of Hawai'i and
water, emergency
Policy 5 (page 39)
Policy 92 (page 72)
US Postal Service (page 73)
services and educational
Water
Policy 93 (page 74)
5.2.3.1 Department of Hawaiian
Community Action 15 (page 73)
facilities to serve both
Policy 138 (page 88)
Homelands (DHHL) (page 74)
youth and adults.
Emergency & Health
Policy 110 (page 79)
5.6.3.1 Hawai'i Health Systems
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Facilities & Services
Policy 111 (page 79)
Corporation (page 79)
Community Action 17 (page 80)
Policy 112 (page 79)
Policy 113 (page 79)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 115 (page 79)
Policy 116 (page 80)
Policy 117 (page 80)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Policy 119 (page 80)
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 25
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Environmental Mgmt
Policy 120 (page 81)
5.8.3.1 Department of Health
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 121 (page 81)
(page 81)
Policy 122 (page 81)
Policy 123 (page 81)
Education Facilities
Policy 124 (page 82)
5.9.3.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 18 (page 82)
82)
Community Action 22 (page 86)
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
(page 82)
5.9.3.3 State Libraries (page 82)
5.9.3.4 Department of Education,
University of Hawai'i, Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, and
Kamehameha Schools (page 82)
Parks
Policy 22 (page 50)
4.10.3.1 Department of Land and
Community Action 14 (page 70)
Policy 65 (page 62)
Natural Resources (page 70)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 88 (page 70)
4.10.3.2 Department of Hawaiian
Community Action 16 (page 76)
Policy 113 (page 79)
Home Lands (page 70)
Community Action 19 (page 83)
Policy 125 (page 83)
4.10.3.3 Three Mountain Alliance
Community Action 20 (page 83)
Policy 126 (pag a 83)
(TMA) (page 70)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
Policy 127 (page 83)
Policy 128 (page 83)
Policy 129 (page 83)
Policy 130 (page 83)
8) Establish a rural
Roadway Network
Policy 95 (page 75)
5.3.4.1 Department of
Community Action 16 (page 76)
transportation network,
Policy 94 (page 75)
Policy 96 (page 75)
Transportation (page 75)
including roadway
Policy 97 (page 75)
alternatives to Highway
Policy 98 (page 75)
11, a regional trail
Policy 99 (page 75)
system, and an
Policy 100 (page 75)
interconnected transit
Policy 101 (page 75)
26 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
system.
Alternate Routes
Policy 102 (page 77)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 103 (page 77)
Policy 104 (page 77)
Policy 105 (page 77)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Mass Transit
Policy 106 (page 78)
Policy 107 (page 78)
Policy 108 (page 78)
Policy 109 (page 78)
Regional Trail System
Policy 85 (page 69)
4.9.4.1 National Park Service
Community Action 13 (page 68)
Policy 84 (page 69)
Policy 86 (page 69)
(page 69)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
Policy 87 (page 69)
4.9.4.2 Department of Land and
Natural Resources (page 69)
4.9.4.3 Three Mountain Alliance
(page 69)
9) Preserve and greatly
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 82 (page 67)
4.8.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 13 (page 68)
enhance na'ohana
Policy 25 (page 52)
1.1.1.1a.i. Policy 83
67)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
economy.
Policy 27 (page 52)
(page 67)
4.8.4.2 Three Mountain Alliance
Policy 38 (page 55)
(TMA) (page 68)
Policy 52 (page 59)
Policy 62 (page 62)
Policy 70 (page 65)
Policy 79 (page 67)
Policy 80 (page 67)
Policy 81 (page 67)
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 27
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
10) Encourage and
Policy 32 (page 55)
Policy 136 (page 88)
6.3.4.1 Agribusiness
Community Action 24 (page 89)
enhance agriculture,
Policy 35 (page 55)
Policy 137 (page 88)
Development Corporation
ranching, and related
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 138 (page 88)
(page 89)
economic
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 139 (page 88)
6.3.4.2 Board of Agriculture (page
infrastructure.
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 140 (page 89)
89)
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 141 (page 89)
Policy 42 (page 57)
Policy 150 (page 94)
Policy 44 (page 57)
11) Increase the number
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 131 (page 86)
Community Action 21 (page 86)
and diversity of income
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 132 (page 86)
Community Action 22 (page 86)
sources for residents,
Policy 133 (page 86)
Community Action 23 (page 86)
including jobs and
Policy 135 (page 86)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
entrepreneurial
Renewable Energy
Policy 142 (page 90)
6.4.4.1 Legislature (page 90)
Community Action 25 (page 90)
opportunities that
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 143 (page 90)
complement Ka'u's
Policy 58 (page 60)
ecology, culture and
Ecosystem Services
Policy 64 (page 62)
Community Action 26 (page 91)
evolving demographics.
Policy 25 (page 52)
Policy 144 (page 91)
Policy 52 (page 59)
Policy 62 (page 62)
Health & Wellness
Policy 145 (page 92)
Community Action 27 (page 92)
Ed & Research
Policy 146 (page 93)
Community Action 22 (page 86)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
Visitor
Policy 140 (page 89)
Community Action 28 (page 94)
Policy 5 (page 39)
Policy 147 (page 94)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
Policy 6 (page 39)
Policy 148 (page 94)
Policy 149 (page 94)
Policy 150 (page 94)
28 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Community Objective
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
12) Establish or expand
Policy 2 (page 38)
Policy 139 (page 88)
Community Action 23 (page 86)
retail, service, dining,
Policy 145 (page 92)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
and entertainment
centers in rural villages
and towns capable of
supporting Ka'u-
appropriate growth.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 29
7,6,7 r_ � Stmt gigs by - Race
Table 2: CDP Strategies by Place (east to west)
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 45 (page 57)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 32 (page 55)
Policy 46 (page 57)
58)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 33 (page 55)
Policy 47 (pge 57)
6.3.4.2 Board of Agriculture (page
Policy 34 (page 55)
Policy 48 (page 58)
89)
Policy 35 (page 55)
Policy 50 (page 58)
Wood Valley
Policy 36 (page 55)
Policy 89 (page 72)
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 96 (page 75)
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 97 (page 75)
Policy 42 (page 57)
Policy 98 (page 75)
Policy 44 (page 57)
Policy 102 (page 77)
Policy 104 (page 77)
30 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 15 (page 40)
5.6.3.1 Hawai'i Health Systems
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 2 (page 38)
Policy 17 (page 40)
Corporation (page 79)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
Community Action 7 (page 66)
Policy 4 (page 39)
Policy 76 (page 66)
(page 82)
Community Action 8 (page 66)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 77 (page 66)
5.9.3.3 State Libraries (page 82)
Community Action 10 (page 66)
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 78 (page 66)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Policy 9 (page 39)
Policy 89 (page 72)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 93 (page 74)
Community Action 17 (page 80)
Policy 44 (page 57)
Policy 97 (page 75)
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 98 (page 75)
Policy 71 (page 65)
Policy 99 (page 75)
Policy 72 (page 65)
Policy 102 (page 77)
Policy 73 (page 65)
Policy 103 (page 77)
Pahala
Policy 74 (page 66)
Policy 104 (page 77)
Policy 75 (page 66)
Policy 110 (page 79)
Policy 111 (page 79)
Policy 112 (page 79)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 115 (page 79)
Policy 116 (page 80)
Policy 117 (page 80)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Policy 119 (page 80)
Policy 120 (page 81)
Policy 122 (page 81)
Policy 123 (page 81)
Policy 125 (page 83)
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 31
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 22 (page 50)
4.2.4.1 Department of Land and
Community Action 2 (page 51)
Policy 5 (page 39)
Policy 30 (page 54)
Natural Resources (page 54)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 6 (page 39)
Policy 59 (page 61)
4.6.4.4 Department of Health
Community Action 4 (page 61)
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 60 (page 61)
(page 63)
Community Action 5 (page 63)
Policy 12 (page 40)
Policy 76 (page 66)
4.6.4.7 Three Mountain Alliance
Community Action 6 (page 64)
Policy 23 (page 52)
Policy 85 (page 69)
(TMA) (page 63)
Community Action 7 (page 66)
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 86 (page 69)
4.9.4.1 National Park Service
Community Action 8 (page 66)
Policy 25 (page 52)
Policy 87 (page 69)
(page 69)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Policy 26 (page 52)
Policy 88 (page 70)
4.9.4.2 Department of Land and
Community Action 13 (page 68)
Policy 27 (page 52)
Policy 89 (page 72)
Natural Resources (page 69)
Community Action 14 (page 70)
Punalu'u
Policy 28 (page 52)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Community Action 28 (page 94)
Policy 29 (page 53)
Policy 125 (page 83)
Community Action 29 (page 97)
Policy 53 (page 60)
Policy 147 (page 94)
Policy 54 (page 60)
Policy 148 (page 94)
Policy 55 (page 60)
Policy 56 (page 60)
Policy 62 (page 62)
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 70 (page 65)
Policy 79 (page 67)
Policy 80 (page 67)
Policy 81 (page 67)
32 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 15 (page 40)
5.1.4.1 Department of
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 2 (page 38)
Policy 17 (page 40)
Accounting and General
Community Action 2 (page 51)
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
Services, State of Hawai'i and
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 4 (page 39
Policy 22 (page 50)
US Postal Service (page 73)
Community Action 7 (page 66)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 76 (page 66)
5.3.4.1 Department of
Community Action 8 (page 66)
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 77 (page 66)
Transportation (page 75)
Community Action 9 (page 66)
Policy 13 (page 40)
Policy 89 (page 72)
5.6.3.1 Hawai'i Health Systems
Community Action 10 (page 66)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 93 (page 74)
Corporation (page 79)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Policy 44 (page 57)
Policy 99 (page 75)
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 101 (page 75)
(page 82)
Community Action 17 (page 80)
Policy 71 (page 65)
Policy 103 (page 77)
5.9.3.3 State Libraries (page 82)
Community Action 20 (page 83)
Policy 72 (page 65)
Policy 110 (page 79)
N5'51ehu
Policy 73 (page 65)
Policy 111 (page 79)
Policy 74 (page 66)
Policy 112 (page 79)
Policy 75 (page 66)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 115 (page 79)
Policy 116 (page 80)
Policy 117 (page 80)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Policy 119 (page 80)
Policy 120 (page 81)
Policy 123 (page 81)
Policy 125 (page 83)
Policy 128 (page 83)
Policy 130 (page 83)
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 33
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 15 (page 40)
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 76 (page 66)
Community Action 7 (page 66)
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 77 (page 66)
Community Action 8 (page 66)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 89 (page 72)
Community Action 10 (page 66)
Wai'ohinu
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 93 (page 74)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Policy 71 (page 65)
Policy 96 (page 75)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 72 (page 65)
Policy 99 (page 75)
Policy 73 (page 65)
Policy 101 (page 75)
Policy 74 (page 66)
Policy 123 (page 81)
Policy 75 (page 66)
Policy 125 (page 83)
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 18 (page 40)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
58)
Community Action 16 (page 76)
Policy 37 (page 55)
Policy 49 (page 58)
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 51 (page 58)
Green Sands
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 91 (page 72)
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 92 (page 72)
Policy 96 (page 75)
Policy 105 (page 77)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 18 (page 40)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
58)
Community Action 16 (page 76)
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 49 (page 58)
Policy 37 (page 55)
Policy 51 (page 58)
Discovery Harbour &
Policy 39 (page 56)
Policy 91 (page 72)
Mark Twain
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 92 (page 72)
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 96 (page 75)
Policy 105 (page 77)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 118 (page 80)
34 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 30 (page 54)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 3 (page 51)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 47 (pge 57)
58)
Community Action 4 (page 61)
Policy 12 (page 40)
Policy 48 (page 58)
4.6.4.6 Department of Hawaiian
Community Action 5 (page 63)
Policy 23 (page 52)
Policy 50 (page 58)
Home Lands (page 63)
Community Action 7 (page 66)
Policy 24 (page 52)
Policy 59 (page 61)
4.9.4.1 National Park Service
Community Action 8 (page 66)
Policy 25 (page 52)
Policy 60 (page 61)
(page 69)
Community Action 12 (page 66)
Policy 26 (page 52)
Policy 76 (page 66)
4.9.4.2 Department of Land and
Community Action 13 (page 68)
Policy 27 (page 52)
Policy 85 (page 69)
Natural Resources (page 69)
Community Action 14 (page 70)
Policy 28 (page 52)
Policy 86 (page 69)
5.2.3.1 Department of Hawaiian
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 29 (page 53)
Policy 87 (page 69)
Homelands (DHHL) (page 74)
Policy 32 (page 55)
Policy 89 (page 72)
Policy 33 (page 55)
Policy 93 (page 74)
Policy 34 (page 55)
Policy 96 (page 75)
South Point
Policy 35 (page 55)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 36 (page 55)
Policy 38 (page 55)
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 42 (page 57)
Policy 53 (page 60)
Policy 54 (page 60)
Policy 55 (page 60)
Policy 56 (page 60)
Policy 69 (page 65)
Policy 70 (page 65)
Policy 79 (page 67)
Policy 80 (page 67)
Policy 81 (page 67)
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 35
Place
Land Use Policies
County Action
Advocacy Program
Community -Based,
Collaborative Action
Policy 1 (page 38)
Policy 15 (page 40)
4.3.4.1 State Legislature (page
Community Action 1 (page 41)
Policy 2 (page 38)
Policy 18 (page 40)
58)
Community Action 15 (page 73)
Policy 3 (page 39)
Policy 19 (page 40)
5.6.3.1 Hawai'i Health Systems
Community Action 18 (page 82)
Policy 4 (page 39
Policy 22 (page 50)
Corporation (page 79)
Community Action 20 (page 83)
Policy 7 (page 39)
Policy 49 (page 58)
5.9.3.1 State Legislature (page
Policy 8 (page 39)
Policy 51 (page 58)
82)
Policy 37 (page 55)
Policy 82 (page 67)
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
Policy 40 (page 56)
Policy 89 (page 72)
(page 82)
Policy 41 (page 56)
Policy 91 (page 72)
5.9.3.3 State Libraries (page 82)
Policy 79 (page 67)
Policy 92 (page 72)
6.4.4.1 Legislature (page 90)
Policy 93 (page 74)
Policy 108 (page 78)
Ocean View
Policy 109 (page 78)
Policy 111 (page 79)
Policy 112 (page 79)
Policy 113 (page 79)
Policy 114 (page 79)
Policy 115 (page 79)
Policy 118 (page 80)
Policy 121 (page 81)
Policy 124 (page 82)
Policy 125 (page 83)
Policy 127 (page 83)
Policy 128 (page 83)
Policy 130 (page 83)
Policy 143 (page 90)
36 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Ki`eki`e Ka`u, kua makani,
He umauma pa`ia a ke `A`eloa.
Majestic Ka'u, of the windswept back,
Whose chest is raised to meet the `A`eloa wind.
Taken from an old chant of Ka'u chiefs; translated by Mary Kawena Puku'i
This section of the CDP uses Land Use Policy Controls to focus future residential development in existing
villages, towns, and subdivisions and identify specific commercial and industrial areas in Pahala,
Na'alehu, and Ocean View. This section also ensures that future land use permitting is consistent with
CDP objectives and policies. Finally, this section advances redevelopment and growth management by
prioritizing environmental assessments for potential brownfields, a County -wide affordable housing
plan, and community-based strategies to create safe, sustainable, and connected communities.
The preferred settlement pattern in the Ka'u CDP planning area is based on a CDP Steering Committee -
driven analysis of the region's settlement patterns, build -out capacity relative to population projections,
related General Plan policies, and alternative future patterns for growth (see Appendix 4D). That
preferred pattern is to...
...prioritize infill residential and commercial development in Pahala, Punalu'u, Na'alehu,
Discovery Harbour, and Ocean View,
■ Maximizing the use of existing and planned infrastructure
■ Limiting development on shorelines to protect ecological resources, archeological sites,
people, and facilities (from coastal hazards)
■ Preserving viable agricultural lands, open space, and viewscapes, allowing only agriculture,
ranching, and related economic infrastructure and rural development in rural lands
■ Preserving historic sites and buildings and encouraging the construction of new buildings
in character with Ka'u's architectural distinctiveness and rural sense of place
■ Managing growth to protect people and facilities from lava hazards.
Once the existing infill potential is largely met, existing settlements could be expanded
in ways that maximize use of existing infrastructure and facilities and that create
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers.
This preferred pattern is closely aligned with the settlement pattern advanced in section 14.1 of the
General Plan:
The urban centers include high, medium and low density designations. These centers
and clusters provide physical, social, governmental and economic concentrations so that
the total activities of the community can be more readily and easily conducted....
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 37
A4/21,1111
%%//1,1111
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
O
N
M
r
M
M
Z
The future improvement and development objectives are directed toward making
urban and rural centers more efficient, livable, and safe. Growth should be
encouraged in terms of renewing older areas or extending existing areas. The creation
of new urban and rural centers should be initiated only when it is in the public interest
and must be accompanied by commitments from both government and the private
sector for the development of basic community and public facilities and services.
Infrastructure costs less when new residential areas are located near existing highways,
water and sewer lines, and employment centers.
4 - ..
Of the Community Objectives adopted by the Steering Committee (see Section 1.5.1 above and
Appendix 2), the following four are related to the preferred settlement pattern:
■ Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of Ka'G's historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
■ Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and preserve and enhance
viewscapes that exemplify Ka'G's rural character.
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'G's unique cultural assets, including archeological and
historic sites and historic buildings.
■ Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages
and towns capable of supporting Ka'G-appropriate growth.
gEST.-ImUZZ2,01UFA
All of the CDP Land Use Policies are designed to preserve the preferred future settlement pattern and
achieve the Community Objectives as Ka'G grows. Land Use Policies designed to protect coastal areas,
agricultural lands, mauka forests, scenic areas, sensitive ecosystems, cultural resources, and public
access are included in related elements of Section 4 below. In contrast, the following Land Use Policies
speak more generally to the preservation of the preferred settlement pattern in Ka'G, including the
relative location of residential, commercial, industrial, and resort areas:
Policy Controls
Commercial, Industrial, and Resort Areas
Policy 1 Rehabilitate and develop within existing zoned urban areas already served by basic
infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development. (GP 14.1.3(b) and
14.1.3(j))
Policy 2 Concentrate commercial uses within and surrounding central core areas in Mala,
N5'51ehu, and Ocean View and do not allow strip or spot commercial development outside
of the designated urban areas. (GP 14.3.3(e), 14.3.5.9.2(a, b))
38 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
Policy 3 Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services,
such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems. Should such services not be
available, the development of more intensive uses should be in concert with a localized
program of public and private capital improvements to meet the expected increased
needs. (GP 14.3.3(b))
Policy 4 Industrial development shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation,
utilities, and other essential infrastructure. (GP 14.4.3(e))
Policy 5 Rehabilitate and optimize the utilization of designated resort areas that are presently
serviced by basic facilities and utilities and before new resorts are allowed in undeveloped
coastal areas. (GP 14.7.3(b & c))
Policy 6 The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should
complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty;
respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline
public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the
development. (GP 2.4.9.2(a & c), 9.3(g), 14.7.2(c), 14.7.3(i), 14.7.5.9.2(a))
Land Use Policy Map
Policy 7 With the adoption of the Ka'u CDP, Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 on pages 43 through 48 are
adopted as the official Land Use Policy Map for the Ka'u CDP planning area. The land use
category definitions are identical to those used in the General Plan LUPAG map (and
included in the Glossary). Future land use decisions in the Ka'u CDP planning area shall be
consistent with the Land Use Policy Map boundaries, designations, and policies herein,
unless the CDP and the General Plan are in direct conflict.
Note: Policy 15 and Policy 16 on page 40 are follow-up County Actions to amend the General
Plan to conform with the official Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map.
Policy 8 In the "Low Density Urban (LDU)" Land Use Policy Map category in the Ka'u CDP planning
area, changes of zone shall only be permitted to Single -Family Residential (RS), Multiple -
Family Residential (RM -7.5 or higher), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX-7.5 or
higher), or Open (0).
In Pahala, this policy supports a rezone of TMKs (3)9-6-002:016 & 023:034 from Agricultural
(A -1a) and Industrial (ML -20 and MG -1a) to RS and/or O to take advantage of existing water
and road infrastructure.
Note that Policy 93 on page 74 specifies that the focus of future water system
improvements shall be on existing systems to support infill growth within the CDP growth
boundary.
Policy 9 If infill capacity is exceeded in areas designated "Low Density Urban (LDU)" on the Land
Use Policy Map in Pahala, it would be appropriate to designate TMK (3)9-6-005:001 as LDU
to take advantage of existing water and road connections.
Land Use Permitting
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 39
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
IP
N
M
r
M
M
Z
Policy 10 The Director of Planning shall offer a favorable recommendation to the Planning
Commissions, subject to appropriate conditions, only for those proposed zoning code
amendments that would further the intent and ensure consistency with the objectives
and policies of the Ka'u CDP. (HCC 25-2-42(c)(1) and 25-2-44)
Policy 11 Variances from the zoning or subdivision codes (including PUDs) shall be carefully
considered relative to Ka'u CDP objectives and policies, and, when approved, shall be
conditioned to ensure consistency with the CDP. (HCC 23-6, 23-15(c), 23-18, 25-2-51(c), 25-
2-54(b), and 25-6-6(b))
Policy 12 Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves
of trees, heiaus, and historical sites and structures, shall be preserved during subdivision.
(HCC 23-26)
Policy 13 When considering waivers to the requirements of the zoning and subdivision chapters of
the County Code for consolidation and resubdivision actions in the Ka'u CDP planning
area, the Planning Director shall carefully consider how to best further the public welfare
relative to the objectives and policies of the Ka'u CDP. Specifically, the Director 1) should
confer with all appropriate agencies, 2) shall, if the new subdivision will include lots
smaller than otherwise permitted in the subject zone, endeavor to locate those smaller
lots in LDU, MDU, or Industrial areas and near existing towns/villages and thoroughfares,
and 3) should require necessary improvements. (HCC 23-6, 23-7, and 25-2-11)
Policy 14 Plan approval and related conditions shall consider forest and coastal ecosystems,
agricultural lands, open space, viewscapes, areas of natural beauty, archeological and
historic sites, and historic buildings when assuring that proper siting is provided for,
proper landscaping is provided, unsightly areas are properly screened or eliminated, and
natural and man-made features of community value are preserved. (HCC 25-2-77(a) & 76)
Policy 15 Amend the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide and, as needed, State Land
Use boundaries, to conform with the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map.
Policy 16 Amend General Plan Table 14-5 to reflect the LUPAG map amendments in Policy 15.
Policy 17 Pursue brownfields assessment grants to complete the Phase I and II environmental
assessment for high priority sites in Ka'u.
Policy 18 Develop and implement a County -wide, cross -agency affordable housing plan.
Policy 19 Provide technical assistance to communities and organizations implementing community-
based strategies to create safe, sustainable, and connected communities.
See Policy 93 on page 74 and Policy 120 on page 81.
40 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Community Action 1: Develop and implement community -specific strategies to create safe, sustainable,
and connected communities.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 41
42 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Figure 2: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional
Land Use Policy Map
and Urban, Rural, Industrial & Resort Areas in Ka'u
� � x
-. I
Pahala:
- Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
�- Ninole-Punalu'u:
Resort Area (Minor)
'K- Na'alehu:
r
Ocean View:
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
'-� Wai'ohinu:
Urban/Rural Center
LU PAG Designations
Conservation
= Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Industrial
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Open Area
Resort N
Rural
10iles
0 5 10 20
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 43
Figure 3: Ka'O CDP Land Use Policy Map: PAhala
KA IS r
Land Use Policy Map
for Pdhala
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Industrial
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
i PIdnning Department GIS - October 2014
44 xa'oCommunity Development Plan: April 2017
Figure 4: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Na`alehu
AI
TMK Property
1 1319-5-021:006 Commercial Center l
2 1319-5-021:027 Fire Station Cl r) r
3 1319-5-012:037 Police Station tic
i 1 319-5-009:003 Ka'u Family Health Center 1 +�t
1319-5-009:006 School
6 1319-5-021:010 Civic Center and library
7 1319-5-021:023 Community Center and Park `–r--�'�. �� f �� nvSID
8 1319-5-021:009 Post Office
9 13)9-5-021:008 Na alehu Theater
r 1 1 \ ,�
1 �
2
" 5
�—� wai`8hinu
7
6 1
Land Use Policy Map
for Na'alehu
4 LUPAG Designations
9 Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Industrial
Low Density Urban N
Medium Density Urban
Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
.w.. C'millk [ , .., r•,,1 4,11 ()r le)h ' 10, 1
Ka`u Community Development Plan: April 2017 45
Figure 5: Ka`O CDP Land Use Policy Map: Wai`ohinu
TMK Property
1 (3)9-5-001:009 Commercial Center
2 (3)9-5-001:031 Park
3 (3)9-5-001:007 Transfer Station
Land Use Policy Map for Wai'ohinul
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
important Ag. Lands
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Open Area
Rural N
Feet
0 250 500 1.000 1.500
2
49N '
49 by
1
46 Ka`u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Pita
a
rj Q °\fit
i opo
�o
Figure 6: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green Sands
oaf
0 r,
a�aoa
rLP
\� Land Use Policy Map
for Discovery Harbour,
Mark Twain, & Green Sands
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
-r-r -x Important Ag. Lands
JFK-_
Low Density Urban
Rural
Communities
Discovery Harbour
Green Sands N
Mark Twain Estates
Feet
0 500 1.000 2,000 3,000
Deparr ent mber 201'
Ka`u Community Development Plan: April 2017
47
Figure 7: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View
48 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Hanai a `ai.
To care for and eat from
'Olelo No'eau
Section 4 focuses on protecting and enhancing Ka'u's rich heritage of natural and cultural resources,
including coastal areas, agricultural land, mauka forests, scenic resources, ecosystems, historic and
cultural features, and public access and trails. Four basic approaches are used: land preservation, land
use policy protections, governmental initiative, and collaborative action by landowners, nonprofits, and
the community.
Section 4.1 guides the community- and government -led expansion of lands held in public trust, with a
focus on coastal areas. It also supports landowners who seek to establish conservation and agricultural
easements or use agricultural and forestry land preservation programs.
Section 4.2 protects coastal areas from development with the CDP Land Use Policy Map, shoreline
setbacks, the Special Management Area, and encouragement to the State to strengthen protections and
the community voice in land use decisions.
Section 4.3 protects agricultural land and open space from non-agricultural development with urban
growth boundaries, permit conditions, and limits on Special Permits and lot sizes. It also prioritizes
stronger farm dwelling regulations and tax incentive programs, agricultural subdivision standards, the
development of transfer of development rights (TDR) and land bank programs, State Important
Agricultural Land designations, and expedited lot consolidation in existing rural subdivisions.
Section 4.4 protects mauka forests from development with the CDP Land Use Policy Map.
Section 4.5 protects open space, areas with natural beauty, and scenic view planes with permitting
controls and by prioritizing view plane regulations and scenic routes.
Section 4.6 encourages the removal of unexploded ordnance, the collaborative development and
implementation of resource management plans, and the enforcement necessary to protect ecosystems.
Section 4.7 prioritizes the preservation of historic buildings and roads and the development of historic
streetscapes and rural road standards. It also guides community -led efforts to restore historic sites and
buildings, retain village and town character, and document oral, written, and video histories.
Section 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 ensure appropriate public access to the shoreline and mauka forests, guide
community -led access management and trail development, and prioritize governmental public access
and trails programs and facilities.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 49
00% %%//"a'll����i,
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
r0,
This section of the CDP guides the expansion of lands held in public trust, supports landowners
establishing conservation and agricultural easements and using agricultural and forestry land
preservation programs, and encourages the National Park to pursue acquisition priorities.
. 1. 1 Objectives
■ Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of Ka'G's historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
■ Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and preserve and enhance
viewscapes that exemplify Ka'G's rural character.
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'u's unique cultural assets, including archeological
and historic sites and historic buildings.
.1.2 Coliijii"'Irt' Act:id0 ii"lIn
Through the strategic and collaborative use of the resources identified in Appendix 4A, the County
should:
Policy 20 Support the National Park Service's expansion plans for the Hawai'i Volcanoes National
Park. (GP 14.9.3(e))
Policy 21 Support the efforts of landowners to establish conservation and agricultural easements.
Policy 22 Secure in public trust (fee simple or by easement) priority coastal land that achieves one
or more of the Community Objectives.
See Policy 82 on page 67.
4.1.3 Advocacy
4.1.3.1 U. S. Congress
■ Advance legislation to complete the requisite special resource study to assess the feasibility of
designating the Ka'u coast as a unit of the National Park System or otherwise protect coastal
resources, in full collaboration with County, State, and private interests and with the cooperation of
private citizens and property owners within the study area.
4.1.3.2 National Park Service
■ As outlined in the Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park General Management Plan (GMP), continue to
pursue acquisition priorities, such as the Great Crack parcels (TMKs (3)9-6-013:003, (3)9-6-013:008,
(3)9-6-013:009) and other properties as described in the GMP.
50 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
4m1m4 Based, C6IIIIWb o 111ative Act IIIIP,6Qirii
Community Action 2: Secure in public trust (fee simple or by easement) priority land that achieves one
or more of the Community Objectives.
Community Action 3: Encourage the use of agriculture, ranch, and forestry land preservation programs.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 51
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
r0,
o m � +, ., 0 �0 .,
This section of the CDP protects coastal areas from development with the CDP Land Use Policy Map,
shoreline setbacks, the Special Management Area, and encouragement to the State to strengthen
protections and the community voice in land use decisions.
4. 2.1 Objectives
Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of Ka'u's historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'u's unique cultural assets, including archeological
and historic sites and historic buildings.
4. 2.2 IIL.. , IIIrii d Use MI5 dII ili c
Policy Intent
Policy 23 Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures.
(GP 8.3(d))
Policy 24 Maintain the shoreline for recreational, cultural, education, and/or scientific uses in a
manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum benefit to the general
public. (GP 8.3(c))
Policy 25 Protect and conserve forest and coastal areas with native wildlife, natural ecosystems,
and wilderness. (GP 8.4)
Policy 26 Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas.
(HRS 205A-2(c)(3(D))
Policy Controls
See Policy 10 on page 40, Policy 11 on page 40, Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 13 on page 40, and Policy
14 on page 40.
Policy 27 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
coastal areas in Ka'u as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to the rich
network of natural and cultural resources in the region. Development and construction in
the coastal "Conservation" and "Open" areas shall be minimized and, when necessary,
limited to recreation, research, and education facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
Policy 28 On lots that are at least partially within the Special Management Area (SMA) in the Ka'u
CDP Planning Area, establish shoreline setbacks at the earliest stages of the land use
planning and development process at a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4 -mile); however, the
applicant may request that the setback be reduced by providing information to the
52 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
°°moo
Department, including information required for SMA review, which would allow for an
assessment of the proposed activity's impacts and in consideration of the physicals°°°o�
limitations of theproperty. For lots created prior to the date of adoption of the CDP with
p p
an average lot depth of two hundred feet or less, the shoreline setback line shall be 40
feet. G`
Policy 29 No development, including subdivision, shall be approved in the SMA unless the
development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect.
(HRS 205A-22(3) & 205A -26(2)(A))
Pursuant to Planning Commission (PC) Rule 9-10(b)(5) & (11), and in order for the Planning
Director to accurately evaluate whether the proposed action will have a substantial adverse
effect, pursuant to PC Rule 9-4(e)(4), the Director shall require that SMA Use Permit
Assessment and Use Permit applications include all of the information necessary to assess
the proposed activity's impacts in the Special Management Area, including but not limited
to:
■ A description of the environmental setting and natural resources in the area, including
an assessment of impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species or their habitat
and on fresh and coastal water quality (PC Rule 9-10(b)(5)(A) & (6) and 9-10(h)(7), (8), &
(9));
■ A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area, including the
extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the
area (PC Rule 9-10(b)(6) & (h)(1));
■ An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view planes,
including those outlined in the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, and
other adopted plans, as well as the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway
nearest the coast and along the shoreline (HRS 205A -2(b)(3) (A), HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(B),
HRS 205A -26(3)(E), and PC Rule 9-10(h)(1));
■ Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the
shoreline to the specifications required by Na Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National
Historic Trail (PC Rule 9-10(b)(10));
■ An assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal
erosion and/or sea level rise over the life of the development (PC Rule 9-10(h)(9));
■ A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and
control of the affected area, including the General Plan and Community Development
Plan (PC Rule 9-10(b)(5)(13)).
Any development permitted, including those determined to be exempt from the definition
�o
�o 0
of development in Planning Commission Rule 9 (pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9-
10(e) & (g)), shall be subject to terms and conditions to achieve CZM and CDP objectives
and policies, including conditions that protect natural, cultural, historic, and recreational
resources; preserve agricultural land, open space, and view planes; ensure access; mitigate`°°GGG°°°°°f
impacts of coastal hazards; limit coastal development; and concentrate new development����
(particularly if it is not coastal dependent) on vacant land in town/village centers (before
converting agricultural land to residential uses), and discouraging speculative residential`°°s,
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 53
development. Conditions could include but not be limited to setbacks, restrictions on
artificial light, lateral and mauka-makai access requirements, dedication of conservation and
trail corridor easements, cooperation with efforts to manage access and use of coastal
resources, minimizing the number of lots abutting or near the shoreline, and maximizing the
use of land in the State Land Use Urban district and/or urban LUPAG categories.
.2.3 Colii�j III°'Irty Act:Ids' illl°'111
Policy 30 Amend Planning Department Rule 11 to specify that the Planning Department establish
shoreline setbacks in the Ka'u CDP Planning Area in accordance with Policy 28.
Policy 31 Review SMA boundaries in Ka'u and initiate appropriate amendments.
4.2.4 Advocacy
4.2.4.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Amend HAR 13-5 to designate the coastal Conservation District subzones in Ka'u Limited or
Protective.
■ Following the recommendation of the South Kona-Ka'G Coastal Conservation Task Force, amend
HAR 13-5-40(b) to require that public hearings before the Board of Land and Natural Resources be
held in the judicial district in which the land is located.
4. 2.5 Based, C6II IIWbo iii �at i v Act ii oiii°°ii
See Community Action 2 on page 51.
54 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
4. 3.2 IIL.. , III°Ii d L,l flew e lI:5 o III i c
Policy Intent
rMM
Policy 32 Conserve and protect agricultural lands. (State Constitution Article XI, Section 3; GP 2.3(a),
2.3(s), 14.1.2(b), & 14.2.2(a))
Policy 33 Preserve the agricultural character of Ka'u, including the open space preserved by
agricultural land. (GP 14.2.2(b) & 14.2.3(d))
Policy 34 Vacant lands in urban areas should be made available for residential uses before
additional agricultural lands are converted into residential uses. (GP 9.3(x))
Policy 35 Limit development of agricultural land to agricultural uses, discouraging speculative
residential development and urban encroachment. (GP 14.2.3(i), (j), & (t))
Policy 36 Agricultural lands shall not be rezoned to parcels too small to support economically viable
farming units. (GP 14.2.3(s))
Policy 37 Maintain the open space and rural character of the Ocean View, Mark Twain, and Green
Sands areas, including continued inclusion in the State Land Use Agricultural district (not
Rural), except in the areas in Land Use Policy Map urban categories.
Policy Controls �
See Policy 10 on page 40, Policy 11 on page 40, Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 13 on page 40, and Policy
14 on page 40.yG
Policy 38 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
agricultural lands in Ka'u as areas to be preserved for agriculture and open space.���
Development and construction in "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive,
Agriculture" areas shall be limited to agriculture, related economic infrastructure and
G°°GGs
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 55
®Protect Agricultural Lands& Open Spacep✓/��
M�° °s
°aG°°Op°°°°
This section of the CDP protects agricultural land and open space from non-agricultural development
with the CDP Land Use Policy Map, urban growth boundaries, limits on Special Permits and lots sizes,
and restrictions on residential development. It also prioritizes agricultural subdivision standards
%b'
revisions in water catchment variance rules, stronger farm dwelling regulations and tax incentive
programs, development of transfer of development rights (TDR) and land bank programs, State
Important Agricultural and expedited lot consolidation in existing rural subdivisions.
pLallynyl�ddes�yiggnations,
.�� .i���� 41mx1M�6Q ��'��'ll ��'��'ll I�AY ��'ll l��F Objectives 1\�'+1'i�^�rcVs
■ Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of Ka'u's historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
rMM
■ Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and preserve and enhance
viewscapes that exemplify Ka'u's rural character.
4. 3.2 IIL.. , III°Ii d L,l flew e lI:5 o III i c
Policy Intent
rMM
Policy 32 Conserve and protect agricultural lands. (State Constitution Article XI, Section 3; GP 2.3(a),
2.3(s), 14.1.2(b), & 14.2.2(a))
Policy 33 Preserve the agricultural character of Ka'u, including the open space preserved by
agricultural land. (GP 14.2.2(b) & 14.2.3(d))
Policy 34 Vacant lands in urban areas should be made available for residential uses before
additional agricultural lands are converted into residential uses. (GP 9.3(x))
Policy 35 Limit development of agricultural land to agricultural uses, discouraging speculative
residential development and urban encroachment. (GP 14.2.3(i), (j), & (t))
Policy 36 Agricultural lands shall not be rezoned to parcels too small to support economically viable
farming units. (GP 14.2.3(s))
Policy 37 Maintain the open space and rural character of the Ocean View, Mark Twain, and Green
Sands areas, including continued inclusion in the State Land Use Agricultural district (not
Rural), except in the areas in Land Use Policy Map urban categories.
Policy Controls �
See Policy 10 on page 40, Policy 11 on page 40, Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 13 on page 40, and Policy
14 on page 40.yG
Policy 38 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
agricultural lands in Ka'u as areas to be preserved for agriculture and open space.���
Development and construction in "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive,
Agriculture" areas shall be limited to agriculture, related economic infrastructure and
G°°GGs
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 55
cottage industries, renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community
facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
Policy 39 The urban growth boundary between agricultural areas (designated "Important
Agricultural Land" or "Extensive Agriculture") and developed areas (designated "Rural,"
"Low/Medium/High Density Urban," "Industrial," or "Resort") is parcel -specific in the Ka'u
CDP planning area, except at Punalu'u and the Low/Medium Density Urban and Industrial
nodes in Ocean View. Areas outside designated developed areas shall be preserved as
agricultural lands, open space, scenic view planes, and natural beauty areas, unless the
CDP and the General Plan are in direct conflict.
Policy 40 Special permits of any kind in the "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive
Agriculture" Land Use Policy Map categories should not be permitted in the Ka'u CDP
planning area, except for the following uses (as defined in HCC chapter 25):
■ Agriculture and Related Economic Infrastructure: Animal hospitals, Veterinary
establishments, Fertilizer yards utilizing only manure and soil, for commercial use
■ Cottage Industry related to Agriculture: Bed and breakfast establishments, Guest
ranches, Lodges, Home occupations
■ Community Facilities: Community buildings, Public uses and structures, Shooting ranges,
ATV courses (in areas without cultural, natural resource, or scenic value)
■ Quarries whose permit conditions address geotechnical, engineering, safety, private
road use, oversight, and any site-specific issues.
■ Urban Uses in Ocean View: Uses consistent with the LDU, MDU, and Industrial LUPAG
categories indicated on the Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map in Ocean View, until the SLU
boundaries are amended (from Agriculture to Urban).
The Planning Commission shall also include in any Special Permit approval (or recommend
for approval to the State Land Use Commission) appropriate performance conditions to
achieve CDP objectives and implement CDP policies. (HRS 205-6(c) and Planning
Commission Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8)
Policy 41 Special permits of any kind in the "Rural" Land Use Policy Map category should not be
permitted in the Ka'u CDP planning area, except for the following uses (as defined in HCC
chapter 25):
■ Agriculture and Related Economic Infrastructure: Animal hospitals, Veterinary
establishments, Kennels
■ Cottage Industry: Bed and breakfast establishments, Home occupations, Commercial or
personal service uses, on a small scale
■ Health and Dependent Care: Day care centers, Family child care homes, Adult day care
homes, Group living facilities
56 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
■ Community Facilities: Community buildings, Meeting facilities, Schools, Churches,
temples and synagogues, Public uses and structures, including those privately managed
(e.g., road maintenance facilities), Tennis courts, Swimming pools
■ Urban Uses in Ocean View: Uses consistent with the LDU, MDU, and Industrial LUPAG
categories indicated on the Ka'G CDP Land Use Policy Map in Ocean View, until the SLU
boundaries are amended (from Agricultural to Urban).
■ Quarries in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates whose permit conditions address areas of
concern with current mining operations, including geotechnical, engineering, safety,
private road use, regular oversight by agencies with the necessary expertise and
capacity, site restoration plans, and any other site-specific issues.
The Planning Commission shall also include in any Special Permit approval (or recommend
for approval to the State Land Use Commission) appropriate performance conditions to
achieve CDP objectives and implement CDP policies. (HRS 205-6(c) and Planning
Commission Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8)
Policy 42 Landowners interested in subdivision of agricultural land in the Ka'u CDP planning area
shall be encouraged to subdivide pursuant to HCC section 23-112 related to farm
subdivisions.
Policy 43 When considering applications to consolidate and resubdivide pre-existing lots of record,
the Director of Planning shall only permit lots less than one acre in size in the State Land
Use Agricultural district if the applicant clearly demonstrates that an unreasonable
economic hardship cannot otherwise be prevented or land utilization is improved relative
to the objectives and policies of the CDP. (HRS 205-5(b))
Policy 44 Through permit conditions, development agreements, deed restrictions, and/or other
means, ensure that areas in the "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive Agriculture"
Land Use Policy Map categories continue to be utilized for agricultural uses and not for
speculative or other residential development.
See Policy 21 on page 50.
Policy 45 Establish agricultural subdivision standards that 1) lower barriers to the creation of viable
farmsteads by reducing infrastructure requirements and expenses; 2) ensure public safety
with appropriate rural water systems and roads; and 3) mitigate against speculative
development.
Policy 46 Amend Planning Department Rule 22 to increase the number of allowable lots with a
water catchment variance, in consideration of zoning, the size of the existing lot, and
other site-specific characteristics.
Policy 47 Amend the Hawai'i County Code and associated Planning Department Rules to establish
reporting and inspection requirements, as well as enforcement and fine protocols, for
additional farm dwellings to ensure that dwellings are used for farm -related purposes.
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 57
9p0o
d�l oopP/p//l
ll�� �o/G
d�l�,�// INGO�joPj/l
dl0 ,rilllUlN SNP'
dl�l�Gp oN
ll� �
d/ „rllllUl9/ /G/Y
d�l� �OooP/Opl
Policy 48 Update the County of Hawai'i's tax reduction programs to ensure that public tax
incentives for agricultural land use result in actual public benefits and promote local
agricultural production where possible.
Policy 49 Conduct a feasibility study for a County -wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
and/or Save Land for the Future (SLF) program. If feasible, adopt any necessary enabling
County legislation.
Policy 50 Recommend lands to be designated State Important Agricultural Lands. (GP 14.2.2(a) &
14.2.3(i))
Policy 51 Preserve open space in Green Sands, Mark Twain, and Ocean View subdivisions by
streamlining the lot consolidation process with, for example, fee waivers and exemptions
from signage requirements.
See Policy 143 on page 90 and Policy 150 on page 94.
4.3.4 Advocacy
4.3.4.1 State Legislature
■ Appropriate funds to the County of Hawai'i to develop recommendations of lands to be designated
State Important Agricultural Lands.
■ Pass legislation enabling land banks that counties can use to acquire tax -delinquent properties and
use them to preserve agricultural land and open space.
4.3.5 Based, C6llllWboii,atiive Actiioii,'ii
See Community Action 2 on page 51 and Community Action 3 on page 51.
58 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP protects mauka forests from development with the CDP Land Use Policy Map
4. 4.1 Objectives
Objective 1: Encourage future settlement patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They
should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the
best of KaVs historic precedents: concentrating new commercial and residential development in
compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers, allowing rural development in the rural lands,
and limiting development on the shorelines.
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'u's unique cultural assets, including archeological
and historic sites and historic buildings.
4.4.2 III a III°Iii d Use e lI5611 it c
Policy Intent
See Policy 25 on page 52, Policy 62 on page 62, and Policy 69 on page 65.
Policy Controls
Policy 52 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
mauka forests in Ka'u as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to the
region's rich network of natural and cultural resources. Development and construction in
mauka "Conservation" areas shall be minimized and, when necessary, limited to
recreation, research, and education facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
4. 4.3 Coijuii,'IrR' Actidoilll°In
See Policy 21 on page 50 and Policy 64 on page 62.
4. 4.4 Advocacy
acy
See 4.2.4.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources on page 54.
4.4.4.1 Office of Planning, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
■ Designate forest and watershed areas into the Conservation District during State land use
boundary comprehensive reviews. (GP 8.3(m))
4.4.5 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ilio ii,,"In
See Community Action 2 on page 51 and Community Action 3 on page 51.
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 59
This section of the CDP protects open space, areas with natural beauty, and scenic view planes with
permitting controls and by prioritizing view plane regulations and scenic routes.
.5.1 Objective
■ Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and preserve and enhance
viewscapes that exemplify Ka'u's rural character.
. 5 .2 III°�Ii d L,l flew e lI5 o III i c
Policy Intent
See Policy 33 on page 55.
Policy 53 Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of open space, areas endowed with natural and
scenic beauty, and public views to and along the shoreline. (HRS 205A -2(b)(3)(6), HRS 205-
26, Charter section 13-29, & GP 7.2(a), 7.2(c), 8.2(e), 14.8.2(a), & 14.8.3(d))
Policy 54 Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed, considering structural
setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways to protect view plans. (GP 7.2(b) &
7.3(f))
Policy 55 Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of natural beauty. (GP 7.3(i))
Policy Controls
See Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 14 on page 40, Policy 27 on page 52, Policy 28 on page 52, Policy 38 on
page 55, and Policy 39 on page 56.
Policy 56 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, the environmental report for proposed changes of zone on
property that may impact open space, view planes, and areas of natural beauty shall
include view plane and, as appropriate, line -of -sight analysis and, to facilitate
implementation of Policy 10, proposed conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (HCC 25-2-
42)
Policy 57 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, applications for Special Permits that may impact open
space, view planes, and areas of natural beauty shall include view plane and, as
appropriate, line -of -sight analysis and proposed performance conditions to mitigate scenic
impacts. (Planning Commission Rule 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8)
Policy 58 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, applications for Use Permits for wind energy facilities and
telecommunications antennas and towers shall include view plane and, as appropriate,
line -of -sight analysis to demonstrate how the request does not cause substantial, adverse
impact to the community's character, including open space, public views, and areas of
natural and scenic beauty, and proposed conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (HCC 25-2-
60 & 64)
60 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Policy 60 Introduce a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor. z
Policy 61 Maintain a continuing program to identify, acquire and develop viewing sites on the
island. (GP 7.3(c)) C
4.5.4 Based, C6HWboirative Actioirii
Community Action 4: Advance development of scenic routes. >
rMM
r�W-1
0
40
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 61
4.5.3 Cou�irirty Actioill"111
4/0"
Policy 59 Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and to protect from obstruction
4/0'
scenic resources, vistas, view planes, open space, prominent landscapes, and areas of
..........
natural beauty identified in the General Plan. (Charter 13-29, HRS 205A, GP 7.2(a), 7.2(b),
4/0"
73(b), 73(e), 7.3(f), 73(h), 7.3(i), & 14.8.3(d))
Policy 60 Introduce a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor. z
Policy 61 Maintain a continuing program to identify, acquire and develop viewing sites on the
island. (GP 7.3(c)) C
4.5.4 Based, C6HWboirative Actioirii
Community Action 4: Advance development of scenic routes. >
rMM
r�W-1
0
40
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 61
This section of the CDP encourages the removal of unexploded ordnance, the collaborative development
and implementation of resource management plans, the use of Hawaiian plants, and the enforcement
necessary to protect ecosystems.
.6. 1 Objectives
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 6: Encourage community-based management plans to assure that human activity doesn't
degrade the quality of Ka'u's unique natural and cultural landscape.
4. 6.2 IIL.. , IIIrii d Use MI5 dII ili c
Policy Intent
See Policy 25 on page 52.
Policy 62 Protect, preserve, and effectively manage forests, watersheds, shoreline areas, natural
areas, and rare or endangered species and their habitats. (GP 8.2(d) & (e), 14.1.2(c), &
14.8.2(b))
Policy Controls
See Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 14 on page 40, Policy 27 on page 52, Policy 28 on page 52, Policy 29 on
page 53, and Policy 52 on page 59.
Policy 63 The Director of Public Works should condition grading and grubbing permits to require
screen planting, landscaping, erosion control planting, or other treatments to maintain the
good appearance of graded areas and reduce the detrimental impact on adjacent
properties. (HCC 10-12(c))
.:iw. 3 Cauirlity %ct i o III"II
See Policy 22 on page 50 and Policy 31 on page 54.
Policy 64 Collaborate with the Department of Health, the Three Mountain Alliance, the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation District to
reduce runoff, maximize soil and water conservation, and protect and effectively manage
watersheds and natural areas. (HRS 342D, HAR 11-54-3, GP 4.3(g), 5.2(e) & (f), 5.3(e), (n),
& (o), and 8.2(e) & (j))
Policy 65 Actively implement the Honu'apo Park Resources Management Plan.
Policy 66 Complete and implement the Kawa Stewardship plan.
Policy 67 Develop and implement resource management plans for coastal properties secured by the
County in the future.
62 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Policy 68 Encourage the use of Hawaiian plants (indigenous and Polynesian -introduced plants) by
state, county, and private landowners in order to support a Hawaiian sense of place, to 401�����°�/
ensure that our cultural heritage is reflected in landscaping, and to help reverse the
displacement and decline of Hawaiian plants.
0a11w000 /
4.6.4 Advocacy
4.6.4.1 U.S. Congress
■ Provide sufficient funding to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Pacific Islands Area (PIA), the Farm Service Agency, the National Park Service (NPS),
and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to adequately implement critical conservation programs.
4.6.4.2 Army Corps of Engineers
■ Expedite the removal of unexploded ordnance in the vicinity of Pakini Nui, including additional
surveying of potential sites with unexploded ordnance. rMM
4.6.4.3 State Legislature
■ Provide the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) the resources necessary to actively
support local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD).
■ Authorize and fund a South Hawai'i Marine Protected Area (MPA).
4.6.4.4 Department of Health
■ Require implementation of management measures to prevent nonpoint source pollution.
4.6.4.5 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Following the recommendation of the South Kona-Ka'u Coastal Conservation Task Force, dedicate at
least one State DOCARE officer to the Ka'u district to aid in enforcement.
4.6.4.6 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
■ Maintain the Ka Lae (South Point) coastal areas and related infrastructure for recreational, cultural,
education, and/or scientific uses in a manner that is protective of resources and is consistent with
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and all applicable laws related to Native Hawaiian rights and
public shoreline access. (GP 8.3(c) & 12.5.9.2(d)).
4.6.4.7 Three Mountain Alliance (TMA)
• Strengthen the community and County role in the TMA.
■ Actively implement the Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP), the Rain Follows the Forest
plan, and the Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan.
���/��oo/
■ Develop watershed management plans for high priority watersheds.
4.6.5 Based, C6lllllaboii,atiive Actiioii,'ii
R Ile
Community Action 5: Develop and implement site-specific and watershed -specific management plans
for high priority areas and resources.
d/ ,rilllUV
dI�UlN�O
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvrnrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 63
Community Action 6: Promote soil and water conservation best practices.
See Community Action 19 on page 83 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
64 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP prioritizes the preservation of cultural resources, historic buildings, and roads
and the development of historic streetscapes and rural road standards. It also guides community -led
efforts to restore historic sites and buildings, retain village and town character, and document oral,
written, and video histories.
4. . 1 Objectives
■ Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka'u's unique cultural assets, including archeological
and historic sites and historic buildings.
■ Objective 5: Establish and enforce standards for development and construction that reflect
community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
■ Objective 6: Encourage community-based management plans to assure that human activity doesn't
degrade the quality of Ka'u's unique natural and cultural landscape.
4.7.2 III aIII°Iid Use i5dllilc
Policy Intent
See Policy 24 on page 52.
Policy 69 Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and
cultural importance to Hawai'i. (GP 6.2(a))
Policy 70 Protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and
religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native
Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the
State to regulate such rights. (Hawai'i State Constitution, Article 12, section 7; HRS §§ 1-1
& 7-1; Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Aina v. Land Use Comm'n, 94 Hawai'i 31 (2000); Pele Defense Fund
v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578 (1992))
Policy Controls
See Policy 12 on page 40, Policy 14 on page 40, Policy 27 on page 52, and Policy 52 on page 59.
Policy 71 Review and comment by DLNR's State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) shall be
requested for any permit or entitlement for use which may affect any building, structure,
object, district, area, or site that is over fifty years old, except as provided in HRS section
6E-42.2. (HRS 6E-42)
Policy 72 In the "Low Density Urban" (LDU) and "Medium Density Urban" Land Use Policy Map
categories, in those cases where provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes are
inconsistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, variances or PUDs that
maintain consistent village/town character should be encouraged.
Policy 73 The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with
minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and
design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. (GP 14.3.3(f))
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 65
/Il�m�����
l
. ji 0p0pmii
000
a����OPJ"°Goo
Policy 74 As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage,
walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs when improving existing roads in
Mala, N5'51ehu, and Wai'ohinu, retain the current road design, including pavement
width and lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales.
Policy 75 As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage,
walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs, new roads (both public and
private) in the Ka'u CDP planning area may be constructed without curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. (HCC 23-41, 86, 87, & 91)
See Policy 22 on page 50 and Policy 31 on page 54.
Policy 76 Restore and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural
importance to Hawai'i. (GP 6.2(a) and 6.3(e), (f), & (j))
Policy 77 Adopt and implement street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate,
flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the rural character of an area, including
pavement width, unpaved shoulders/swales, rock walls, lighting, and landscaping
featuring native plants. (GP 13.2.3(1); North Kohala CDP Strategy 4.8)
Policy 78 Install an historic streetscape on Kamani Street in Mala.
4.7.4 Advocacy
4.7.4.1 State Legis/ature
■ Following HRS 6E, provide the Department of Land and Natural resources sufficient staff and
funding for the State Historic Preservation Division to fulfill its mandate.
4.7.5 Based, C6llllWbouI�atiive Act:llloiriis
See Community Action 2 on page 51 and Community Action 4 on page 61.
Community Action 7: Develop and implement a regional plan for managing cultural and historic
resources.
Community Action 8: Develop and implement site-specific cultural resource management plans for high
priority areas and resources.
Community Action 9: Restore the Na'alehu Theater.
Community Action 10: Develop and implement place -based strategies to retain village and town
character.
Community Action 11: Document, maintain, and share the mo'olelo of Ka'u through oral, written,
and/or video histories.
Community Action 12: Establish a Ka'u Cultural Network.
See Community Action 19 on page 83 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
66 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP ensures appropriate public access to the shoreline and mauka forests, guides
community -led access management, and prioritizes a County public access program.
4. 8.1 Objectives
■ Objective 3: Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems, including mauka forests and the shorelines,
while assuring responsible access for residents and for visitors.
■ Objective 6: Encourage community-based management plans to assure that human activity doesn't
degrade the quality of Ka'u's unique natural and cultural landscape.
4.8.2 III aiii°Iiid Lui;ae lI5olilc
Policy Intent
See Policy 70 on page 65.
Policy 79 Ensure appropriate public access to the shoreline, public trails, hunting areas, scenic
places and vistas, and significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest.
Additionally, ensure access for cultural practitioners. (GP 6.2(b), 7.3(a), and 8.3(r))
Policy Controls
Policy 80 Appropriate public access to and along the shoreline shall be ensured as a condition of
SMA exemptions and permits. (HRS 205A-26)
Policy 81 Subdividers of six or more lots, parcels, units, or interests shall be required to dedicate
land for public access for pedestrian travel from a public highway or street to the land
below the high-water mark on any coastal shoreline or to areas in the mountains where
there are existing facilities for hiking, hunting, fruit -picking, ti -leaf sliding, and other
recreational purposes, and where there are existing mountain trails. (HRS 46-6.5 and HCC
34-4(c))
4. 8.3 CoIIIxIIIity Am tIIIoIII"I11
See Policy 22 on page 50.
Policy 82 In co-sponsorship with the State when possible, acquire land for public access to historic
sites and objects and to the shoreline where safe transit does not already exist. (115-2 &
7; GP 6.3(d))
Policy 83 Establish and maintain an active public access program.
4.8.4 Advocacy
4.8.4.1 State Legislature
■ To facilitate greater public access to and along the shoreline and elsewhere, amend HRS 520,
HawaiTs Recreational Use Statute (RUS), to make it less ambiguous and to discourage frivolous
lawsuits.
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 67
4.8.4.2 Three Mountain Alliance (TMA)
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'u Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to:
o Maintain existing public access roads
o Increase public access for hiking and other recreational activities on public lands
o Support public hunting on appropriate lands, where compatible with watershed protection
values
o Establish access agreements and management partnerships with landowners and local
ranchers, farmers, and hunters
o Develop new access routes to increase access in cooperation with neighboring uses,
particularly on existing roads or other alignments just within the Reserve boundary, and
across private and State -leased lands below the Reserve
o Develop a mauka access management system, building on lessons learned from the
Kapapala Ranch access system.
4. 8.5 Based, C6llllWbolii,at:IIIve Act:lllo ii,'ii
Community Action 13: Develop and implement plans to establish and manage specific access points and
trail segments.
68 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP prioritizes and guides the development of a regional network of trails.
4. 9.1 Objective
■ Objective 8: Establish a rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway 11,
a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system.
4.9.2 III a III°Ii d LI ^„i e lI 5o l it c
Policy Control
Policy 84 Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural water course, drainage way, channel, or
stream, the Planning Director should require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle path
when the opportunity exists to connect to existing or future drainage or trail corridors.
(HCC 23-30)
." Coliijuii"I'ty Am tIoilll°'In
Policy 85 Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural or
recreational values. This system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an island -wide
route connecting major parks and destinations. (GP 12.3(m))
Policy 86 Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of
Understanding in Ka'u.
Policy 87 Appropriate, finance, allot, and encumber capital improvement projects in support of trail
development as part of a regional trail system.
4. 9.4 Advocacy
4.9.4.1 National Park Service
■ Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of Understanding in
Ka'u.
4.9.4.2 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of Understanding in
Ka'u.
4.9.4.3 Three Mountain Alliance
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'u Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to:
o Maintain existing trails in the TMA area
o Facilitate development of the Mauna Loa Trail.
4.9.5 Based, C6lllllaboii,at:ilive Act:ilio ii,'ii
See Community Action 13 on page 68 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 69
r0,
This section of the CDP prioritizes and guides the development and management of access and trail
facilities.
. 1 .1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
.1 .2 Coliijii"Irty Act:id0 ii"lIn
See Policy 22 on page 50, Policy 65 on page 62, and Policy 67 on page 62.
Policy 88 Establish the Punalu'u-Ninole Springs region as a recreation area. (GP 12.5.9.2(c) & (g))
4.10.3 Advocacy
4.10.3.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Establish Ka'alu'alu Bay or nearby coastal areas as a remote camping -beach park provided that the
state and private landowners can resolve liability and resource management issues. (GP 12.5.9.2(e))
■ Develop wilderness recreation uses in Manuka.
4.10.3.2 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
See 4.6.4.6 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on page 63.
4.10.3.3 Three Mountain Alliance (TMA)
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'G Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to develop
low -impact recreational amenities.
.10.4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ilioii"iIn
Community Action 14: Support facilities development and management at access points and along trail
corridors.
70 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
Ho'omoe wai kahi ke kao'o.
Let all travel together like water flowing in one direction.
'Olelo no'eau, 1102
Section 5 prioritizes improvements in infrastructure, facilities, and services, including:
■ Water system improvements in Ocean View, N5'51ehu, Wai'ohinu, Pahala, and for existing Hawaiian
farmsteads in the South Point area (Section 5.2)
■ Road and streetscape improvements (Section 5.3), including Wood Valley Road and bridges,
Kama'oa Road, Ka'alu'alu Road, South Point Road, and highway improvements
■ Alternate routes connecting Kapapala, Wood Valley, Pahala, and N5'51ehu as well as Green Sands
and Mark Twain (Section 5.4)
■ Mass transit routes and shelters (Section 5.5)
■ Emergency and health services and facilities (Sections 5.6 and 5.7), including fire and police stations,
fire trucks, ambulances, sirens, helipads, an Ocean View shelter, police officers, and hazard
mitigation plans
■ Environmental management facilities (Section 5.8), including expanded sewer lines, the Ocean View
transfer station, green waste facilities, and improvements in the Pahala transfer station
■ Educational and library facilities and programs (Section 5.9)
■ Park facilities and services in each community and along the coast (Section 5.10).
...�lddadpdpdp �oliloilo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� rtrrrr iii.i .... i..,„
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 71
w
..�1 11 74130=
This section of the CDP guides the coordination of regional infrastructure improvements.
5.1. 1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5.1.2 IIL.. ,III°°Ii d U flew e i:3 dI i c i e flew
Policy Controls
See Policy 1 on page 38, Policy 3 on page 39, Policy 4 on page 39, and Policy 5 on page 39.
5.1.3 CaiuiriIrty Act:idolll°�Ii
Policy 89 Implement capital improvement priorities in Ka'u.
Current capital improvement priorities for Ka'u include:
■ Water system improvements (see Policy 93 on page 74)
■ Road improvements (see Policy 95 on page 75, Policy 96 on page 75, Policy 97 on page 75, Policy 98
on page 75, Policy 99 on page 75, Policy 100 on page 75, and Policy 103 on page 77)
■ Emergency services and facilities (see Section 5.6.2 on page 79)
■ Wood Valley Road bridge replacement (see Policy 104 on page 77)
■ Environmental management facilities (see Section 5.8.2 on page 81)
■ Park facilities (see Policy 88 on page 70 and Section 5.10.2 on page 83)
■ Regional trail development (see Section 4.9.3 on page 69)
■ Streetscape improvements (see Policy 78 on page 66).
Policy 90 Implement protocols for receiving community input at meetings in Ka'u during capital
project siting and design. Consult with and solicit input from community members with
generational knowledge to minimize the impact of proposed changes to the use of land on
cultural practices, cultural sites, and culturally significant areas, including burials.
Policy 91 Provide technical support to communities and organizations pursuing capital
improvement financing through USDA Rural Development, infrastructure improvement
financing districts, and other sources.
Policy 92 Support use of the Air National Guard Innovative Readiness Training (ANG IRT) program in
the development of infrastructure programs and projects.
72 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
5.1.4 Advocacy
5.1.4.1 Department ofAccounting and General Services, State of Hawaii and US Postal
Service
■ Improve the N5'51ehu Civic Center, including additional parking and building updates.
5.1.5 Based, C6HWboii,ative Act ioii,'ii
Community Action 15: Actively advocate for CIP appropriations, financing, allotments, and
encumbrances that support implementation of the CDP.
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 73
I
0
40
This section of the CDP prioritizes the improvement of existing potable water systems to support infill
growth.
5. .1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5.2.2 Colii�jIII°'Irty Act:id0 ii"lIn
Policy 93 Water system improvements shall correlate with the County's desired land use
development pattern. (GP 11.2.2(a))
Importantly, County water distribution systems shall not be extended outside the growth
boundary defined in the Ka'G CDP Land Use Policies and Policy Map, with the exception of
water designated specifically for and limited to agricultural irrigation and livestock.
Implementation of this policy is supported by several existing policies and capital projects
appropriated by the County Council:
■ Continue to evaluate growth conditions to coordinate improvements as required to the
existing water systems in N5'51ehu, Wai'ohinu, and Pahala. (GP 11.2.4.8.2(a, c)) The
focus shall be on improvements to existing systems to support infill growth within the
CDP growth boundary.
■ Pursue groundwater source investigation, exploration, and well development at Ocean
View, Pahala, and Wai'ohinu. (GP 11.2.4.8.2(b))
■ Improve the water system in Ocean View, including improved water quality with, for
example, enhanced filtration systems, the development of a backup source, and, if
possible, additional pumping capacity and service to the commercial areas. (Ocean
View Business District Water Infrastructure Improvements, Ordinance 12-152)
■ Support Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) efforts to increase the availability
of water to existing lots in the South Point area. (South Point Road Water Infrastructure
Expansion Project, Ordinance 12-87)
See Policy 138 on page 88.
5.2.3 Advocacy
5.2.3.1 Department of Hawaiian Home/ands (DHHL)
■ Collaborate with the Department of Water Supply to implement the DHHL Regional Plan for Ka'a by
increasing capacity of the South Point water system to accommodate existing lots.
5.2.4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ilio ii,'In
See Community Action 15 on page 73.
74 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP maintains road connectivity, prioritizes flood prevention and road
improvements, and guides road improvements in Mark Twain and Green Sands subdivisions.
5.3.1 Objective
■ Objective 8: Establish a rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway
11, a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system.
5.3. III;,VIII°'id Use lI56l1c
Policy Control
Policy 94 All subdivision in the Ka'u CDP planning area, including condominium property regimes
(CPRS) and planned unit developments (PUDs), should conform to connectivity standards
in HCC 23-28, 29, and 40 of the Hawai'i County Code.
5. 3.3 Coijii"I'ty Am tlu0ii"lIn
Policy 95 Install culverts and construct drainage channels and other related improvements as
necessary to prevent flooding of roadways and other areas. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(b))
Policy 96 Improve safety along Kama'oa Road, Ka'alu'alu Road through Green Sands, and South
Point Road from Highway 11 to Kama'oa Road.
Policy 97 Improve safety on Wood Valley Road, possibly including posted speed limits, lane
markers, and stop signs.
Policy 98 Make intersection improvements at Pikake, Koali, and Wood Valley Roads.
Policy 99 Prioritize the maintenance of County roads, including street lights, street signs, and
mowing.
Policy 100 Continue to maintain "roads -in -limbo" in coordination with the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands and shoreline public access plans.
Policy 101 Remove the N5'51ehu bypass from the General Plan transportation map.
5.3.4 Advocacy
5.3.4.1 Department of Transportation
■ Continue to improve Mamalahoa Highway, realigning where necessary and prioritizing shoulder
safety (particularly for bicyclists), including on the stretch of highway between Honu'apo and the
Ka'G Police Station. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(a))
■ Implement Bike Plan Hawai'i.
When implementing the Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan in N5'51ehu (Project 1-13), address
community concerns about the preservation of the trees and stone walls along the highway.
...�ladadpdpdp �olilouo o��o�:.. emu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 75
5.3.5 Based, C6llWboirat.11lve Act.111oiris
Community Action 16: In Mark Twain and Green Sands subdivisions, establish a community
development corporation (CDC) to develop and maintain roads and Green Sands Park.
76 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
5.4 Formalize Alternative Routes
This section of the CDP prioritizes formalizing and improving emergency alternative routes.
....., I1
t1q
Objective 8. Establish a
%VU GU00
rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway
11, a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system.
5. .2 Couui°'li'ty Act:idoui°�
Policy 102 Formalize emergency alternative routes through Kapapala Ranch between the highway
and Wood Valley Road. Mn
Policy 103 Secure improvement easements along Ka'alaiki Road. Ka'alaiki Road will continue to be
used as a minor, rural street for local traffic and as an alternate route to Highway 11 as
needed, so it will require safety improvements.
Policy 104 Replace Wood Valley Road bridges.
Policy 105 Establish an emergency alternative route connecting Green Sands and Mark Twain
subdivisions.
See Policy 118 on page 80.
5. 4.3 Based, C6HWboirative Act ii o iii°Ii
See Community Action 15 on page 73. M
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 77
This section of the CDP prioritizes bus system improvements, including a Ka'u loop route, an Ocean View
route, evening trips to Hilo and Kona, and bus shelters.
5.5. 1 41mx1M�6 ��'��'ll ��'��'ll I�AY ��'ll l��F �110i��V�IPb�u'+1'i����:��lli��e1����III1\n�'+1'i����:�
Q Q
■ Objective 8: Establish a rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway
11, a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system.
5.5.2 C fl;,;;%Q IIu III°�II't F Actioirli
Policy 106 Establish an intra -district bus loop route that circulates among and within all Ka'u
communities.
Policy 107 Provide bus routes for evening trips to Hilo and Kona.
Policy 108 Provide bus shelters in Na'alehu, Wai'6hinu, Discovery Harbour, and Ocean View.
Policy 109 Establish a bus route that circulates within Ocean View.
78 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP prioritizes new fire stations, upgraded emergency equipment, police station
improvements, a new police substation in Ocean View, civil defense warning systems, and the hardening
of other critical emergency infrastructure.
5.6. 1 01„i�uect� III ve
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5.6.2 CoijI iII Irt y Am,t IIIA',%"III"Ii
See Section 5.4.2 on page 77.
Policy 110 The number and location of emergency services facilities and personnel in Ka'u shall be
based on the population to be served and response time. (GP 10.3.2(e))
Policy 111 Address the backlog of facilities improvements in Ka'u (GP 10.3.4.8.2(a)), including:
■ Build a new fire station in N5'51ehu (Ordinance 12-87), Pahala, and Ocean View, in that
order of priority.
■ Upgrade trucks, ambulances, and other equipment for fire crews.
■ Make improvements in the N5'51ehu Police Station, including repairs, hardening,
hazardous materials abatement, energy efficiency, and ADA. (Ordinances 11-60 & 12-
150)
■ Build a new Ocean View Police Substation. (Ordinance 14-082)
Policy 112 Harden critical infrastructure to ensure its effective use after an earthquake, eruption,
and/or hurricane, including the Ocean View Fire Station, the Pahala Fire Station, the Ka'u
Police Station Generator Building, and the Ka'u Police Station (N5'5lehu Police Station).
Policy 113 Build the Kahuku Park Community/Senior Center, Gym, and Shelter. (Ordinance 12-87)
Policy 114 Ensure adequate placement and maintenance of civil defense warning systems.
Policy 115 Establish a helipad to support the provision of emergency services in Ka'u.
5.6.3 Advocacy
5.6.3.1 Hawaii Health Systems Corporation
■ Harden the Ka'u Hospital to ensure its effective use after an earthquake and/or hurricane.
■ Expand facilities and services to communities throughout the Ka'u district.
5.6.4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ilio ii,'In
See Community Action 15 on page 73.
...�ladadpdpdp 0olilouo 00000:.. 0mu em Muvr� nrrrr iii.i .... i.,, ,,
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 79
�..
This section of the CDP prioritizes four police officers on each shift, hazard mitigation plans, and the
expansion of Neighborhood Watch and CERT programs.
5. .1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5.7.2 Colii�jIII°'Irty Act:id0 ii"lIn
Policy 116 Ensure adequate police protection by maintaining at least four police officers on duty each
shift in the Ka'u District.
Policy 117 Actively expand the Neighborhood Watch and CERT programs. (GP 10.3.2(8))
Policy 118 In collaboration with residents, develop and adopt a hazard mitigation plan for each
community in Ka'u, including an evacuation clearance rate and evacuation plans and
routes. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(d))
Policy 119 Implement the Ka'u Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
5.7.3 Advocacy
5.7.3.1 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and Hawaii Volcano Observatory (USGS)
■ Work with the County of Hawai'i Civil Defense Agency on emergency response planning and
implementation for natural disasters, such as seismic or eruptive events.
5.7.4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ilio ii,'In
See Community Action 15 on page 73.
Community Action 17: Grow existing Neighborhood Watch and CERT teams, and develop new ones.
80 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP prioritizes expanded wastewater systems, the new transfer station in Ocean
View, improvements to the recycling area in Pahala, and green waste drop-off and mulch pick-up sites.
5. .1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5. 8.2 CoIIIjIIIII't' F +itc tIII0III"II
Policy 120 Extend the primary wastewater collection lines in Pahala and N5'51ehu so that infill
development projects can connect wastewater systems built for new subdivisions to the
County systems.
Policy 121 Build the solid waste transfer station in Ocean View. (GP 10.5.4.8.2(a))
Policy 122 Implement plans to improve the recycling area at the Pahala Transfer Station.
Policy 123 In consultation with residents, farmers, and vector control experts, add green waste drop-
off and mulch pick-up sites in Ka'u, with strict control of invasive species, pests, and
disease.
5. .3 Advocacy
5.8.3.1 Department of Health
■ Rather than universally prohibit cesspools, establish place -specific policies based on analysis of local
environmental conditions.
■ Make an affordable financing mechanism available for cesspool -to -septic conversions.
5. .4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Actilio ii,'In
See Community Action 15 on page 73.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 81
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
OF
This section of the CDP prioritizes and guides the development of a school and library in Ocean View as
well as improvements in educational and library facilities throughout the district.
5. .1 Objective
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
Policy 124 Support the development of charter and other public schools in Hawaiian Ocean View
Estates subdivision, including on County -owned parcels.
5.9.3 Advocacy
5.9.3.1 State Legislature
■ Appropriate funding for a K-8 school in Ocean View.
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
■ Continually improve existing educational facilities. (GP 10.2.4.6.2(a))
■ Plan a K-8 School at Ocean View. (GP 10.2.4.6.2(b))
■ Continually improve educational opportunities in Ka'G, including the diversity of course offerings,
additional qualified staff, and expanded extra -curricular activities.
■ Support the development of charter schools in Ka'G.
5.9.3.3 State Libraries
■ Establish a library branch in Ocean View.
■ Continually improve library facilities, services, and inventory in Ka'G.
■ Establish joint community -school library facilities, where a separate community library may not be
feasible, in proximity to other community facilities. (GP 10.2.2(c))
5.9.3.4 Department of Education, University of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and
Kamehameha Schools
■ Collaborate to use existing and new facilities (e.g., schools, community centers, Ka'G Resource and
Distance Learning Center, Ho'omalu Ka'G, Honu'apo, Punalu'u) to offer place -based and distance
education opportunities to adults.
5. .4 Based, C6llllWboii,at:ilive Act:ioiillis
Community Action 18: Establish a charter school in Ocean View.
See Community Action 22 on page 86.
82 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
This section of the CDP prioritizes the Kahuku Park Community/Senior Center, Gym, and Shelter, a
swimming facility in Na'alehu, skate and ATV parks, and the continual improvement of park facilities.
5.1 .1 UPbject�IIIve
■ Objective 7: Identify viable sites for critical community infrastructure, including water, emergency
services and educational facilities to serve both youth and adults.
5.10.2 CoIuIIIIi'ty Am tIIIoIII°Ii
See Policy 22 on page 50, Policy 65 on page 62, Policy 88 on page 70, and Policy 113 on page 79.
Policy 125 Continually improve park facilities and services in Ka'u, including fields, courts,
playgrounds, lighting, restrooms, signage, and youth programs.
Policy 126 Acquire land surrounding Whittington Beach Park to allow for its expansion and the
construction of a parking area. (GP 12.5.9.2(h))
Policy 127 Develop parks in Ocean View, commensurate with population growth. (GP 12.5.9.2(b))
Policy 128 Build a swimming facility in N5'51ehu and Ocean View. (GP 12.5.9.2(a))
Policy 129 Collaborate with a "friends of the park" group to develop and manage an ATV
track/course in an area of no ecological or cultural value.
Policy 130 Collaborate with a "friends of the park" group to develop and manage skate parks in
N5'51ehu and Ocean View.
5.10.3 Based, C6llllWboul�at:ilive Act:iuoirii;;,iw
See Community Action 14 on page 70, Community Action 15 on page 73, and Community Action 16 on
page 76.
Community Action 19: Collaborate with the County Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and
manage an ATV track/ course in an area of no ecological or cultural value.
Community Action 20: Collaborate with the County Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and
manage skate parks in Na'alehu and Ocean View.
See Community Action 29 on page 97.
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 83
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
�GyG ��U00
�GGGGGGG
�LGG`°°°°°GGA
84 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
I ha'aheo no ka lawai'a i ka lako i ka'upena.
The fisherman may well be proud when well supplied with nets.
Olelo No'eau #1152
The Ka'G CDP supports economic development in three ways: 1) establishes firm foundations for growth,
2) outlines strategic steps to seize sector -specific market opportunities, and 3) provides a road map to
guide coordinated, community -led economic development strategies.
Establish Solid Foundations: Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the CDP establish a solid foundation for economic
development. In most communities, and in Ka'G in particular, the greatest economic assets are natural
and cultural resources, like watersheds, agricultural land, coastal resources, and historic features.
Section 4 of the CDP uses a wide range of strategies to ensure proper stewardship of these unique,
place -based resources.
Economic development also requires appropriate facilities and services to support businesses and
provide a high quality of life, like water, roads, emergency services, waste management, education, and
parks. Section 5 of the CDP prioritizes those investments in Ka'G.
Economic development also requires room for growth. The CDP's land use policies in Section 3 as well
as other related strategies provide expansive room for development, including:
■ Residential, commercial, and industrial infill growth in Pahala, N5'51ehu, and Ocean View (Section 3)
■ Residential and small-scale commercial development in Discovery Harbour (Section 3)
■ Small scale commercial services, bed and breakfast establishments, guest ranches, lodges, and
recreational facilities in rural and agricultural areas (Policies 40 and 41)
■ A community-based approach to redeveloping Punalu'u (Community Action 29).
Seize Market Opportunities: Ka'G has opportunities for economic development in several
complimentary sectors — agriculture, renewable energy, payment for ecosystem services, health and
wellness, education and research, community tourism, and retail. Most of Section 6 is organized by
these sectors. Though each sub -section typically includes policies and advocacy items, growth in each
sector will mostly be dependent on implementation of the Community Actions, which are detailed in the
"Community -Based Collaborative Action Guide."
Coordinate Regionally: There are several demonstrated ways in which communities like Ka'G can play
proactive roles in their own economic development, and there are many resources available to support
such an approach. However, to be most effective, community-based economic development should be
employed in a strategic, coordinated manner. Therefore, the CDP provides a road map (Community
Action 21) to guide coordinated, pro -active community leadership to advance economic development by
enhancing regional identity, building local industry clusters, engaging anchor institutions, advancing
innovation, building entrepreneurial and business capacity, strengthening workforce development
pipelines, building and retaining local wealth, and promoting Ka'G.
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 85
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
9
7 a, • a, a, +i, 0 0 ' a,
This section of the CDP guides the implementation of regional economic development strategies,
including an education, enterprise development, and research network and regional strategies to
increase "buying local."
6. 1. 1 UPbjectIIIve
■ Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs and
entrepreneurial opportunities that complement Ka'u's ecology, culture and evolving demographics.
6.1. Couirlity %ctIIIoIII°�II
Policy 131 Collaborate with the private sector to identify business needs, strengthen existing
industries, and diversify the economy by attracting new endeavors. (GP 2.2(c, d, e), 2.3(m,
M
Policy 132 Advance economic development that enhances and is balanced with the County's natural,
cultural, and social environments. (GP 2.2(a, b, d), 2.4.9.2(a, c))
Policy 133 Promote a distinctive identity for Ka'u. (GP 2.3(0))
Policy 134 Align the clusters and priority projects in the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) with the objectives, policies, and actions in the Ka'u Community
Development Plan.
Policy 135 Commission a study of Economic and Financial Impact Reviews and propose
recommendations for their integration into the regulatory review and approval process
(e.g., the Environmental Impact Statement process and community benefits agreements).
(GP 2.2(h), 2.3(y))
6.1." Based, C6llllWbouI�at:ilive Act:iuoiriis
Community Action 21: Coordinate regional, cross -sectoral economic development strategies.
Community Action 22: Develop a high-tech, high -touch regional education, enterprise development,
and research network.
Community Action 23: Coordinate regional strategies to increase "buying local."
86 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
.4, q 2w * .4y .4, �,
This section of the CDP preserves opportunities to live off the land.
fµmm0b�ectuiiiViieiii°°I9�i.I�I�Pres�ervUh,`�ti„�V�°n�m:'�'��:id��'�°n�
Preserve and greatly enhance na'ohana economy.
6. 2.2 IIa iir'ii d Use MI5 6II iii c
Policy Intent
See Policy 24 on page 52, Policy 25 on page 52, Policy 62 on page 62, Policy 70 on page 65, and Policy
79 on page 67.
Policy Controls
See Policy 27 on page 52, Policy 38 on page 55, Policy 52 on page 59, Policy 80 on page 67, and Policy
81 on page 67.
6.2.3 Couirirty Am t ioi�rII
See Policy 82 on page 67 and Policy 83 on page 67.
6.2.4 Based, C6HWboirative Act ii oiii°Ii
See Community Action 13 on page 68 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 87
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
o
01 'L GGGGs
This section of the CDP guides efforts to strengthen the local agriculture value chain, including
agricultural land acquisition, agricultural parks and water systems, the diversification of agriculture -
based bue�sgiynepsseslll opn^ agricultural land, and agricultural tourism.
i���.�� .i���� 41mx1M�6Q ��'��'ll ��'��'ll I�AY ��'ll l��F Objective
1\�e
■ Objective 10: Encourage and enhance agriculture, ranching, and related economic infrastructure.
6. 3.2 IIa III°°Ii d Use MI5 dII ili c
Policy Intent
See Policy 32 on page 55 and Policy 35 on page 55.
Policy Controls
See Policy 38 on page 55, Policy 39 on page 56, Policy 40 on page 56, Policy 41 on page 56, Policy 42 on
page 57, and Policy 44 on page 57.
„iw. 3. 3 Cauirirty %ct i o III°II
See Section 4.3.3 on page 57.
Policy 136 Collaborate with the public and private sectors to preserve and expand the agriculture,
forestry, and fishing industries. (GP 2.3(a), 2.4.9.2(b), 14.2.2(c), 14.2.3(c, e, 1), 14.2.4.7.2)
In those cases where agricultural land is of high value for particular markets in which Ka'u has a unique
niche (e.g., coffee, macadamia nuts, grass-fed beef), the County should endeavor to protect that land for
agricultural use and secure long-term tenure on that land for local farmers. Potential courses of action
might include:
■ Collaborate with the USDA, the State, and land trusts to establish agricultural conservation
easements on the land. (see Policy 21 on page 50)
■ Secure the land in public trust using State, County, and private funds. (see Policy 22 on page 50).
■ Support the acquisition of the land by local agricultural organizations (e.g. community land trust,
cooperative, community development corporation), using financing from Farm Credit Services of
Hawai'i, the USDA, the Farm Service Agency, the Small Business Administration, or other lenders
that focus on funding small-scale agriculture.
Policy 137 Support the development of private and State agricultural parks to make agricultural land
available for agricultural activities. (GP 14.2.3(k))
Policy 138 Cooperate with appropriate State and Federal agencies and the private sector to develop,
improve and expand agricultural water systems. (GP 11.2.2(j))
Policy 139 Encourage the establishment of open farmers markets to allow local agricultural
producers to market their products. (GP 2.3(u))
88 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
Policy 140 Encourage, where appropriate, the establishment of visitor -related uses and facilities that
directly promote the agriculture industry. (GP 14.2.3(r))
Policy 141 Assist in the promotion of products produced in KaV (GP 2.3(t))
See Policy 150 on page 94.
6.3.4 Advocacy
6.3.4.1 Agribusiness Development Corporation
■ Expedite the redevelopment of the Ka'G irrigation system, including surveying of each of the source
tunnels, securing easements, completing the needed repairs, and executing a Memorandum of
Understanding for the management of the water system.
6.3.4.2 Board ofAgricuiture
■ Appoint a task force to explore the feasibility of a State agricultural park in Ka'G, identify potential
sites, and consider possibilities for joint ventures with private entities and/or the County.
6. .5 Based, C6llllWboii,atiive Act:lllo ii,'iis
Community Action 24: Strengthen the local agriculture value chain.
Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017 89
00% %%//"a'll����i,
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
OF
This section of the CDP guides the development of local, renewable, distributed energy networks while
prioritizing greater public review of commercial renewable energy projects.
6. .1 Objective
■ Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs
and entrepreneurial opportunities that complement KaVs ecology, culture and evolving
demographics.
6. 4.2 IIL..a III°°In d L,l flew e lI5 o III i c
Policy Controls
See Policy 38 on page 55 and Policy 58 on page 60.
6. 4.3 Colii�juii"IIrty Act:id0 ii"lIn
Policy 142 Encourage the development of alternate energy resources, providing they complement
existing agricultural uses and preserve ecologically and culturally significant areas. (GP
3.3(a, b, e, k, 1), 14.2.3(u))
Policy 143 Amend the Zoning Code to require Use Permits for commercial renewable energy projects,
mills, and major processing facilities in the County Agricultural Zone.
6.4.4 Advocacy
6.4.4.1 Legislature
■ Amend Hawai'i Revised Statues §205 to exclude commercial renewable energy projects, mills, and
major processing facilities as permitted uses in areas designated "Rural" on the County of Hawai'i's
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map.
6. .5 Based, C6llllWbolii,at:IIIve Ac'tIIIA ii,,ii°;,iw
Community Action 25: Develop local, renewable, distributed energy networks.
90 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
do
6.5 Pilot Payment for Ecosystem Services
This section of the CDP guides exploratory efforts to secure community payments for ecosystem
services.
00
00
■mm .: m IIbtini
Objective 11: Increase
o
the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs
and entrepreneurial opportunities that complement KaVs ecology, culture and evolving
demographics.
6. 5.2 IIL..a III°�Ii d L,l flewe lI5o III i c
Policy Intent
See Policy 25 on page 52 and Policy 62 on page 62.
Policy Controls rMM
See Policy 52 on page 59.
6.5.3 CoiuiriIrty Act:iliolll°'In
See Policy 64 on page 62.
rMM
Policy 144 The land and water shall be considered essential resources for present and future
generations and should be protected and enhanced through the use of economic
incentives and soundly managed for potential economic benefit. (GP 2.2(a, d), 2.3(h),
8.3(g))
6.5.4 Based, C6llllWbouIat:ilive Act:iuoirii;;,iw
Community Action 26: Pilot a program to secure community payments for ecosystem services (PES).
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 91
This section of the CDP guides the expansion of the regional network of health and wellness services.
6.6. 1 Objectives
■ Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs
and entrepreneurial opportunities that complement KaVs ecology, culture and evolving
demographics.
■ Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages
and towns capable of supporting Ka'G-appropriate growth.
6. 6.2 Colulll°�Iity ActIIIA',;%alll°�Ii
Policy 145 Encourage the health/wellness and retirement industries. (GP 2.3(n, x))
6.6." Based, C6llllWbolll�atalive Act:illollllls
Community Action 27: Establish a comprehensive network of health and wellness services
92 Ka'G Community Development Plan: April 2017
III
* .4, .4,
This section of the CDP guides the development of a regional education, enterprise development, and
research network.
6.7. 1
Objectives
Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs and
entrepreneurial opportunities that complement Ka'u's ecology, culture and evolving demographics.
6.7.2 Couirlity %ctIIIoIII°�II
Policy 146 Promote and develop the island of Hawai'i into a unique scientific and cultural model. (GP
2.2(h))
6. .3 Based, C6llllWbouI�at:ilive Act:iuoiriis
See Community Action 22 on page 86 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 93
GGGGGGG�'�a✓
9
01 'L GGGGs
#� #MURUMPT=0
This section of the CDP guides the development of a regional ho'okipa network — a place -based
approach to community tourism.
6. .1 Objectives
■ Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs
and entrepreneurial opportunities that complement KaVs ecology, culture and evolving
demographics.
■ Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages
and towns capable of supporting Ka'u-appropriate growth.
6. 8.2 IIa III°°Ii d Use MI5 6II ili c
Policy Controls
See Policy 5 on page 39 and Policy 6 on page 39.
:iw. . 3 C ou� irirty %ct i o III°II
See Policy 140 on page 89.
Policy 147 Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the character of
the area and environmental and social goals of residents. (GP 2.3(c), 14.7.5.9.2(a))
Policy 148 Encourage the visitor industry to provide facilities that offer an educational experience as
well as recreational activities. (GP 14.7.3(h))
Policy 149 Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor
accommodations. (GP 14.7.5.9.2(b))
Policy 150 Amend the Zoning Code to require Plan Approval for commercial open area recreational
uses in the County Agricultural District.
6. .4 Based, C6llllWbouI�at:ilive Act:iuoiriis
Community Action 28: Develop a regional ho'okipa network — a place -based approach to community
tourism.
See Community Action 29 on page 97.
94 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
9 Expand Local Retail
e
This section of the CDP guides regional strategies to increase "buying local."
6. m 1 Objectives
Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages
and towns capable of supporting Ka'u-appropriate growth.
6. 9.2 IIL.. , uirii d U flew e i:5 6II iii c
Policy Controls
See Policy 2 on page 38.
6. 9.3 Coiu�iii°�Irty Act:ids' iii°�Ii
See Policy 139 on page 88 and Policy 145 on page 92.
6. .4 Based, C6llllWboir,,rtiive Act:iiioiiriis
See Community Action 23 on page 86 and Community Action 29 on page 97.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 95
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
96 Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017
He naha ipu auane Ii o pa 'a i ka hupau humu.
It isn't a break in a gourd container that can be easily mended by sewing the parts together
'Olelo no'eau #831
A large number of CDP objectives and strategies intersect at Punalu'u, which has a rich ecological,
historical, and cultural legacy and is dear to the hearts of most residents to this day. This section
includes references to each of the policies, advocacy initiatives, and community-based, collaborative
actions that pertain to Punalu'u. Community Action 27 outlines a community -driven, collaborative
process for planning the future of Punalu'u.
. 1. 1 Ill...E"I u1`�111 d U flew e lI5 o III iii c
Policy Intent
See Policy 23 on page 52, Policy 24 on page 52, Policy 25 on page 52, Policy 53 on page 60, Policy 54 on
page 60, Policy 55 on page 60, Policy 62 on page 62, Policy 69 on page 65, Policy 70 on page 65, and
Policy 79 on page 67.
Policy Controls
See Policy 1 on page 38, Policy 5 on page 39, Policy 6 on page 39, Policy 8 on page 39, Policy 12 on
page 40, Policy 26 on page 52, Policy 27 on page 52, Policy 28 on page 52, Policy 29 on page 53, Policy
80 on page 67, and Policy 81 on page 67.
7.1.2 Coijiri'ty Am tidoiii°li
See Policy 22 on page 50, Policy 30 on page 54, Policy 59 on page 61, Policy 60 on page 61, Policy 76 on
page 66, Policy 85 on page 69, Policy 86 on page 69, Policy 87 on page 69, Policy 88 on page 70, Policy
89 on page 72, Policy 119 on page 80, Policy 147 on page 94, and Policy 148 on page 94.
7.1.3 Advocacy
See 4.2.4.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources on page 54 and 4.9.4.2 Department of Land
and Natural Resources on page 69, 4.6.4.4 Department of Health on page 63, 4.6.4.7 Three Mountain
Alliance (TMA) on page 63, and 4.9.4.1 National Park Service on page 69.
7. 1.4 Based, C6HWboirative Act ii o iii°Ii
See Community Action 2 on page 51, Community Action 3 on page 51, Community Action 4 on page
61, Community Action 5 on page 63, Community Action 6 on page 64, Community Action 7 on page 66,
Community Action 8 on page 66, Community Action 12 on page 66, Community Action 13 on page 68,
Community Action 14 on page 70, and Community Action 28 on page 94.
Community Action 29: Develop and implement plans for Punalu'u.
Ka'u Community Development Plan: April 2017 97
✓✓/ oGGGGGG�'��a
Ka'O Community Development Plan
Appendix V5: Strategy Rationale
as recommended ' Committee
for ! i !n by the County of
December 2015
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 2
Table of Contents
TABLEopCONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ /
TABLEopFIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................... III
TABLEopTABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... III
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... l
PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
WHERE DID THE KA'0CDP COME FROM? ........................................................................................................................... 1
How WERE CDP POLICIES IDENTIFIED? .............................................................................................................................. 1
SECTION 3: STRATEGY RATIONALE —ADVANCE PREFERRED CONSERVATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS .......... 3
3.1.4 Land Use Policy ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3.15 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 27
3.16 Comm unity8osed,Collaborative Action ............................................................................................... 28
SECTION 4: STRATEGY RATIONALE — PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ................ 29
4.1 EXPAND THE LOCAL SYSTEM opPRESERVES .......................................................................................................... Z9
4.1.2 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 29 r~n
4.1.3 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 32 M
4.1.4 Comm unity8osed,Collaborative Action ............................................................................................... 32
4.2 Pxorccrr*cCOAST FROM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 3Z
4.2.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 32 m���
4.2.3 [ountyAc�on---------------------------------------------'39 -��
Mn.2.4 Advocacy ------------------------------------------------40 =�
4.3 PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS & OPEN SPACE ................................................................................................... 4Z
4'3.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 42
��
4.3.3 [oun�yAc�on---------------------------------------------'�3 0�_�
4.3.4 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 57 ���
4�4 Pxorccr[W�om^Foxc�s------------------------------------------�59 m��~
4.4.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 59 --1
4.4.4 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 59 ���
4.5 PmscxvcSccm�AREAS ------------------------------------------- .60 � � m
4.5.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 60
4.5.3 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 63
4.5.4 Comm unity8osed,Collaborative Action ............................................................................................... 65
4.6 PROTECT AND ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS ................................................................................................................. 66
4.62 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 66
4.63 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 66
4.64 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 69
4.65 Comm unity8osed,Collaborative Action ............................................................................................... 73
4.7 PROTECT AND ENHANCE [oomwuAs ETs-----------------------------------.74
4.7.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 74
4.7.3 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 76
4.Z4 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 78
A 11,1111j,
4.7.5 Comm unity8osed,Collaborative Actions .............................................................................................. 78
4.8 ESTABLISH AND MANAGE PUBLIC ACCESS ............................................................................................................ 79
4.8.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 79
4.8.3 [ountyAction......................................................................................................................................... 79
4.8.4 Advocacy ................................................................................................................................................ 80
UP
4.8.5 Comm unity 8osed, Collaborative Action ............................................................................................... 82
4.9 ESTABLISH AND MANAGE AREGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 83
4.9.2 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 83
Strategy Rationale for the Ko'OCommunity Development Plan: December 015 i
4.9.3 County Action.........................................................................................................................................83
4.9.4 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................85
4.10 ESTABLISH AND MANAGE ACCESS AND TRAIL FACILITIES.........................................................................................87
4.10.2 County Action....................................................................................................................................87
4.10.3 Advocacy............................................................................................................................................87
4.10.4 Community -Based, Collaborative Action...........................................................................................87
SECTION 5: STRATEGY RATIONALE — STRENGTHEN INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES ......................89
5.1 COORDINATE INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITY, AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................89
5.1.3 County Action.........................................................................................................................................89
5.1.4 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................90
5.1.5 Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................90
5.2 IMPROVE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE....................................................................................................................91
5.2.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................91
5.2.3 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................92
5.3 ENHANCE THE ROADWAY NETWORK...................................................................................................................93
5.3.2 Land Use Policy......................................................................................................................................93
5.3.3 County Action.........................................................................................................................................94
5.3.4 Advocacy................................................................................................................................................95
5.3.5 Community -Based, Collaborative Action...............................................................................................96
5.4 FORMALIZE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES......................................................................................................................97
5.4.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................97
5.5 EXPAND MASS TRANSIT FACILITIES AND SERVICES.................................................................................................99
5.5.2 County Action.........................................................................................................................................99
5.6 STRENGTHEN EMERGENCY AND HEALTH FACILITIES..............................................................................................100
5.6.2 County Action.......................................................................................................................................100
5.6.3 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................101
5.7 EXPAND EMERGENCY SERVICES........................................................................................................................102
5.7.2 County Action.......................................................................................................................................102
5.7.3 Community -Based, Collaborative Action.............................................................................................103
5.8 IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.........................................................................................104
5.8.2 County Action.......................................................................................................................................104
5.8.3 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................104
5.9 STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND EDUCATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES...........................................................................105
5.9.2 County Action.......................................................................................................................................105
5.9.3 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................105
5.9.4 Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................106
5.10 EXPAND PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES......................................................................................................107
5.10.2 County Action..................................................................................................................................107
5.10.3 Community -Based, Collaborative Actions.......................................................................................107
SECTION 6: STRATEGY RATIONALE — BUILD A RESILIENT, SUSTAINABLE LOCAL ECONOMY................................109
6.1 COORDINATE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................109
6.1.2 County Action.......................................................................................................................................109
6.1.3 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................110
6.1.4 Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................111
6.3 STRENGTHEN LOCAL AGRICULTURE...................................................................................................................112
6.3.3 County Action.......................................................................................................................................112
6.3.4 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................113
6.3.5 Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................114
6.4 DEVELOP COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY......................................................................................................115
6.4.3 County Action.......................................................................................................................................115
6.4.4 Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................116
ii Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
6.4.5
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................116
Figure 2: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Regional..................................................11
6.5
PILOT PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES........................................................................................................117
6.5.3
County Action.......................................................................................................................................117
Figure 5: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: N5'51ehu....................................................................................14
6.5.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................117
6.6
GROW HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES..........................................................................................................118
Figure 8: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Wai'ohinu................................................17
6.6.2
County Action.......................................................................................................................................118
6.6.3
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................118
Sands...........................................................................................................................................................19
6.7
PROMOTE THE CREATIVE, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH SECTORS............................................................................119
20
6.7.2
County Action.......................................................................................................................................119
6.8
DEVELOP THE LOCAL VISITOR SECTOR...............................................................................................................120
6.8.3
County Action.......................................................................................................................................120
6.8.4
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions............................................................................................120
J 0 •.
Figure 1: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional.....................................................................................10
Figure 2: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Regional..................................................11
Figure 3: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Pahala........................................................................................12
Figure 4: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Pahala......................................................13
Figure 5: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: N5'51ehu....................................................................................14
Figure 6: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Na'alehu..................................................15
Figure 7: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Wai'ohinu..................................................................................16
Figure 8: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Wai'ohinu................................................17
Figure 9: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green Sands......................18
Figure 10: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green
Sands...........................................................................................................................................................19
Figure 11: Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View.............................................................................
20
Figure 12: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Ocean View...........................................21
Table of Tables
Table 1: Rationale behind Necessary LUPAG Map Amendments.................................................................7
Table 2: Permitted Uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone................................45
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 iii
'j'j1 ^D guy
�Jp��p�PBP
U" n
411
ap 8 8p8P
��pBP
A
�p�P�p�Jp�O
A�
✓o�'OgU ��8p�,.
�UA
dUJp�, ��Dv
✓oU' �����pXp
iv Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
D it
0
s ® s ,10
Purpose
This document is designed to explain the rationale behind CDP strategies. It includes all of the Ka'u
�1yp�, p4yp
Community Development Plan (CDP) strategies and the rationale behind them, with the exception of the 10"o
Community -Based, Collaborative Actions, which are explained in the "Community -Based, Collaborative
Action Guide."
The Ka'u CDP was developed in three stages, which are described in Appendix V2. Each stage was driven
by extensive community input and concluded with a clear decision by the CDP Steering Committee, the
volunteer advisory committee charged with recommending a CDP to the County.
During the first stage, community members identified core community values and a vision of what
they'd like to see in Ka'u in 2030, as summarized in Sections 1.2.4 and 1.4.1 of the CDP. At the end of
that stage, the Steering Committee affirmed a Values and Visions Statement that has since served as a
compass point guiding the planning process.
Next, a detailed profile of the community (Appendix V3) was developed based on community knowledge
and expertise as well as existing data, reports, and studies. Section 1.3 of the CDP summarizes the
community assets and challenges identified in the profile. That stage concluded when the Steering
Committee integrated the Values and Vision Statement with the Community Profile to develop the
twelve Community Objectives that the CDP is designed to achieve (listed in Section 1.5.1 of the CDP).
In the third stage, extensive research was conducted to identify the range of strategies that could be
used to achieve those objectives. From those strategies, a combination of policies and actions was
identified that, when implemented together, will realize the community's vision for the future. Those
strategies were compiled into the preliminary "working draft" of the CDP. The Ka'u CDP Steering
Committee reviewed that draft, discussed it, and made recommendations for revisions.
Next, the broader community and stakeholders had the same opportunity, and the Steering Committee
used that input to make further revisions before it was satisfied that the CDP truly reflects community
preferences.
How were CDP policies identified?
The Community Objectives are the foundation of the CDP. All of the CDP strategies are designed to
implement one or more of the objectives. Appendix V2 explains the process followed to identify
strategies to achieve Community Objectives.
To make that process as transparent as possible, supplements to Appendices V4A, VB, and VC include a
"strategy identification matrix" that was developed using (and makes specific references to) the��I�p�p
comprehensive content included in that appendix (available at www.kaucdp.info). The matrix
A/411111 `d48pypppp8p
�p�p�
summarizes current policies and action that are aligned with community objectives remaining policy
'
�'"%,
and action gaps, and the new policy, advocacy, and community-based, collaborative action needed to
,,,,��dUBp�.ppppBP
�ffli"p"°pp
N" dgyPpppBpy.
Af'0
achieve community objectives.
,p�ppDBpp
Offf�� 'Upp�U�pf
This document includes summaries of the rationale behind each of the CDP policies and advocacy4�,�Offl
�pPy�jp�'�P
QUA
strategies. Each rationale is based on the process represented in the corresponding strategy
ffffff � I�����
lippA pA�pO
identification matrix. To keep the rationale as concise as possible, only limited information from the
W
��k,'1,,a
�WfI A
A ���
Off
�U�p�pApD
Uppp�pA��P
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 1
appendix is repeated, though references direct the interested reader to relevant sections of Appendices
V4A, B, C, and D, which are available for review at www.kaucdp.info.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
3. 1. SI;,1 uirii d L,l flewe MI5 o III iii c
Policy Controls
Commercial, Industrial, and Resort Areas
Policy 1 Rehabilitate and develop within existing zoned urban areas already served by basic
infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development. (GP 14.1.3(b) and
14.1.3(j))
This policy is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 14.1.3(b): "Promote and encourage the rehabilitation and use of urban areas that are serviced by
basic community facilities and utilities."
■ 14.1.3(j): "Encourage urban development within existing zoned areas already served by basic
infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development."
For more information, see page 14 of Appendix V413.
Policy 2 Concentrate commercial uses within and surrounding central core areas in Mala,
N5'51ehu, and Ocean View and do not allow strip or spot commercial development outside
of the designated urban areas. (GP 14.3.3(e), 14.3.5.9.2(a, b))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 14.3.3(e): "Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core
area."
■ 14.3.5.9.2(a): "Centralization of commercial activity in the communities of Pahala, N5'51ehu, and
Ocean View and the area of the Volcanoes National Park shall be encouraged."
■ 14.3.5.9.2(b): "Do not allow strip or spot commercial development on the highway outside of the
designated urban areas."
For more information, see pages 13-17, 35, and 200 of Appendix V413.
Policy 3 Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services,
such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems. Should such services not be
available, the development of more intensive uses should be in concert with a localized
program of public and private capital improvements to meet the expected increased
needs. (GP 14.3.3(b))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.3.3(b): "Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas
adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems.
Should such services not be available, the development of more intensive uses should be in concert with
a localized program of public and private capital improvements to meet the expected increased needs."
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 3
UN , `d%p 011,
IgPPpP pPpPP
�I P
,�"'dPyp BpypPP
✓OJI��PPppppppppdi'•
✓/ 'pDppppppP�,
�pP pppppPB
✓e pppp�pp�.
l0//'PPpPPpPpP
jpPap��PPppPr
✓P%%%%� Ppp. 8p�,.
✓oT pPppPpPpP.
DIUdp� PpBpPv
IPPPpypPpPP
611j111014PpPPpPpPp
IyPPppPPypPp
611j11�" �PPpP PpPp
IgpPppPPypPp
��YI�P��PpBp
61116111 fff
ffffffI/'I �I ��
For more information, see pages 14 and 71 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 4 Industrial development shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation,
utilities, and other essential infrastructure. (GP 14.4.3(e))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.4.3(e): "Industrial development shall be located in areas
adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure."
For more information, see pages 13-17 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 5 Rehabilitate and optimize the utilization of designated resort areas that are presently
serviced by basic facilities and utilities and before new resorts are allowed in undeveloped
coastal areas. (GP 14.7.3(b & c))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 14.7.3(b): "Promote and encourage the rehabilitation and the optimum utilization of resort areas
that are presently serviced by basic facilities and utilities."
■ 14.7.3(c): "Lands currently designated Resort should be utilized before new resorts are allowed in
undeveloped coastal areas."
For more information, see page 152 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 6 The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should
complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty;
respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline
public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the
development. (GP 2.4.9.2(a & c), 9.3(g), 14.7.2(c), 14.7.3(i), 14.7.5.9.2(a))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.4.9.2(a): "Balance development with the social and physical environment of the area. Provisions
for orderly development, housing, and pollution controls shall be implemented."
■ 2.4.9.2(c): "Recognize the natural beauty of the area as a major economic and social asset. Protect
this resource through appropriate review processes when development is proposed."
■ 9.3(g): "Large industries or developments that create a demand for housing shall provide employee
housing based upon a ratio to be determined by an analysis of the locality's needs."
■ 14.7.2(c): Ensure that resort developments maintain the cultural and historic, social, economic, and
physical environments of Hawaii and its people.
■ 14.7.3(i): "Coastal resort developments shall provide public access to and parking for beach and
shoreline areas."
■ 14.7.5.9.2(a): "The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development shall
complement the character of the area."
For more information, see pages 72 and 152 of Appendix V4B and page 82 of Appendix V4C.
4 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Land Use Policy Map
All
"j0;u�"pppp"
dgpp Py
Policy 7 With the adoption of the Ka'u CDP, Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are adopted as the official��"p"°
���PdpyppppppP
Industrial zoning in Pahala and Na alehu and recognizes the need to designate an appropriate industrial
Opp"pp
Land Use Policy Map for the Ka'u CDP planning area. The land use category definitions are
U8 8p8P
�pp
identical to those used in the General Plan LUPAG map (and included in the Glossary).
����ppppP
Future land use decisions in the Ka'u CDP planning area shall be consistent with the Land
"p^
Use Policy Map boundaries, definitions, and policies herein.
p�p8p
111114 pppppp
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map in the County General Plan is a broad, flexible
IppypB
gpBp P
1114d4�P�pppp
design intended to guide the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational
8ppppppBP
manner. It indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each other.
�G'
6D�I���1��pPb
State land use boundary amendments, changes in zone, project districts, subdivisions, planned unit
developments, use permits, variances, and plan approval must be consistent with the General Plan and
the LUPAG map. Projects or applications that are not consistent with the LUPAG map require an
amendment to the General Plan, which requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and approval
of the County Council.
rMM
The land use category definitions used in the CDP Land Use Policy Map are identical to those used in the
General Plan LUPAG map. However, the CDP land use policies that support the preferred future
settlement pattern for Ka'u and related Community Objectives differ in some ways from the land use
pattern designated in the current General Plan LUPAG map. Therefore, in order to fully implement the
Ka'u CDP, the LUPAG map requires some amendments. Table 1: Rationale behind Necessary LUPAG
Map Amendments summarizes the necessary amendments and the reasoning behind them, and Policy
15 is the County Action required to make the necessary General Plan amendments.
See also the rationale for Policies 27, 38, and 52 related to Coastal Areas, Agricultural Land, and Mauka
Forests.
Economic Development
The Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map advances local economic development by protecting the natural and
cultural resource base, protecting lands for agricultural and renewable energy production, and clearly
identifying nodes for commercial enterprises and industrial uses.
Industrial Areas
In the General Plan, the "Industrial" LUPAG category is defined as "These areas include uses such as
manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial
and industrial -commercial uses."
To implement General Plan policy 14.4.5.9.2(a), which states that the County should "Identify sites
suitable for future industrial activities as the need arises," the CDP Land Use Policy Map mirrors existing
Industrial zoning in Pahala and Na alehu and recognizes the need to designate an appropriate industrial
Opp"pp
area in Ocean View to allow for the diversification of services and economic opportunities in the area.��p��p
The easement road in the Hawaiian Ranchos subdivision appears to be a good candidate for industrial
uses because of its relative isolation from other residential and agricultural uses in the area and its direct
%%%
r,,1,1111"udppp�p^p�
8pyppP
access to the highway.
p�p8p
111114 pppppp
IppypB
gpBp P
1114d4�P�pppp
Zones permitted in the areas designated Industrial include:
8ppppppBP
�G'
6D�I���1��pPb
o!'44,
61f'%I'I fI f�
✓0/I'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 5
■ Industrial -Commercial Mixed (MCX), which allows 45 foot heights and uses comparable to CG plus
minor agricultural products processing, kennels, nurseries, agriculture machinery sales, home
improvement centers, vocational schools, self -storage, food manufacturing, light manufacturing,
warehousing, and distribution.
■ Limited Industrial (ML), which allows most MCX industrial uses plus animal hospitals, greenhouses,
bakeries, bars, automobile sales and rentals, furniture manufacturing, cleaning plants, heavy
equipment sales and service, transportation terminals, junkyards, and recycling centers (not
processing).
■ General Industrial (MG), which allows most ML uses plus slaughterhouses, curing and tanning,
breweries, storage of explosives, concrete & asphalt mixing, fabrication, rock cutting, metal shops,
general manufacturing, dry docks, refineries, saw mills, auto body shops, dumps, recycling
processing centers.
A Special Permit, State Land Use district boundary amendment, and/or change of zone would still be
required in areas that do not already have industrial zoning, and those processes include safeguards to
prevent the introduction of uses that may not be appropriate in certain areas.
For more information about Policy 7, see pages 15 of Appendix V4A; pages 13-17, 125-130, 188-189, and
197-198 of Appendix V413; and Appendix V4D.
6 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Table 1: Rationale behind Necessary LUPAG Map Amendments
Forests and Coastal Areas
TMK or Area Current Category New Category Rationale
Mauka Forests
397001002
Conservation
Conservation
Nature Conservancy
Important Agriculture
reserves in the DLNR
priority watershed areas
397001003
Conservation
Important Agriculture
397001004
Extensive Agriculture
395015001
Extensive Agriculture
Important Agriculture
Olson reserve
398001014
State-owned Forest Reserve
and Game Management
Area in the DLNR priority
398001010
398001004
Conservation
Extensive Agriculture
watershed area
395013001 (State)
Extensive Agriculture
DLNR priority watershed
397001021 (State)
Important Agriculture
areas
396007002 (State)
396008039 (State)
396008038 (KS)
397001022 (State)
Pu'u Enuhe (TMK
Extensive Agriculture
Scenic & Natural Beauty
396003027 above
Important Agriculture
areas
the road)
Makenau and
Conservation on pu'u
nearby pu'u (within
Unchanged on plateau
TMK 395018001)
between pu'u
Shoreline
395006010 (State) Extensive Agriculture Conservation State Forest Reserve
Honu'apo
395014007
Extensive Agriculture
Conservation
Protected State land and
395014006
County park
395014005
395014004
395014003
395014002
395014027
395014052
395014001
395014049
395014046
Industrial
Extensive Agriculture'
Old mill site that is no
longer appropriate for
industrial uses
' Also requires an amendment to Table 14-5 in the General Plan.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
�QIUg�p��
"
NUp �f
1,1111#1110
d
�A
�p�P�p�Jp�O
U,�b A�
II�UI��d A��f
A�
Up 8p�,
✓PJf"7tk
Ph�� �8
Up 8p�,
Pyp
P
Ujj ,
ZW�/f p8
'��Py�p�pBP
Communities
TMK or Area Current Category New Category Rationale
P6hala
396012012
LDU
Important Agriculture
Connections to town over
channel impractical and
planted in coffee
396012027
LDU
Important Agriculture
Connections to town over
channel impractical
LDU areas outside
LDU
Important Agriculture
SLU Urban district includes
SLU Urban district
sufficient infill capacity
Neighborhoods
MDU
LDU
Concentrate more intensive
outside historical &
development (including
existing commercial
commercial) in the center
areas
of town near existing non-
residential uses
Industrial on
Industrial
LDU
Industrial footprint is larger
396002016, 018,
than necessary. Most likely
021, 024, and
future "industrial" uses are
396005054
permitted on agricultural
land. Core areas of town
should be available for infill
residential development.
N&diehu
Portions of
Urban Expansion
Extensive Agriculture
Align boundaries with SLU
395007016,017,&
Urban district. SLU Urban
029;395010001;
district includes sufficient
and 395011001
infill capacity.
395007016
Urban Expansion
LDU
Align boundaries with SLU
Urban district
395023001, 003,
Important Agriculture
LDU
Align boundaries with SLU
019,024;95021016
Extensive Agriculture
Urban district
LDU areas outside
LDU
Important Agriculture
SLU Urban district includes
SLU Urban district
Extensive Agriculture
sufficient infill capacity.
Residential lots on
MDU
LDU
Residential street should
the Wai'ohinu side
not be converted to other
of Niu Street
uses or higher densities
395021026 & 027
Industrial
MDU
Current structures and uses
and 395008034
are commercial, not
industrial.
Wai'ohinu
LDU boundaries mis-
Align boundaries with SLU
aligned with SLU
Urban district
district boundaries
Mis-match between
MDU, LDU, and Extensive
MDU
Align boundaries with
current MDU and
Agriculture (but zoned
existing zoning and uses
existing commercial
Industrial, CN -10, CV -20, RS-
& industrial core
15)
Z Also requires an SLU district boundary amendment, from Urban to Agriculture.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
TMK or Area
Current Category New Category
Rationale
395005002
Urban Expansion
Extensive Agriculture
SLU Urban district includes
sufficient infill capacity.
Hawaiian Home
Important Agriculture
DHHL Subsistence Agriculture
Change the properties in
Lands
Extensive Agriculture
= LUPAG Rural
DHHUs Kama'oa and
Wai'ohinu tracts to reflect
All other DHHL Ag lands=
DHHUs land use policies
LU PAG Extensive Ag
Discovery Harbour
All lots except the
Rural
Low Density Urban (LDU)
LDU category is more
golf course
consistent with the
residential nature of most
of the subdivision and with
the community's Protective
Covenants
Ocean View3
Urban Expansion
Urban Expansion
Extensive Agriculture & MDU
Narrow the scope of more
intensive urban
development to the area
currently developed for
commercial uses
392001069
Extensive Agriculture
Extensive Agriculture
Boundary between Rural
and Extensive Agriculture
aligned with parcel
boundary
Highway at Aloha
Rural
LDU
Allow for neighborhood -
and Tiki
scale commercial at major
HOVE entry/exit points
Hawaiian Ranchos
Urban Expansion and
Industrial
Provide consolidated
frontage road at
Extensive Agriculture
location for needed
Kohala Blvd.
industrial uses with highway
access
Ocean View makai
Extensive Agriculture
Rural
Rural category is more
consistent with the "rural
residential" nature of the
subdivision
3 Changes to LDU, MDU, and Industrial also require an SLU district boundary amendment, from Agriculture to
Urban.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
'Iu"'adpp �11p
�JpppppPBP
✓/ 'pDppppppp�,
p44 41,
✓oJf' pp�p�pp�.
�U�p�6pppppp
6DIIII�pUdp�pPpp�.
P
�pf
apppppppppp
P
9jpp� 8pyp
W 11111144
filp�ppppppp
l0/���ppppp��8p�,.
✓/�'p�pppp ppp
�l0/� ppppp��8p�,.
OJ�pppp 8p�,.
Opyppp Npyp
�I 8
,nIW d48py pppBP
6�W��IppP�p,pppBP
�" d4N p�pPr
Figure 1: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional
Land Use Policy Map
and Urban, Rural, Industrial & Resort Areas in Ka'u
t
Y
Pahala:
-- - Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Ocean View:
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Ninole-Punalu'u:
Resort Area (Minor)
Na'alehu:
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Wai'ohinu:
)an/Rural Center
LUPAG Designations
Conservation
Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Industrial
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Open Area
Resort N
Rural
Miles
0 5 10 20
( nunly of HaWdil PlamunK Department GIS - November 2111 5
10 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Figure 2: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Regional
`- County General Plan:
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)
and Urban, Rural, Industrial & Resort Areas in Ka'u
Honu'apo:
Industrial Center
Na'alehu:
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Wai'ohinu:
Ocean View: Urban/Rural Center
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Pahala:
Urban/Rural &
Industrial Center
Ninole-Punalu'u:
Resort Area (Minor)
w
LUPAG Designations
Conservation
Extensive Agriculture
Important Agricultural Land
Industrial Area
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Open
Resort
Rural N
Urban Expansion
Miles
0 5 10 20
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 11
Figure 3: Ka`O CDP Land Use Policy Map: Plhala
1 J %
1
PiJ _
t LL
:RANI s r
i
J c
7, -�
Land Use Policy Map
for Pahala
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
/WM Industrial
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban N
/3 Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
12 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Figure 4: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Pahala
g 1;
a
1
r
5
,
1 �
r. .'AM ;T 1
Q _ ;
- w
I
County General Plan
z / Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
p ' ` for Pahala
i'
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
important Agricultural Lands
P 9
Industrial
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
N
i Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
t,:,ari Planning Department GIS - .ymi 201 D
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 13
Figure 5: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Na`alehu
14 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Figure 6: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): W'51ehu
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 15
Figure 7: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Wai`ohinu
�`\ -i '� �✓�'J �'; ,-r ' �-'' ice_ _ -
t
i
IN, IN
IN 3
/ J 2
N
� HYy
rI a
1 TMK Property
Y� 1 (3)9-5-001:009 Commercial Centei
2 (3)9-5-001:031 Park
(j 3 13)9-5-001:007 Transter Station
l
Land Use Policy Map for Wai'ohin
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Low Density Urban
Medium Density Urban
Open Area
Rural
N
Feet
0 250 500 1,000
1,500
l <,u .ry ,r f hio, Flan wig tJ�I GIS
Novc-i16, t -'ail ;
16 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
OR O
Figure 8: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Wai`ohinu
NN
3
1
TMK Property
1 13)9-5-001:009 COn11T1e16,11 Centel
2 13)9-i-001:031 Pal k
3 13)9-5-001:007 Transtei Station
County General Plan
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
for Wai`ohinu
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture Medium Density Urbai
Important Agri. Lands Urban Expansion
Low Density Urban
Feet A
0 250 500 1,000 1.500 N
(OLAWIV of Hav, • Planning, Dtj)I GIS N%dy 101
2
M
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 17
Figure 9: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green Sands
YLL'T'r I
• � � � \�\�rll, It i� �.,
s`�
�
t
�
'�, Land Use Policy Map
t � for Discovery Harbour,
Mark Twain, & Green Sands
1
LUPAG Designations
Extensive Agriculture
Important Ag. Lands
Low Density Urban
1
Rural
r
Communities
Discovery Harbour
i
Q Green Sands N 111
Mark Twain Estates
/ Feet
/ 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Ccunty of Hawaii P!ann rg Department G S - %cvember ZOf:
i
18 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Figure 10: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain, & Green Sands
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 19
Figure 11: Ka`u CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View
20 Strategy Rationale for the Ka`u Community Development Plan: December 2015
o
o
u_ o
�Z
o
Zr
ti
.c
;o
Mo
M
-
~
.►
21
y
_
-
M
c
C
cN
-0o
RS
J
v
O
U
X -0N
w E
:3
-j 2Q�
o
N
Q
J
s.
0
y w tA�
q
oL
y
20 Strategy Rationale for the Ka`u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Figure 12: Current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Ocean View
EM
t
f
t
Jrr..
N
D o
U O
O Q co
�
> x
W
C
q ami ca
0
U W Of D
BE
i0
0
LO
N
a
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 21
v
V
cC
O
i
G
>
i
V
O
Od
U
Z
�
J
N
D o
U O
O Q co
�
> x
W
C
q ami ca
0
U W Of D
BE
i0
0
LO
N
a
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 21
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 8 In the "Low Density Urban (LDU)" Land Use Policy Map category in the Ka'u CDP planning
area, changes of zone shall only be permitted to Single -Family Residential (RS), Multiple -
Family Residential (RM -7.5 or higher), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX-7.5 or
higher), or Open (0). In Pahala, this policy supports a rezone of TMKs (3)9-6-002:016 &
023:034 from Agricultural (A -1a) and Industrial (ML -20 and MG -1a) to RS and/or O to take
advantage of existing water and road infrastructure.
In the General Plan, the Low Density Urban (LDU) category is defined as "Residential, with ancillary
community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall
residential density may be up to six units per acre." The only urban zones defined in the County Code
that limit densities to six units (or less) per acre are Single -Family Residential (RS), Multiple -Family
Residential (RM -7.5 or more), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX-7.5 or more), and Open. These
zones permit parks, community uses, residences, boarding and group living facilities, home occupations,
small scale commercial or personal services, convenience stores, medical clinics, and restaurants.
Some Resort zoning (V-7.5 or more) could also be permitted in LDU. However, it permits retail, auto
service stations, commercial parking, hotels, bars, nightclubs, cabarets, and other uses that are not
appropriate for primarily residential neighborhoods.
This policy also addresses some "legacy" zoning from the plantation era. Specifically, the large acreage
zoned Industrial in Pahala exceeds current industrial development, and there is large acreage zoned
Agricultural near the village core in Pahala. Both legacies are inconsistent with preferred future
settlement patterns that focus on infill residential and commercial development.
For more information, see pages 125-126 of Appendix V413.
Policy 9 If infill capacity is exceeded in areas designated "Low Density Urban (LDU)" on the Land
Use Policy Map in Pahala, it would be appropriate to designate TMK (3)9-6-005:001 as LDU
to take advantage of existing water and road connections.
Existing infill potential should accommodate growth projections in Pahala through 2030. There is a
diverse selection of vacant urban land to purchase and develop for urban uses. In Pahala, via
subdivision of parcels under existing zoning and without any water system improvements,
approximately 43 additional buildable lots could be created (456 are currently occupied).
However, as needed, future expansion should first be accommodated with the extension of water
service to TMKs (3)9-6-005:045, (3)9-6-005:036, and (3)9-6-005:054, portions of which are zoned RS.
51 -acre TMK (3)9-6-005:001 is currently zoned Ag -20a and planted in macadamia, but it sits adjacent to
a water line and two roads, and the subdivision directly makai was designed to accommodate street
extensions mauka, so it would be a logical site for future town extension. It would require water system
improvements and, if the number of dwellings exceeds 49, connection to the wastewater system.
For more information, see pages 125-126 of Appendix V413.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 23
9AAA�APAPyp
0U BAyp
5AA8
P
DAAA� dAPyp
�bAAA� BpAP
°°� AApAO
�I A
OSA°App
cn
M
r
M
9
M
Z
�UDAAAD��AA�
✓/� 'AAAA �AA�,
&AA AA 8f
d°AAA A
0/ °A AA AAA
A
DAAADI AApyD
6�DAA BpA,
IU�AU �AAAAN
Land Use Permitting
Policy 10 The Director of Planning shall offer a favorable recommendation to the Planning
Commissions, subject to appropriate conditions, only for those proposed zoning code
amendments that would further the intent and ensure consistency with the objectives
and policies of the Ka'u CDP. (HCC 25-2-42(c)(1) and 25-2-44)
It is important that future rezones in Ka'G be consistent with the objectives and policies of the CDP.
Pursuant to HCC 25-2-42(c)(1), when considering a proposed amendment to the zoning code, the
Planning Director shall recommend a change in a district boundary only where it would, among other
things, be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. The Director shall
recommend either the approval or denial of the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission
subject to conditions which would further the intent of the Zoning Code and the General Plan and other
related ordinances (e.g., Community Development Plans). Though it appears that "other related
ordinances" would naturally include CDPs, this policy ensures that the Planning Director's
recommendations on future rezones will be consistent with the Ka'G CDP.
For more information, see page 134 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 11 Variances from the zoning or subdivision codes (including PUDs) shall be carefully
considered relative to Ka'u CDP objectives and policies, and, when approved, shall be
conditioned to ensure consistency with the CDP. (HCC 23-6, 23-15(c), 23-18, 25-2-51(c), 25-
2-54(b), and 25-6-6(b))
The Planning Director can approve variances from provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes to
accommodate special circumstances, where no alternatives exist, and if they are consistent with the
General Plan and are not detrimental to the public welfare or cause substantial adverse impact to the
area's character or adjoining properties. The Director may also impose conditions on variances. This
policy simply requires that the Director consider and approve variances in a manner consistent with the
Ka'G CDP.
For more information, see pages 137-139 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 12 Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves
of trees, heiaus, and historical sites and structures, shall be preserved during subdivision.
(HCC 23-26)
Section 23-26 of the County's Subdivision Code specifies that "Outstanding natural or cultural features
such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves of trees, heiaus, historical sites and structures shall be
preserved as provided by the director." Moreover, pursuant HCC section 23-6, the Subdivision Code
shall be applied and administered within the framework of the County General Plan, including
comprehensive or general plans for sections of the County which may be adopted as amendments to or
portions of the County general plan.
In the Community Objectives for Ka'G, the following outstanding natural and cultural features are
identified: forest and shoreline ecosystems, viewscapes, archeological and historic sites, and historic
buildings. Moreover, the "Policy Intent" in the CDP is to protect areas endowed with natural beauty and
scenic vistas, including views to and along the shoreline. These natural and cultural features are defined
in other policy documents and in the CDP as follows:
24 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
■ Forest and shoreline ecosystems: The official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline
41
and mauka forests in Ka'u as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to Ka'u's rich
�p p8f
network of natural and cultural resources. These areas fall within the "Conservation" and "Open"
LUPAG categories in the Policy Map.
A
as well as other known archaeological sites, many (but not all) of which are catalogued by the State
1111111144
■ Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites includes the scenic view of
411111 �
shoreline between Pahala and Punalu'u, the view of Mauna Loa from Volcano-Ka'u Highway, and
✓oJf' 'DSP, �8p�.
the lava flows of 1868, 1887, & 1907, mauka and makai of the stretch of highway between Kahuku
6Dj11/UJ������AG
Ranch and the Ocean View subdivisions. Based on public input, the Ka'u CDP Community Profile
also identifies the scenic lookout between Whittington Beach Park and N5'51ehu on the makai side
of highway as a breathtaking panoramic view of the shoreline.
■ Areas endowed with natural beauty: The General Plan identifies natural beauty sites, including
Pohue Bay, South Point, Mahana Bay, Waiakukini, Ka'alu'alu Bay, Honu'apo, Kawa Bay, Ninole Cove,
�p Jp�P
Punalu'u, and prominent pu'u (cinder cones): 'Enuhe, Makanau, Kaiholena, and One.
■ Archeological and historic sites: These are sites on the National and State Registers of Historic Places
as well as other known archaeological sites, many (but not all) of which are catalogued by the State
Historic Preservation Division.
��p�b �8pyp
■ Historic buildings: HRS section 6E-2 defines "historic property" as any building, structure, object,
✓oJf' 'DSP, �8p�.
area or site, including heiau and underwater sites, which is over fifty years old.
6Dj11/UJ������AG
This policy is intended to protect those outstanding natural and cultural features as much as possible
without infringing on the Planning Director's authority to make informed judgments based site- and use -
specific characteristics.
MO
For more information, see pages 136-137 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 13 When considering waivers to the requirements of the zoning and subdivision chapters of
the County Code for consolidation and resubdivision actions in the Ka'u CDP planning
area, the Planning Director shall carefully consider how to best further the public welfare
relative to the objectives and policies of the Ka'u CDP. Specifically, the Director 1) should
confer with all appropriate agencies, 2) shall, if the new subdivision will include lots
smaller than otherwise permitted in the subject zone, endeavor to locate those smaller
lots in LDU, MDU, or Industrial areas and near existing towns/villages and thoroughfares,
and 3) shall require necessary improvements. (HCC 23-6, 23-7, and 25-2-11)
This policy is intended to require the Planning Director to use the authority in HCC sections 23-6, 23-7,
and 25-2-11 to achieve Community Objectives, which specify that the public welfare will be advanced by
protecting forest and shoreline ecosystems, assuring public access, preserving agricultural land,
enhancing viewscapes, concentrating new development in town/village centers, and protecting historic
buildings and archeological and historic sites.�114
Because of regulations specific to parcel consolidation and resubdivision of pre-existing lots of record
�p Jp�P
(PLOR), the 1,800 acres directly mauka of N5'51ehu, the 3,000 acres makai of N5'51ehu, the 1,500 acres
mauka of Honu'apo, and 300 acres mauka of Punalu'u may be subdivided into relatively small lots with���"°"°
limited or no infrastructure improvements and in a manner that may not be consistent with Community
Objectives.
��p�b �8pyp
✓oJf' 'DSP, �8p�.
6Dj11/UJ������AG
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 25
However, the Planning Director must confer with the Director of Public Works and the Manager of the
Department of Water Supply and may confer with other agencies. In addition, the Planning Director
may require improvements to further the public welfare and safety.
Given the location of the parcels in Ka'6 with PLOR, the Director of Planning should confer with the
DLNR's State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) for recommended historical and archaeological
resource management practices, the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for
recommended natural resource best management practices, and the State Department of
Transportation if the area abuts a State highway.
For more information, see pages 139-140 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 14 Plan approval and related conditions shall consider forest and coastal ecosystems,
agricultural lands, open space, viewscapes, areas of natural beauty, archeological and
historic sites, and historic buildings when assuring that proper siting is provided for,
proper landscaping is provided, unsightly areas are properly screened or eliminated, and
natural and man-made features of community value are preserved. (HCC 25-2-77(a) & 76)
Plan approval allows closer inspection of certain types of development in certain zones in order to
ensure conformance with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and conditions of previous approvals
related to the development. For example, plan approval is required for telecommunication antennas
and towers, all development outside Single-family Residential or Agricultural districts, and in the
Agricultural district prior to the development of any trailer park, major agricultural products processing
facility, or agricultural tourism activity. Plan approval may be required as a condition of approval of any
use permit, variance, or other action relating to a specific use.
Upon receipt of a detailed site plan, the Planning Director may issue plan approval subject to conditions
or changes in the proposal which, in the director's opinion, are necessary to carry out and further the
purposes of the Zoning Code. In addition, the Director considers the proposed structure, development
or use in relation to the surrounding property, improvements, streets, traffic, community characteristics,
and natural features and may require conditions or changes to assure proper siting is provided for;
proper landscaping is provided that is commensurate with the structure, development or use and its
surroundings; unsightly areas are properly screened or eliminated; and within reasonable limits, any
natural and man-made features of community value are preserved. The Director shall require any
conditions or changes in the proposal which, in the director's opinion, are necessary to carry out the
purposes above.
In the Community Objectives for Ka'u, the following community characteristics, natural features, and
natural and man-made features of community value are identified: forest and shoreline ecosystems,
agricultural lands, viewscapes, archeological and historic sites, and historic buildings. Moreover, the
consistent "Policy Intent" in the CDP is to protect open space, areas endowed with natural beauty, and
scenic vistas, including views to and along the shoreline. These community features are defined in other
policy documents and in the CDP as follows:
■ Forest and shoreline ecosystems: The official Ka'6 CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline
and mauka forests in Ka'6 as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to Ka'u's rich
network of natural and cultural resources. These areas fall within the "Conservation" and "Open"
LUPAG categories in the Policy Map.
26 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
"14
■ Agricultural lands: The official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates agricultural lands in Ka'u as ��j�U�p°
areas to be preserved for agriculture and open space. These areas fall within the "Important��"°�°gyp
Agriculture Land" and "Extensive Agriculture" LUPAG categories in the Policy Map.
■ Open space: The official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands, �j°Upp"44,
and mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the
"Conservation," "Open," "Important Agriculture Land," and "Extensive Agriculture" LUPAG
categories in the Policy Map.
■ Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites includes the scenic view of
shoreline between Pahala and Punalu'u, the view of Mauna Loa from Volcano-Ka'u Highway, and
the lava flows of 1868, 1887, & 1907, mauka and makai of the stretch of highway between Kahuku
Ranch and the Ocean View subdivisions. Based on public input, the Ka'u CDP Community Profile
also identifies the scenic lookout between Whittington Beach Park and N5'51ehu on the makai side
of highway as a breathtaking panoramic view of the shoreline.
■ Areas endowed with natural beauty: The General Plan identifies natural beauty sites, including
Pohue Bay, South Point, Mahana Bay, Waiakukini, Ka'alu'alu Bay, Honu'apo, Kawa Bay, Ninole Cove, IMM
Punalu'u, and prominent pu'u (cinder cones): 'Enuhe, Makanau, Kaiholena, and One.
■ Archeological and historic sites: These are sites on the National and State Registers of Historic Places
as well as other known archaeological sites, many (but not all) of which are catalogued by the State
Historic Preservation Division.
■ Historic buildings: HRS section 6E-2 defines "historic property" as any building, structure, object,
area or site, including heiau and underwater sites, which is over fifty years old.
MO
This policy is intended to protect those community features as much as possible without infringing on
the Planning Director's authority to make informed judgments based site- and use- specific
characteristics.
For more information, see page 140 of Appendix V4A.
3.1.5 CaluuiriIrty ActIIIA',;%alll°Ii
Policy 15 Amend the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide and, as needed, State Land
Use boundaries, to conform with the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map.
The land use policies that support the preferred future settlement pattern for Ka'u and related
Community Objectives differ in some ways from the land use pattern designated in the current General
Plan LUPAG map. Therefore, in order to fully implement the Ka'u CDP, the LUPAG map requires some
amendments. Seethe summary of changes in the rationale behind Policy 7.
For more information, see page 15 of Appendix V4A. /v/r"UI'll!`°1°1"
Oy' 'ppPB�plp�pBP
�PpP "�Db
Policy 16 Amend General Plan Table 14-5 to reflect the LUPAG map amendments in Policy 15.
fL' DpP�, �DypBp
�u�° PypB
To maintain alignment between the General Plan and the Ka'u CDP, Honu'apo should no longer be 4 'M
Upp� 8P
identified as an Industrial Area.
✓0/I' '14pp°pP�4
✓o�'OgU�p�Bp�,.
A
6DIO�UUp�pP�p.
✓oU' ���pPppXp
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 27
Policy 17 Pursue brownfields assessment grants to complete the Phase I and II environmental
assessment for high priority sites in Ka'u.
Brownfield is the term used for all abandoned or underused sites where redevelopment or reuse is
complicated by the presence or perceived presence of contamination. The County Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) has identified potential brownfield sites in Ka'u, including old mill
sites, baseyards, and fuel depots. There are four basic stages to brownfield redevelopment, starting
with Phase I and II environmental assessment. Redevelopment, site planning, and construction can
proceed once the pre -development assessments are complete.
For more information, see page 59 of Appendix V413.
Policy 18 Develop and implement a County -wide, cross -agency affordable housing plan.
Ka'u has some of the most affordable land and housing in the County, but it is far from most job centers.
To decrease development pressures in Ka'u and shorten commute times, the County needs island -wide
strategies for co -locating housing, jobs, and supporting infrastructure and services.
For more information, see pages 43-48 of Appendix V413.
Policy 19 Provide technical assistance to communities and organizations implementing community-
based strategies to create safe, sustainable, and connected communities.
In Ka'u and many other communities Countywide, nonconforming subdivisions, villages, and towns face
significant challenges related to loss of open space and rural character, inadequate infrastructure, and
slow economic development. Community-based strategies have been used successfully in other areas
to address some of these problems and should be supported in Hawai'i County.
For more information, see pages 202-205 of Appendix V413.
.1.6 Based, C6llllWbolll'at:IIIve Act:lllolll°'Ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind these
actions and initial implementation steps.
28 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.1 Expand theLocal System
Preserves
M, eM,
4. 1.2 Ca�uirirt,Act IIIA,,,%Q I°�i
Policy 20 Support the National Park Service's expansion plans for the Hawai'i Volcanoes National
Park. (GP 14.9.3(e))
This is simply an affirmation of existing General Plan policy 14.9.3(e): "Support the U.S. Department of
Interior, National Park Service's expansion plans for the Hawai'i Volcanoes National Historic Park." As
part of its General Management Plan (GMP) process, Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park identifies the
Great Crack parcels (TMKs (3)9-6-013:003, (3)9-6-013:008, (3)9-6-013:009) as acquisition priorities.
For more information, see page 20 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 21 Support the efforts of landowners to establish conservation and agricultural easements.
Pu'u 'Enuhe, Makanau, and nearby Pu'u Pakua and Pu'u 'Iki are significant geologic and cultural
features. They are also privately owned, in the State Agricultural District, and zoned agricultural, so they
are relatively unprotected. Kamehameha Schools owns Pu'u 'Enuhe. The Olsen Trust has already
identified Makanau, Pu'u Pakua, and Pu'u 'Iki as priority sites for conservation easements because they
feature pristine native low land forest. This policy reinforces those priorities and establishes the County
as a partner in those conservation efforts.
For more information, see page 152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 22 Secure in public trust (fee simple or by easement) priority coastal land that achieves one
or more of the Community Objectives.
Certain resources are valuable and vulnerable enough to secure in public trust (fee simple or by
easement), and a wide range of resources are available for easements and acquisition (see Appendix
V4A). Nearly all of Ka'G's sensitive mauka lands are protected as public lands, and large portions of
Ka'G's shoreline are protected by County, State, or Federal government ownership.
However, eleven private coastal parcels have development potential. The purchase of coastal parcels at
Punalu'u, the Road to the Sea, and Kaunamano has been authorized, and the General Plan directs the
County to acquire land surrounding Whittington Beach Park (12.5.9.2(h)), but other areas remain
vulnerable. This policy makes it a County priority to secure the remaining, vulnerable parcels.
Resources for establishing reserves are limited, and Ka'G must compete with other communities locally,
statewide, nationally, and globally, so it is important to establish shoreline reserve priorities. Relative
priorities should be established using criteria similar to those used by the PONC:
■ Benefit to the general public
■ Level of community support
■ Identified management/maintenance partners
■ Urgency
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 29
9pPP��PPyp
P8
�PyPP Pyp
9p PPyp
Pyr
�PjPP�PPPBP
app AddpO
�I A
Uv" UAPA ��p`
oT U�p��APdP,,.
0UpPPBD����
011 U A�
bell
&PP PP 8p
11111 �Ijjj�
dPPAP 8
f0/! PP PP PP8
8
PPPPP' PBpyD
DpP 8p�,
P°"PnP, P"
■ Land or property entitlements are available for acquisition
■ Special opportunity for acquisition exists (e.g., special funding is available, landowner willing, etc.)
■ Resources can be leveraged through partnerships with other government, private, or nonprofit
entities.
The following properties appear to be strong candidates to secure in public trust (in order of priority):
1. Road to the Sea parcel (TMK (3)9-2-001:075): Pursuant to Resolutions 49-11 and 314-12, the
County Council has authorized the purchase of this parcel, and the Board of Land and Natural
Resources has authorized use of Recovery Land Acquisition funds for the purchase.
2. Kaunamano parcels (including TMKs (3)9-5-011:001 & 004, (3)9-5-012:001): Pursuant to
Resolution 351-14, the County Council has authorized the Director of Finance to enter into
negotiations for acquisition of these parcels.
3. Land surrounding Whittington Beach Park (most notably TMK (3)9-5-014:060): General Plan
Course of Action 12.5.9.2(h) encourages land acquisition surrounding Whittington Beach Park to
allow for its expansion and the construction of a parking area, and the County has been in
negotiations with the landowner for some time.
4. Kawala parcel (TMK (3)9-5-010:001): This parcel has extensive, significant archaeological
resources, expansive scenic views, public access trails, the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail
corridor, and a subdivision application pending that would locate 11 lots near the coastline, each
of which could be developed.
5. Kahilipali and Kahilipali-nui parcel (TMKs (3)9-5-007:005, 008, & 016): This parcel has extensive,
significant archaeological resources, expansive scenic views, public access trails, the Ala Kahakai
National Historic Trail corridor, anchialine pools, and 22 pre-existing lots of record that could be
reconfigured to locate small parcels near the coastline.
6. Parcel containing Pohue Bay (TMK (3)9-2-001:072): This parcel has extensive, significant
archaeological resources, expansive scenic views, public access trails, the Ala Kahakai National
Historic Trail corridor, anchialine pools, and turtle nesting sites. It has also been targeted twice
for resort development near the coastline. It is a lower priority because development potential
is limited in the State Conservation district.
7. Parcel next to the Road to the Sea parcel (TMK (3)9-2-001:076): This parcel has public access
trails, the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail corridor, and scenic view from Ocean View
subdivisions. It is a lower priority because development potential is limited in the State
Conservation district.
8. Ka'alu'alu Bay (TMK (3)9-4-001:009): This parcel has archaeological resources, expansive scenic
views, public access trails, the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail corridor, anchialine pools, fish
ponds, and potential for development as a rustic coastal camp site. It is a lower priority because
the owner is proposing to keep development well mauka of the coastline and agreed to dedicate
15 coastal acres to the County.
9. Punalu'u: The County Council authorized the purchase, but this is a low priority as long as the
County retains a lease for the beach park, comprehensive plans for the area are unclear, and the
owner lacks interest in selling.
30 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
For more information, see pages 52-54 and 111-114 of Appendix V4A and page 159 of Appendix V413.
41 if
J,
4^1^3 Advocacy
11111114
4,1,3,1 U. S. Congress
� Advance legislation to complete the requisite special resource study to assess the feasibility of
� =
designating the Km~O coast as m unit of the National Park System or otherwise protect coastal
resources, in full collaboration with County, State, and private interests and with the cooperation of
m��~
private citizens and property owners within the study area.
|n200S,Congressman EdCase requested that the National Park Service (NPS)conductareconnaiooance
(NPS)
�
survey of 20,365 acres along 27 miles of shoreline on the southeast coast of Ka'O in order to provide a
resource assessment of the significance of the area's resources and preliminary evaluation of the
suitability and feasibility ofincluding the study area in the National Park system. The study area was
w�m�
found tobeofnational significance and that itvvou|dbeasuitable addition tothe National Park system.
��
~—
The study team recommended that, if community, State, and County interest is sufficient, an NPS
=
feasibility study could be conducted to consider partnership approaches and alternative NPS
���
��
designations. The team also recommended that a full special resource study under the stipulations of
��
Public Law 105'391 could be authorized for the Ka'O Coast. This authorization would be dependent
upon whether the process was conducted in full collaboration with county, State, and private interests
���
and vviththe cooperation ofprivate dtizenoand property ovvnerovvithinthe study area.
���
rMM
In order to pursue further study of this area, Representative Mazie Hirono introduced legislation (H.R.
__q
2602) that was referred to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lando in
�m�m
2009. In February 2012, Representative Hirono re-introduced H.R. 3908, the "Ka'O Coast Preservation
directs feasibility designating
���
Act" which the Secretary of the Interior to study the of the Ka'O coast
from Kapaoo Point, at the current National Park Service boundary, to Kahuku Point, makai of N5'51ehu,
N��
��
as a unit of the National Park System. The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lando of the House Committee on Natural Resources. In July 2012, Senator Jeff
Bingaman introduced the National Park Service Study Act of 2012, which would authorize a special
m��p
resource study of the Ka'O coast for possible inclusion in the National Park system.
M
��0
���
For more information, see pages 90'91ofAppendix V4A.
4.1.3.2 ��������m�������
������
� Continue to pursue acquisition priorities, including the Great Crack parcels (TMKo (3)9'6'013:003,
�0��
m��p
(3)9'6'013:008, (3)9'6'013:009) and other properties adjacent to current HVNP boundaries.
�m�^
� �
See the rational for Policy 20above.
M
4^1^4 Coiii,"Iiio"Iiiiii,"Iiio"Iii���,iiii"�iiii't�y-Based, C6HWboii,ativeActioii,'ii
SeetheCommunity'Baoed,Co||aborativeActionGuideformoredetai|oabouttherationa|ebehindtheoe
actions and initial implementation steps.
-
,,1111111J fill)
Q4,
fifff
,,�Off f#0144,111111,
fffffffff
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'OCommunity Development Plan: December Z015 31
o m � +, ., 0 �0 .,
4. 2.2 1,:1 uirii d U flewe MI5 o III iii c
Policy Intent
Policy 23 Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures.
(GP 8.3(d))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 8.3(d): "Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of
man-made improvements and structures." For more information, see page 80 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 24 Maintain the shoreline for recreational, cultural, education, and/or scientific uses in a
manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum benefit to the general
public. (GP 8.3(c))
This is an affirmation of the General Plan policy 8.3(c): "Maintain the shoreline for recreational, cultural,
education, and/or scientific uses in a manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum
benefit to the general public."
Policy 25 Protect and conserve forest and coastal areas with native wildlife, natural ecosystems,
and wilderness. (GP 8.4)
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 8.4: "The following shall be considered for the protection
and conservation of natural resources: (a) Areas necessary for the protection and propagation of
specified endangered native wildlife, and conservation for natural ecosystems of endemic plants, fish
and wildlife; (b) Lands necessary for the preservation of forests, park lands, wilderness and beach areas;
(c) Lands with a general slope of 20 per cent or more that provide open space amenities or possess
unusual scenic qualities; ... (f) The Coastal Zone and Special Management Area as defined by statute and
in accordance with the adopted objectives and guidelines."
For more information, see page 80 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 26 Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas.
(HRS 205A-2(c)(3(D))
This is an affirmation of the State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policy in HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(D):
"Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas." All County
policies and regulations must be consistent with CZM policies, which are binding upon actions by all
agencies within the scope of their authority.
For more information, see pages 104 and 107 of Appendix V4A.
32 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy Controls
40fill",
AUS, ASAP
Policy 27 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates^AA����
A
coastal areas in Ka'u as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to the rich
pUapppppaP
I�papp��4
network of natural and cultural resources in the region. Development and construction in
Aap
�IUpaPpp� "par
the coastal "Conservation" and "Open" areas shall be minimized and, when necessary,
�'
limited to recreation, research, and education facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
Coastal areas have overlapping jurisdiction and fall under multiple layers of regulation. Coastal waters
are managed by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) (for aquatic resources and
boating), the State Department of Health (DOH) (for water quality), and the Federal Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). Any activity impacting coastal waters, including wetlands and anchialine pools, must
be permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers for compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other
statutes. Other agencies that have jurisdiction in the shoreline area include the DOH (for wastewater
and underground injection) and the DLNR for wells.
In addition, all coastal areas in Ka'u are in the State Conservation district, where all uses and activities
require a conservation district use permit from the Board of Land and Natural Resources or other
written approval from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and
Coastal Lands (OCCL). With the exception of the stretch of coastline from Pu'u Hou in Pakini to Hanalua
near South Point, which is in the Limited subzone, the entire coastline is in the Resource subzone. In
those two subzones, a single-family residence on each legal lot of record is permitted with approval of
the Board of Land and Natural Resources.
Though this policy does not supersede the authority of the State, it serves as a clear expression of the
community's desire to protect and limit development in coastal areas. In the State Conservation district,
there is no county zoning, per se, because the State DLNR has jurisdiction. Nevertheless, much of Ka'u's
coastal area is designated Conservation or Open in the General Plan LUPAG map. The Open designation
limits future uses to "Parks and other recreational areas, historic sites, and open shoreline areas," and
the Conservation designation includes "Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, areas
in active management for conservation purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with
minimal facilities consistent with open space uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations, and
lands within the State Land Use Conservation District." Other proposed uses would require an
amendment to the General Plan, which requires an EIS and approval of the County Council.
See Policy 7 for a summary of the rationale behind necessary LUPAG map amendments.
For more information, see pages 92, 95-96, 101, 107, and 160 of Appendix V4A.
��pApP
ppb
�8py ppppP
P
IF V, pApP
�pPppyp�a4v
�8py ppppP
p
IgpppppPyppp
IgpppPpPyppp
Py
11papp��ppp
pp�ppppp0
��Ap
A
pPyp��pppP
ppJp�p�a0
4 III����pUbapp�aAp,
�IJJ'Dp"A���"°
9�" �'PdpJp °A^Aar
00 "a
�AJ� II � ApdU�UA�
o a
papp� pppap
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 33
Policy 28 On lots that are at least partially within the Special Management Area (SMA) in the Ka'u
CDP Planning Area, establish shoreline setbacks at the earliest stages of the land use
planning and development process at a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4 -mile); however, the
applicant may request that the setback be reduced by providing information to the
Department, including information required for SMA review, which would allow for an
assessment of the proposed activity's impacts and in consideration of the physical
limitations of the property. For lots created prior to the date of adoption of the CDP with
an average lot depth of two hundred feet or less, the shoreline setback line shall be 40
feet.
Policy 28 is one of several complimentary land use policies, County actions, DLNR actions, and
community actions in Section 4.2 that, when implemented together, help achieve the community's
objectives to limit development on the shoreline and to protect coastal ecosystems and cultural assets.
These protections are one of the highest priorities for the Ka'G community. The undeveloped coastline
is part of the community psyche, tied closely with generations of stewardship by native Hawaiians as
well as the subsistence and recreational uses woven into contemporary local culture. The Ka'G coastline
is rich in archeological and other cultural resources, including the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail and
many other historic resources that have yet to be surveyed. In addition, the quality and singularity of
coastal ecosystems in Ka'G are unparalleled, including anchialine pools, turtle nesting sites, monk seal
habitat, and Class AA coastal waters. Throughout Ka'G, there are also picturesque, sweeping views of
and along the coastline.
Importantly, the common "jobs vs. environment" debate isn't a factor along the coastline in KaV
Punalu'u already has the land use entitlements in place to serve as the center of visitor activity in KaV
None of the CDP strategies inhibit use of these entitlements to redevelop the area; in fact, the CDP
outlines a process for revitalizing Punalu'u. No other coastal area in Ka'G is appropriate for resort
development. Moreover, "farm dwellings" and other homes in close proximity to the shoreline provide
little economic benefit to the community. In fact, as the Steering Committee noted during its
deliberations, they would spoil one of the community's greatest economic assets — its unique,
undeveloped coastline.
Options for Coastal Protection:
The Ka'G CDP tries to use every "tool in the toolbox" to protect the Ka'G coastline:
State Conservation District: All coastal areas in Ka'G (typically to 200-300 inland) are in the State
Conservation district, where all uses and activities require a conservation district use permit from the
Board of Land and Natural Resources or other written approval from the Department of Land and
Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL). With the exception of the stretch of
coastline from Pu'u Hou in Pakini to Hanalua near South Point, which is in the Limited subzone, the
entire coastline is in the Resource subzone. However, in those two subzones, a single-family residence
on each legal lot of record is permitted with approval of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. To
mitigate against the impacts of development in the Conservation District, CDP Advocacy item 4.2.4.1
asks the DLNR to designate the coastal subzones on Ka'G Limited or Protective and to amend HAR to
require that public hearings before the LUC be held locally.
Land Use Patten Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Much of the coastal area in Ka'G is designated
Conservation or Open in the General Plan LUPAG map, and Policy 27 re -affirms those land use policy
designations. The Open designation limits future uses to "Parks and other recreational areas, historic
34 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
sites and open shoreline areas," and the Conservation designation includes "Forest and water reserves
�p 4Xp�P
natural and scientific preserves areas in active management for conservation purposes areas to be kept
8gy�p
in a largely natural state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses, such as picnic pavilionsU'°°���
and comfort stations, and lands within the State Land Use Conservation District." Other proposed uses
40,
11 mp��PP✓
would require an amendment to the General Plan, which requires an EIS and approval of the County
Council.
That being said, the LUPAG map does not supersede existing zoning, which is typically Agriculture
outside the State Conservation District. Farm dwellings are permitted in the Agriculture Zone,
regardless of the LUPAG designation.
Special Management Area: Any development in coastal Ka'G will be subject to SMA review. CDP policies
29 and 31 call for strict application of HRS 205A and Planning Commission Rule 9 as well as
reconsideration of the SMA boundaries in Ka'G.
Special District: In Article 7 of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code, Special Districts are established for Kailua
Village, Downtown Hilo, and University Districts. A similar mechanism could be used to establish a "no
development" zone along the Ka'G shoreline. However, to be effective, the district would have to limit
uses, which would be the equivalent of a "downzone" or "taking." Moreover, the blanket application of
regulations across such an extensive coastline would eliminate the opportunity to assess uses and
project siting relative to site-specific conditions.
Site-specific Shoreline Setbacks: Pursuant to HRS section 205A, the goals of the shoreline setback are to:
■ Restrict development in areas vulnerable to severe damage due to the impact of wave action and to
protect private property from flood hazards and wave damage
■ Ensure the preservation of sandy beaches and public access to and along the shoreline
■ Preserve and enhance views of scenic or prominent landscapes and coastal aesthetic values rMM
■ Protect and effectively manage open space and the shoreline
■ Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures
■ Protect and conserve natural resources, including areas necessary for the protection and
propagation of specified endangered native wildlife and the conservation of natural ecosystems of
endemic plants, fish and wildlife.
Pursuant to HRS section 205A -43(a), the shoreline setback is not less than 20 feet and not more than 40
feet inland from the shoreline, but the counties are given the option of establishing setbacks by rule or
ordinance at distances greater than 40 feet (HRS section 205A-45). Planning Department Rule 11-5
establishes the minimum shoreline setback at 40 feet, but the County has no protocol for establishing
shoreline setbacks.
�1yp�,�p�Pyp
��2p��p�PyP
Historically, shoreline structure siting standards have not been place -based, and they have not
consistently protected the shoreline or structures and, in some cases, have led to the hardening of the'p"°p
shoreline the loss of beach systems, and loss of coastal access for the ublic.,�'"I°�p�'°"°gyp
Y p Nus U�P���p�pBP
�UJp�A�JO
HRS §205A does not limit the County's ability to establish placed -based shoreline setbacks. Rather, ���p�����
because of the unique conditions in different coastal areas, a strong case can be made for adapting
setbacks to conditions in different areas. For example' scientists familiar with coastal conditions in
fillx
,�W�I A
A,
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 35
Hawai'i have suggested that setbacks be context -specific to account for differences in geology and
hazard risk, among other things.
For more information, see page 89, 94, 104, and 106 of Appendix V4A.
Impact of the Setback Policy (Policy 28):
Trigger: Policy 28 is triggered by proposed development on lots that are at least partially within the
Special Management Area (SMA) in the Ka'u CDP Planning Area. The assumption is that the SMA
includes all areas where structures have the potential for coastal impacts. Along most of Ka'u's
shoreline, the SMA extends —500 feet mauka, but between Punalu'u and Honu'apo, it extends to the
highway, and at South Point, it extends 5,000 feet inland. This language was based, in part, on Kauai
County's shoreline setback ordinance, which applies to lands that are not abutting the shoreline but
located within five hundred (500) feet of the shoreline.
Default: Policy 28 establishes the shoreline setback at a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4 -mile). Unlike the
current default of 40 feet, this is not completely arbitrary. It is based on 1) an assessment of the
distance of coastal resources from the shoreline in Ka'u (as mapped in Appendix V4A) and 2) the %-mile
standard used by planners to assess the "walkable" distance to sites of interest.
Note that most of the public comment during review of the Draft CDP called for much deeper setbacks —
a full mile or more. Oft cited was the 2006 recommendation from the South Kona-Ka'u Coastal
Conservation Task Force to establish a 1.5 mile "no development" shoreline setback.
Applicant's Prerogative: Importantly, Policy 28 provides the applicant the opportunity to make a case for
a different setback by providing information specific to the site and to the proposed activity's impacts.
Properties Impacted: The application of this policy would not take any entitled land use rights away.
Buildable lots and urban -zoned areas in Punalu'u would retain their rights. Park facilities are either
minor structures or eligible for a variance. Otherwise, most coastal parcels in Ka'u are large, deep, and
zoned Agriculture outside the near -shore conservation district strip, so a setback wouldn't limit
permitted uses.
36 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 29 No development, including subdivision, shall be approved in the SMA unless theppp�"ppp
�8p pppP
development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect.u�p�"ppppppp
(HRS 205A-22(3) & 205A-26(2)(A))�'p��"°"
�4�pppppppp
Pursuant to Planning Commission (PC) Rule 9-10(b)(5) & (11), and in order for the Planning
W" ��ppp�pppppP
Director to accurately evaluate whether the proposed action will have a substantial adverse�ppp�"pppp
effect, pursuant to PC Rule 9-4(e)(4), the Director shall require that SMA Use Permit
Assessment and Use Permit applications include all of the information necessary to assess
the proposed activity's impacts in the Special Management Area, including but not limited
to:
■ A description of the environmental setting and natural resources in the area, including
an assessment of impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species or their habitat
and on fresh and coastal water quality (PC Rule 9-10(b)(5)(A) & (6) and 9-10(h)(7), (8), &
(9));
■ A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area, including the
extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the
90
area (PC Rule 9-10(b)(6) & (h)(1));
■ An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view planes,
including those outlined in the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, and
other adopted plans, as well as the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway
nearest the coast and along the shoreline (HRS 205A -2(b)(3) (A), HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(B),
HRS 205A -26(3)(E), and PC Rule 9-10(h)(1));
■ Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the
shoreline to the specifications required by Na Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National
Historic Trail (PC Rule 9-10(b)(10));
rMM
■ An assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal
erosion and/or sea level rise over the life of the development (PC Rule 9-10(h)(9));
■ A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and
control of the affected area, including the General Plan and Community Development
Plan (PC Rule 9-10(b)(5)(13)).
Any development permitted, including those determined to be exempt from the definition
of development in Planning Commission Rule 9 (pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9-
10(e) & (g)), shall be subject to terms and conditions to achieve CZM and CDP objectives
and policies, including conditions that protect natural, cultural, historic, and recreational
resources; preserve agricultural land, open space, and view planes; ensure access; mitigate
impacts of coastal hazards; limit coastal development; and concentrate new development
Pypp
�UBp ppppp
(particularly if it is not coastal dependent) on vacant land in town/village centers (beforep�p"p"ppp
converting agricultural land to residential uses), and discouraging speculative residential"ppp�p
py
�UBpyp ppP
development. Conditions could include but not be limited to setbacks, restrictions on
N° �4pp ppppp
artificial light, lateral and mauka-makai access requirements, dedication of conservation and���8p��p°"ppppp
trail corridor easements, cooperation with efforts to manage access and use of coastal
✓���,,;�"p��p"°
pyppp Py
resources, minimizing the number of lots abutting or near the shoreline, and maximizing the�ppppp"ppp
��8pyp pppppp
use of land in the State Land Use Urban district and/or urban LUPAG categories.
'00"rPill
,�W,'ll�p8ppppp�b
W" ��pppppp
p�ppp ppppb
�pppppp�P
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 37
This policy makes explicit the steps mandated in HRS 205A and Planning Commission Rule 9 that are
necessary to ensure that coastal resources in Ka'u are appropriately protected. The goal is to implement
a number of CDP objectives and policies related to protecting the shoreline and cultural assets, limiting
development at the shoreline, assuring access, preserving open space and viewscapes, preserving
agricultural land, concentrating new development (particularly if it is not coastal dependent) on vacant
land in town/village centers (before converting agricultural land to residential uses), and discouraging
speculative residential development.
The Special Management Area (SMA) permit is a management tool to assure that developments in the
SMA are designed and carried out in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) objectives,
CZM policies, and SMA guidelines. Generally, because the CZM objectives and policies are so
comprehensive, the SMA is the most resource -protective land use policy overlay. CZM policies address
recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, coastal
hazards, management of development, beach protection, and marine resources. Therefore, SMA review
is one of the few opportunities to holistically consider coastal resources and their interrelationships.
Moreover, because CZM review requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of proposed
development in the SMA, SMA review is thorough, and SMA permits include conditions to protect
coastal resources and mitigate impacts.
The SMA permitting system regulates development within SMAS extending from the shoreline inland, as
designated on maps filed with the County Planning Commission. Along most of Ka'u's shoreline, the
SMA extends —500 feet mauka, but between Punalu'u and Honu'apo, it extends to the highway, and at
South Point, it extends —5,000 feet inland.
Because Ka'u's coastal resources are so unique and so vulnerable to hazards, most uses or activities in
the Special Management Area will likely have a cumulative impact or a significant adverse
environmental or ecological effect on the SMA, as defined in Planning Commission Rule 9-10(h).
However, the application forms currently used by the Planning Department do not explicitly request
information about the full range of potential impacts of development. Therefore, this policy requires
that all information necessary to assess impacts is provided by SMA applicants. The bulleted points in
the policy are those potential impacts that are not otherwise explicitly addressed in the Planning
Department's SMA application forms.
This policy also requires that development in the SMA be subject to terms and conditions that achieve
CZM and CDP objectives. Of particular concern are large parcels makai of N5'51ehu, which are zoned A -
20a and have pre-existing lots of record (some smaller than 20 acres). These are longstanding
pasturelands and feature significant archaeological resources, scenic views across the landscape, mauka-
makai and coastal trails, and unique coastal features. They also include portions within the State Urban
district, within the Low Density Urban (LDU) category of the General Plan LUPAG map and the Ka'u CDP
Land Use Policy Map, and within the Special Management Area (SMA).
Because of regulations specific to parcel consolidation and resubdivision of pre-existing lots of record,
these parcels may be subdivided into lots smaller than 20 acres with limited or no infrastructure
improvements and in manner that may not be consistent with community objectives. Further, the
zoning allows for a "farm dwelling" on each parcel.
However, the Planning Director may require improvements to further the public welfare and safety and
may prohibit lots smaller than one acre in the State Land Use Agricultural district. Moreover,
subdivision within the SMA triggers SMA review, which requires consistency with the General Plan and
CDPs, among other provisions of State law and County regulations. The Planning Director may, for
38 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
example require that subdivision position lots that are smaller than 20 acres on portions of the parcels
4
pp pPpp
in or adjacent to lands in the SLU Urban district and/or urban LUPAG categories.
O�
For more information see pages 107-110 113 and 139-140 of Appendix V4A and pages 127-128 of
J�dpyp pPypP
Appendix V413.�pp�"p"ppp
�'pppp'p"ppp
,�Igpp�pp8pf
�ppppppppppP
„� y�y ;��"^ y ^ ^^ y
m"'PW. �.�� 111��,��,,,6Q��u I°��t ��I���=t III�,,,6QI°i
"o,I�pJp� �'p➢
o The vicinity of Ka'alu'alu Bay
BIW" pJPyp���dD
Policy 30 Amend Planning Department Rule 11 to specify that the Planning Department establish
pp��ppppv
shoreline setbacks in the Ka'u CDP Planning Area in accordance with Policy 28.
pppp�pp�d➢
HRS section 205A -43(b)(1) requires that the Planning Department adopt rules prescribing procedures for
determining the shoreline setback line.
Policy 31 Review SMA boundaries in Ka'u and initiate appropriate amendments.
Along most of the Ka'u shoreline, the Special Management Area (SMA) extends —500 feet mauka, but
between Punalu'u and Honu'apo, it extends to the highway, and at South Point, it extends 5,000 feet
90
inland. Generally, because the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) objectives and policies are so
comprehensive, the SMA is the most resource -protective land use policy overlay. Therefore, in order to
better protect known recreational, historic, open space, ecosystem, beach, and/or marine resources as
well as scenic views toward the coastline from the highway, the County should review SMA boundaries
in Ka'u and initiate appropriate amendments.
In 2012, the Planning Department initiated a review of SMA boundaries in Hawai'i County. Some
preliminary findings that may have implications in Ka'u include:
■ The State Conservation District boundary extends further inland than the SMA in the following
areas:
IMM
o From Manuka southeast to a portion of TMK (3)9-3-001:006, including the Road to the Sea
parcel, the 16,000 acre parcel owned by Nani Kahuku 'Aina that includes Pohue Bay, and a
portion of Kamehameha Schools' Pakini parcel.
o TMK (3)9-6-002:005, the State-owned parcel northeast of Punalu'u that includes Kamehame
Beach.
■ Areas designated Open on the General Plan LUPAG map extend further inland than the SMA in the
following areas:
o In the vicinity of the Road to the Sea parcel
o Near Ka'alu'alu Bay
o Near Waiapele Bay (TMK (3)9-6-013:006).
■ The coastal flood zone extends further inland than the SMA in the following areas:"jOUdpp�"�
�p� p8f
%8pyp�pPb
o The vicinity of Ka'alu'alu Bay°'ppp�p"ppp
8pyppp 8pyp
o The vicinity of Waikapuna bay.
�'pppp'p"ppp
,�Igpp�pp8pf
■ The tsunami evacuation zone extends further inland than the SMA in the following areas:
"o,I�pJp� �'p➢
o The vicinity of Ka'alu'alu Bay
BIW" pJPyp���dD
pp��ppppv
pppp�pp�d➢
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 39
o The Honu'apo area.
The intent of this policy is to complete the SMA boundary review in Ka'u and make appropriate
adjustments. This review should include the full range of considerations required by CZM policies and
objectives, including:
■ A regional, landscape perspective
■ View plane and line -of -sight analysis, toward the sea from the state highway nearest the coast and
along the shoreline
■ Shoreline public access
■ The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail corridor
■ Cultural and historic resources
■ Shoreline hydrology, including drainage ways, springs, anchialine pools, and wetlands
■ Coastal ecosystems, including native, endemic, and threatened species and other sensitive coastal
and near shore species
■ Coastal erosion rates
■ Projected sea level rise
■ Flooding and flood zones, including storm surge inundation
■ Subsidence.
For more information, see pages 107-110 of Appendix V4A.
4.2.4 Advocacy
4.2.4.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Amend HAR 13-5 to designate the coastal Conservation District subzones in Ka'u Limited or
Protective.
■ Following the recommendation of the South Kona-Ka'u Coastal Conservation Task Force, amend
HAR 13-5-40(b) to require that public hearings before the State Land Use Commission be held in
the judicial district in which the land is located.
The entire coastline (to a range of distances mauka from the shoreline) is in the State land use
conservation district. In the State conservation district, there is no county zoning, per se, so the DLNR
has jurisdiction on uses and activities, which require a conservation district use permit from the Board of
Land and Natural Resources or other written approval from the Department of Land and Natural
Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, pursuant Hawai'i Administrative Rules (HAR)
section 13-5. HAR section 13-5 also establishes subzones within the Conservation district. With the
exception of the stretch of coastline from Pu'u Hou in Pakini to Hanalua near South Point, which is in the
Limited subzone, the entire coastline is in the Resource subzone. In this subzone, a single-family
residence on each legal lot of record is permitted with approval of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources. The Protective and Limited subzones limit development.
40 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Also, State land use district boundary amendments involving lands in the conservation district, land
areas greater than fifteen acres, or lands delineated as important agricultural lands are processed by the
Land Use Commission, but following HAIR section 13-5-40(b), public hearings do not have to be held in
the judicial district in which the land is located.
For more information, see pages 95-97 of Appendix V4A.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 41
41
9PPP��PPyp
r�0U BPyp
PP8
P
�DPPP� dPPyp
�bPPP� PPRP
°°�P PPpPO
�I P
Uv" PPPPP�PPP`
%VIII
✓0/I' 4411
✓P%%%% PP
0I MN
�UPPPPP'�PP�
✓���UpPP�P�PP
✓/� 'PPPP� UPPP,
&PP PP 8v
dPPPP P
0/ °P PP PPP
P
DPPPDI PPpyD
6�DPP BpP,
�U�PdU��PPPr
uPa
P°"PPP, �PPP"
4.3.2 1;,1 uirii d U flew e i:5 o III iii c
Policy Intent
Policy 32 Conserve and protect agricultural lands. (State Constitution Article XI, Section 3; GP 2.3(a),
2.3(s), 14.1.2(b), & 14.2.2(a))
This is an affirmation of:
■ Article XI, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i, which requires that the State
conserve and protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-
sufficiency and assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands.
■ General Plan policies 2.3(a&s), 14.1.2(b), & 14.2.2(a): "[P]rotect... important agriculture lands on the
island of Hawaii."
For more information, see pages 123 and 127 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 33 Preserve the agricultural character of Ka'u, including the open space preserved by
agricultural land. (GP 14.2.2(b) & 14.2.3(d))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 14.2.2(b): "Preserve the agricultural character of the island."
■ 14.2.3(d): "Agricultural land may be used as one form of open space or as green belt."
For more information, see page 123 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 34 Vacant lands in urban areas should be made available for residential uses before
additional agricultural lands are converted into residential uses. (GP 9.3(x))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 9.3(x): "Vacant lands in urban areas and urban expansion
areas should be made available for residential uses before additional agricultural lands are converted
into residential uses." For more information, see page 123 of Appendix V4A and pages 13-17 of
Appendix V413.
Policy 35 Limit development of agricultural land to agricultural uses, discouraging speculative
residential development and urban encroachment. (GP 14.2.3(i), (j), & (t))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policies:
■ 14.2.3(j): "Ensure that development of important agricultural land be primarily for agricultural use."
■ 14.2.3(t): "Discourage speculative residential development on agricultural lands."
■ 14.2.3(i): "Designate, protect and maintain important agricultural lands from urban encroachment."
For more information, see page 123 of Appendix V4A.
42 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 36 Agricultural lands shall not be rezoned to parcels too small to support economically viable"
%p"`
�8 ppppP
farming units. (GP 14.2.3(s))
p
Rural), except in the areas in Land Use Policy Map urban categories.
r�p��"
�8ppppppppP
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.2.3(s): "Important agricultural lands shall not be rezoned,��f]]])
�I pPyppp ppy,
to parcels too small to support economically viable farming units." For more information, see page 123°'Pdpppp
of Appendix V4A.
1111111 ��pp144ppP
p"ppppp
Policy 37 Maintain the open space and rural character of the Ocean View, Mark Twain, and Green
Sands areas, including continued inclusion in the State Land Use Agricultural district (not
Rural), except in the areas in Land Use Policy Map urban categories.
The State Land Use "Rural" district permits lot sizes of %-acre, which could double the density in
Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, where there is already excessive density but no mechanism to manage
growth and preserve agricultural land, open space, and rural character. For more information, see
pages 19 and 188 of Appendix V413.
■ Agricultural education and tourism
Policy Controls
■ Open area recreational facilities, including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding stables
90
Policy 38 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
jpp 8pyp
agricultural lands in Ka'u as areas to be preserved for agriculture and open space.
pp8ppppppppG
�18Pp ppppP
Development and construction in "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive
Mdppppppyppp
���pppp pppppP
�lypppppppp
J
Agriculture" areas shall be limited to agriculture, related economic infrastructure and
�ppppppppp
�lppppppp48P
P
Igppppppyppp
p 8pyp
cottage industries, renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community
�p��
pV �2pp pP
p
�Npppp
facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
,�W,'��pPyppp�'pdv
W"
���ppp pppPb
�ppppppp�P
Agricultural land in Ka'u is in the State Land Use (SLU) Agricultural District. Pursuant to HRS section 205-
5(b), the minimum lot size in the Agricultural District is one acre. Pursuant to HRS sections 205-2 and
205-4.5, the following uses are permitted in the SLU Agricultural District (bulleted summary below and
detailed in Table 2: Permitted Uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone).
rMM
■ Agricultural and animal production
■ Renewable energy, including crops for bioenergy, biofuel production, solar energy, wind energy,
geothermal
■ Uses and services accessory to agricultural production and bio, solar, and wind renewable energy
production: employee housing, processing, storage
■ Agricultural -based commercial operations
■ Agricultural education and tourism
■ Open area recreational facilities, including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding stables
■ Wireless communication antennasp�"p"ppp
jpp 8pyp
■ Dwellings: single-familyI farm dwelling.
pp8ppppppppG
�18Pp ppppP
Mdppppppyppp
���pppp pppppP
�lypppppppp
J
�ppppppppp
�lppppppp48P
P
Igppppppyppp
p 8pyp
�p��
pV �2pp pP
p
�Npppp
,�W,'��pPyppp�'pdv
W"
���ppp pppPb
�ppppppp�P
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 43
It is important to note that:
■ "Agricultural-based commercial operations" is defined broadly as long as the operations promote
the use of products grown in the State of Hawai'i.
■ Industrial renewable energy facilities are also permitted and currently only require plan approval
and building permits.
Agricultural land in Ka'u is zoned Agricultural, and the vast majority of it has minimum lots sizes of 20
acres. The minimum building site area in the County Agricultural district is five acres. Pursuant to HCC
section 25-5-72, the uses are permitted in the agricultural zone are detailed in Table 2: Permitted Uses
in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone.
The land use pattern in the General Plan is a broad, flexible design intended to guide the direction and
quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. The General Plan Land Use
Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to
each other. Any changes in zone have to be consistent with the General Plan, and agricultural lands in
Ka'u have two LUPAG designations:
■ Important Agricultural Land: Important agricultural lands (not to be confused with State IAL) are
those with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate,
topography, or other factors. Because of the scale of the Land use Pattern Allocation Guide maps
used to designate Important Agricultural Land, the location of these lands should be verified by
more detailed mapping when considering specific land use decisions.
■ Extensive Agriculture: This designation 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.
For more information, see pages 15, 126, 131-132, and 141 of Appendix V4A.
44 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Table 2: Permitted Uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone
State Agricultural District
County Agricultural Zone
Cultivation of crops, flowers, vegetables, foliage, fruits,
Crop production
orchards, forage, and forestry/timber
Botanical gardens, nurseries and greenhouses, seed
farms, plant experimental stations, arboretums,
floriculture, and similar uses dealing with the growing
of plants
Forestry
Animal husbandry and raising of livestock, including
Livestock production, provided that piggeries, apiaries,
poultry, bees, fish
and pen feeding of livestock shall only be located on
sites approved by the State department of health and
the director, and must be located no closer than one
thousand feet away from any major public street or
from any other zoning district.
Game and fish propagation
Game and fish propagation
Aquaculture
Aquaculture
Wind generated energy production and facilities; wind
Wind energy facilities
machines and wind farms
Crops for bioenergy
Biofuel production
Biofuel processing facilities
Solar energy facilities (depending on LSB rating)
Bona fide agricultural services and uses that support the
agricultural activities and accessory to any of the above
activities:
Farm dwellings
Dwelling, single-family
Farm dwellings
Employee housing
Farm buildings
Mills
Storage facilities
Processing facilities
Agricultural products processing, major and minor
Photovoltaic
Biogas
Other small renewable energy systems for the ag
activities
Agriculture energy facilities
Vehicle and equipment storage areas
Vehicle and equipment storage areas that are directly
accessory to aquaculture, crop production, game and
fish propagation, livestock grazing and livestock
production
Plantation community subdivisions
Small-scale meteorological, air quality, noise, and other
scientific and environmental data collection and
monitoring facilities
Agricultural parks
Agricultural parks
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 45
�QIUg�p��
NUp �f
U�Py���pdr
A
�p�P�p�Jp�O
[tillU��b A��P
✓o 'OgU ��8p�,.
�1pA
du�,��y
✓oU' �����pXp
State Agricultural District
County Agricultural Zone
Agricultural tourism
Agricultural tourism
Open area recreational facilities
Geothermal resources exploration and geothermal
resources development
Agricultural -based commercial operations, including:
Roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products
roadside stand, retail activities, retail food
grown on the premises
establishment (with restrictions)
Public institutions and buildings that are necessary for
agricultural practices
Agricultural education programs conducted on a
farming operation
Public and private open area types of recreational uses,
Parks, playgrounds, and other similar open area
including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding
recreational facilities
stables, but not including dragstrips, airports, drive-in
theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country
clubs, and overnight camps
Public, private, and quasi -public utility lines and
Public uses and structures which are necessary for
roadways, transformer stations, communications
agricultural practices
equipment buildings, solid waste transfer stations,
major water storage tanks, and appurtenant small
Public uses and structures, other than those necessary
buildings such as booster pumping stations, but not
for agricultural practices (with Special Permit)
including offices or yards for equipment, material,
vehicle storage, repair or maintenance, treatment
Utility substations
plants, corporation yards, or other similar structures
Retention, restoration, rehabilitation, or improvement
Retention, restoration, rehabilitation, or improvement
of buildings or sites of historic or scenic interest
of building or sites of historic or scenic interest
Construction and operation of wireless communication
Telecommunication antennas and towers (with use
antennas
permit)
46 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 39 The urban growth boundary between agricultural areas (designated "Important 4
�^� ,
Agricultural Land"
"Extensive Extensive Agriculturen ") and developed areas (designated "Rural,"
O1°U
,�U�
"Low/Medium/High Density Urban," "Industrial," or "Resort") is parcel -specific in the Ka'u
�8py�p�pBP
CDP planning area, except at Punalu'u and the Low/Medium Density Urban and Industrial
��8py�p�pBP
nodes in Ocean View. Areas outside designated developed areas shall be preserved as 1))111
agricultural lands, open space, scenic view planes, and natural beauty areas.
Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) identify areas to be protected for agriculture and areas where growth
will be encouraged. UGBs are intended to accommodate anticipated growth and to separate areas
appropriate for future development from areas intended for agricultural use. This is sometimes referred
to as "Town and Country" zoning, which requires that development occur only in towns and villages,
with the surrounding rural areas remaining undeveloped and available for farming, forestry, natural area
preservation, and recreation.
The LUPAG map includes land use categories that effectively establish an UGB between the agricultural
categories (Orchard, Extensive Agriculture, and Important Agriculture) and the urban categories (Rural,
rMM
Low, Medium, and High Density Urban, Industrial, Urban Expansion, and Resort).
90
This policy clarifies that the UGB established with the Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map establishes parcel -
specific UGBs. Some areas are excluded because the LUPAG category boundaries in those areas are
intentionally not parcel -specific.
For more information, see page 141 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 40 Special permits of any kind in the "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive
Agriculture" Land Use Policy Map categories should not be permitted in the Ka'u CDP
planning area, except for the following uses (as defined in HCC chapter 25):
■ Agriculture and Related Economic Infrastructure: Animal hospitals, Veterinary
establishments, Fertilizer yards utilizing only manure and soil, for commercial use
■ Cottage Industry related to Agriculture: Bed and breakfast establishments, Guest
ranches, Lodges, Home occupations
■ Community Facilities: Community buildings, Public uses and structures, Shooting ranges,
ATV courses (in areas without cultural, natural resource, or scenic value)
■ Quarries whose permit conditions address geotechnical, engineering, safety, private
road use, oversight, and any site-specific issues.
■ Urban Uses in Ocean View: Uses consistent with the LDU, MDU, and Industrial LUPAG
categories indicated on the Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map in Ocean View, until the SLU
boundaries are amended (from Agriculture to Urban).
The Planning Commission shall also include in any Special Permit approval (or recommend
�p�p�p�p
�JD",P�"°gyp$,
for approval to the State Land Use Commission) appropriate performance conditions to
���p8p���Pb
�,����w����°��p,
achieve CDP objectives and implement CDP policies. (HRS 205-6(c) and Planning
�ff Jpip
8p �p8p
Commission Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G) 6-7 & 6-8)
�
Rather than amend State Land Use (SLU) district boundaries and/or rezone, landowners in the SLU
agricultural district often apply for a special permit, as permitted by HRS section 205-6. The LUC (or, for
41
off'"�li%14111
�,fff#14
U°^pia
ff
o
ffffff
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 47
parcels 15 acres in size or smaller, the County Planning Commissions) may permit certain unusual and
reasonable uses within agricultural district other than those for which the district is classified. (Uses
permitted in HRS are listed in Table 2 above.)
This policy is intended to encourage diversified business enterprises but limit them to those uses that
are truly appropriate on agricultural lands in Ka'G, including Ocean View makai. Below are definitions of
some of the uses that may not be self-explanatory:
■ Guest ranch: an establishment with its surrounding land which offers recreational facilities for
activities such as riding, swimming and hiking, and living accommodations
■ Lodge: a building or group of buildings, under single management, containing transient lodging
accommodations without individual kitchen facilities, and no more than forty guest rooms or suites,
and generally located in agricultural, rural or other less populated areas
■ Home occupation: any activity intended to provide income that is carried on within a dwelling,
within an accessory structure to a dwelling, or on a portion of a building site used principally for
dwelling purposes
■ Community building: a public or privately-owned building for civic, social, educational, cultural, and
recreational activities which is not operated primarily for financial gain
■ Public use, building, or structure: a use conducted by or a structure or building owned or managed
by the federal government, the State of Hawai'i or the County to fulfill a governmental function,
activity or service for public benefit and in accordance with public policy. Excluded are uses which
are not purely a function, activity or service of government and structures leased by government to
private entrepreneurs or to nonprofit organizations.
See Policy 41 below for a discussion of quarries.
Planning Commission Rule 6-8 allows the Planning Commission approve a Special Permit (or recommend
its approval to the State Land Use Commission) with appropriate performance conditions.
For more information, see pages 127 and 135-136 of Appendix V4A.
48 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 41 Special permits of any kind in the "Rural" Land Use Policy Map category should not be p�
Ipgppp�p�
�UP p
permitted in the Ka'u CDP planning area, except for the following uses (as defined in HCC
chapter 25):��"°"ppp��
�8pypppp8p
Igppppppyppp
■ Agriculture and Related Economic Infrastructure: Animal hospitals, Veterinary r�pp"ppppp
��Pypppp'pPX
establishments, Kennels
■ Cottage Industry: Bed and breakfast establishments, Home occupations, Commercial or
personal service uses, on a small scale
■ Health and Dependent Care: Day care centers, Family child care homes, Adult day care
homes, Group living facilities
■ Community Facilities: Community buildings, Meeting facilities, Schools, Churches,
temples and synagogues, Public uses and structures, including those privately managed
(e.g., road maintenance facilities), Tennis courts, Swimming pools
rMM
■ Urban Uses in Ocean View: Uses consistent with the LDU, MDU, and Industrial LUPAG
categories indicated on the Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map in Ocean View, until the SLU 90
boundaries are amended (from Agricultural to Urban).
■ Quarries in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates whose permit conditions address areas of
concern with current mining operations, including geotechnical, engineering, safety,
private road use, regular oversight by agencies with the necessary expertise and
capacity, site restoration plans, and any other site-specific issues.
The Planning Commission shall also include in any Special Permit approval (or recommend
for approval to the State Land Use Commission) appropriate performance conditions to
achieve CDP objectives and implement CDP policies. (HRS 205-6(c) and Planning
Commission Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8) IMM
Rather than amend State Land Use (SLU) district boundaries and/or rezone, landowners in the SLU
agricultural district often apply for a special permit, as permitted by HRS section 205-6. The LUC (or, for
parcels 15 acres in size or smaller, the County Planning Commissions) may permit certain unusual and
reasonable uses within agricultural district other than those for which the district is classified. Planning
Commission Rule 6-8 allows the Planning Commission approve a Special Permit (or recommend its
approval to the State Land Use Commission) with appropriate performance conditions.
This policy is intended to encourage diversified business enterprises but limit them to those uses that
are truly appropriate in Green Sands, Mark Twain, and Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. Below are
definitions of some of the uses that may not be self-explanatory:
■ Guest ranch: an establishment with its surrounding land which offers recreational facilities for
activities such as riding, swimming and hiking, and living accommodations
,11111
■ Home occupation: any activity intended to provide income that is carried on within a dwelling0app"pp
QD" JDpud�p"'ppppppp
ppP$'
within an accessory structure to a dwelling, or on a portion of a building site used principally for
�p"ppp�pp"ppp
Affffff# uJ
dwelling purposes
�Qf#ffffff111�,ppa"ppppp
�W" �pJpppp�JO
■ Community building: a public or privately -owned building for civic, social, educational, cultural, and
Offff#010
pp��p
pUUU�pP
recreational activities which is not operated primarily for financial gain
�fff[f
fffffli
'4rtpp➢
"I'll"
'OffffffffUd��
'W"'�l
ffff��W�I
pp�,
pppp�pp�pP
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 49
■ Meeting facility: a permanent facility for nonprofit recreational, social or multi-purpose use, which
has no overnight accommodations, and which may be for organizations operating on a membership
basis for the promotion of members' mutual interests or may be primarily intended for community
purposes. Typical uses include private clubs, union halls, community centers, and student centers.
■ Public use, building, or structure: a use conducted by or a structure or building owned or managed
by the federal government, the State of Hawai'i or the County to fulfill a governmental function,
activity or service for public benefit and in accordance with public policy. Excluded are uses which
are not purely a function, activity or service of government and structures leased by government to
private entrepreneurs or to nonprofit organizations.
The quarries in mauka Hawaiian Ocean View Estates present a challenge. For some time, a number of
land owners in the vicinity of Mahimahi Drive, Lurline Lane, Kailua Blvd., and Liliana Lane have been
digging large cinder pits. Some operations are grandfathered, some have Special Permits, and some are
unpermitted (and have been issued violations by the Planning Department). On the one hand, these
quarries are sources of important material for construction and contributors to the local economy. On
the other hand, there are safety concerns about the mining methods, there are disputes between
property owners about boundaries and ownership, adjacent roads have been closed due to
undercutting, and the hauling trucks put considerable wear and tear on the subdivision roads.
A more comprehensive approach to the quarry operations in this area should be developed and
implemented for these activities to continue in a safe manner. In the Special Permit (SPP 09-000076)
issued to Arrow of Oregon/Hawai'i, LLC, a condition of approval requires preparation of a geotechnical
report and oversight by a soils engineer to make sure that there were buffers, benching, and adequate
sloping for the quarry operation. Building on this condition, Special Permits for quarries in Ocean View
should include permit conditions that comprehensively address the issues in the area.
For more information, see pages 127 and 135-136 of Appendix V4A and page 188 of Appendix V413.
Policy 42 Landowners interested in subdivision of agricultural land in the Ka'u CDP planning area
shall be encouraged to subdivide pursuant to HCC section 23-112 related to farm
subdivisions.
This policy is intended to promote a viable alternative to conventional subdivision. Farm subdivisions
are a cost-effective way to provide small acreage agricultural lots without the risk of quasi -rural
subdivision sprawl and loss of open space.
Agricultural lands may be subdivided as "farm subdivisions" and leased for agricultural uses provided
that no permanent or temporary dwellings or farm dwellings are constructed on the leased area. Lots
created and leased pursuant to this section are legal lots of record for mortgage lending purposes and
are exempt from county subdivision standards, including water and roads, provided that a roadway
maintenance agreement is executed for all roadways within the farm subdivision and adequate access
from a government road is provided that meets the requirements of the Department of Public Works.
For more information, see page 137 of Appendix V4A.
50 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
1111111011111114%,°11Policy43 When consideringapplications to consolidate and resubdivide pre-existing lots of record/ p,�
"141A%�J,
' O
the Director of Planning shall only permit lots less than one acre in size in the State Land
IUg D�
Use Agricultural district if the applicant clearly demonstrates that an unreasonable
economic hardship cannot otherwise be prevented or land utilization is improved relative 1,0110�����
to the objectives and policies of the CDP. (HRS 205-5(b)) � U,
DJ�p�O
This policy is intended to preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and concentrate new
residential development in town/village centers. The minimum lot size in the State Land Use
Agricultural district is one acre. However, landowners with pre-existing lots of record (PLORs) may
reconfigure the lots to suit their plans for the property without having to conform to the Subdivision
Code, subject to improvements required by the Planning Director. Moreover, pre-existing lots of record
are sometimes smaller than one acre in size, and property owners often seek to retain those small lot
sizes when reconfiguring property that contains pre-existing lots. In these situations, if the County finds
that unreasonable economic hardship to the owner or lessee of land cannot otherwise be prevented or
where land utilization is improved, the County may allow lot sizes of less than one acre. Typically,
smaller lots are used for residential purposes, so they should only be permitted in agricultural areas
when appropriate.
For more information, see pages 126, 136-137, and 139-140 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 44 Through permit conditions, development agreements, deed restrictions, and/or other
means, ensure that areas in the "Important Agricultural Land" and "Extensive Agriculture"
Land Use Policy Map categories continue to be utilized for agricultural uses and not for
speculative or other residential development.
There is a strong need among coffee farmers and other small producers in Ka'u for greater land tenure
on small lots (e.g., 5-15 acres), preferably through fee simple ownership, and some farmers prefer to
establish dwellings on their farms. In some cases, therefore, it may be appropriate to rezone and
subdivide agricultural land in Ka'u. In addition, variances from the zoning and subdivision code may be
warranted to increase the affordability of farm lots.
Too often, however, rezones of agricultural land and subsequent variances create quasi -rural subdivision
sprawl rather than greater agricultural opportunity, with impacts that include:
■ Loss of viable agricultural land and open space
■ "Gentlemen estates" that increase property values and taxes
■ Development away from town infrastructure and services, creating future demand for public
facilities and services whose costs exceed new tax revenue.
The purpose of this policy, therefore, is to preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and
concentrate new residential development in town/village centers.
Olf���
�1yp�,�p�Pyp
� Py
When considering land use applications for agricultural land in Ka'u, several factors must be taken into���y
consideration:��p�p°"°"p
lyp�p �Pyp�p
First, is there sufficient demand in excess of current supply? Current agricultural zoning (mostly 20
���p8p�p�p�pBP
acres) is appropriate in most of the Ka'u CDP planning area. The vast majority of agricultural land under
production in Ka'u is pasture. There are also approximately 5,000 acres in macadamia nut production,
�A
41111
'"�IWU�
"P�
'00111111111
1,1111,
111,1111 a r
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 51
and significant acreage in commercial forestry. Biomass production might also be viable in Ka'u. None
of these uses require lot sizes small than 20 acres.
There are also almost 600 acres in coffee, and more than 400 acres in tropical fruit and truck crop
production. Under the right conditions, these types of agricultural enterprises can be viable on
approximately 5-10 acres. In areas where these crops can be grown in Ka'u, current lot sizes already
accommodate smaller scale enterprises:
■ Wood Valley features coffee, flowers, truck crops, and tropical fruit on lots mostly between 5 and 25
acres in size.
■ Between Wood Valley and Pahala, the Olson Trust leases small acreage to farmers producing mostly
coffee and truck crops.
■ The Hester Agricultural Project District (APD) mauka of Pahala features 17, 5 -acre lots.
■ The Moa'ula Coffee Farm Planned Unite Development (PUD) features 98 farm lots ranging from 6 to
25 acres in size, with an average size of 14 acres.
■ The area mauka of Discovery Harbour between Wai'6hinu and Lorenzo Road features fruit and nut
orchards on lots mostly between 5 and 100 acres in size.
■ Ocean View includes many one and three acre lots, some of which are in truck and other specialty
crops.
Second, is the most appropriate set of land use tools being used to achieve both project and community
objectives? For example, farm subdivisions can be created and leased as legal lots of record for
mortgage lending purposes and are exempt from county subdivision standards, which would allow for a
great number of small acreage lots (see Policy 42).
Likewise, Agricultural Project Districts (APDs) may not be well-suited to Ka'u. APDs are designed, in part,
to "satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal agricultural land, while decreasing the pressure to
develop important agricultural land, so they allow for a mix of small scale agricultural activities and
associated residential uses." But the more "marginal" agricultural land in Ka'u is mostly pasture and in
areas unlikely to be under pressure for development (i.e., rezoning and subdivision), while the most
valuable agricultural land is closer to existing amenities like roads, water, and towns, making them more
likely targets for speculative development. So APDs are more likely to be used in Ka'u for rural
residential development than agriculture.
In addition, care must be taken with variances (and, by extension, Planned Unit Development). Pursuant
to HCC sections 23-15 and 25-2-51, a variance from the provisions of the zoning or subdivision codes
may be granted by the Planning Director if the following is found:
■ There are special or unusual circumstances applying to the subject real property which exist either
to a degree which deprives the owner or applicant of substantial property rights that would
otherwise be available, or to a degree which obviously interferes with the best use or manner of
development of that property; and
■ There are no other reasonable alternatives that would resolve the difficulty; and
52 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
■ The variance is consistent with the general purpose of the district the intent and purpose of the
�UyPAPPApBf
code, and the general plan, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or cause
substantial, adverse impact to an area's character or to adjoining properties.
�PJp �Pp
Conditions imposed by the director shall bear a reasonable relationship to the variance granted.
APAA
bPPAP �Pp
�U��;"�
Variances must be consistent with the General Plan. As it relates to water systems, the General Plan
�aPAPA�PAPA
includes these policies and standards:
'//DA APP
PAPA
■ 11.2.2(b): "All water systems shall be designed and built to Department of Water Supply standards."
DAPAb PApyp
DAP 8p�,
"Public
6�IU�PU �APdAN
��AAPAA
■ 11.2.3(a): and private water systems shall meet the requirements of the Department of
%DAPA PAP
Water Supply and the Subdivision Control Code."
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 53
Variances for private, non -catchment water systems that do not meet DWS standards can be as simple
as water catchment systems supplemented with water supplied by tanker truck from a private well, as
was the case for the Moa'ula Coffee Farm PUD.
IMM
Care must be taken to prevent the subdivision of agricultural land to accommodate residential
development with substandard infrastructure, which is contrary to the General Plan and to Community
Objectives to preserve agricultural land and concentrate new residential development in town/village
centers.
Third, what land use and legal tools can be used to ensure that agricultural land continues to be utilized
for agricultural uses and not for speculative or other residential development? Options include but are
not limited to permit conditions, development agreements, and deed restrictions.
For more information, see pages 134-135 and 137 of Appendix V4A. See Appendix V4C for more
information about the status of and prospects for agriculture in Ka'G.
.3.3 Cau ui°'li'ty Act iioui°'li
Policy 45 Establish agricultural subdivision standards that 1) lower barriers to the creation of viable
farmsteads by reducing infrastructure requirements and expenses; 2) ensure public safety
with appropriate rural water systems and roads; and 3) mitigate against speculative
development.
Pursuant HCC section 23-6, the Subdivision Code shall be applied and administered within the
framework of the County General Plan, including comprehensive or general plans for sections of the
County which may be adopted as amendments to or portions of the County general plan. Pursuant HCC
sections 23-84 and following, subdivision of large parcels into smaller parcels requires the following
improvements:
■ A water system meeting the minimum requirements of the County Department of Water Supply.
AUUAP�AA�dP
Prior to subdivision approval, the Department of Water Supply must confirm water availability,
considering the capacity of its system's sources, storage, transmission, and pressure service zone. If
"' I�UAPyP�QAAAdr
the DWS system cannot accommodate the proposed number of lots and units, the landowner is
responsible for the improvements.
D� p
■ Meet the minimum requirements of the State health department relating to sewage disposal.%%aA°PAAAp
'//DA APP
PAPA
DAPAb PApyp
DAP 8p�,
6�IU�PU �APdAN
��AAPAA
%DAPA PAP
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 53
■ Streets constructed in accordance with the subdivision code specifications and those on file with the
Department of Public Works.
■ Land surface drainage.
■ Street lights.
These water, street, and street light requirements may not be necessary for legitimate farmstead
subdivisions. Moreover, the cost of meeting them or of requesting variances to them increases farming
expenses, which are already very high in Hawai'i.
Therefore, the purpose of this policy is to establish subdivision standards for legitimate farmsteads.
However, along the lines of the rationale for Policy 44, care must be taken when crafting the standards
to mitigate against speculative development. In addition, standards should not be lowered to the point
where public safety and health are threatened.
Policy 46 Amend Planning Department Rule 22 to increase the number of allowable lots with a
water catchment variance, in consideration of zoning, the size of the existing lot, and
other site-specific characteristics.
Pursuant to Planning Department Rule 22, water variances for catchment systems on agriculturally -
zoned properties are permitted for subdivisions of up to six lots if the property has 60 or more inches of
rain per year. Subdivisions resulting in lots at least 20 acres in size and averaging four times the
minimum lot size allowed by zoning may be granted exceptions to the minimum rainfall requirement
and the six lot limit (up to a maximum of 20 lots).
In Ka'u, only a limited area receives 60 or more inches of rain, and many agricultural lots in that area are
large, so options for creating viable farmsteads with water catchment systems are limited. While care
must be taken to not facilitate inappropriate subdivision, flexibility is needed to broaden the range of
allowable lots as a function of zoning, lot size, and other factors specific to the site in question.
For more information, see pages 136-139 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 47 Amend the Hawai'i County Code and associated Planning Department Rules to establish
reporting and inspection requirements, as well as enforcement and fine protocols, for
additional farm dwellings to ensure that dwellings are used for farm -related purposes.
Pursuant HCC section 25-5-72, the following uses are permitted in the agricultural district:
■ One single-family dwelling or one farm dwelling. A farm dwelling is a single-family dwelling that is
located on or used in connection with a farm or if the agricultural activity provides income to the
family occupying the dwelling.
Additional farm dwellings may be permitted only upon the following conditions: (1) A farm dwelling
agreement for each additional farm dwelling, on a form prepared by the director, shall be executed
between the owner of the building site, any lessee having a lease on the building site with a term
exceeding one year from the date of the farm dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement
shall require the dwelling to be used for farm -related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an
agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant's continual
agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also
show how the farm dwelling will be utilized for farm -related purposes.
54 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
However, the County does not consistently enforce additional farm dwelling agreements. There is no
pP App
reporting or inspection process, and it is unclear what the implications should be if agricultural activity'D"A^A�
on the property ceases. '01,1111 #1111111A,p���A�
40,
AAAh
pAPy���X✓
This policy is intended to preserve agricultural land and concentrate residential development in
pA pApP
Uppp��dd�p
town/village centers by strengthening the County's farm dwelling policies and practices. �ppA
For more information, see page 132 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 48 Update the County of HawaiTs tax reduction programs to ensure that public tax
incentives for agricultural land use result in actual public benefits and promote local
agricultural production where possible.
Property tax reduction programs provide a reduction in taxes and reduce operating costs for farm
operations and rural landowners who rent their land to farmers. In Hawai'i County, owners of
agricultural land have two tax reduction options:
IMM
■ Dedicated: Pursuant HCC section 19-60, landowners may dedicate their land to commercial
agricultural use for 10 years and be taxed at a reduced "agricultural use value" rate. The land in
dedicated agricultural use must be used on a continuous and regular basis for agriculture on lands
zoned by the County to be in the districts of agricultural (A), residential and agricultural (RA), family
agricultural (FA), intensive agricultural (IA), and agricultural project district (APD). Farm dwellings
are assessed at the highest commercial agriculture use value, and all portions of land that are not
dedicated for commercial agricultural use are assessed based on the proportional market value of
the total property. If there is a breach of the terms of the dedication, the owner must pay up to 10
years in deferred taxes and a 10% penalty.
■ Nondedicated: Pursuant HCC section 19-57, lands classified and used for agriculture and that are not
dedicated are assessed at two times the dedicated rate. If the property is rezoned for non-
agricultural use and subdivided into parcels of less than five acres in size, the owner must pay up to
3 years in deferred taxes and a 10% penalty.
According to the Hawai'i County Food Self -Sufficiency Baseline 2012, as currently implemented, these
programs have no mechanisms requiring landowners to submit periodic evidence that productive
agricultural activity is still occurring. The current systems also assign the lowest assessment rates to
landowners who do the least amount of regular farm work on their property by installing exterior
fencing and stock water for pasture use. Landowners who work to produce commercial food products
for the local market are taxed at a higher rate.
It might be appropriate to update these programs so that they incentivize landowners to seek qualified
farmers and ranchers to increase local food production on their property. Another option would be to
consider ways that landowners could report farm revenue annually by providing evidence of General
Excise taxes paid from agricultural activities or to provide receipts of food donations to the Hawai'i
Island Food Basket or other safety net
��8pyppppBP
�1 pAp
programs.
The intent is land development in
jll�
�1ypp,pppPyp
of this policy to preserve agricultural and concentrate residential
��AppppA
town/village centers by strengthening the County's property tax reduction programs.
IgpBpppAypBP
ifillpDpAppBf
°pJp�pp�pf
For more information, see pages 143-144 of Appendix V4A.
�p�01,�11W�11li 'pA^pa,
Ili '64
W
�U��Jp JAAAy
dUp
IID
Q r �
AJ��ppdU�pA��
pppp�
A�Af
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 55
Policy 49 Conduct a feasibility study for a County -wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
and/or Save Land for the Future (SLF) program. If feasible, adopt any necessary enabling
County legislation.
Save Land for the Future (SLF) mitigation ordinances and policies require developers to permanently
protect an equivalent or greater amount of farmland in the event that agricultural land is converted to
other uses. Similarly, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs enable the transfer of
development potential from one parcel of land to another and are typically established by local zoning
ordinances. Localities often use market-driven TDR to shift development from agricultural land (sending
areas) to designated growth zones (receiving areas) located closer to municipal services.
Successful TDR programs have been in place throughout the country since 1980 and have protected tens
of thousands of acres of farmland and open space. TDR is most suitable in places where large blocks of
land remain in agricultural use. TDR has been adapted by some communities into Density Transfer
Charge (DTC) or Residential Density Transfer (RDT) programs. Analysis completed for the Kona CDP
suggests that for a TDR program to be successful, sufficient demand for development rights needs to be
stimulated, opportunities 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.
HRS section 5146-136 is the enabling State legislation for TDR programs. The County of Hawai'i must
adopt enabling legislation for the option to be available locally. Some communities defer to nonprofit
organizations to manage their TDR programs.
The intent of this policy is to preserve agricultural land and concentrate residential development in
town/village centers by assessing the feasibility of a County -wide TRD and/or SLF program and, if such a
program is feasible, to propose enabling County legislation.
In collaboration with other stakeholders, including County agencies, the NRCS, DLNR, DOA, Office of
Planning, landowners, planning consultants, land trusts, and other community groups, the Planning
Department should investigate the feasibility of a County TDR or SLF program and, as appropriate,
propose enabling legislation. Consideration should be given to: the demand for and appropriateness of
additional urban density in potential "receiving areas," "best practices" from other communities that
have adopted and adapted TDR and SLF programs, program features adapted to local conditions, and
the appropriate system for program management and to facilitate the exchange of development rights,
including the possibility of using a nonprofit organization.
For more information, see page 145 of Appendix V4A and page 60 of Appendix V413.
Policy 50 Recommend lands to be designated State Important Agricultural Lands. (GP 14.2.2(a) &
14.2.3(i))
Important Agricultural Land (IAL) is a State Land Use designation designed to delineate blocks of
productive agricultural land and areas of agricultural activity for protection from the encroachment of
nonagricultural uses. HRS establishes specific standards and criteria for identifying IAL lands and
requires that the County of Hawai'i is to develop recommendations of lands to be designated within 60
months of receiving funds from the State for this purpose.
This policy is intended to affirm several General Plan policies related to important agricultural lands and
to expedite the identification of IAL in Hawai'i County.
For more information, see page 127 of Appendix V4A.
56 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 51 Preserve open space in Green Sands Mark Twain and Ocean View subdivisions by
�Uyp�pp8p8f
streamlining the lot consolidation process with, for example, fee waivers and exemptions � p
from signage requirements.
A'' I[
A�
The vast majority of the lots in the nonconforming subdivisions in Ka'u (Green Sands, Mark Twain, and
Ocean View) are vacant. Though rates of growth vary, experience in areas like Puna indicates that it is
just a matter of time before those subdivisions build -out, and the open space and rural character of the
areas is lost.
Other jurisdictions facing similar challenges have streamlined the process and waived application fees,
processing fees, and surveying costs for property owners who want to consolidate two or more adjacent
parcels into a single lot, or for bulk property owners who would like to replat an entire portion of the
subdivision.
The intent of this policy is to preserve agricultural lands and open space in nonconforming subdivisions
through similar means in Hawai'i County. IMM
For more information, see pages 188, 197, 203, and 215 of Appendix V413.
4.3.4 Advocacy
(I
4.3.4.1 State Legislature
■ Appropriate funds to the County of Hawai'i to develop recommendations of lands to be designated
State Important Agricultural Lands.
The identification and designation of State Important Agricultural Lands (State IAL) was first proposed at
the 1978 Constitutional Convention and subsequently approved by voters in the same year. Enacted as
Article XI, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i, the State is required to conserve and
protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and
assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands.
Act 233, SLH 2008 (HRS sections 205-41 thru 52), which provides incentives for designation of State IAL,
became effective on July 1, 2008, and triggered the commencement of the process to identify, map, and
designate important agricultural lands throughout Hawai'i. By definition, State IAL are capable of
sustaining high yields, for export or local consumption, and needed for future self-sufficiency even if
currently not in production. The criteria to identify State IAL, listed in HRS section 205-44, include:
suitable soil qualities, availability of infrastructure, existing or traditional agricultural use, and lands
identified under productivity rating systems.
State IAL may be designated by the State Land Use Commission (LUC) in two ways: a farmer or
landowner may file a petition with LUC to designate State IAL, or Counties can recommend State IAL for
the LUC to consider. The State Land Use Commission makes the final decision by a 2/3 vote and
transmits the adopted map to the County. A 2/3 super -majority of the legislature is required to change
the classification of lands designated as State IAL.
U�PB ✓p�pdr
�W"
11111!�
Within 60 months of when they receive funds from the State for this purpose, each County is to
Jp�
recommend lands to be designated State IAL through a collaborative participatory process. The/�����,,
�Ud�
Planning Department is to lead the process, and the County Council is to adopt the maps of
UIy%/ 0U�p��p�pD
0%/ p
recommendations by resolution. The County of Hawai'i has not yet received funding to develop
recommendatio0ns of lands to be designated IAL
�p��4"P�p
6I�OO�UU�,��P��.
�����pXp
✓oU'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 57
For more information, see page 127 of Appendix V4A.
■ Pass legislation enabling land banks that counties can use to acquire tax -delinquent properties and
use them to preserve agricultural land and open space.
Jurisdictions can acquire lots for non-payment of property taxes, remove or transfer development rights,
and use a "land bank" to offer tax -delinquent properties to neighbors. Such lots can also be used for
relocation purposes when other properties are acquired for future rights-of-way, public facilities, or land
assembly. State legislation is necessary to enable land banks.
For more information, see page 203 of Appendix V413.
58 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
e
fill PD�PP
°P� PUPU�.
and designate forest and watershed areas into the conservation district during State land use boundary
g g Y
PP
1)%111%,
� �PP
Ilv a�t�61m
bPPP�� APP
� Pa
APpP"D°a
Police Controls
APPyPP�P
APpPP
,I�p�
Policy 52 To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
,nW'"UAP���X✓
'PY,'"M
mauka forests in Ka'u as open space to be preserved, protected, and connected to the
�II������OUgJpPPPPP,.
UPAA�O�PP
region's rich network of natural and cultural resources. Development and construction in
,�,�vnW
L' �UP�PU JAAA➢
dUU
mauka "Conservation" areas shall be minimized and, when necessary, limited to
IID
Q r �
recreation, research, and education facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
UPPP
Most mauka forest areas in Ka'u are in the State Conservation district, where all uses and activities
APP
require a conservation district use permit from the Board of Land and Natural Resources or other
written approval from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and
Coastal Lands (OCCL). The only mauka conservation lands not in one of the publicly -protected areas are
lands owned by Kamehameha Schools, including fingers of land interspersed in the Ka'u Forest Reserve
and a block of land in the northern portion of the district. Those privately owned parcels are in the
Protective and Resource conservation subzones of the State Conservation District. Uses other than
those associated with managing natural resources are prohibited in the Protective subzone. In the
Resource subzone, a single-family residence on each legal lot of record is permitted with approval of the
Board of Land and Natural Resources.
rMM
In the State Conservation district, there is no county zoning, per se, because the State DLNR has
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, much of mauka forest in Ka'u is designated Conservation in the General Plan
LUPAG map. The Conservation designation includes "Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific
preserves, areas in active management for conservation purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural
state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort
stations, and lands within the State Land Use Conservation District." Other proposed uses would require
an amendment to the General Plan, which requires an EIS and approval of the County Council.
Though this policy does not supersede the authority of the State, it serves as a clear expression of the
community's desire to protect and limit development in mauka forests.
For more information, see pages 15 and 160 of Appendix V4A.
4.4.4 Advocacy
C
4.4.4.1 Office of Planning, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
■ Designate forest and watershed areas into the Conservation District during State land use
boundary comprehensive reviews. (GP 8.3(m))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 8.3(m): "Encourage appropriate State agencies to review44
BAyPPP
and designate forest and watershed areas into the conservation district during State land use boundary
g g Y
PP
1)%111%,
� �PP
comprehensive reviews." For more information, see page 160 of Appendix V4A.
A
gP d
P
IgpBp PDyAPP
IyUPPPPPypPp
W' �PPPA�P3PPp
°UPDPA�PP
AP
W' �PPPA�3�PP
=0°Pp�A�PP
�II������OUgJpPPPPP,.
UPAA�O�PP
,�,�vnW
L' �UP�PU JAAA➢
dUU
IID
Q r �
UPPP
APP
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 59
4.5.2 1;,1 uirii d LI flewe MI5 o III iii c
Policy Intent
Policy 53 Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of open space, areas endowed with natural and
scenic beauty, and public views to and along the shoreline. (HRS 205A-2(b)(3)(B), HRS 205-
26, Charter section 13-29, & GP 7.2(a), 7.2(c), 8.2(e), 14.8.2(a), & 14.8.3(d))
This is an affirmation of the following policies established in HRS, the County Charter, and the General
Plan:
■ Coastal Zone Management Policy in HRS 205A-2(b)(3)(B): "Ensure that new developments are
compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize
the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline."
■ Special Management Area Guideline in HRS 205A-26: Minimize, where reasonable, "any
development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the
sea from the state highway nearest the coast."
■ County Charter Section 13-29: "[T]he county shall conserve and protect Hawai'i's natural beauty...."
■ General Plan policy 7.2(a): "Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with
natural beauty...."
■ General Plan policy 7.2(c): "Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate
and enjoy natural and scenic beauty."
■ General Plan policy 8.2(e): "Protect and effectively manage Hawai'i's open space...."
■ General Plan policy 14.8.2(a): "Provide and protect open space for the social, environmental, and
economic wellbeing of the County of Hawai'i and its residents."
■ General Plan policy 14.8.3(d): "Zoning, subdivision and other applicable ordinances shall provide for
and protect open space areas."
For more information, see pages 7, 104, 106, and 123 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 54 Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed, considering structural
setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways to protect view plans. (GP 7.2(b) &
7.3(f))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 7.2(b): "Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed."
■ 7.3(f): "Consider structural setback from major thoroughfares and highways ... to protect important
viewplanes."
For more information, see page 151 of Appendix V4A.
60 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 55 Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of natural beauty. (GP 7.3(i))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 7.3(i): "Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of�I�p
Pyp�p
natural beauty." For more information, see page 20 of Appendix V4A. �lI 0�p,�"°"p,�
611j11
Policy Controls IlllUppp p
Policy 56 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, the environmental report for proposed changes of zone on
property that may impact open space, view planes, and areas of natural beauty shall
include view plane and, as appropriate, line -of -sight analysis and, to facilitate
implementation of Policy 10, proposed conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (HCC 25-2-
42)
A County environmental report is required as part of a change of zone application. This report is an
informational document that contains a description of the physical, social, historical, economic, and
natural resource consequences of a proposed action, including but not limited to a discussion of
rMM
alternatives to the proposed action, any environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the
90
maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity, any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of natural resources which would be involved in the proposed action, and an analysis of
the proposed action.
In order to achieve the policy intent of the CDP (i.e., to protect open space, public views, and areas of
natural and scenic beauty), environmental reports for proposed changes of zone on property that may
impact open space, view planes, and areas of natural beauty should include an appropriate view plane
and, as appropriate, line -of -sight analysis. These scenic features are defined in other policy documents
and in the CDP as follows:
■ Open space: The official Ka'u CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands,
and mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the
"Conservation," "Open," "Important Agriculture Land," and "Extensive Agriculture" LUPAG
categories in the Policy Map.
■ Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites includes the scenic view of
shoreline between Pahala and Punalu'u, the view of Mauna Loa from Volcano-Ka'u Highway, and
the lava flows of 1868, 1887, & 1907, mauka and makai of the stretch of highway between Kahuku
Ranch and the Ocean View subdivisions. Based on public input, the Ka'u CDP Community Profile
also identifies the scenic lookout between Whittington Beach Park and N5'51ehu on the makai side
of highway as a breathtaking panoramic view of the shoreline.
■ Areas endowed with natural beauty: The General Plan identifies natural beauty sites, including
Pohue Bay, South Point, Mahana Bay, Waiakukini, Ka'alu'alu Bay, Honu'apo, Kawa Bay, Ninole Cove,
Punalu'u, and prominent pu'u (cinder cones): 'Enuhe, Makanau, Kaiholena, and One.����p�p�p
For more information, see pages 109, 134, and 152 of Appendix V4A.
4W" �1",4p�p$,
� �'"Ip�^p�
�`dU pP
8pyp 8y
IgpBp �Dyp�P
P
ffffP�
ffff 11�p�PPppyy��pj
dpp
001
n�B��pPPO
�N
jGA�8�pp
"Offf
"AOf11,�111f1'IlbgJp��
4IW U��A�0��0
00 ffff
ID �✓pip°
�
Q r �
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 61
Policy 57 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, applications for Special Permits that may impact open
space, view planes, and areas of natural beauty shall include view plane and, as
appropriate, line -of -sight analysis and proposed performance conditions to mitigate scenic
impacts. (Planning Commission Rule 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8)
Special Permits may be approved only when, among other things, "the proposed use will not
substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use" and "the request
will not be contrary to the General Plan and official Community Development Plan and other documents
such as Design Plans."
In the Community Objectives for Ka'u, "viewscapes that exemplify Ka'u's rural character" are elements
of the essential character of the landscape that may be impacted by uses proposed in Special Permit
applications. Moreover, the "Policy Intent" is to protect open space, natural and scenic beauty, and
public views. These aspects of community character are defined in other policy documents and in the
CDP as follows:
■ Open space: The official Ka'6 CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands,
and mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the
"Conservation," "Open," "Important Agriculture Land," and "Extensive Agriculture" LUPAG
categories in the Policy Map.
Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites includes the scenic view of
shoreline between Pahala and Punalu'u, the view of Mauna Loa from Volcano-Ka'u Highway, and
the lava flows of 1868, 1887, & 1907, mauka and makai of the stretch of highway between Kahuku
Ranch and the Ocean View subdivisions. Based on public input, the Ka'u CDP Community Profile
also identifies the scenic lookout between Whittington Beach Park and N5'51ehu on the makai side
of highway as a breathtaking panoramic view of the shoreline.
■ Areas endowed with natural beauty: The General Plan identifies natural beauty sites, including
Pohue Bay, South Point, Mahana Bay, Waiakukini, Ka'alu'alu Bay, Honu'apo, Kawa Bay, Ninole Cove,
Punalu'u, and prominent pu'u (cinder cones): 'Enuhe, Makanau, Kaiholena, and One.
Planning Commission Rule 6-8 allows the Planning Commission approve a Special Permit (or recommend
its approval to the State Land Use Commission) with appropriate performance conditions.
This policy is intended to protect those aspects of character of the land as much as possible without
infringing on the Planning Commission's authority to make informed judgments based site- and use -
specific characteristics.
For more information, see pages 109, 135, and 152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 58 In the Ka'u CDP Planning Area, applications for Use Permits for wind energy facilities and
telecommunications antennas and towers shall include view plane and, as appropriate,
line -of -sight analysis to demonstrate how the request does not cause substantial, adverse
impact to the community's character, including open space, public views, and areas of
natural and scenic beauty, and proposed conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (HCC 25-2-
60 & 64)
Use permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts that require special attention to
insure that the uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services nor cause
substantial adverse impacts upon the surrounding community. Telecommunications antennas and
62 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
towers require a use permit in all Residential, Agricultural, and Open zones, and wind energy facilities
�
�U p�
require a use permit in the Open zone. A use permit may be granted by the Planning Commission if the
proposed use is consistent with the general purpose of the zoning district, the intent and purpose of they"°���
�A
zoning code, and the general plan and the granting of the proposed use is not be materially detrimental
40,
0U�"D°�
�UJp�A�XP
to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community's character or to
surrounding properties. The Commission's decision shall be accompanied by a statement of factual
findings supporting the decision, together with any conditions imposed upon a use permit approval.
The conditions imposed by the commission shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use permit
granted.
"viewscapes
In the Community Objectives for Ka'G, that exemplify Ka'G's rural character" are aspects of
community character that may be impacted by wind energy facilities and telecommunications towers
and antennas. Moreover, the "Policy Intent" is to protect open space, natural and scenic beauty, and
public views. These aspects of community character are defined in other policy documents and in the
CDP as follows:
■ Open space: The official Ka'6 CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands,
and mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the
"Conservation," "Open," "Important Agriculture Land," and "Extensive Agriculture" LUPAG
categories in the Policy Map.
■ Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites includes the scenic view of
shoreline between Pahala and Punalu'u, the view of Mauna Loa from Volcano-Ka'G Highway, and
the lava flows of 1868, 1887, & 1907, mauka and makai of the stretch of highway between Kahuku
Ranch and the Ocean View subdivisions. Based on public input, the Ka'G CDP Community Profile
also identifies the scenic lookout between Whittington Beach Park and N5'51ehu on the makai side
of highway as a breathtaking panoramic view of the shoreline.
■ Areas endowed with natural beauty: The General Plan identifies natural beauty sites, including
Pohue Bay, South Point, Mahana Bay, Waiakukini, Ka'alu'alu Bay, Honu'apo, Kawa Bay, Ninole Cove,
Punalu'u, and prominent pu'u (cinder cones): 'Enuhe, Makanau, Kaiholena, and One.
This policy is intended to protect those aspects of community character as much as possible without
infringing on the Planning Commission's authority to make informed judgments based site- and use -
specific characteristics.
For more information, see pages 109, 136, and 152 of Appendix V4A.
4.5.3 Calulll°Ii'ty ActIIIA',;%alll°Ii
M
Policy 59 Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and to protect from obstruction
scenic resources, vistas, view planes, open space, prominent landscapes, and areas of
natural beauty identified in the General Plan. (Charter 13-29, HRS 205A, GP 7.2(a), 7.2(b),
7.3(b), 7.3(e), 7.3(f), 7.3(h), 7.3(i), & 14.8.3(d))
P
8p �b
�a�py�p�pBP
As detailed above the policy intent for protecting open space, natural and scenic beauty, and public
views is clear. Existing policy also calls for regulations to ensure those protections:
411111
■ Coastal Zone Management Policy in HRS 205A-2(b)(3)(A): "Identify valued scenic resources in the
coastal zone management area."°°°"
D� p
0
�U AD
%
411111
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 63
■ General Plan policy 7.3(b): "Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and enhance
views of scenic or prominent landscapes from specific locations, and coastal aesthetic values."
■ General Plan policy 7.3(e): "Develop standard criteria for natural and scenic beauty as part of design
plans."
■ General Plan policy 7.3(f): "Consider structural setback from major thoroughfares and highways and
establish development and design guidelines to protect important viewplanes."
■ General Plan policy 7.3(h): "Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefully
considering the effects of proposed construction during all land use reviews."
■ General Plan policy 14.8.3(d): "Zoning, subdivision and other applicable ordinances shall provide for
and protect open space areas."
However, no mechanisms are in place to define, designate, or protect scenic view planes. This policy is
intended to correct that. The Hawai'i County Planning Department will have to:
■ Define scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources by mapping them
(HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(A))
■ Develop application requirements for all land use and construction reviews to assess potential
impacts on view planes and other natural and scenic beauty resources, likely including line -of -sight
analysis (GP 7.3 (e), (h), & (i))
■ Develop permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks
from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. (GP
7.3(f))
For more information, see pages 80-81, 104, 123, 152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 60 Introduce a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor.
For transportation corridors that require a comprehensive planning approach, the Hawai'i County
Council may, by ordinance, establish all or portions of public roadways and an appropriate portion of the
adjacent property as a scenic corridor. The program is essentially an overlay district, potentially with
significant regulatory implications (e.g., signage, lighting, design standards, access management,
landscaping, parking, height, historic and cultural preservation, view planes, and/or setback). In Ka'u,
the principal attraction of a scenic corridor is the protection of view planes.
To establish a scenic corridor, the Council adopts a scenic corridor management plan, which must
demonstrate the need for the adoption of special standards and conditions in order to preserve,
maintain, protect, or enhance the intrinsic character of the corridor. The first step is for the Planning
Director or Council to introduce a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor. After
adoption of a scenic corridor enabling ordinance and corridor management plan, all approvals including,
but not limited to sign permits, grading and grubbing permits, building permits, and subdivision
approvals shall conform to the standards and conditions contained in the scenic corridor enabling
ordinance.
For more information, see pages 90-91 of Appendix V413.
64 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 61 Maintain a continuing program to identify,
acquire and develop viewing sites on the
� p
island. (GP 7.3(c))
To complement County efforts to protect open space, scenic resources, view planes, and areas of 40, N �
ppp� p�
natural beauty, it is important to implement General Plan policy 7.3(c): "Maintain a continuing program
to identify, acquire and develop viewing sites on the island."
4.5.4 C0 11"11II"11111°'III°"I11III�jlllriiity Based, C6llllWboirat:IIIve Act:IIIoIII°'Ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
��pppP
ppb
�8py ppppP
�p� P
,nIW" �pppppppP
W" p
�pPppyppppPv
�8py ppppP
p
�104"
IgpppPppyppp
Py
10 �pppp��ppp
ap�ppp
��pp
p
pPyp��pppP
,0111111OpO�plUpappppa
�'Dp"p���"°
4 111111
IID dUp
o
pppp� ppppP
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 65
4. 6.2 1;,1 uirii d LI flewe MI5 o III iii c
Policy Intent
Policy 62 Protect, preserve, and effectively manage forests, watersheds, shoreline areas, natural
areas, and rare or endangered species and their habitats. (GP 8.2(d) & (e), 14.1.2(c), &
14.8.2(b))
This is an affirmation of the following policies established in the General Plan:
■ 8.2(d): Protect rare or endangered species and habitats native to Hawai'i.
■ 8.2(e): Protect and effectively manage Hawai'i's open space, watersheds, shoreline, and natural
areas.
■ 14.1.2(c): Protect and preserve forest, water, natural and scientific reserves and open areas.
■ 14.8.2(b): Protect designated natural areas.
For more information about this policy, see pages 80 and 151-152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy Controls
Policy 63 The Director of Public Works should condition grading and grubbing permits to require
screen planting, landscaping, erosion control planting, or other treatments to maintain the
good appearance of graded areas and reduce the detrimental impact on adjacent
properties. (HCC 10-12(c))
This policy is simply an affirmation of protocols established in County Code section 10-12(c). For more
information, see pages 140-141 of Appendix V4A.
. „iw. 3 Cauirirty %ct III o III°Ii
Policy 64 Collaborate with the Department of Health, the Three Mountain Alliance, the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation District to
reduce runoff, maximize soil and water conservation, and protect and effectively manage
watersheds and natural areas. (HRS 342D, HAR 11-54-3, GP 4.3(g), 5.2(e) & (f), 5.3(e), (n),
& (o), and 8.2(e) & (j))
The purpose of this County Action is to conserve natural ecosystems, soil, and water, to minimize
surface water and sediment runoff, and to improve coastal water quality.
There is a legal mandate to ensure that the coastal waters of Ka'u remain in their natural pristine state
as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from any
human -caused source or actions (HRS 342D, HAR 11-54-3).
This is also supported by several General Plan policies:
■ 4.3(g): "Participate in watershed management projects to improve stream and coastal water quality
and encourage local communities to develop such projects."
66 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
ff.PP
if
■ 5.2(e): "Reduce surface water and sediment runoff."
8P
■ 5.2(f): "Maximize soil and water conservation."
PP��P
■ 5.3(e): "Promote and provide incentives for participation in the Soil and Water Conservation
I [ P ��
Districts' conservation programs for developments on agricultural and conservation lands."Ue%P,, %,
1#00
■ 5.3(n): "Develop drainage master plans form a watershed perspective that considers non-structural
alternatives, minimizes channelization, protects wetlands that serve drainage functions, coordinates
the regulation of construction and agricultural operation, and encourages the establishment of
floodplains as public green ways."
■ 5.3(0): "Encourage and provide incentives for agricultural operators to participate in Soil and Water
Conservation District Programs."
■ 8.3(e): "Coordinate programs to protect natural resources with other government agencies."
■ 8.3(j): "Encourage the protection of watersheds, forest, brush and grassland from destructive agents
and uses."
However, in the central region of Ka'u, storm runoff descends from steep slopes and causes flooding and
deposits sediment and debris makai. None of Ka'u's tested waters are the State DOH's 303d list of
impaired waters. However, Ka'u residents have observed that the first streams to flow after initial
rainfall are Hilea, Punalu'u, and Moa'ula, followed by Ninole. After extremely heavy rains,
sedimentation of the nearshore bottom has occurred in the area from Kamehame to Honu'apo. Most of
Ka'u between Wai'ohinu and Wood Valley is prone to flooding in the vicinity of gulches.
The primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants are nutrients (particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus), sediment, animal wastes, pesticides, and salts. Agricultural nonpoint sources enter
surface water through direct surface runoff or through seepage to groundwater that discharges to a
surface water outlet. The sediment produced by erosion can damage fish habitat and wetlands and, in
addition, often transports excess agricultural chemicals, resulting in contaminated runoff. This runoff in
turn affects aquatic habitat and contaminates surface groundwater resources.
These challenges cross property lines and regulatory jurisdictions, so the County must work in
partnership with other agencies and organizations. Natural partners in this endeavor include:
■ Department of Health (DOH): A 2003 Attorney General's opinion on the State's authority to prevent
nonpoint source pollution and to require implementation of management measures to reduce
nonpoint source pollution established that: DOH has enforceable policies, and HRS section 342D-11
authorizes DOH to "institute a civil action to prevent violations" of water quality standards. HRS
section 342D -9(a)(1) also permits DOH to issue written notice and order requiring violators to "take
such measures as necessary to correct" their violations.
■ Three Mountain Alliance (TMA): the Three Mountain Alliance was formed as one of Hawai'i's
�UPPPP��P
�UPP SPO
A IIIIIIIJ,P����
Watershed Partnerships. Partners include Federal agencies (National Park Service/ US Fish and
[fill,
�P
Wildlife Service, US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Service), State agencies (Departments
1%,
of Land and Natural Resources and Public Safety), and private land owners (Kamehameha Schools,
�udP�PP�PO
kl
The Nature Conservancy). The TMA's management goal is to sustain the multiple ecosystem
Py
benefits provided by the three mountains of Kilauea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai by responsibly�p"°°�
managing its watershed areas, native habitats and species, and historical, cultural, and socio-
�jPP PP,
/ PPPP BPS,
�UdP�PPPPdpl
6I�OO�UUP,PPPdPP.
����PPXp
✓oU'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 67
economic resources. To implement its 2007 Management Plan, the TMA actively coordinates
programs in the following areas: habitat protection and restoration, watershed protection,
education, awareness and public outreach, and research and monitoring.
■ Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD): Ka'u has its own Soil and Water Conservation District,
and part of the District's role is to advance soil and water conservation.
■ USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): The Natural Resources Conservation Service is
a principal agent of the US Department of Agriculture providing conservation technical assistance to
private landowners, soil and water conservation districts, and other organizations.
For more information, see pages 19, 28, 93, 122-124, 130-131, 147, and 151-152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 65 Actively implement the Honu'apo Park Resources Management Plan.
Honu'apo Park is owned by the State of Hawai'i and was set aside to the County of Hawai'i for Estuarine
Land Conservation and Public Recreation purposes by Executive Order No. 4164 in 2006. The County's
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ka
Ghana O Honu'apo (KOOH) in 2008, which allows KOCH to assist the County in maintaining current park
facilities and to plan for additional restoration and conservation activities and community park
improvements. The goal of the Honu'apo Park Resources Management Plan is to provide land use
guidance to help protect and restore the important natural and cultural resources of the property while
providing integrated and respectful recreational and educational opportunities for the Ka'u community.
Implementation steps include wetland restoration, native plantings, enhanced recreation facilities (e.g.,
BBQ pits, pavilions, camping), improved access and parking, the Ala Kahakai trail segment, improved
signage and interpretative displays, community-based management, and ongoing cultural and
educational activities.
For more information, see page 82 of Appendix V4A and page 120 of Appendix V413.
Policy 66 Complete and implement the Kawa Stewardship plan.
In 2012, the Mayor's office began preparing a plan for community-based, collaborative stewardship of
the County's property at Kawa. For more information, see page 82 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 67 Develop and implement resource management plans for coastal properties secured by the
County in the future.
Several CDP strategies focus on securing additional coastal parcels as preserves. Once they are
protected as public lands or in private easements, resource management plans must be developed and
implemented to ensure the continued protection of natural and cultural resources. For more
information, see page 54 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 68 Encourage the use of Hawaiian plants (indigenous and Polynesian -introduced plants) by
State, County, and private landowners in order to support a Hawaiian sense of place, to
ensure that our cultural heritage is reflected in landscaping, and to help reverse the
displacement and decline of Hawaiian plants.
An important component of the ecological and cultural heritage of Hawai'i and Ka'u are the native,
endemic, and "canoe" plants introduced by early Polynesian settlers. These plants are also often better
adapted to local conditions and therefore easier to establish and maintain.
68 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4. 6.4 Advocacy�DI��U,�`°�
A
4.6.4.1 U.S. Congress
40,11
■ Provide sufficient funding to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Pacific Islands Area (PIA), the Farm Service Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) to adequately implement critical conservation programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a principal agent of the US Department of
Agriculture providing conservation technical assistance to private landowners, soil and water
conservation districts, and other organizations. Hawai'i is within the NRCS' Pacific Islands Area (PIA),
which has service centers in Hilo, Kealakekua, and Waimea.
Through the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Conservation Loan Program (CLP), the FSA makes and
guarantees loans to promote NRCS-approved conservation practices on farms and ranches. The goal is
to provide access to credit for farmers who need and want to implement conservation measures on
"up
their land but do not have the front" funds available to implement these practices.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) provides funding and
technical assistance to enhance, protect, or restore habitats that benefit federally listed, proposed, or
candidate species, or other at -risk species on private lands. According to the Hawai'i Watershed Atlas,
Ka'u's Hilea Gulch, Ninole Gulch, and Kaunamano watersheds are home to the Orangeblack Hawaiian
Damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas), a threatened native species.
Likewise, the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife program provides technical and cost -share funding for
the voluntary restoration of native habitats on private lands and Hawaiian Homelands to achieve long
term benefits to threatened and endangered species. Projects can include, but are not limited to,
construction of fences to exclude feral ungulates; control of alien plants, mammalian predators, and
feral ungulates; out -planting of native plants; and restoration of native ecosystem elements, such as
hydrology and micro -habitat conditions.
For more information, see page 147-149 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.4.2 Army Corps of Engineers
■ Expedite the removal of unexploded ordnance in the vicinity of Pakini Nui, including additional
surveying of potential sites with unexploded ordnance.
For more information, see page 112 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.4.3 State Legislature
■ Provide the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) the resources necessary to actively
support local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD).
HRS Chapter 180 establishes Soil and Water Conservation Districts as State agencies with powers to
conduct research and demonstrations, develop plans, and provide support to landowners relating to soil
and water conservation. Ka'u has its own Soil and Water Conservation District.
r"p"°pPp
lyp�p �Pyp�p
For more information, see page 131 of Appendix V4A.
�UJp�A�JO
■ Authorize and fund a South Hawai'i Marine Protected Area (MPA).
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 69
Despite the near shore waters classification as Class AA in Ka'G, which should "remain in their natural
pristine state as nearly as possible" and whose "wilderness character... shall be protected," the waters
east of South Point are not actively manage, are largely unprotected, and are outside County
jurisdiction. Though DLNR's DOCARE and NOAA have enforcement mechanisms, they are understaffed.
An MPA could focus on conservation and prevention as a means to pro -actively avoid future threats to
the quality of near shore resources.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are marine areas that have been reserved by federal, state, tribal, or
local laws or regulations to provide protection to part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.
They may permit some extractive activities, including certain kinds of recreational fishing such as pole -
and -line, spear fishing without SCUBA, and certain types of nets. There are several kinds of MPAs that
vary according to limitations, including Fishery Management Areas (FMA), Fishery Replenishment Areas
(FRA), Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCD), and No -Take Reserves. "No -take" MPAs prohibit
access or removal of marine life. MLCDs are designed to conserve and replenish marine resources.
MLCDs allow only limited fishing and other consumptive uses, or prohibit such uses entirely. FRAs and
FMAs focused on fisheries management rather than prohibition. FRAs have open/closed years to allow
stocks to rest and recover during closed years. FMAs usually focus on gear restrictions and bag limits to
address a recognized problem.
For more information, see pages 33, 90-95, 97-99, and 101 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.4.4 Department of Health
■ Require implementation of management measures to prevent nonpoint source pollution.
A 2003 Attorney General's opinion on the State's authority to prevent nonpoint source pollution and to
require implementation of management measures to reduce nonpoint source pollution established that:
the Department of Health (DOH) has enforceable policies, and HRS section 342D-11 authorizes DOH to
"institute a civil action to prevent violations" of water quality standards. HRS section 342D -9(a)(1) also
permits DOH to issue written notice and order requiring violators to "take such measures as necessary
to correct" their violations.
For more information, see page 130-131 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.4.5 Department of Land and Natural Resources
■ Following the recommendation of the South Kona-Ka'G Coastal Conservation Task Force, dedicate at
least one State DOCARE officer to the Ka'u district to aid in enforcement.
The DLNR's Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) is responsible for
enforcement activities of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. With full police powers,
DOCARE enforces all State laws and rules involving State lands, State Parks, historical sites, forest
reserves, aquatic life and wildlife areas, coastal zones, Conservation districts, State shores, as well as
County ordinances involving County parks. In 2010, the DOCARE had 22 Conservation and Resource
Enforcement Officers (CREO) on Hawai'i Island. Due to shortages, patrols have been reduced, and CREO
typically only respond to calls. They also rely on County police, on occasion.
For more information, see page 33 of Appendix V4A.
70 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.6.4.6 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
4 �'°"14,U�"`
■ Maintain the Ka Lae (South Point) coastal areas and related infrastructure for recreational, cultural,
"J"11"'o�p"��p��
education, and/or scientific uses in a manner that is protective of resources and is consistent with��p��p�p
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and all applicable laws related to Native Hawaiian rights and
�p
public shoreline access. (GP 8.3(c) & 12.5.9.2(d)).
4601]
DHHL owns much of the land south of Discovery Harbour, including South Point (Ka Lae) and much of
the coastline between Ka Lae and Ka'alu'alu Bay. DHHL has complete land use authority over DHHL
lands and is therefore responsible for determining land use of Hawaiian Home Lands.
DHHL's 2002 Hawai'i Island Plan designates the coastline from Ka'alu'alu Bay southwest to
approximately Green Sands Beach as "Pastoral" and "General Agriculture." The remainder of DHHL's
coastal land at Ka Lae is designated "Special District." Pastoral areas are considered large lot agriculture
specifically for pastoral uses, including homesteading and some commercial uses. Ranch plans and
fencing are required if used for homesteading. General Agriculture areas are prime agricultural areas for
intensive or extensive homesteading or commercial level farming or ranching. These lands may also
serve as an interim use until opportunities for higher and better uses become available. "Special
90
Districts" are areas requiring special cultural and natural resources, open spaces, raw lands, mixed uses,
resorts, or green -ways
DHHL developed a Ka'u Regional Plan with beneficiaries and the Ka'u community, which emphasizes
preservation of cultural sites, management of vehicular and pedestrian access, interpretation, and
education in the Ka Lae area.
This advocacy initiative is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
"Maintain
■ 8.3(c): the shoreline for recreational, cultural, education, and/or scientific uses in a
manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum benefit to the general public."
IMM
■ 12.5.9.2(d): "Encourage the State Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands to develop the South Point
area for recreational opportunities."
For more information, see page 89 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.4.7 Three Mountain Alliance (TWA)
• Strengthen the community and County role in the TMA.
■ Actively implement the Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP), the Rain Follows the Forest
plan, and the Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan.
■ Develop watershed management plans for high priority watersheds.
Forests in Ka'u largely fall outside of County jurisdiction, and the Three Mountain Alliance is already
actively engaging mauka landowners in collaborative strategies for protecting, restoring, and enhancing ,11111
Y3D�p�p�DyP
mauka forests in Ka'u. But because forest management has broad community impacts, both the County '"p�pp°�^Pz
�dyyp �Pyp I
and the community should maintain open communication with the TMA and its partners and actively ��"p�p�p
W 'dy p�p8p
collaborate on appropriate initiatives. f fff
l �p
ffffffff
UJp�A�JO
The Three Mountain Alliance (TMA) was formed as one of HawaiTs Watershed Partnerships. Partners 4UU,1,
include Federal agencies (National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of 6f,101
Agriculture, US Geological Service), State agencies (Departments of Land and Natural Resources and
fffff
Off
�U� ✓p�py
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 71
Public Safety), and private land owners (Kamehameha Schools, The Nature Conservancy). The TMA's
management goal is to sustain the multiple ecosystem benefits provided by the three mountains of
Kilauea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai by responsibly managing its watershed areas, native habitats and
species, and historical, cultural, and socio-economic resources. To implement its 2007 Management
Plan, the TMA actively coordinates programs in the following areas: habitat protection and restoration,
watershed protection, education, awareness and public outreach, and research and monitoring.
In 2012, DOFAW adopted the Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan. According to the Environmental
Assessment for the Plan, the following management actions related to mauka forest management will
be undertaken throughout or in selected parts of the Reserve as part of a 10 to 20 year management
plan for this area:
■ Implement the actions in such a way as to maintain the local character, control, and involvement, or
"Keep Ka'u, KaV'
■ Maintain local residents' access to all areas of the Reserve, including fenced areas
■ Maintain existing public access roads for use for recreational uses, hunting, and traditional and
cultural practices
■ Develop new access routes to increase access by hunters and others in cooperation with
neighboring uses, particularly on existing roads or other alignments just within the Reserve
boundary, and across private and State-leased lands below the Reserve
■ Provide appropriate and secure routes just makai of the Reserve and mauka of farms and pastures
and explore working with local residents to monitor access in order to prevent inappropriate access
and provide security and a sense of community stewardship
■ Continue to facilitate public hunting in the Reserve by including walkovers and gates in fenced areas,
and increase access to lower portions of the Reserve to allow for public hunting
■ Use local hunters wherever safe, feasible and effective as part of the first steps when removing feral
ungulates from a management unit, and explore the ideas of one-way gates for pigs
■ Fence management areas and remove feral and introduced ungulates from within fenced
management areas for watershed and native ecosystem health
■ Remove weeds in high priority areas, control them along invasion corridors, and prevent the
introduction of invasive species
■ Implement non-native predator control (i.e., feral cats, mongoose, rats)
■ Propagate and re-introduce certain species of rare and endangered plants
■ Restore'Alala to the wild
■ Continue the long-term forest bird monitoring program to assess changes in bird population and
distribution
■ Survey and inventory rare native plants and animals (including insects and snails)
■ Improve habitat and recover rare and endangered plants by propagation and reintroduction of
plants into appropriately fenced and protected habitat
72 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
■ Develop low -impact activities and minimal improvements, including picnic and camping areas, trails
4II�p�
and public cabins/shelters. DOFAW seeks community input and recommendations on the potential
PPb"P"P�
development and locations for additional recreational amenities.
�8py PPPBP
■ Hire outreach staff and work with partners to provide community outreach and education (e.g.
IypPPPPPypPp
r�Pp"PPPPp
))111��Pyp�P'�PPX
volunteer service trips, student internships, and school programs) to build public understanding of
P
��P�
PPyp���PP
�p��PddpO
and support for the Reserve's unique native resources
U�pp�0�p0
,I,I��II,�I,IWI�I'IbgJppp�pPp.
W
�UdP� ✓pPp°
dUP
■ Provide education to children (through schools and youth programs) and the general public to
IID
Q r �
�PJ� �pPdU�pp��
encourage involvement in forest management and Hawaiian use of the forest, incorporating
PPPP�
volunteer opportunities in the Reserve so people can give back to the land and their communities
P�Pf
and be an integral part of the management team for the Reserve
■ Respond to fires, as needed
■ Monitor the forest for insects and disease and conduct other management as required to control
damaging insects, slugs, and/or plant disease
■ Determine environmentally compatible means for generation of revenue to support proposed 90
management activities
■ Participate in collaborative initiatives such as the Three Mountain Alliance and with other public and
private forest landowners. IMM
The DLNR's Rain Follows the Forest plan identifies priority watershed areas based on potential changes
in recharge based on land cover changes. All of the priority areas in Ka'u are already protected either by
public ownership or other means. Specific strategies to protect watersheds include:
■ Remove all invasive hooved animals from priority I and II areas using fencing and public hunting
■ Remove or contain damaging invasive weeds that threaten priority I and 11 areas using fencing and
mechanical, chemical, and biological controls
■ Monitor and control other forest threats including fires, predators, and plant diseases
■ Restore and plant native species in priority areas and buffer areas
■ Educate Hawai'i's residents and visitors about the cultural, economic, and environmental
importance of conserving native forests using teacher training, educational programming, and an
expanded Youth Conservation Corps
■ Promote consistent and informed land use decision-making that protects watersheds.
For more information, see page 21, 28-29, 125, 152-154 of Appendix V4A.
4.6.5 CoIIIIII �II��III����I�,i IIII�ItBased, C
pied,C6III4Po IIIa¶ vrc,Act ¶ oirii
8pypppP
L�ppPP�pppP
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind these
3p� PPyP
�1u�°"pp1Pp��
I UyPP Py
actions and initial implementation steps.
"Ooo ,"p"pp
�d48py PPPBP
JillV�" U"WGp 1
p
app pPpO
P
��P�
PPyp���PP
�p��PddpO
U�pp�0�p0
,I,I��II,�I,IWI�I'IbgJppp�pPp.
W
�UdP� ✓pPp°
dUP
IID
Q r �
�PJ� �pPdU�pp��
PPPP�
P�Pf
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 73
4.7.2 IIiiiiirid Use i:5dIIiiic
Policy Intent
Policy 69 Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and
cultural importance to Hawai'i. (GP 6.2(a))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 6.2(a): "Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings,
and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawai'i."
Policy 70 Protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and
religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native
Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the
State to regulate such rights. (Hawai'i State Constitution, Article 12, section 7; HRS §§ 1-1
& 7-1; Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Aina v. Land Use Comm'n, 94 Hawai'i 31 (2000); Pele Defense Fund
v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578 (1992))
This is an affirmation of policy established in Article 12, Section 7 of the Hawai'i State Constitution: "The
State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence,
cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native
Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate
such rights." That section of the Constitution has been further reinforced in Hawai'i Revised Statutes
and by the courts.
For more information, see page 166 of Appendix V4A.
Policy Controls
Policy 71 Review and comment by DLNR's State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) shall be
requested for any permit or entitlement for use which may affect any building, structure,
object, district, area, or site that is over fifty years old. (HRS 6E-42)
This policy is an affirmation of existing regulatory protocols established in HRS 6E-42. For more
information, see page 166-167 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 72 In the "Low Density Urban" (LDU) and "Medium Density Urban" Land Use Policy Map
categories, in those cases where provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes are
inconsistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, variances or PUDs that
maintain consistent village/town character should be encouraged.
Pursuant to HCC sections 23-15 and 25-2-51, a variance from the provisions of the zoning or subdivision
codes may be granted by the Planning Director if there are special or unusual circumstances applying to
the subject real property which exist to a degree which obviously interferes with the best use or manner
of development of that property. The variance must be consistent with the general purpose of the
district, the intent and purpose of the County Code, and the General Plan and not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or cause substantial, adverse impact to an area's character or to
adjoining properties.
74 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are essentially packages of variances for a minimum land area of two
I
acres. Pursuant to HCC section 25-6-1, the purpose PUDs is to encourage comprehensive site planning
that adapts the design of development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of
various uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, setbacks, building heights, and lot sizes. A PUD permit
may be granted if:
P
p ��
■ Any commercial development shall be an attractive center which does not adversely impact upon
■ The proposed development substantially conforms to the General Plan
■ Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained desirability
and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding area
■ Any commercial development shall be an attractive center which does not adversely impact upon
adjacent and surrounding existing or prospective developments
■ The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to the normal
requirements of the Zoning Code and the contemplated arrangements or use make it desirable to
apply regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under the district
regulations.
The intent of this policy is to encourage use of these planning tools to support development and
construction that reflect community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
For more information, see pages 137-138 of Appendix V4A.
rMM
Policy 73 The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with
minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and
design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. (GP 14.3.3(f))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.3.3(f): "The development of commercial facilities should
be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services.
Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such
developments." For more information, see page 14 of Appendix V413.
Policy 74 As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage,
walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs when improving existing roads in
Pahala, N5'51ehu, and Wai'ohinu, retain the current road design, including pavement
width and lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales.
"Pahala
The 1978 and N5'51ehu Urban Design Plans" were developed to facilitate quality design in future
development and construction, both public and provide, by addressing land use, circulation, community
facilities, protection of significant historic and natural features, and design guidance for environmental
and architectural character. The Plans recommended that the County maintain streetscape standards
that do not require curbs and gutters where drainage can be adequately handled with landscaped or
asphalt swales.
Sections 23-41 and 23-86 and 87 of the County's Subdivision Code establish minimum road right-of-way
�ppPy�pppdr
3p
and pavement widths in feet, unless otherwise indicated on the County General Plan. HCC 23-86 also
specifies that streets shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications on file with the
p p
Department of Public Works. Moreover, HCC 23-91 gives the Planning Director authority to recommend
OpppppPBppD.
and the County Council to require the construction of curbs and gutters which shall be constructed in
�p p4
accordance with specifications of the Department of Public Works.
�udp
ppb"ppp�.
✓oT
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 75
The Subdivision Code distinguishes "minimum right of way," "minimum urban pavement," and
"minimum rural pavement" for dedicable streets. The minimum right of way for business, industrial,
and collector streets is 60 feet, and 50 feet for minor streets. Lots one acre and smaller must conform
to urban standards, and lots between one acre and up to three acres follow rural standards. In urban
areas (lots one acre or less), business and industrial streets require 36 feet of pavement, collector
streets require 24 feet of pavement (36 feet with curb and gutter), and minor streets require 20 feet of
pavement (32 feet with curb and gutter). In rural areas (between one and three acres), business and
industrial streets require 24 feet of pavement, collector streets require 20 feet of pavement, and minor
streets require 20 feet of pavement.
Huapala, Pakalana, Pumeli, Chia, Lehua, Puahala, Kaoli, Liau, Keahi, and Kokio Streets in Pahala are
consistent with the County standards for minor streets; they have a 50 foot ROW and 19-20 feet of
pavement. However, because many of the streets in Pahala, N5'51ehu, and Wai'6hinu were designed
before these standards were established, they may not conform. For example,
■ Rear lanes in N5'51ehu as well as Hapu, Hala, and Hau Streets in Pahala have a 30 foot ROW and 16
feet of pavement.
■ Residential streets in N5'51ehu as well as Hinano, Lima, and portions of Pikake in Pahala have a 36-40
foot ROW and 8 or 9 feet of pavement.
There are a limited number of roads in Ka'6 with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
The intent of this policy is to retain the rural character of roads in Ka'6 by mimicking, to the extent
possible, the existing road design when building new roads.
For more information, see pages 75-83 and 144 of Appendix V413.
Policy 75 As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage,
walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs, new roads (both public and
private) in the Ka'u CDP planning area may be constructed without curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. (HCC 23-41, 86, 87, & 91)
This policy follows a rationale similar to that of Policy 73 but applies it to existing roads.
Policy 76 Restore and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural
importance to Hawai'i. (GP 6.2(a) and 6.3(e), (f), & (j))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 6.2(a): "Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings,
and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawai'i." It will require implementation
of several related General Plan policies, including:
■ 6.3(j): "Develop a continuing program to evaluate the significance of historic sites."
■ 6.3(f): "Encourage the restoration of significant sites on private lands."
■ 6.3(e): "Embark on a program of restoring significant historic sites on County lands. Assure the
protection and restoration of sites on other public lands through a joint effort with the State."
76 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
The Cultural Resources Commission is the natural lead for these initiatives. Its charge is to protect
Ply PPPBf
preserve, and enhance historic properties and artifacts and to formulate historic preservation policies,
�P"PPp
programs and plans. Specific duties include:
Py
�",°Pjj�"I° o"PpP'`
�4PPPPPPPPp
■ Initiate, accept, review and recommend to the State historic preservation officer historic properties
W"
IypPP PPypPp
nominations for inclusion on the State and National Registers�P"P�"Pppp
��PPpyPPPPP
8p PP
■ Administer the Certified Local Government program of federal assistance for historic preservation
within the County
■ Use the State Historic Preservation Plan to develop and implement a comprehensive County -wide
historic preservation planning process.
The Commission could also protect and preserve nationally significant historic structures and sites
through the Save America's Treasures program and sponsor the Historic Landmarks Designation for
places that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United
States.
For more information, see pages 163-168 of Appendix V4A. 90
Policy 77 Adopt and implement street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate,
flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the rural character of an area, including
pavement width, unpaved shoulders/swales, rock walls, lighting, and landscaping
featuring native plants. (GP 13.2.3(1); North Kohala CDP Strategy 4.8)
This policy affirms two existing policies:
■ General Plan policy 13.2.3(1): "Adopt street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate,
flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the rural character of an area and encourage a
pedestrian -friendly design, including landscaping and planted medians." rMM
■ Strategy 4.8 of the North Kohala CDP: Develop and implement Rural Infrastructure Standards.
Desirable features of rural infrastructure would include neighborhood low speed roads with
drainage down the center of pervious pavement (preventing shoulder erosion), runoff routed to
sedimentation ponds, road design following the contours of the terrain (as opposed to "cookie -
cutter" layout), wide grass shoulders for walkways and trees, and underground utilities (additionally
advantageous in hurricanes and storms, as well as emergency relief efforts), and low profile minimal
street lighting.
For more information, see pages 14 and 77 of Appendix V413.
Policy 78 Install an historic streetscape on Kamani Street in Pahala.
The 1978 "Pahala and N5'51ehu Urban Design Plans" were developed to facilitate quality design in future
PPPPPP
development and construction, both public and provide, by addressing land use, circulation, community
�UBp PPPv
facilities, protection of significant historic and natural features, and design guidance for environmental
p g g
Pp PP,
;
and architectural character. The Plans recommended that the County
��4;, p
PPPPPp
■ Maintain appropriate gateway treatment to create a visual awareness of arrival in Pahala by
��PPpyPPPPP
8p PP
o Announcing the entry points at Kamani and Maile Streets with trees on the mauka side of
���pPPPPPPPPP
�BpPPPPPPp
��ppp;"ppPpp
the highways
�I P
" �pppPBP
,TWj��PPp��P
�XppppP"
�G' QW'
�8pyp�PPv
.iIIUWyappp�ia,
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 77
o Establishing a tree canopy on both sides of Kamani Street
■ Maintain streetscape standards to include landscape and lighting.
The intent of this policy is to advance development and construction that reflect community values of
architectural beauty and distinctiveness by implementing elements of the 1978 design plans.
For more information, see page 144 of Appendix V413.
4.7.4 Advocacy
4.7.4.1 State Legislature
■ Following HRS 6E, provide the Department of Land and Natural resources sufficient staff and
funding for the State Historic Preservation Division to fulfill its mandate.
The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in the Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR):
■ Maintains a statewide Inventory of Historic Properties
■ Maintains the Hawai'i Register of Historic Places and Hawai'i properties entered on the National
Register
■ Reviews development projects to mitigate the effects on historic and cultural resources
■ Maintains a library of archaeological inventories and reports, including over 120 for sites in Ka'u
■ Manages the Burial Sites Program, the Certified Local Government Program, the Historic Preserves
Program, the Information and Education Program, and Inter -agency Archaeological Services to
promote the use and maintenance of historic properties.
For more information, see pages 22 and 166-167 of Appendix V4A.
4.7.5 Based, C6llllWbolll'at:IIIve Act:llloiriis
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind these
actions and initial implementation steps.
78 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.8 EstablishI
/UJpy"°r
�:
�1 ;,�i°Ii a Lus ti5o i m
Policy Intent
a
Pyv��
,
�"'UJPBUUd
Policy 79 Ensure appropriate public access to the shoreline, public trails, hunting areas, scenic 411111
places and vistas, and significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest.
Additionally, ensure access for cultural practitioners. (GP 6.2(b), 7.3(a), and 8.3(r))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 6.2(b): Appropriate access to significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest should
be made available.
■ 7.3(a): Increase public pedestrian access opportunities to scenic places and vistas.
■ 8.3(r): Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public trails and hunting areas.
For more information, see pages 152 of Appendix V4A.
Policy Controls
Policy 80 Appropriate public access to and along the shoreline shall be ensured as a condition of
SMA exemptions and permits. (HRS 205A-26)
This is an affirmation of HRS Chapter 205A, which enables the State and County to enact laws, rules and
regulations that support the public's access to and along the shoreline. SMA permits for oceanfront
properties frequently require the applicants to allow some form of shoreline public access as a condition
of receiving approvals. For more information, see pages 25 and 103-106 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 81 Subdividers of six or more lots, parcels, units, or interests shall be required to dedicate
land for public access for pedestrian travel from a public highway or street to the land
below the high-water mark on any coastal shoreline or to areas in the mountains where
there are existing facilities for hiking, hunting, fruit -picking, ti -leaf sliding, and other
recreational purposes, and where there are existing mountain trails. (HRS 46-6.5 and HCC
34-4(c))
This is an affirmation of HRS section 46-6.5 and HCC section 34-4(c). For more information, see pages 25
and 107 of Appendix V4A.
4. 8.3 Calu lll°Ii'ty Act IIIA',;%alll°Ii
Policy 82 In co-sponsorship with the State when possible, acquire land for public access to historic
sites and objects and to the shoreline where safe transit does not already exist. (HRS 115-app°°"pPp
Pyp
2 & 7; GP 6.3(d))
1,0
This is an affirmation of the following policies:
8pypp 8pyp
■ HRS section 115-2 states that the "counties shall purchase land for public rights-of-way to the
�'!'UJpyppBP
411111111111
QUJpy°A�.
shorelines, the sea, and inland recreational areas, and for public transit corridors where topography
is such that safe transit does not exist."
01111p�"�li,
A
%���
111
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 79
■ HRS section 115-7 allows for State and County "co-sponsorship" of acquisitions for public access.
■ 6.3(d): Public access to significant historic sites and objects shall be acquired, where appropriate.
For more information, see pages 25 and 163 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 83 Establish and maintain an active public access program.
State and County policy requires that the County ensure public access. In addition, HCC section 34-4(b)
requires the County Planning Department to work with the State DLNR and County Department of Parks
and Recreation to compile an inventory (including maps) of "public -owned areas and the approximate
location of the existing public trails." However, the County doesn't have a formal public access program,
and the County's public access inventory currently consists of primarily shoreline public accesses.
This policy is intended to address those deficits. The County's public access program should include
protocols for mapping and marking access points and easements, standards for signage and access
maintenance, access regulations, and community-based management strategies. The program could
also expand the public access inventory to include mauka public access.
For more information, see pages 25-27, 57-64, 107, and 166 of Appendix V4A.
4.8.4 Advocacy
4.8.4.1 State Legislature
■ To facilitate greater public access to and along the shoreline and elsewhere, amend HRS 520,
HawaiTs Recreational Use Statute (RUS), to make it less ambiguous and to discourage frivolous
lawsuits.
To encourage landowners to voluntarily allow public access, HRS Chapter 520, Hawai'i's Recreational
Use Statute (RUS), limits the landowner's liability if access is opened to the public without charging a
fee. A few highlights of this law:
■ "Recreational purposes" covered under this law are very broad and include but are not limited to
"hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study,
water skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific
sites."
■ The owner who permits public recreational access "owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe,"
or "to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity" on the premises to
recreational users or to those who enter to provide rescue, medical care, or other form of assistance
to the recreational user. Nor does the landowner assume any responsibility for any injury to the
recreational user or the user's property while entering his property for recreational purposes.
■ The law's protection extends to landowners who are required to provide access or parking for public
access because of "state or county land use, zoning, or planning law, ordinance, rule, ruling, or
order, etc."
■ The law does not require the landowner to open his/her property to every member of the public in
order to receive protection of the statute.
80 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
■ No prescriptive rights can result from use of the land under this statute. Prescriptive easements can
�8 pppBP
be created where open and continuous public passage over private land can be proven to have
Bp
occurred over a period of at least 20 years. Prescriptive easements are difficult to successfully claim.
r"ppp
"111Jp,ppp14411
8p8P
■ Protection under this law does not extend to the landowner's house guests or if any admission price
,,�Q�d�Bpyp
ZW" ��p8pyppppBP
or fee has been asked in return for invitation or permission to enter the land. Also, there is no
44,
protection under this statute for "willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous
condition... which the landowner knowingly creates or perpetuates."
landowner from leasing land
■ If the receives compensation the to the State or other government
entity, that will not be considered a "charge" for use of the land, and protection under this law will
still be given.
Unfortunately, RUS's do not prevent landowners from being sued, but they make it difficult for the
injured recreational user to win a lawsuit. Some states have taken action to discourage lawsuits. For
example, the RUS for Colorado states: "The prevailing party in any civil action by a recreational user for
rMM
damages against a landowner who allows the use of the landowner's property for public recreational
purposes shall recover the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by
90
the court." This protects landowners from frivolous lawsuits.
HRS section 198D-7.5 allows the DLNR to enter into agreements with owners of public or private land
who open their lands to public access. These agreements "may provide that the State will defend the
owner, its affiliates, and their respective heirs, executors, (etc.) ... from claims made by public users of the
owner's land." These agreements may also "provide that the State will indemnify the owner, its
affiliates, (etc.) ... for property losses incurred due to public use."
For more information, see page 25-26 of Appendix V4A.
4.8.4.2 Three Mountain Alliance (TWA)
rMW
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'u Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to:
o Maintain existing public access roads
o Increase public access for hiking and other recreational activities on public lands
o Support public hunting on appropriate TMA lands, where compatible with watershed
protection values
o Establish access agreements and management partnerships with landowners and local
ranchers, farmers, and hunters
o Develop new access routes to increase access in cooperation with neighboring uses,
particularly on existing roads or other alignments just within the Reserve boundary, and
acrossrivate and State -leased lands below the Reserve
p
o Develop a mauka access management system, building on lessons learned from the
Kapapala Ranch access system.�pp;��°"P�
In 2012, DOFAW adopted a Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan. According to the Environmental
6f� $pdpppppNp�,
�ppp'p"ppp
Assessment for the Plan, the management actions listed in section 4.8.4.2 of the CDP related tocommunity-base
���pdpypppppBP
pyppPB
dcollaborative managementl ll be throughout or in selected
ertaken
���PB
JQ�Illl
parts f the Reserve aspart of a10 to 20 year management
ageme tplan fort
this area
��2p��ppBP
U!y
✓//%%%%r�,p 8pppD
pppppBP
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 81
For more information, see pages 21 and 154 of Appendix V4A.
4. 8.5 Based, C6llllWbolll'at:IIIve Act:lllolll°'Ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
82 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.9 Establish and Manage a Regional Trail System
41
PP8
Il.III°°�i m".�� I��.�u� °raw t�'� �4'„�a III III m��.�
L' 'PdPyp�� PPp
��,PP�°PPPp APppO
Po lI i y Control
A
111111,��PP�
Policy 84 Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural water course, drainage way, channel, or
,�"'UJPBp�PPPPd
M p��
stream, the Planning Director should require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle path
when the opportunity exists to connect to existing or future drainage or trail corridors.
(HCC 23-30)
Park through Ka'u, South Kona, North Kona, South Kohala, and all the way to Upolu Point in North
HCC section 23-30 allows for the Planning Director to require streets or parkways parallel to natural
water courses, including drainage ways, channels, or streams. A street is defined as "the entire width
between the boundary lines of every public way provided for public use, for vehicular and pedestrian
�P�APPb
traffic.”
=OppP�pJppO
The intent of this policy is to expand the regional trail system, when opportune and appropriate, to
IMM
include mauka-makai trails.
A PP
Py
For more information, see page 31 of Appendix V413
��
contact (pre -1778), historic trail developed post -contact as part of the government road system and
OJT
8p 8a
4. 9.3 Calu lll°Ii'ty Act IIIA',;%alll°Ii
Policy 85 Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural or
o%%%adPpApp
recreational values. This system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an island -wide
��'PPPy��PPPP
route connecting major parks and destinations. (GP 12.3(m))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 12.3(m): "Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to
�A�ppj�P"pn,,
places of scenic, historic, natural or recreational values. This system of trails shall provide, at a
minimum, an island -wide route connecting major parks and destinations."
rMM
This will require establishing a baseline of existing trails, identifying potential trails, and prioritizing trail
development and management.
For more information, see pages 8, 10, 11-13, and 24-26 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 86 Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of
Understanding in KaV
The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail envisions a shoreline trail from the Hawai'i Volcanoes National
Park through Ka'u, South Kona, North Kona, South Kohala, and all the way to Upolu Point in North
Kohala. The Trail was dedicated in 2000 and recently went through a comprehensive management
planning process. The trail is planned to incorporate a continuous linear trail along the coastline,
additional ancient and historic trail segments parallel to the shoreline within the trail corridor,
�P�APPb
connected mauka-makai trails, and historic canoe landing areas as appropriate.
=OppP�pJppO
Trails in one form or another exist along the entire length of Ka'u's shoreline and interior, with
✓Qf��°ppp. d
numerous mauka-makai trails connecting the coastal fishing villages to the agricultural settlements and'OP�,°°�
forests in the The AKNHT three kinds trails: trail
A PP
Py
uplands. combines of ancient predating western
��
contact (pre -1778), historic trail developed post -contact as part of the government road system and
OJT
8p 8a
vested as a public trail under the Highways Act of 1892 and linkages connecting the ancient and historic
trail segments. The trail is planned to incorporate a continuous linear trail along the coastline,
o%%%adPpApp
��'PPPy��PPPP
�A�ppj�P"pn,,
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 83
additional ancient and historic trail segments parallel to the shoreline within the trail corridor,
connected mauka-makai trails, and historic canoe landing areas as appropriate. Very little of the AKNHT
is formally established, particularly in Ka'u.
The Ala Kahakai Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and the County -State -National Park Service
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outline the following steps for the County of Hawai'i Planning
Department:
■ Require that applicants for land use permits conduct metes and bounds surveys of any historic trails
and routes. This is required for Na Ala Hele to claim easements and for Ala Kahakai to incorporate
shoreline trail corridors into its trail system.
■ Work with the National Park Service (NPS) to identify public access easements with potential
incorporation into the trail.
■ Enforce County and State laws requiring public access to and along the shoreline as a condition of
land use approvals.
■ 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.
The MOU also outlines the following steps for the County Parks and Recreation Department:
■ Work with the NPS to identify trail segments through county parks for incorporation into the Trail
■ Provide management of the Trail consistent with the CMP where it traverses county parks
■ Collaborate on the design of specific signage that identifies the route of the Trail, particularly where
it traverses County Beach Parks.
For more information, see pages 30-32 and 83-87 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 87 Appropriate, finance, allot, and encumber capital improvement projects in support of trail
development as part of a regional trail system.
To implement Policy 84, the County will have to make some investments. Based on information about
existing and potential trails in Appendix V4A, the initial appropriations should be for
■ Designing and planning high potential trails outside Federal and State jurisdiction, possibly including
coastal trails, the Old Mamalahoa Highway, the N5'51ehu Bypass, and mauka-makai routes
connecting Mamalahoa Highway and Ka'alaiki Road.
■ Research into and surveying of potential trails
■ Executing management agreements with landowners and community-based groups
■ Developing access rules
■ Developing an access control system (e.g., SmartCard)
■ Developing management plans for specific access points and trail segments.
84 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.9m Advocacy 41 "Od,,n�l MId4yp�pp"�P4"8pPeyr
,�JyO� �Pp�p�p�PyD
�Jy%%% P�p8p8
4.9.4.1 National Park Service
■ Activelyimplement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of Understanding in
Ka'u. p g
See the rationale for Policy 85. The referenced MOU identifies the following specific roles for National
Park Service:
■ Act as the lead agency in coordinating activities associated with the implementation of the CMP and
the MOU and with the administration and management of the Trail
■ Consider accepting management responsibilities for state-owned portions of historic trail that
become official parts of the Trail or for land owned by private entities that wish to participate in the
Ala Kahakai NHT program
rMM
■ Coordinate with the Hawai'i Island Na Ala Hele Trail and Access Advisory Council on issues that
pertain to the Trail. 90
4.9.4.2 Department of Land and Natural Resources cl
■ Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of Understanding in
Ka'u. rMM
See the rationale for Policy 85. The referenced MOU identifies the following specific roles for DLNR:
DLNR overall:
■ Include the Trail in the review of Conservation District Use applications and other land use permits
that affect lands likely to contain ancient and historic trails that might be included in the Trail rMM
DLNR through the SHPD:
■ Assist with the investigation and classification of unrecorded burial sites and historic properties
DLNR through State Parks:
■ Provide management of the Trail consistent with the NPS CMP where it traverses State Parks
■ Collaborate on the design of signs and interpretive media and provide technical interpretive
assistance along other sections of Trail not owned by State Parks
DLNR through the Land Division:
■ As is mutually determined feasible and desirable, execute either a Set -Aside or Lease Agreement,
through the BLNR and the Governor, as appropriate, that would formally approve the conveyance to
4"11"pip
the NPS of portions of State-owned ancient or historic ala loa (long trail) that qualify to be included
����p"`
as official components of the Trail
DLNR through Na Ala Hele:
O�Udg� �p8pyp
�ud48py p�pBP
■ Assist with the determination of alignments that qualify for recognition as part of the Trail or for
IgpBp �DypBP
���d��p"°"pip
0��p8p 8pyp8p
conveyance to NPS
��ffff�IIJIyL�AU°Pp,
Ij
6O�f fff 1U����PL
OfffffffffRIJ
0✓T
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 85
■ Coordinate with the Hawai'i Na Ala Hele Trail and Access Advisory Council on issues that pertain to
the Trail
■ Provide technical training on trail maintenance to NPS staff and community volunteers
■ Provide input on the Trail management planning process
■ Collaborate on the design of specific signage that identifies the route of the Trail on the ground and
other signage, such as signs warning of specific dangerous natural conditions related to hazards
■ Provide other pertinent technical information and staff support related to trail management and
maintenance if it does not adversely affect other Na Ala Hele projects and existing staff workload.
4.9.4.3 Three Mountain Alliance
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'u Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to:
o Maintain existing trails in the TMA area
o Facilitate development of the Mauna Loa Trail.
In 2012, DOFAW adopted a Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan. According to the Environmental
Assessment for the Plan, the management actions listed in section 4.8.4.2 of the CDP related to
community-based, collaborative resource management will be undertaken throughout or in selected
parts of the Reserve as part of a 10 to 20 year management plan for this area. For more information,
see pages 21 and 154 of Appendix V4A.
86 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
4.10 Establishi
U"^
ppb
m �y���y �^ w
��� .��� .mp' Men „6QijI III°�'I 4S�M1������t¶ tl„6QIp1i
�� �,� �, � III �,
!/!y 9jpp�pppppP
of Appendix V4A.
ppP
Policy 88 Establish the Punalu'u-Ninole Springs region as a recreation area. (GP 12.5.9.2(c) & (g))°b
8ppp
pdpp� pPp
4.10.3.3 Three Mountain Alliance (TWA)
�Qjjj�
�pppP
✓u,%'
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
"Encourage
■ 12.5.9.2(c): the establishment of the Punalu'u-Ninole Springs region as a recreation
area."
In 2012, DOFAW adopted a Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan. According to the Environmental
Assessment for the Plan, the management actions listed in section 4.8.4.2 of the CDP related to
■ 12.5.9.2(g): "Encourage the restoration of Ninole Pond as a recreation area."
For more information, see page 80 of Appendix V4A and page 158 of Appendix V413.
4.10.3 Advocacy
>
rmn
4.10.3.1 Department of Land and Natural Resources
UpUa
■ Establish Ka'alu'alu Bay or nearby coastal areas as a remote camping -beach park provided that the
'� �UUPGpp�UP
„gyp^pppp���
pppUpP
state and private landowners can resolve liability and resource management issues. (GP 12.5.9.2(e))
�UdU�
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 12.5.9.2(e): "Recommend the development of Ka'alu'alu Bay
/i0/�� pppppp�ppp,.
as a remote camping -beach park." A portion of TMK (3)9-5-006:001 near Ka'alu'alu Bay is designated as
✓/ 'OppppppppU,.
pp ppp,.
a Forest Reserve. Pursuant to HRS Chapter 183 and HAR Chapter 104, in the Forest Reserves, DOFAW
pp
✓ 'Op Up UUppU,.
ppppP
A
provides recreational opportunities; watershed restoration; native, threatened, and endangered species
�Upp
dUJpp �pDv
6DIO�UUppppp�pp.
habitat protection and management; and fire protection among many other things. The public is
����pppp
generally welcome into any forest reserve provided it is not dangerous or detrimental to human life or
✓oU'
the sensitive resources.
■ Develop wilderness recreation uses in Manuka.
DOFAW is developing a plan for the Manuka Natural Area Reserve. For more information, see page 23
of Appendix V4A.
4.10.3.3 Three Mountain Alliance (TWA)
■ Actively implement the TMA and Ka'u Forest Reserve management plans, including steps to develop
low -impact recreational amenities.
In 2012, DOFAW adopted a Ka'u Forest Reserve Management Plan. According to the Environmental
Assessment for the Plan, the management actions listed in section 4.8.4.2 of the CDP related to
community-based, collaborative resource management will be undertaken throughout or in selected
parts of the Reserve as part of a 10 to 20 year management plan for this area. For more information,
see pages 21 and 154 of Appendix V4A.
'Upp4hp,
AU��p�
Uppp�pP��
4 m 4" Based,
ai d, IIb IIIc t ¶ 0At ¶ pIII IpII
UpUa
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
'� �UUPGpp�UP
„gyp^pppp���
pppUpP
action and initial implementation steps.
�UdU�
/i0/�� pppppp�ppp,.
✓/ 'OppppppppU,.
pp ppp,.
pp
✓ 'Op Up UUppU,.
ppppP
A
�Upp
dUJpp �pDv
6DIO�UUppppp�pp.
����pppp
✓oU'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 87
88 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
5.1 Coordinate Infrastructure, Facility, andImprovements
5m1m3 Ca�uIII IIIc ,Act IIIoI°�i
Policy 89 Implement capital improvement priorities in KaV
Capital improvements are major, nonrecurring expenditure like those listed below:
■ Land acquisition
■ Infrastructure improvement that adds value to the land or improves utility (e.g., roads, drainage,
sewer lines, parking, landscape or similar construction)
■ New buildings or structures or addition to a building, including related equipment and
appurtenances that are integral to the new structure
■ Nonrecurring rehabilitation or deferred maintenance of infrastructure and buildings, provided that
the cost is $25,000 or more and the improvement will have a useful life of 10 years or more
■ Planning, feasibility, engineering, or design studies related to individual capital improvement
projects or to a program that is implemented through individual capital improvement projects
■ Information and communications technology provided that the cost is $25,000 or more.
Communities have several options for advancing capital improvements:
■ Be clear about community capital improvement priorities. The CDP is an ideal place to identify those
priorities.
■ Via the Planning Director, recommend the order of priority of projects. Once the CDP is adopted,
this can be done formally through the CDP Action Committee. HCC section 16-6(4) empowers the
CDP Action Committees to "Provide timely recommendations to the County on priorities relating to
the ... CIP budget and program...."
■ Once high priority projects are appropriated, work with the Administration and County Council
members to secure any bond authorization or other funding sources needed to finance the projects.
■ Once funding is authorized for high priority projects, work with the Mayor to secure necessary
project allotments.
■ Once allotments are secured for high priority projects, work with the responsible agencies to
prepare and execute contracts to encumber funds and initiate the projects.
The intent of this policy is to advance capital improvements for critical community infrastructure in Ka'u.
The priorities listed are a summary of the capital improvement needs identified in policies throughout
the CDP.
For more information, see page 37 of Appendix V413.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 89
Py ��
DJp
�d
[11,11pJPyp��pppP
Ip
40,1
��A
pPyp��pppP
pp��p�pf
PpPp���pP
�IpppP
ppb
�8py ppppP
�P
�PppppppP
IpPppyppppPv
�8py ppppP
P
IgppPppPyppp
IgppPPpPyppp
ppP
J11Pppp� 8pyp
pp�ppppp0
��Ap
A
pPyp��pppP
pp��p�pf
4IIIIIIIIIUgpppP�pAp.
�UdpJp °A"APr
V
�PJif II � ppdU�UA��
0
PpPp� ppppP
Policy 90 Implement protocols for receiving community input at meetings in Ka'u during capital
project siting and design. Consult with and solicit input from community members with
generational knowledge to minimize the impact of proposed changes to the use of land on
cultural practices, cultural sites, and culturally significant areas, including burials.
Despite the fact that public infrastructure siting and design can benefit from local knowledge and will
significantly impact the local community, there are currently no protocols for community engagement at
appropriate phases of capital project development. For more information, see page 38 of Appendix
V4B.
Policy 91 Provide technical support to communities and organizations pursuing capital
improvement financing through USDA Rural Development, infrastructure improvement
financing districts, and other sources.
Because there are limits on the size of the capital improvement debt burden that the County and State
can carry, bond financing can be complemented with other forms of infrastructure financing. For any
given project, these financing tools are often used in conjunction. Appendix V413 introduces several
funding sources, including USDA Rural Development, Community Improvement Districts, Community
Facilities Districts, and Tax Increment Financing. The intent of this policy is to support the diversification
of capital project financing with County expertise in finance and project planning and implementation.
For more information, see pages 39-41 of Appendix V413.
Policy 92 Support use of the Air National Guard Innovative Readiness Training (ANG IRT) program in
the development of infrastructure programs and projects.
As part of its Innovative Readiness Training (ANG IRT), the Air National Guard has committed to provide
manpower to infrastructure projects in Ka'u when they are "shovel ready" (i.e., when financing and
permitting are in place). The target project start date is late 2014, and manpower will then be available
for five years. The intent of this policy is to take advantage of this opportunity by actively collaborating
with the ANG IRT.
For more information, see page 43 of Appendix V413.
5.1.4 Advocacy
5.1.4.1 Department ofAccounting and Genera/ Services, State of Hawaii and US Posta/
Service
■ Improve the Na'alehu Civic Center, including additional parking and building updates.
During public review of the Draft CDP, several comments spoke to the need for more parking and other
faciliities upgrades at the civic center.
5.1.5 Based, C6II IIWbo iiii �a t:ii v Act ii o iii,'�ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
90 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
�.
�
5U 5.2 Improve Water Infrastructure 00''p
IY.�� 2 �.,„ �,� auU III°,III t. Act. III o III°,i
�8p �p8pa
Policy 93 Water system improvements shall correlate with the County's desired land use %,1144
development pattern. (GP 11.2.2(a))
This policy is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies and of related, appropriated projects
that the Department of Water Supply deems cost-effective:
■ General Plan policy 11.2.2(a): "Water system improvements shall correlate with the County's
desired land use development pattern."
■ General Plan policy 11.2.4.8.2(a): "Provide additional water system improvements for the currently
serviced areas of N5'51ehu, Wai'ohinu, and Pahala."
■ General Plan policy 11.2.4.8.2(b): "Pursue groundwater source investigation, exploration and well
development at Ocean View, Pahala, and Wai'ohinu."
"Continue
■ General Plan policy 11.2.4.8.2(c): to evaluate growth conditions to coordinate
improvements as required to the existing water system."
■ Ordinance 12-152, Ocean View Business District Water Infrastructure Improvements: $5,760,000
were appropriated to create the redundant (backup) source required to dedicate a water system to
the DWS, which might allow for the installation of service to the nearby commercial areas.
■ Ordinance 12-87, South Point Road Water Infrastructure Expansion Project.
Regarding the Ocean View water system, both water quantity and quality are concerns. Therefore, the
policy addresses both issues.
90
Related to the South Point project, DHHL beneficiaries identified the need for the water system to be
improved to meet their homesteading needs and for fire suppression. The regional plan for Ka'u
identifies two water -related priorities: increased transmission of water into Kalae, and source
development is needed to access the substantial groundwater resources. The plan calls first for a
Kama'oa Pu'u'eo Water Master Plan,
which would:
1. Determine the amount of water necessary to meet the needs of current and proposed uses in
Kama'oa Pu'u'eo.
2. Access the availability of water and/or identification of a water source.
3. Determine the feasibility of utilizing the former military barracks water system (storage and
conveyance).
4. Prepare preliminary engineering costs for necessary source development, water conveyances"pip
A48p
1111u d 8p p�BD
and storage to meet water requirements.
��L�p°�p�p
14,
5. Consult with U.S. Department of Agriculture -Rural Development (USDA -RD) to determine if
m�P"°"��`
48py p8P
project is eligible for funding.
���pBPp�p�p�P
/��dJ�p�P�p�p
6. Consult with County of Hawai'i Department of Water Supply regarding hybrid system
f ��
development.
f#�U��''U°°�"�gy�"p
7. Assess and evaluate alternatives.
�°°�JJjJ
�
o
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 91
DHHL has initiated that process, in consultation with the Department of Water Supply. In 2014, the
Department of Water Supply began discussions with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands regarding
upgrades to existing systems to meet DWS standards. DWS's support is limited to plan review and
construction inspection. Proposed improvements include new storage tanks and distributions systems
from those tanks to nearby lots. These improvements will not increase system capacity significantly.
For more information, see pages 13-16 and 94-97 of Appendix V413.
5.2.3 Advocacy
5.2.3.1 Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL)
■ Collaborate with the Department of Water Supply to implement the DHHL Regional Plan for Ka'u by
increasing capacity of the South Point water system to accommodate existing lots.
See the rationale for Policy 93.
92 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
�Q�Jif Wo" 44"
61111�1� j111111I��II Uyppppp�A1�.
5.3 Enhance the Roadway Network
pppp
ui����� . ��� � �i�i III"Il �"��� ������� flaw �'�'"' �� 5 �',;%" III III ��� y �lapppp"p"p"r
� m III. . '
,,��dgppppppppP
Policy Control J�I�P"pppp"p"P
�/� �dgppppppppP
�IZ'p8 ppppppp
DypppB
Policy 94 All subdivision in the Ka'u CDP planning area, including condominium property regimes
(CPRS) and planned unit developments (PUDs), shall conform to connectivity standards in
HCC 23-28, 29, and 40 of the Hawai'i County Code.
Sections 23-28 and 23-29 of the County's Subdivision Code establish the following block design
parameters:
mn
■ Block design: The lengths, widths, and shapes of blocks shall be designed with regard to providing
adequate building sites suitable to the use contemplated, needs for convenient access, circulation,
control, and safety of street traffic, and limitations and opportunities of topography.
■ Block sizes: Blocks shall not exceed two tiers of lots in width and thirteen hundred feet in length,
except for blocks adjacent to arterial streets or when the previous adjacent layout or topographical
conditions justify a variation. Blocks shall not be less than four hundred feet in length. The desired
length for normal residential blocks is from eight hundred to one thousand feet. When the layout is
such that sewers will be installed or easements for future sewer lines are provided along rear lot
lines, the block should not exceed eight hundred feet in length.
Section 23-40 of the County's Subdivision Code provides the following requirements for street
connectivity: The location, width, and grade of a street shall conform to the County general plan and
shall be considered in its relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to public
convenience and safety, and to the proposed use of land to be served by the street. Where the location
is not shown in the County general plan, the arrangement of a street in a subdivision shall either:
90
■ Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing principal streets in surrounding
areas; or
■ Conform to a plan for the neighborhood which has been approved or adopted by the director to
meet a particular situation where topographical or other conditions make continuance or
conformance to existing streets impractical.
The intent of this policy is to provide clear, place -based connectivity standards that so that new roads
contribute to the existing transportation network of streets, pedestrian, and bicycle access and integrate
new development with the existing fabric of the community. In Pahala, N5'51ehu, and Wai'ohinu, and
block sizes should be comparable to those already established, which are 2,000-2,700 feet in perimeter
in Pahala and —2,400 feet or less in N5'51ehu. Pursuant HCC section 23-29(c), in Pahala and N5'51ehu,
blocks should not exceed 800 feet in length to accommodate future sewer connections.
For more information see pages 88-89 of Appendix V413.
Mpp pp
t0/� pUDppppdi'
U'!/' pppppppppp.
DIUdp� pppppp
IZ'p8pyppppp
��4pp�pppppp
Igppppppyppp
�4ppp pppp
411111 Igppppppyppp
�Y�pp
p�pppp
6111ffffffff � pppPb
ffffff%I'I
�I ��
✓0/I'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 93
5.3.3 CaIuViriIrty Act:IIIoIII°�Ii
Policy 95 Install culverts and construct drainage channels and other related improvements as
necessary to prevent flooding of roadways and other areas. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(b))
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 13.2.5.9.2(b): "Install culverts and construct drainage
channels and other related improvements."
Policy 96 Improve safety along Kama'oa Road, Ka'alu'alu Road through Green Sands, and South
Point Road to Kama'oa Road.
Improvements to these roads are longstanding community priorities, as reinforced by the volume of
supporting comment during public review of the Draft CDP.
Policy 97 Improve safety on Wood Valley Road, possibly including posted speed limits, lane
markers, and stop signs.
Wood Valley Road requires safety improvements. For more information, see page 73 of Appendix V413.
Policy 98 Make intersection improvements at Pikake, Koali, and Wood Valley Roads.
The intersection of Pikake, Kaoli, and Wood Valley Roads is unsafe. For more information, see page 73
of Appendix V413.
Policy 99 Prioritize the maintenance of County roads, including street lights, street signs, and
mowing.
Many comments during public review of the Draft CDP focused on the need for more regular
maintenance of County roads, their street lights, their signs, and their shoulders and swales.
Policy 100 Continue to maintain "roads -in -limbo" in coordination with the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands and shoreline public access plans.
Roads in limbo (RIL) are existing road segments owned by the County or State but that are neither
County nor State roads. The County has agreed to maintain RIL, and County Resolution 320-10 resolved
to have the Department of Public Works (DPW) partner with communities to provide road maintenance
material from County -owned quarries for the purpose of maintaining RIL. The County has identified
nine existing roads in limbo segments in Ka'u (not including paper roads), extending a total of 9.6 miles:
■ Road segments off of South Point Road, including
o Schultz Road, which is regularly maintained by DPW
o Satellite Road in Kama'oa Homesteads
o Paul Road in Kama'oa Homesteads, which is regularly maintained by DPW, except for the 1.2
miles at the end that are rough and uneven
■ A portion of Ka'alu'alu Road just beyond Green Sands subdivision, which is extremely rough
■ Portions of Kiolaka'a Road, including Young Road, which were recently paved by DPW
■ Punalu'u Sand Road, connected to Ninole Loop Road at Punalu'u
94 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
■ A road segment in Wood Valley.
4 �'°
�UUUd UUP
In the Department of Public Works' 2010 Roads in Limbo Assessment Report, Paul Road and Satellite
bUpUUUUUU�.
�I��•���°��
�UBDi�A
Road were identified as priorities for repair.101111
,�pv'
UUPUDI UUUP
k�7—
The intent of this policy is to continue maintenance of roads -in -limbo in a manner that is consistent with
41111111111"�'p��"°"°^
Community Objectives and CDP policies.
,0111111IIIIIIIIIbgUUUU�UUU
�U�TA��UUU➢
For more information, see page 75 of Appendix V413.
Policy 101 Remove the N5'51ehu bypass from the General Plan transportation map.
The General Plan proposes a bypass arterial from N5'51ehu to Wai'ohinu. However, according to the
State Department of Transportation (DOT), the General Plan alignment is probably based on a proposal
by DOT years ago, and it is no longer actively being considered. The 2004 Draft Strategic Plan for the
District of Ka'G also recommended shelving plans for the bypass. The intent of this policy is to bring
County policy into alignment with State and community plans.
For more information, see page 73 of Appendix V413.
5.3.4 Advocacy C
5.3.4.1 Department of Transportation
■ Continue to improve Mamalahoa Highway, realigning where necessary and prioritizing shoulder
safety (particularly for bicyclists), including on the stretch of highway between Honu'apo and the
Ka'G Police Station. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(a))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 13.2.5.9.2(a): "Continue to improve Mamalahoa Highway,
realigning where necessary."
Hawai'i DOT has created Bike Plan Hawai'i, a detailed manual describing 37 planned and preferred
bicycle facilities in the State of Hawaii. In this plan, Highway 11 is listed as a "Signed Shared Lane
Facility" for the length of its traverse through Ka'G. This facility type simply means that the highway has
signs indicating that cyclists are sharing the roadway. By and large, there are few segments of this
highway with paved shoulders or bike lanes. However, the traffic volumes on the highway are low
enough, and sight lines are long enough, that cyclists may safely travel this road, in the travel lane, with
no difficulty.
■ Implement Bike Plan Hawai'i.
The Bike Plan calls for the following improvements in Ka'G:
o 82 miles of Mamalahoa Highway, from Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park to Captain Cook
Village Rd (Kona): Signed, Shared Road; $301,000
/ IJJiI�p�p�
�U�1yUU, PyP
0 12 miles of South Point Road: Signed, Shared Road; $3.81M
'U1�I�IpU.UUUU4,.
p
�BpyUUUUP
IyUUUpUPyUUP
0 4 miles of Kama'oa Road: Signed Shared Road; $1.3M
11
�'"p�pj
6IIIIII�UU�UUPU��
6IIIIII�UU��PUUU�
,0111111IIIIIIIIIbgUUUU�UUU
�U�TA��UUU➢
'U� �U�UJp QUUUU➢
IID �U
Q r �
U
,�W'UJPyUj�UUD
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 95
■ When implementing the Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan in Na'alehu (Project 1-13), address
community concerns about the preservation of the trees and stone walls along the highway.
The State Pedestrian Plan includes Project H3, which would add sidewalks at the following locations to
better connect the park, school, and services:
o The mauka side of the highway from N5'51ehu Methodist Church to Ohai Road and the
crosswalk at N5'51ehu School.
o The makai side of the highway between Shaka Restaurant and Ka'alaiki Road.
According to the Plan, the community has a strong desire to preserve the rock wall and trees on the
mauka side of the highway. Construction of the sidewalk or extension of existing sidewalk should
protect these natural resources.
For more information, see page 77-78 of Appendix V4B.
" .3.5 Based, C6llllVbolll'at:IIIve Act:lllolll°'Ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
96 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
® II I,I � 1UU8p��p�,UUp^
5 2 CAVI°ty ActnoI°i
�8py�pPpBp
P�pPpPPpPpPP
Policy 102 Formalize emergency alternative routes through Kapapala Ranch between the highway 01,��p��;�"p
8pyp�pppPp
and Wood Valley Road.
Roads within Kapapala Ranch have been used as emergency bypass routes when Highway 11 has closed,
but there is no formal arrangement among the State (the landowner), the Ranch (the lessee), and the
County. Both the lessee and County Civil Defense agree that it is wise to identify and predetermine
potential alternate or emergency routes to support disaster response and possible community
evacuations. This policy is intended to support that endeavor. mn
For more information, see pages 73 and 87-88 of Appendix V413.
Policy 103 Secure improvement easements along Ka'alaiki Road. Ka'alaiki Road will continue to be
used as a minor, rural street for local traffic and as an alternate route to Highway 11 as
needed, so it will require safety improvements.
Ka'alaiki Road (or Cane Haul Road) has been used as an emergency bypass route when Highway 11 has
closed. Originally constructed to provide access to cane fields, this road features a 40 foot pavement in
many places, though it has been severely encroached upon in many other places (it is only 18 feet clear
near Ninole Gulch, for instance). There are also several bridges, some as narrow as 14 feet (at Hilea
Gulch). A detailed engineering study of the road design cross-section has not been conducted, but
visual inspection indicates the road was designed to support heavy traffic and is generally well
constructed.
Unfortunately, it has been poorly maintained and is beginning to deteriorate through neglect. Parts of
Ka'alaiki Road are County -owned (-10%), but much of it is private. The Department of Public Works 90
recently improved and paved County -owned segments, but there are currently no plans for additional
improvements. It is necessary to improve/repair Ka'alaiki Road for use as a safe alternative route to the
Mamalahoa Highway. As has been done elsewhere in the County, the County could secure an easement
to improve and maintain the road as an alternate route. This would open the road for access by
conventional vehicles as an emergency access route or for scenic driving but would not improve it
sufficiently to permit large-scale redevelopment.
For more information, see pages 73, 83-87, and 92 of Appendix V413.
Policy 104 Replace Wood Valley Road bridges.
$800,000 in County CIP funding was appropriated in Ordinance 10-60 to replace four wooden bridges in
Wood Valley with reinforced concrete bridges. The existing wooden bridges are old and structurally
Failure e four ges off access o the s of
Mala tThe re
A4,11111 $
well as he Ka
Ranch emerhenccy alters ate ollute Countytics expected d to request an an addit onal
well
p p emergency� p q
L�D��P�pB
$6,000,000 in CIP funding to fund construction. The initial $800,000 has been re -appropriated and will
'"p�y
�fffff'4' ,
lapse on June 30 2016 if not encumbered. This policy is intended to expedite that project.
p p Y p p J
�u"°p
For more information, see page 77 of Appendix V4B.�
�,O,��dlyBpypp848P
W "PPy�p�pBP
���oiiiii�u�,U
�Ud ✓ppy
IID �P
Q r
PX
,mP""gJPyjpdD
'N,P�M'P➢
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 97
Policy 105 Establish an emergency alternative route connecting Green Sands and Mark Twain
subdivisions.
Green Sands and Mark Twain subdivisions lack alternative emergency routes. There are currently no
structures on TMKs (3)9-4-014:166, 010:005, & 010:006, so it is possible to connect Paloao Road in Mark
Twain to Puka Street in Green Sands.
For more information, see page 88 of Appendix V413.
98 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
pjPpp��pP
eExpand Mass Transit Facilities Services
i. ��..5m ..�� ��,��`°
�„„ aIuVIII°,Irt'F Actioirli
�8pypppp8p
���pppppppppP
Policy 106 Establish an intra -district bus loop route that circulates among and within all Ka'u
communities. r�ppppp�"ppr
Policy 107 Provide bus routes for evening trips to Hilo and Kona.
Policy 108 Provide bus shelters in N5'51ehu, Wai'6hinu, Discovery Harbour, and Ocean View.
Policy 109 Establish a bus route that circulates within Ocean View. mn
These policies are affirmations of the following General Plan policies:
■ 13.4.3(a): "Improve the integration of transportation and land use planning in order to optimize the
use, efficiency, and accessibility of existing and proposed mass transportation systems."
■ 13.4.3(b): "Support and encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation, such as
enhanced bus services and bicycle paths.”
Transit service in Ka'u is provided by the Hawai'i County Mass Transit Agency through its Hele-On bus
routes. Service from Ka'u goes to either Hilo or Kona/Kohala.
The Hilo route provides one morning -early afternoon round-trip from Ocean View to Hilo and four
round -trips daily between Volcano and Hilo. Though drivers honor "flag stops" most anywhere,
established stops in Ka'u include Ocean View (at a Park and Ride lot near Pohue Plaza), Wai'ohinu (at the
Wong Yuen Store), N5'51ehu (at the main commercial center, the park, and the school), Punalu'u (at the
parking lot), and Pahala (at the commercial center). 90
The Kona/Kohala route provides three morning departures daily, and one morning and two afternoon
returns. Two routes reach Mauna Kea Resort, and one stops at the airport. The route begins in Pahala
and has stops in N5'51ehu, Wai'ohinu, and Ocean View. The commute from Pahala to the South Kohala
resorts is approximately 3 hours one-way.
There is also an existing after-school route that enables students to participate in after-school activities.
Hawai'i County Coordinated Services for the Elderly and the HCEOC (Hawaii County Economic
Opportunity Council) provides on -demand shuttle service for the disabled.
These policies are intended to augment this current system to meet the transportation needs of local
residents.
For more information, see pages 14 and 75-76 of Appendix V413.
p
fill#'p8pyp�pPb
W `dy ppp8p
11110
8pyp 8y
IgpBp pDyppP
W" �4ppppppppp
�8
ppPyp�pppBP
Gp
app pppp0
��p�
p
pPyp���pP
�OpO�plUp�pp�pp�
u1, U
,pf II1 ppdU°
o
pppp� p�pf
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 99
5. 6.2 Caui Irirty ActIIIoirli
Policy 110 The number and location of emergency services facilities and personnel in Ka'u shall be
based on the population to be served and response time. (GP 10.3.2(e))
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 10.3.2(e): "Stations in outlying districts shall be based
on the population to be served and response time rather than on geographic district."
For more information, see pages 13-16 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 111 Address the backlog of facilities improvements in Ka'u (GP 10.3.4.8.2(a)), including:
■ Build a new fire station in N5'51ehu (Ordinance 12-87), Pahala, and Ocean View, in that
order of priority.
■ Upgrade trucks, ambulances, and other equipment for fire crews.
■ Make improvements in the N5'51ehu Police Station, including repairs, hardening,
hazardous materials abatement, energy efficiency, and ADA. (Ordinances 11-60 & 12-
150)
■ Build a new Ocean View Police Substation. (Ordinance 14-082)
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 10.3.4.8.2(a): "Fire protection and emergency medical
services for Ocean View, N5'51ehu, and Pahala shall be encouraged." This policy also provides specific
priorities based on previous community input, past appropriations, and Fire Department priorities:
■ The 2004 Draft Strategic Plan for the District of Ka'u includes the following Courses of Action:
o Provide funds for more equipment and training for fire crews
o Provide newer fire trucks for N5'51ehu and Discovery Harbour Volunteer fire crews
■ Ordinance 12-87 appropriated $300,000 for a new N5'51ehu Fire Station; the funds lapsed June 30,
2015.
■ The Fire Department has indicated that the order of priority for new fire stations is N5'51ehu, Pahala,
and Ocean View.
■ Ordinance 11-60 appropriated $75,000 for N5'51ehu Police Station improvements, and Ordinance
12-150 authorized the issuance of bonds to include $75,000 for N5'51ehu Police Station
improvements; the funds lapsed June 30, 2014. The following improvements have been also
appropriated but not allotted: $120,000 for repairs, $50,000 for hardening, $5,000 for hazardous
materials abatement, $300,000 for energy efficiency, and $110,000 for ADA compliance.
■ Ordinance 14-082 appropriated $150,000 for the construction of a new Hawaiian Ocean View Estate
Police Sub Station. The appropriation will lapse in not encumbered by June 30, 2017.
For more information, see pages 13-16, 105, 121, and 200 of Appendix V4B.
100 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 112 Harden critical infrastructure to ensure its effective use after an earthquake and/orU"°���"`
aa� °"gar
hurricane, including the Ocean View Fire Station, the Pahala Fire Station, the Ka'u Police
1111
Station Generator Building, and the Ka'u Police Station (N5'5lehu Police Station).
�A
�1yp�, �4yp
This policy supports implementation of the Hawai'i County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan identifies���p"°"pip
���p8pp�p�p8r
��p�D
five structures as particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and hurricanes and in need of retrofit: Ka'u
8pypP
Hospital, Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Fire Station, Pahala Fire Station, Ka'u Police Station Generator
41 ���Py p�pBP
��U�U°��
Building, and the Ka'u Police Station (N5'51ehu Police Station). The Hazard Mitigation Plan also includes
Up
the following mitigation goals and objectives:
, �,ff"'I Aa
U��A�
■ 3. Goal: Ensure that all emergency response critical facilities and communication systems remain
W P
ff ud�� ✓papa➢
operational during hazard events.
mn
■ 3. 1. Harden all essential emergency facilities and communication systems to withstand earthquake
Uapa�rA"�ar
and hurricane forces.
For more information, see pages 100 and 105 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 113 Build the Kahuku Park Community/Senior Center, Gym, and Shelter. (Ordinance 12-87)
This policy is intended to expedite the construction of the Kahuku Emergency Shelter, Community and
Senior Center, and Gym. $8,500,000 was appropriated in Ordinances 06-80, 08-133, and 12-87.
$400,000 has been allotted, and more than $380,000 has been encumbered for design and planning.
The project is on hold, however, while determining whether FEMA will collaborate to design the center
as an emergency shelter. $8,000,000 lapsed on June 30, 2015.
For more information, see pages 105 and 121 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 114 Ensure adequate placement and maintenance of civil defense warning systems. 90
Not all of Ka'u (e.g., the Discovery Harbour area) is covered adequately by the existing civil defense
warning system.
Policy 115 Establish a helipad to support the provision of emergency services in Ka'u.
Distances are significant from communities in Ka'u to local hospitals and trauma centers, so it is
necessary to identify and/or establish locations for helicopters to land in each community and at the
hospital.
5.6.3 Advocacy V)
5.6.3.1 Hawaii Health Systems Corporation
■ Harden the Ka'u Hospital to ensure its effective use after an earthquake and/or hurricane.
1111
See the rationale for Policy 112.
�p�p�
�0 Y"3APyr
��p8p �a4b
9J�
■ Expand facilities and services to communities throughout the Ka'u district.
,,�O�dyyp��PypyP
#Qu�p;�"pip
I U�p�p P�
As noted during comment on the Draft CDP, access to health care is an ongoing challenge in Ka'u, so
41 ���Py p�pBP
��U�U°��
effort should be made to expand facilities and services.
p
Up
, �,ff"'I Aa
U��A�
W P
ff ud�� ✓papa➢
'Offffff
'A
��W�I ffffA
�U���aAaD
Uapa�rA"�ar
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 101
�..
Policy 116 Ensure adequate police protection by maintaining at least four police officers on duty each
shift in the Ka'u District.
The Ka'G District falls under Hawai'i Police Department's Area II West Hawai'i Operations Bureau. The
Ka'G District Police Station is in N5'51ehu, and a substation is located in Ocean View. There are three
shifts over the 24-hour period, and as of fiscal year 2013-2014, there are usually four officers/shift for
the entire district. Ka'G also has two Community Policing officers. Relative to other districts in Hawai'i
County, Ka'G has a high officer -to -population ratio. However, it is also the largest district and can take
an hour or more to travel from one part of the district to another. This policy is intended to support
continuation of existing practice.
For more information, see page 100 of Appendix V413.
Policy 117 Actively expand the Neighborhood Watch and CERT programs. (GP 10.3.2(8))
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 10.3.2(g): "Encourage the further development and
expansion of community policing programs and neighborhood and farm watch programs in urban, rural
and agricultural communities." It also affirms the need to expand hazard readiness in Ka'G. To support
localized preparation and response, Civil Defense trains and supports Community Emergency Response
Teams (CERT). Hawaiian Ocean View Estates has an active CERT, which provides residents and
businesses with information about how to properly prepare for and respond to an emergency at home,
at work, or in the community.
For more information, see page 205 of Appendix V413.
Policy 118 In collaboration with residents, develop and adopt a hazard mitigation plan for each
community in Ka'u, including an evacuation clearance rate and evacuation plans and
routes. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(d))
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 13.2.5.9.2(d): "Explore alternatives and means to
establish an evacuation route through Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Subdivision to Highway 11, in
cooperation with the residents of Ocean View."
This policy is also prompted by the fact that volcanologists indicate that Mauna Loa will erupt again,
likely within our lifetimes, and past volcanic eruptions on Mauna Loa in the Ka'G district have begun with
less than two hours warning and reached the coastline between 3.5 hours and 15 days. It is also
possible that at least one evacuation route out of the area along Highway 11 will be blocked, and
because emergency vehicles have to enter the area, two-lane contra -flow may not be possible. In the
draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kahuku Village, it is assumed that, during an evacuation, the
highway becomes two-lane, one way and operates under "force flow" conditions with a 3,000 vph
capacity. Assuming there may be as little as two hours evacuation time, only 6,000 vehicles may be
evacuated from Ocean View during a major eruption, not factoring in travel time from the subdivision
interiors to the highway. Assuming an average of one vehicle per household would evacuate, 6,000
households could be evacuated safely. That's equivalent to about 50% build -out of the current,
buildable lots in Ocean View. If only one lane is open, only 3,000 households could evacuate, which is
not much more than the number of dwellings counted by the OVCDC in 2010.
102 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
8 JpUUUP
Though the level of risk from natural hazards in other communities in Ka'u is lower, they are still
J, 11111114
yUUUUUUBP
susceptible to wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and other natural hazards, so hazard mitigation and��p�p�pUp�p
o!y UpUUB
evacuation plans are needed for each subdivision, village, and town.11114
��"p��p'°
,4111111
For more information, see pages 76, 197-198, 200-201, and 205 of Appendix V4B.��"u����"���
�G' UUUUUU�UUUP
Policy 119 Implement the Ka'u Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Hazardous fire conditions exist throughout the Ka'u area. Hawai'i Wildfire Management Organization
(HWMO) was founded by firefighting agencies on the island (DLNR, County, National Park Service, etc.),
scientists, and natural resource managers in order to mitigate wildfires before they start. The HWMO
develops Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) to identify fire hazards and prioritize actions mn
needed to mitigate wildfire. The HWMO completed the Ka'u Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(KCWPP) in 2010, and this policy is intended to expedite implementation of the Plan.
For more information, see page 103 of Appendix V4B.
5. .3 Based, C6IIIIVbolll'at:IIIve Act:lllly;',%alll°'Ii
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
ly
l0//'UUUUUUUUU
uUUU, Ua�;.
�jUUaU��UUAUar
✓P%%%%' UUUUU BUU.
8
�UP�UUUP
UdUU UUUUP
oUUPUUUUUP
UUU�UUUUUp
400
IgUUpUUDyUUP
UUP
ffffffif
611j11��4UUU BUUp
IgUUUpUPypUp
��YI�U�UUUp
61ffff ffffffffff�f[IIJ�U�UPY
IJ
ffffff�I �f
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 103
Policy 120 Extend the primary wastewater collection lines in Pahala and N5'51ehu so that infill
development projects can connect wastewater systems built for new subdivisions to the
County systems.
The State Department of Health is considering rule changes that present two challenges for Ka'G. First,
the changes might increase housing costs by requiring the conversion of cesspool systems to septic
when property is sold. Second, by requiring wastewater treatment systems for new developments that
include more than 15 units (the current threshold is 50), the changes might discourage infill
development in Pahala and N5'51ehu, where a number of lots can be subdivided.
For more information, see the rationale for Policy 7 and pages 98-99 of Appendix V413.
Policy 121 Build the solid waste transfer station in Ocean View. (GP 10.5.4.8.2(a))
This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 10.5.4.8.2(a): "A solid waste transfer station should be
established for Ocean View." For more information, see page 16 of Appendix V413.
Policy 122 Implement plans to improve the recycling area at the Pahala Transfer Station.
As demonstrated during community review of the Draft CDP, the community continues to prioritize past
plans for improving the Pahala Transfer Station.
Policy 123 In consultation with residents, farmers, and vector control experts, add green waste drop-
off and mulch pick-up sites in Ka'u, with strict control of invasive species, pests, and
disease.
The County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management accepts green waste at the
Pu'uanahulu and Hilo solid waste facilities. It offers mulch for pick-up at both those locations plus the
Kealakehe and Hawi transfer stations. Ka'G is a rural, agricultural community, and Ka'G's agricultural
businesses need a local option for both green waste drop-off and mulch pick-up.
5.8.3 Advocacy
5.8.3.1 Department of Health
■ Rather than universally prohibit cesspools, establish place -specific policies based on analysis of local
environmental conditions.
■ Make an affordable financing mechanism available for cesspool -to -septic conversions.
See the rationale for Policy 120.
104 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
fill", p��p�DyP
5.9 Strengthen and Expand Education III I
�����t����._ „��
�" I�. III �,,
��� III I�. @" III
�00��1�p�8^p�N
Policy 124 Support the development of charter and other public schools in Hawaiian Ocean View
Estates subdivision, including on County -owned parcels.
p�pBP
There is no public school in Ocean View. According to projections by the Planning Section of the
Department of Education's Facilities Development Branch, which are based on recent enrollment
growth and some indications of increased construction and occupancy in the area a school serves rather
than general population trends, the current schools in Ka'G will be able to accommodate projected
growth in the school-age population. The DOE assessment is that schools in Ka'G are growing slowly and mn
aren't expected to grow any faster in the next few years. Another factor is the excess classroom space
at the Ho'okena and Honaunau schools.
In Hawai'i, charter schools are public, independent schools operating under contract with the State
Public Charter School Commission (PCSC). Communities interested in starting a charter school must
apply to the PCSC. In 2014, the Ka'G Learning Academy is planning to open in Discovery Harbour and
may expand to include Ocean View.
During the original subdivision (SUB 1912 and 2053), and in the 1965 dedication deed to the County, 76
acres of land in HOVE were dedicated to the County for future park, playground, and school purposes.
The lots are in all but two of the "ovals" dispersed throughout the subdivision, plus a 30 acre parcel near
the center of the subdivision). This policy encourages the use of these County -owned parcels for
schools, including charter schools.
For more information, see pages 116-118 and 188 of Appendix V413.
5.9.3 Advocacy 90
5.9.3.1 State Legislature
■ Appropriate funding for a K-8 school in Ocean View.
See the rationale for Policy 118. School construction must be appropriated by the State Legislature.
5.9.3.2 Department of Education
■ Continually improve existing educational facilities. (GP 10.2.4.6.2(a))
■ Plan a K-8 School at Ocean View. (GP 10.2.4.6.2(b))
■ Continually improve educational opportunities in Ka'G, including the diversity of course offerings,
additional qualified staff, and expanded extra -curricular activities.
■ Support the development of charter schools in Ka'G.
A
This is an affirmation of General Plan policies 10.2.4.6.2(a) & (b). For more information, see pages 15
aUdU����pBD.
JAR�
and 116-118 of Appendix V413.
DIUdg 8p8p�P
�0%p��p�p
5.9.3.3 State Libraries
6 10 X11111
■ Establish a library branch in Ocean View.
'11111114,��� ,
411111 0�p 8pyp8p
,1114"C�p�p�
fffffff
ff06.,
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 105
■ Continually improve library facilities, services, and inventory in Ka'u.
■ Establish joint community -school library facilities, where a separate community library may not be
feasible, in proximity to other community facilities. (GP 10.2.2(c))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 10.2.2(c). For more information, see pages 13 and 118-119
of Appendix V4B.
5.9.3.4 Department of Education, University of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and
Kamehameha Schools
■ Collaborate to use existing and new facilities (e.g., schools, community centers, Ka'6 Resource and
Distance Learning Center, Ho'omalu Ka'u, Honu'apo, Punalu'u) to offer place -based and distance
education opportunities to adults.
For more information, see pages 116-118 of Appendix V4B.
5. .4 Based, C611 11Wbo uii �a t:iiive Act ii o iii iis
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
106 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
'0111,11j �
5.10 Expand Parks and Recreation III
., I ^ n, y iU�,UU^U�
ii����.1 . � �,. ;;"
�� � �� ,,, „�Q ��AV III°�� �l��F�'�����._ ��. III �,„6Q IIr,i
�8py�p�p8p
Policy 125 Continually improve park facilities and services in Ka'u, including fields, courts,
p�P
playgrounds, lighting, restrooms, signage, and youth programs.
Policy 126 Acquire land surrounding Whittington Beach Park to allow for its expansion and the
construction of a parking area. (GP 12.5.9.2(h))
Policy 127 Develop parks in Ocean View, commensurate with population growth. (GP 12.5.9.2(b))
Policy 128 Build a swimming facility in N5'51ehu and Ocean View. (GP 12.5.9.2(a))
These policies are affirmations of the following General Plan policies:
■ 12.5.9.2(a): "Encourage the development of a swimming facility in N5'51ehu.”
■ 12.5.9.2(b): "Develop parks in Ocean View, commensurate with population growth."
■ 12.5.9.2(h): "Encourage land acquisition surrounding Whittington Beach Park to allow for its
expansion and the construction of a parking area."
Half of residents in Ka'G live in Ocean View, so it also needs a pool.
For more information, see pages 16 and 121 of Appendix V413.
Policy 129 Collaborate with a "friends of the park" group to develop and manage an ATV
track/course in an area of no ecological or cultural value.
90
In various parts of Ka'G, including South Point and Kahuku, natural and cultural resources are misused
and degraded by illegal ATV use. The intent of this policy is to support a community-based effort to
establish a legal location for ATV use in an area of no ecological or cultural value.
For more information, see pages 18 and 22 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 130 Collaborate with a "friends of the park" group to develop and manage skate parks in
N5'51ehu and Ocean View.
Despite repeated requests and initiatives as well as skate park development in many other communities
in Hawai'i County, Ka'G does not have a skate park.
5.10.3 Based, C6llllWboui�atiive 1'
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind these
d�8py�p�p8p
actions and initial implementation steps. off""'f"°�p�p
,fflB14�'�Db
W dj p�p8p
8pyp 8y
IgpBp �Dyp�P
P
��4f,ffff�p�pp�p�p
8
�U�Py�jp�pBP
fffff
app
A�
A
Al
I)%��
�iiiu�� �
�'D�"°��
� �4j
al�ffN, N
o
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 107
108 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
6.1 Coordinate Regional Development
6.1.2 Ca�uirirt,Act IIIoI°�i
Policy 131 Collaborate with the private sector to identify business needs, strengthen existing
industries, and diversify the economy by attracting new endeavors. (GP 2.2(c, d, e), 2.3(m,
p))
This policy is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.2(c): "Strive for diversity and stability in the economic system."
■ 2.2(d): "Provide an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic
opportunities that are compatible with the County's cultural, natural and social environment."
■ 2.2(e): "Strive for diversification of the economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting
new endeavors."
■ 2.3(m): "Encourage active liaison with the private sector with respect to the County's requirement
for establishing businesses on the island."
■ 2.3(p): "Identify the needs of the business community and take actions that are necessary to
improve the business climate."
For more information, see pages 80-82 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 132 Advance economic development that enhances and is balanced with the County's natural,
cultural, and social environments. (GP 2.2(a, b, d), 2.4.9.2(a, c))
This policy is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.2(a): "Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic
development that enhances the County's natural and social environments."
■ 2.2(b): "Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and
cultural environments of the island of Hawai'i."
■ 2.2(d): "Provide an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic
opportunities that are compatible with the County's cultural, natural and social environment."
■ 2.4.9.2(a): "Balance development with the social and physical environment of the area. Provisions or
orderly development, housing, and pollution controls shall be implemented."
■ 2.4.9.2(c): "Recognize the natural beauty of the area as a major economic and social asset. Protect
this resource through appropriate review processes when development is proposed."
For more information, see page 158 of Appendix V4B and pages 80-82 of Appendix V4C.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 109
IgPB�pPpBpPP
pPP
„P11",4 %PpPPBP
✓OJI'��PPPPPPPPPPdi'•
✓PT 'PpPPPPPBp�.
4PP PPPPPB
✓PJf' PPPP�PP�.
r0/�'PPPPPPPPP
jPPPP PP�;.
PPaP��PPAPPr
✓o%%%% PpP. 8p�,.
01 �PPPPPPPPPP
DIUdP� PPPpPv
IPPPpypPpPP
611j11��PPpPPpPpPp
IyPPppPPypPp
611j11�" �PPpP PpPp
IgPPppPPypPp
��YI�P��PPPp
"#Offffffff
S,,",,'14",
61fffff'I I �� P�,
Policy 133 Promote a distinctive identity for KaV (GP 2.3(o))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.3(o), recognizing that Ka'G is unique among the
communities of Hawai'i Island: "Promote a distinctive identity for the island of Hawai'i to enable
government, business, and travel industries to promote the County of Hawai'i as an entity unique within
the State of Hawai'i." For more information, see pages 81-82 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 134 Commission a study of Economic and Financial Impact Reviews and propose
recommendations for their integration into the regulatory review and approval process
(e.g., the Environmental Impact Statement process and community benefits agreements).
(GP 2.2(h), 2.3(y))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.2(h): "Promote and develop the island of Hawai'i into a unique scientific and cultural model,
where economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. Development should be
reviewed on the basis of total impact on the residents of the County, not only in terms of immediate
short run economic benefits."
■ 2.3(y): "Encourage new industries that provide favorable benefit -cost relationships to the people of
the County. Benefit -cost relationships include more than fiscal considerations."
Municipalities have long evaluated the impact development projects may have on such things as traffic
and the environment. Some are now adopting policies that require that the economic and fiscal impact
of developments of a certain size be evaluated, as well. Economic impacts include the effect on local
businesses, village/town commercial core, jobs, and wages. Fiscal impact refers to the impact on tax
revenue and government costs.
For more information, see pages 80-82 and 132 of Appendix V4C.
6.1.3 Advocacy
6.1.3.1 Office of Planning
■ Align the clusters and priority projects in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS) with the objectives, policies, and actions in the Ka'G Community Development Plan.
Every five years, the State Office of Planning updates the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS). A CEDS is required as a precondition for funding under most EDA programs. The CEDS
identifies industry clusters which provide economic competitive advantages for the State as well as
strategies and infrastructure projects to support and strengthen these industry clusters.
The 2010 CEDS identifies the following Hawai'i County Cluster Industries: Agriculture, Energy
Development, Efficiency and Renewables, Education, Science and High Technology, Health and
Wellness, Visitor Industry (Heritage Tourism, Cruise Industry, Agri -tourism, Eco -Tourism, Heath &
Wellness Tourism, Edu-tourism), and Housing and Resort Development.
The CEDS also identifies the following projects related to Ka'G:
■ Ka'G agricultural water system improvements
■ Improvement to various slaughterhouses
110 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015
0 Volcanoes National Park infrastructure improvements
For more information, see pages 54, 63, 93-94, 109, and III of Appendix V4C.
6^1^4 Based, C6HWboirative Actioiriis
SeetheCommunity'Baoed,Co||abomtkeActionGuideformoredetai|oaboutthemtiona|ebehindtheoe
actions and initial implementation steps.
Strategy Rationale for the Ka1DCommunity Development Plan: December Z015 111
6.3 Strengthen Local Agriculture
Policy 135 Collaborate with the public and private sectors to preserve and expand the agriculture,
forestry, and fishing industries. (GP 2.3(a), 2.4.9.2(b), 14.2.2(c), 14.2.3(c, e, 1), 14.2.4.7.2)
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.3(a): "Assist in the expansion of the agricultural industry through the protection of important
agricultural lands, development of marketing plans and programs, capital improvements and
continued cooperation with appropriate State and Federal agencies."
■ 2.4.9.2(b): "Assist the fishing industry, other ocean based industries, and aquaculture through a
cooperative effort with State and Federal agencies."
■ 14.2.2(c): "Preserve and enhance opportunities for the expansion of Hawai'i's Agricultural Industry."
■ 14.2.3(c): "Assist other State agencies, such as the University of Hawai'i, College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai'i at Hilo, College of Agriculture, Forestry and
Natural Resources Management, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism,
Office of Planning, Department of Land and Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, on
programs that aid agriculture."
■ 14.2.3(e): "Coordinate and encourage efforts to solve the problems of the agricultural industry in
the County of Hawai'i."
■ 14.2.3(1): "Assist in the development of agriculture."
■ 14.2.4.7.2: "Encourage and support the expansion of agriculture, including forestry and the
macadamia nut industry."
For more information, see pages 20-30, 80-82, and 112-120 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 136 Support the development of private and State agricultural parks to make agricultural land
available for agricultural activities. (GP 14.2.3(k))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.2.3(k): "Support the development of private and State
agricultural parks to make agricultural land available for agricultural activities." For more information,
see pages 80-82 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 137 Cooperate with appropriate State and Federal agencies and the private sector to develop,
improve and expand agricultural water systems. (GP 11.2.2(j))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 11.2.2(j): "Cooperate with appropriate State and Federal
agencies and the private sector to develop, improve and expand agricultural water systems in
appropriate areas on the island." For more information, see pages 22-25 and 80-82 of Appendix V4C.
112 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
Policy 138 Encourage the establishment of open farmers markets to allow local agricultural "p��
producers to market their products. (GP 2.3(u))�� pip
✓PT '�p�p�p�pppp
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.3(u): "Encourage the establishment of open farmersP�p°°"°gip
markets to allow local agricultural producers to market their products." For more information, see�Up�°°,pip
D,p p,pyp
pages 24-26, 80-82, and 142 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 139 Encourage, where appropriate, the establishment of visitor -related uses and facilities that
directly promote the agriculture industry. (GP 14.2.3(r))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.2.3(r): "Encourage, where appropriate, the establishment
of visitor -related uses and facilities that directly promote the agriculture industry." For more
information, see pages 22, 80-83, 113-114, 123-129, and 174-175 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 140 Assist in the promotion of products produced in Ka'u. (GP 2.3(t))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.3(t): "Assist in the promotion of the agriculture industry
whose products are recognized as being produced on the island of Hawai'i." For more information, see
pages 80-82, 113-114, 138-142, and 174-175 of Appendix V4C.
6.3.4 Advocacy
rMM
6.3.4.1 Agribusiness Development Corporation
Access to water at an affordable price, or being able to rely on predictable rainfall, is an ongoing concern
for agricultural production in Ka'G. Moreover, the transition in Hawai'i from plantation agriculture to
small, diversified farms has made it difficult to maintain the sugar -era water supply systems. The Ka'G
irrigation system includes some 30 water source tunnels, which can be repaired and returned to service.
A group of farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Ka'G have formed an agricultural water cooperative to
achieve this goal.
The next major steps are to complete the surveying of each of the tunnels, using State funding; secure
easements; and complete the needed repairs, for which the State has appropriated $2 million through
the Agribusiness Development Corporation. The long term plan is to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding between Agribusiness Development Corporation and the coop for the management of
the water systems. Water use will be regulated by water use agreements. The Kohala Center's Laulima
Center is actively supporting the coop.
For more information, see pages 23-25 of Appendix V4C.
6.3.4.2 Board ofAgricuiture
■ Appoint a task force to explore the feasibility of a State agricultural park in Ka'G, identify potential
sites, and consider possibilities for joint ventures with private entities and/ or the County.
p#'p111%,4z
pp�p,P
There are State, County, and private agricultural parks. The County is experimenting with one on the
41
Up�ppppP
mo,
��^p�py
Hamakua coast, but the County generally doesn't have the capacity to develop and manage agricultural
pP
4 01,111,
�Uppp�pppp
parks. The Olson Trust isn't operating an agricultural park on its lands off of Wood Valley Road, per se —
��"" °jh^A
app 8p,p
it is leasing portions of large parcels to growers and providing them some supports (e.g., water) as part�U,��"°�p,p
of their lease agreement.
g
�aaU�p
P
p�P,pppBp,p
�,
udU�pp��r
6I�OODU�,�pP�,.
����ppXp
✓oU'
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'G Community Development Plan: December 2015 113
Most agricultural parks are State-run, and all of them in Hawai'i County are leased out. According to
Randy Teruya, Agricultural Land Asset Manager (http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/arm/agricultural-parks/), local
farmers need to organize a group and approach the HDOA. The Board of Agriculture would then likely
appoint a task force to explore possibilities, identify potential sites, etc. HDOA has flexibility in where
parks are established, including joint ventures with private entities, the County, etc., so options are not
limited to existing state-owned parcels. Depending on the local needs, the costs of subdivision would
have to be considered. However, farm subdivisions are possible if infrastructure and farm dwellings
aren't needed.
6.3.5 Based, C6llllWboui�atiive Act:llloiriis
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
114 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
�����IPBPPPPPPBP
e4 Develop CommunityRenewable Energy
�V' �4PPPPPPPPp
8
�I P
,�y� ��PBpyP�PPPP
.'W. .;u' CauI irirt°. F ,Act IIIA,,,%" I°i
P
�'PUX PPPPBr
'V' �B PPPPBP
OU Bp
Policy 141 Encourage the development of alternate energy resources,
providing they complement
�dU PPPPPP
existing agricultural uses and preserve ecologically and culturally significant areas. (GP
3.3(a, b, e, k, 1), 14.2.3(u))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 3.3(a): "Encourage the development of alternate energy resources."
■ 3.3(b): "Encourage the development and use of agricultural products and by-products as sources of
alternate fuel."
■ 3.3(e): "Ensure a proper balance between the development of alternative energy resources and the
preservation of environmental fitness and ecologically significant areas." rMM
■ 3.3(k): "Strive to diversify the energy supply and minimize the environmental impacts associated
with energy usage."
■ 3.3(I): "Continue to encourage the development of geothermal resources to meet the energy needs
of the County of Hawai'i."
■ 14.2.3(u)): "Encourage other compatible economic uses that complement existing agricultural and
pastoral activities."
For more information, see pages 31-40, 80-81, and 120 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 142 Amend the Zoning Code to require Use Permits for commercial renewable energy projects,
mills, and major processing facilities in the County Agricultural Zone.
Currently, industrial scale agricultural and renewable energy facilities are a permitted use in the State
and County agricultural zones, possibly only requiring plan approval and building permits from the
County. Use permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts that require special
attention to insure that the uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services
nor cause substantial adverse impacts upon the surrounding community. The Planning Commission
considers use permits, and public hearings are held for all Planning Commission applications.
Related definitions from the Zoning Code include:
■ "Agricultural products processing, major" means activities involving a variety of operations on crops
or livestock which may generate dust, noise, odors, pollutants or visual impacts that could adversely
affect adjacent properties. These uses include, but are not limited to, slaughterhouses, mills,
refineries, canneries and milk processing plants.PppPp
PPPdUBPPPPP
PBPBP�PPPG
■ II
Agricultural products processing, minorII means activities used for crop production, which are not
regulated as major agricultural products processing and which involve a variety of operations onudPdppPPBP80
l��BPPPPPPBP
crops after harvest to prepare them for market, or further processing and packaging at a distance
Uly,�,,,��UdUBpP. PPPBP
from the agricultural area. Included activities are cleaning, milling, pulping, drying, roasting, hulling,
���"uPP"PPp
d�8p PPPPBP
storing, packing, honey processing, poi -making, selling and other similar activities. Also included are
UO
�yuP�"p�p�PPp
the facilities or buildings related to such activities.
�'ffIRIJ Pp
d�BpPPP PPb
fffff
��aPPp�PPBP
�PPb
6)��IWWWWWWIII�f"
P✓T
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 115
Though "mill" isn't defined in Chapter 25, the only other references are to "saw mills." It is assumed
therefore that a coffee mill would be considered the "milling" including in the list of minor ag products
processing.
For more information, see pages 126-127 of Appendix V4A and 39-40 of Appendix V4C.
6.4.4 Advocacy
6.4.4.1 Legislature
■ Amend Hawai'i Revised Statues §205 to exclude commercial renewable energy projects, mills, and
major processing facilities as permitted uses in areas designated "Rural" on the County of Hawai'i's
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map.
Currently, industrial scale agricultural and renewable energy facilities are a permitted use in the State
and County agricultural zones, possibly only requiring plan approval and building permits from the
County. Though in the State Land Use Agriculture district, communities in Hawai'i County that are
designated "Rural" on the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map are, for all intents and
purposes, rural residential neighborhoods. Industrial scale enterprises are not appropriate in such
communities.
6. .5 Based, C6llllWbollli'at:IIIve Ac'tIIIA ii,,ii°;,iw
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
116 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
6.5 Pilot Payment for Ecosystem Services
�8p
�%%% �PPPPPPPPP
6.5
3 .ouU p1irt: y Act: 1Y�•%v„Q III°1i PP PPPP
P
UU Ppb,
'44
Policy
Policy 143 The land and water shall be considered essential resources for present and future ellPPPPP�P;P
generations and should be protected and enhanced through the use of economic
incentives and soundly managed for potential economic benefit. (GP 2.2(a, d), 2.3(h),
8.3(g))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.2(a): "Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic
development that enhances the County's natural and social environments.”
■ 2.2(d): "Provide an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic
opportunities that are compatible with the County's cultural, natural and social environment." rMM
■ 2.3(h): "The land, water, air, sea, and people shall be considered as essential resources for present
and future generations and should be protected and enhanced through the use of economic
incentives."
■ 8.3(g): "Promote sound management and development of Hawai'i's land and marine resources for
potential economic benefit."
For more information, see pages 41-51, 80-82, and 122 of Appendix V4C.
6.5.4 Based, C6IIIIWbolll'at:IIIve ActIIIA%irii°;,iw
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
PPPPP%P
P
PPpU; PP�.
✓//�UPU�UPUPP
Pyr r
�UUPUPPPPUPp
P
9jUP� Ppyp
6)1j11��II11114
✓0/I'�'UUUPPUPUP
t0/v��PUPUP��Pp�,.
✓0/I'�'UUPUPU PUP
4/v UUPUP��Pp�,.
P4yPPPPPPyp
�UUU�PUPUPp
��ud48py �PPb
6DIIIII 'UUPPUPP�PP.
✓oU' �PUPPUPPXp
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 117
6.6 Grow Health and Wellness Services
6. 6.2 Coiu�iirirty Act:idoiiirli
Policy 144 Encourage the health/wellness and retirement industries. (GP 2.3(n, x))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.3(n): "Encourage the development of the retirement industry."
■ 2.3(x): "Encourage the health/wellness industry."
For more information, see pages 51-57 and 81 of Appendix V4C.
6.6." Based, C6llllWbolll'at:IIIve Act:llloiriis
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
118 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
��18PUpUUUUUUP
6.7 Promote the Creative, Education, and Research Sectors
;�" ^� � ^� ' „�ti III III �illlll�llliUyp� ���,
������
m � '+�1wry ",itiP„�Q ���V III°��� 4��. � ,�.���°�.� 4��. III ",itiP��� ���
�'PUX PPPPXr
'V' �d UUUUBP
d� D�UP
Policy 145 Promote and develop the island of Hawaii into a unique scientific and cultural model. (GP
2.2(h))"PPP�
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.2(h): "Promote and develop the island of Hawai'i into a
unique scientific and cultural model, where economic gains are in balance with social and physical
amenities. Development should be reviewed on the basis of total impact on the residents of the County,
not only in terms of immediate short run economic benefits." For more information, see pages 57-62,
81, and 143-145 of Appendix V4C.
l0//'UUUUUUUUU
PUPU,
�jUUaP��UUPUPr
✓P%%%%' UUUUU BUU.
8
�PP�UUUP
UdPU PUUUP
IUUPUPUUUP
UUP�UPUPUp
IgUUpUUPyPUP
UUP
611j1111 ON UPyp
�IgUffffffifUPpUPypUp
�YI�P�UUUp
6111ff ffffffffff�f[IIJ�U�UPY
IJ
fffffI �I �f
Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015 119
6.8 Develop the LocalVisitor
Policy 146 Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the character of
the area and environmental and social goals of residents. (GP 2.3(c), 14.7.5.9.2(a))
This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
■ 2.3(c): "Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the social, physical,
and economic goals of the residents of the County."
■ 14.7.5.9.2(a): "The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development shall
complement the character of the area."
For more information, see pages 15 and 158 of Appendix V4B and pages 62-69, 82, 123-130, 136, 142,
and 175 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 147 Encourage the visitor industry to provide facilities that offer an educational experience as
well as recreational activities. (GP 14.7.3(h))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.7.3(h): "Encourage the visitor industry to provide resort
facilities that offer an educational experience of Hawai'i as well as recreational activities."
For more information, see page 152 of Appendix V4B and pages 62-69 and 89 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 148 Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor
accommodations. (GP 14.7.5.9.2(b))
This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.7.5.9.2(b): "Encourage the development of small family
or "bed and breakfast" type visitor accommodations." For more information, see the rationale for
Policies 42 and 43 and page 82 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 149 Amend the Zoning Code to require Plan Approval for commercial open area recreational
uses in the County Agricultural District.
Currently, commercial open area recreational facilities are a permitted use in the State and County
agricultural zones, possibly only requiring plan approval and building permits from the County. Use
permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts that require special attention to insure
that the uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services nor cause substantial
adverse impacts upon the surrounding community. The Planning Commission considers use permits,
and public hearings are held for all Planning Commission applications.
For more information, see pages 126-127 of Appendix V4A.
6. .4 Based, C6llllWbolll'at:IIIve Act:llloiriis
See the Community -Based, Collaborative Action Guide for more details about the rationale behind this
action and initial implementation steps.
120 Strategy Rationale for the Ka'u Community Development Plan: December 2015
P.D. EXHIBIT 3: CDP PROJECT TEAM'S DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the comment received during agency review is organized below by the related section of the CDP
(see the Table of Contents). The following formatting is used to assist in assessing the comment:
• Reviewer's main point underlined
• Revisions recommended by reviewer italicized and underlined
• Non -substantive revision recommended by the CDP Project Team italicized, underlined, and
bolded
• Other staff comments are indented.
Section 2: Applicability
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 7: Based on recent legal opinion memo from Duane dated Feb 24, 2016, CDPs do not have
authority to amend/ override other Ordinances. The CDP does not automatically amend the GP. I would
remove reference that specific figures in the CDP are also approved in the General Plan. Describe
differently. Suggested Change: Remove sentence # 2 or revise sentence 1 and 2. Cannot override what is
currently in the GP.
See Section 2: Applicability. It clearly states that in 2.2: "County of Hawai'i Community
Development Plans (CDPs) implement but do not supersede the General Plan. In the
case of conflicts between a CDP and the General Plan, the General Plan prevails. In order
to bring the Ka'u CDP and the General Plan into alignment, the CDP recommends
specific amendments to the General Plan (see Policy 15 on page 40, Policy 16 on page
40, and Policy 101 on page 73)."
Not sure how the CDPs are interfacing with the GP. Difficult for planners to implement if a policy in the
Kau CDP requirements are unique to only 1 CDP.
CDPs and the GP will be reconciled during the GP comprehensive review.
Words such as "shall, may, should" are used interchangeably throughout policies. What is the level of
power that a policy holds? May need legal interpretation.
See Section 2: Applicability. "Shall" is used very deliberately and aligns with the same
language in related existing policy, statute, or code.
Policy 6, 12 & 14: If these are principles that should be in all applications, maybe more appropriately
included in GP since should be required across the board so that all Application Forms be amended and
not only for Kau CDP.
Those policies are simply integration of existing policy or code. If existing application
forms do not incorporate appropriate related language, that is an administrative issue
to address.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 3
Section 3: Advance Preferred Conservation and Settlement Patterns
Policies 3 and 5
Office of Planning
Section 3.4, Land Use Policy, Policies 3 and 5. OP supports adoption of CDP policies to direct commercial
facilities to areas already serviced, and to require a localized program of public and private capital
improvements to meet expected needs concurrent with the development of more intense uses. Policy 5
for the rehabilitation and reuse of designated resort areas serves a similar purpose and allows for fiscally
responsible public investments in capital improvements and service delivery.
Policy 7: Land Use Policy Map
Land Use Policy Designations
Planning Division (J. Darrow)
Formatting: Can you consider changes the map colors to be similar to the GP? Some colors are the same
as the GP but are for different land uses (mdu is yellow, which is Idu in the GP and the Idu is orange,
which is mdu in the GP) Can be confusing.
Effort can be made to keep colors consistent in future map revisions.
Pahala: Looks good
Naalehu: Looks good
Wai'ohinu: Why do you have Rural to the north? Shouldn't this stay in EA?
Requested by DHHL and most consistent with its policy, which supersedes County
policy.
Discovery Harbour: Going from Rural to LDU will open the door to go SLU Urban and RS, which will
allow ohanas on the lots over 10,000 sf. Going LDU is appropriate though because the lots are small and
area is residential in character. What happened to the "resort or commercial" node in DH?
Ocean View: /would suggest leaving Ranchos in EA as the definition for Rural in the GP is for lots 2 acres
and less. Ranchos is mainly 3 acres and more.
The GP says "Typical lot sizes vary from 9,000 -square feet to two acres." Otherwise, for
the sake of policy development, it made the most sense to keep all obsolete
subdivisions in the same land use policy category.
I still suggest that you should make the little nodes on the outskirts of Ocean View MDU instead of LDU.
Even though LDU says neighborhood and convenience type commercial uses in the GP, there is no
similar type of commercial type of uses listed in RS zoning. If you intention is to rezone to commercial,
easier if you make this a mdu node vs a Idu.
MDU allows for a density and an intensity of uses inappropriate for those locations.
Policy 8 is designed, in part, to specify appropriate uses and densities in LDU: "Policy 8:
In the "Low Density Urban (LDU)" Land Use Policy Map category in the Ka'u CDP
planning area, changes of zone shall only be permitted to Single -Family Residential (RS),
Multiple -Family Residential (RM -7.5 or higher), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX-
7.5 or higher), or Open (0)." RCX allows for neighborhood scale commercial,
convenience stores, and restaurants.
Consistency with SLU Boundaries
Office of Planning
Consistency with HRS Chapter 205, the State Land Use Law, in particular, Section 3.1, Preferred
settlement pattern. OP notes that the proposed CDP land use maps for the most part conform to
existing State land use district boundaries; therefore, it appears that the CDP will not require significant
boundary amendments during the CDP plan timeframe. OP supports the preferred settlement pattern
that prioritizes infill residential and commercial development to existing rural centers and settlements at
Pahala, Punaluu, Naalehu, Discovery Harbour, and Ocean View. We concur that this regional land use
strategy will help achieve community desires to: maximize the use of existing infrastructure; limit
development along shorelines; preserve viable agricultural lands, open space, and viewscapes; preserve
historic sites, buildings, and construction in character with Kau's rural sense of place; and protect people
and facilities from lava flow hazards. The infill settlement strategy is prudent given the significant
development capacity already in place.
Figure 6, Kau CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View. As noted above, planned urban and industrial uses
at Ocean View would require State land use district boundary amendments. As currently configured, the
urban uses would disperse urban -like features and services along Highway 11, contrary to Section 3.4,
Policy 2,which aims to concentrate commercial uses in central cores and not allow for strip or spot
commercial development. The same land use policy should apply to industrial uses in order to achieve
the preferred settlement pattern of compact settlements. Furthermore, a portion of mauka lots in
Ocean View are in the highest Lava Flow Hazard zone, Zone 1; the remainder of the subdivision is in
Zone 2. With a dispersed population base and limited resources to provide public services over the CDP
area, public entities need to carefully consider the potential impacts on public investment in
infrastructure or facilities in these Zones, and whether additional investments could attract more people
where services are already stretched thin. This calculus would include whether to fund projects that
would establish new public school facilities in this area as proposed in Section 5.9.3.2.
The proposed policy map greatly consolidates urban uses in Ocean View, which is
designed in part to remedy the current, overly expansive LUPAG policy in the area.
However, we note that the character and land use pattern of existing settlements are not entirely
consistent with the purposes of the State land use districts in HRS Chapter 205. There are residential
subdivisions on lands in the State Agricultural District that would be more appropriately classified in the
State Rural District. In addition, the existing rural centers are classified in the State Urban District,
although they are rural in character and form. The consistency of specific policy statements with HRS
Chapter 205 is discussed separately below.
Comment related to Figure 1, Kau CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional. A tract in the Keauhou area
designated as "Extensive Agriculture" on the CDP Land Use Policy Map was identified in the Office of
State Planning's 1992 State Land Use District Boundary Review, Hawaii report as a candidate for
reclassification from the Agricultural to the Conservation District (Recommendation 18, Kilauea-
Keauhou). This recommendation stemmed from the tract's central location in an area of managed
native intact ecosystems. This area constitutes one of largest upper elevation protected native forests
in the State, and provides habitat for six endangered bird species, the Hawaiian hoary bat, and five rare
plant species. Although the district boundary amendment was not pursued, due to this tract's sensitive
nature, uses should be carefully regulated and monitored to manage access and avoid encroachment
from activities and uses that would degrade or further the fragmentation of remaining intact
ecosystems in this area.
Policy 7: Land Use Policy Map - Discovery Harbour
Introduction
The comments in this section relate to the resort project proposed by SPIG (South Point
Investment Group) on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour, TMKs 9-4-001:020 &
9-4-024:025.
This was an issue throughout the final stages of the CDP process. It came up during the
community review in April -May 2015, and the Steering Committee focused an entire
meeting on this topic. In short, when considering proposed LUPAG changes, the
Steering Committee's decision was driven by four things:
1. The strong (but not universal) support for non-residential development in Discovery
Harbour as long as infrastructure and other impacts are mitigated.
2. The suitability of allowing small scale resort development on the "gateway" parcels
in Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat Resort Area" if concurrent,
necessary improvements in infrastructure are made. This would establish a path for
the addition of visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
3. A realistic desire to have County policy aligned with the 1972 Discovery Harbour
CC&Rs (since they're nearly impossible to amend), which limit uses on the subject
parcels to "Single-family residential or Village commercial or multi -family
residential" (i.e., not resort).
4. The desire on a regional basis to focus commercial centers in Pahala, N5'51ehu, and
Ocean View (but not Discovery Harbour). Any commercial zoning would not be
consistent with this desire, so they didn't want to consider an MDU node.
So, in the end, the Steering Committee recommended changing all of Discovery Harbour
(except the golf course) from LUPAG Rural to LDU, thereby allowing some
neighborhood -scale convenience commercial but not a commercial center.
SPIG representatives think that the Steering Committee misunderstands the CC&Rs
relative to the HOA charter and past plans for the area. However, as is clear in the
comments, the HOA and its attorney disagree. Importantly, there's no clear definition
of "village commercial" in the CC&Rs. Under the current zoning, CV permits hotels and
lodges. But in 1972, hotels were not a permitted use in the CV district, but the code also
stated "In a CV district, a hotel may be allowed when such use and design conform to
the character of the area, the district regulations and approved by the Director."
al
Regardless, these parcels appear to have always been in the Agriculture State Land Use
district and zoned Open.
SPIG and its supporters have placed too much emphasis on the role of the CDP in the
development of a resort in Discovery Harbour. As the County has clearly indicated to
them, they can at any time submit a Special Permit application. They could also pursue
an SLU boundary amendment, GP amendment, and change of zone. But they'll also
have to first address their legal differences with the HOA.
Legal Debate re Charter, Bylaws, Covenants
Cades — Schutte (R. Vitousek III)
Re: South Point Investment Group, LLC Properties:
TMK No.(3)9-4-001:019(Lot 825)
TMK No. (3)9-4-001:020(Lot 515)
TMK No.(3)9-4-001:021 (Lot 825)
TMK No.(3)9-4-001:022(Lot 821)
TMK No. (3)9-4-024:025(Lot 824)
Our office represents South Point Investment Group,LLC. We are in receipt of the Summary of Findings
and Recommendations for the Discovery Harbor Draft CDP. The CDP Planning Team made four (4)
proposed revisions. Proposal 3 states:
If the Subdivision Covenants are amended to allow it,allow for small scale resort development
on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat Resort Area" on
the Land Use Policy Map(Policy 7)and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in infrastructure
are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort(V-7.5). This establishes a path for the addition of
visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
The bold printed portion of the proposal is unnecessary inasmuch as the subject parcels are not subject
to Discovery Harbour Covenants and the limitation to "Retreat Resort Area" is inconsistent with prior
County approvals. We, therefore, request that recommendation number three (3)be revised to
immediately designate the "gateway parcels" as a "Minor Resort Area" and with necessary
improvements in infrastructure to rezone portions of them to Resort(V-.75).
The above -listed lots constitute two undeveloped lots and three golf course lots. None of these lots are
residential lots and by definition do not qualify for membership in the Discovery Harbour Homeowners
Attnr.iatinn_
The original Charter of Incorporation granted to the Association on June 7, 1972, specifically limited the
authorization to residential lots and defined and limited the (mandatory) membership in the Association
to owners of "Residential Lots." See Article VIII. The Charter states that the term "residential lots "shall
have the meaning given it in the Declaration. The Declaration does not define "residential lots" but
states that lots will be classified "single-family residential", or "multi -family residential", or "village
commercial". None of the above lots have ever been treated as residential lots. As such, none of the
above -referenced lots are subject to the Declaration and the owners of these lots have never been, and
cannot be, members of the Association.
Article XV of the Charter requires a two-thirds vote of membership to amend the Charter. The
Association has confirmed and is not claiming that there has ever been a two-thirds approval vote to
change the Charter or the Bylaws. As a result not only is it unnecessary for an amendment, an
amendment would be improper.
In addition, the subject lots were approved for resort use in 1963 and SP 141 authorized for
development at a much greater density than even allowed by Minor Resort Area.
As noted in the Summary of Findings and Recommendations, there was considerable support for the
South Point Investment Group's resort proposal. In fact, this support represented the single greatest
public comment.
Based upon the foregoing, we request that recommendation number three(3)be revised to immediately
designate the "gateway parcels" as a "Minor Resort Area" and with necessary improvements in
infrastructure to rezone portions of them to Resort(V-.75).
This confuses information provided to the Steering Committee (i.e., the "Number 3"
referenced) with the policies in the CDP. Parties debate whether the "gateway" parcels
are subject to the Covenants (see below), but according to County records, they have
not been previously approved for resort use.
E. Spradling
My wife Carol and I are fairly new homeowners in Discovery. We purchased a lot in 2013 and built a
home in 2014. The entire process from a governmental standpoint was the easiest and less stressful
process we have ever had while building a home. We have attended Board Meetings at Discovery
Harbour and also Ka'u CDP meetings. We have been members of HOA's in the past and the Discovery
Harbour HOA is not much different, as there are always a couple of sides to every situation. One thing
that is not often up for debate is the interruption of the Articles of Incorporation and the subsequent
CC&R's. I have been on the Board of Directors of many different types of organizations, including HOA's,
currently I serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Nordstrom Federal Credit Union. I
know how to read, interrupt, and understand the intent of CC&R's and Discovery Harbour's do not apply
to the lots where the proposed Resort is to be built. Please move in the positive direction of properly
zoning the area within Discovery Harbour that will allow the much needed influx of commence to
happen.
See comment immediately above.
J. Saathoff/K. Asman
We have been full time residents of Discovery Harbour for six years now and did attend almost all local
CDP meetings regarding our subdivision. When the opportunity arose we did state our support for the
proposed development on the parcels/lots (515, 516, 823 and 824) adjoining Wakea and Kahiki streets.
It has recently come to our attention that a couple of individuals spoke at a meeting we did not attend
where they represented Discovery Harbour CC&R's as prohibiting village commercial zoning
for parcels/lots 515, 516 823 and 824. While two of those who attended the meeting are HOA Board
members, they were NOT speaking on behalf of either the board nor the community itself.
The links, referenced below, shows the supplement to our CC&R's, dated and file in May of 1972, clearly
states those parcels/lots may be designated village commercial. Any other representation is patently
false. Additionally, the original charter, link below, allows for village commercial designations.
We have experienced overwhelming support for the proposed development and would find it to be
detrimental to the entire local area for these parcels/lots to be erroneously zoned in the CDP/KDP
recommendations based upon a complete misrepresentation by a very few disgruntled individuals.
http://discoveryharbour,net/dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Supplement-1,pdf
http://discoveryharbour,net/dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1972-05-04-CCR-Declaration-72-
39324.pdf
There's no clear definition of "village commercial" in the CC&Rs. Under the current
zoning, Commercial Village (CV) permits hotels and lodges. But in 1972, hotels were not
a permitted use in the CV district, but the code also stated "In a CV district, a hotel may
be allowed when such use and design conform to the character of the area, the district
regulations and approved by the Director." Regardless, these parcels have always been
in the State Land Use Agriculture District and zoned Open.
Grendahl
Yes I am responding to the document posted on your website Discovery Harbor Information packet
further designated Background Information: Development in Discovery Harbor.
The purpose of the articles of Incorporation (Charter) is to convey (by the State of Hawaii) upon the
Homeowner's Association and its Board the powers to administer the Rules as set down by the CC&R's
upon residential lots 1-514, 517- 820 in the Discovery Harbor Subdivision and not on parcels number
515,516,823 and 824 (see Charter of incorporation) The Charter of Incorporation clearly states (ARTICLE
XI) "Each person, corporation or other legal entity who is, or such persons, corporations or other legal
entities who are, the "Owner" of any "Residential lot" (1-514,517-820) (within Discovery Harbor
Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a member of the corporation". "Membership shall be
appurtenant to and may not be separated from the ownership of any such Lot, and such ownership shall
be the sole qualification for membership in the corporation." Therefore, by definition, properties held
by SPIG cannot be members of the corporation and therefore the corporation has no control over those
properties.
Parties debate whether the "gateway" parcels are subject to the Covenants (see
comments from the Community Association and its attorney below).
The definition of Village commercial is not found in the CC&R's because the CC&R's were written only
for lots 1-514, 517- 820 in the discovery Harbor Subdivision and not for parcels 515,516,823 and 824.
This is precisely what the Discovery Harbor Board and Architectural committee members do not
understand. The CC&R's were written by Cal -Pacific Resources of Hawaii in 1972 and to find the
definition of Village commercial you have to look at their intent in special use permit # 141 filed in the
State of Hawaii County of Hawaii in 1969 and in the Planning Departments office files. The definition of
Village commercial is found in special use permit # 141. The intent was to construct two 7 story
structures (Hotel), shops, restaurants etc.
According to County records, these parcels have not been previously approved for
resort use.
The County tabled the plans indefinitely in 1969, which was a common practice at that time in the
County of Hawaii. The county could not deny the petition because they had stamped and approved it in
1963. The County of Hawaii failed to acquire the necessary Bonding. This 'tabling' was such a common
problem, that the State Legislature subsequently passed Act 164 (1998) stating that any Permits that
had been tabled indefinitely were automatically approved. (See State of Hawaii Statutory Law number
164 and 165). Senate bill number 164. A bill for an act relating to regulatory process. Senate bill number
2204. Be it enacted by the Legislator of the State of Hawaii. Section 2. (page 613)"The legislator
recognizes the need to take constructive steps to improve Hawaii's business climate. Business inside and
outside of the State of Hawaii have described a lengthy and indeterminate time required for business and
development related regulatory approvals. Issuing agencies would be required to review applications for
completeness in a timely manner and then to act upon the application in a established time frame or
application approval would be automatic." Section 3. Chaptor9l. Hawaii Revised Statutes. "All such
issuing agencies shall take action to grant or deny any application for a business or development related
permit, license or approval within the established period of time, or the application shall be deemed
approved."
As you know, you can also find the Hawaii definition of Village commercial in Chapter 25 ZONING, Article
25, and Zoning District Regulations. Division 12. CV, Village Commercial Districts. Section 25-5-122
(pages 25-74 and 2575) Permitted uses are Hotel, shops, restaurants etc, golf courses are permitted by
special use permits. There are a total of 51 different uses. Section 25-5-123 Height limit 30 feet (that is 3
story). I don't know when these zoning codes were written but a Special Use Permit was applied for
because the intent of the declarant was to construct two 7 story structures for the Hotel (which is not
the usual under the Code Village commercial).
Under the current zoning, Commercial Village (CV) permits hotels and lodges. But in
1972, hotels were not a permitted use in the CV district, but the code also stated "In a
CV district, a hotel may be allowed when such use and design conform to the character
of the area, the district regulations and approved by the Director." Regardless, these
parcels have always been in the State Land Use Agriculture District and zoned Open.
I did a subdivision in Arizona and have written CC&R's Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Many of
these are written in boiler plate fashion and these are poorly written, but when it states in the articles of
incorporation "Residential lots" it clearly does not mean Village commercial. Unfortunately the CC&R's
are vague and nondescript.
Why is it that Parcels number 825 (75 acres) and 821 (90 acres) both clearly part of Discovery Harbour
are not even mentioned in the CC&R's? It was because the intent by the Declarant was to designate
these two parcels as golf course. So here we have to again look at intent. These two golf course parcels
clearly are not controlled by the CC&R's. The same hold true for parcels 515,516,823 and 824.
I also own multiple properties in STARR PASS GOLF COMMUNITY in Tucson Arizona and there is no
mention of the commercial property (Marriott Hotel, the golf course and club house) in the CC&R's of
the houses and lots oriented about the fairways. I am very familiar with these CC&R's for many reasons.
Who in their presences of mind would even think that the developer would give over control of the
Ej
Marriott Hotel property, the golf course and club house property to the Starr Pass Homeowners
Association, but yet all part of Starr Pass Golf Community? As per the usual Golf Community CC&R's,
Starr Pass CC&R's do not mix commercial and residential language in the residential CC&R's.
Unfortunately the Discovery Harbor CC&R's are vague, nondescript, poorly written and mixes residential
and a mere mention of the uses of commercial parcels. Unfortunately this has left the Board (who are
not familiar with the usual golf course community CC&R's) with a mistaken interpretation.
Pima County, State of Arizona, Planning and Development Department did not want to see another golf
course in the City of Tucson go bankrupt and close. So the Planning and Development Department in
their wisdom did not put height or story restrictions on the Marriot Hotel. There is no profit in running
golf courses but the profits made by the Marriott Hotel with rooms, meetings, shops etc, fund running
and maintenance of the golf course. If you put building restrictions and size limits on this proposed
project you will have been part and parcel of the eventual demise of this golf course and proposed
development. Simply put this is the business of golf courses. The restrictions that you have proposed
simply put, do not pencil out from a business point of view to support the golf course and for it to
continue on into the future. Not only do you have to think of all of the jobs this will mean for the local
people and what is good for this community, you also have to think of the right size so the business
model pencils out. This will then assure that the locals from the towns of Naalehu, Wiahenu, Pahala,
Ranchos and Ocean View will have jobs far into the future.
The other thing that I need to comment on in the CDP document is found on page 3, 2. Summary of
Findings and Recommendations. If the Subdivision Covenants are amended to allow it, allow for small
scale resort development on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat
Resort Area" on the Land Use Policy Map (Policy 7) and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in
infrastructure are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort (V-7.5). This establishes a path for the
addition of visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
Look at the Articles of incorporation 1982 vision, the first 2 pages and last 2 pages consist of one type of
font and sandwiched in between are 6 pages of articles (dated 4/94 at the bottom of the pages) of
another font and filed with the State of Hawaii dated May 25, 1982. All of these changes from the
original 1972 were done without the required % approval vote by the home and lot owners in Discovery
Harbor. "Granted under my hand and seal of the office of Director of regulatory Agencies of the State of
Hawaii, this 7t" day of June, 1972, EWIN H. HONDA". The point is that it calls into question the current
legal status of the homeowners association. Looking at the 1972 and the 1982 they have similar
substance but clearly a difference and a change. The other fact is that in 1982 the Board of Discovery
Harbour tried to change the CC&R'Rs but could not get the required % approval vote to pass, the Board
had to revert back to the original 1972 written by Cal -Pacific. Why is it that the Board could not, and will
never be able to amend the current CC&R's to reflect the changes that you desire? This is because of the
nature of the makeup of the home and lot owners. Only half of the lots have houses on them, and half
of them are owned by the part time snow birds of which are only here for 3- 90 weeks out of the year
and the homeowners and empty lot owners are from different parts of the US and different countries.
The other point is that the 1972 CC&R's are poorly written and just because Cal -Pacific mix mention of
Lots 1-514 and 517-820 with parcels 515,516,823and 824 does not mean that the CC&R's in any way
apply to parcels 515,516,823and 824.
I would like to respond to 1.2 Draft CDP strategies. • Concentrating commercial uses in core areas in
Pahala, N5'51ehu, and Ocean View and not allowing spot commercial development elsewhere (Policies 2
and 7). The grocery store in Naalehu closed last year, the residence of Waiohinu Naalehu and Discovery
Harbor need one so we don't have to drive 12 miles. There could be one in the proposed resort area.
Tourists ( from all parts of the island are already coming to this area to visit Volcano National Park,
Green Sands and Black Sands beaches Kau Coffee Mill and Wood Valley and the Buddhist temple. They
can't see it all in one day. Just look at the parking lot of the entrance to green sands beach, it is packed
with 50 cars / day. Local business have popped up in the parking lot ranging from shuttle services to and
from Green Sands Beach, to refreshment stands, all owned and run by locals, providing them with JOBS.
I think the tourists would take advantage of the proposed resort development and stay at the resort. I
don't think that this proposed development is not in competition with the local community business but
would complement it. The tourist is already here and we might as well capture some of the tourist
dollars while they come here already. Tourists staying at the Resort would sometimes eat out other than
at the resort (which is a common practice); they would buy gas for their rental cars, visit the surrounding
communities and spend their tourist dollars at local businesses. Some of these tourists will buy and or
build homes in Discovery Harbor and the surrounding local communities, thus creating new jobs for the
locals. New local jobs are important because the Kau district has many people on the welfare rolls and
this in the long run is not sustainable for our government.
Having Development experience myself, and knowing the detailed history of this stalled development of
the commercial property here at Discovery Harbor, I must say that what has happened here is highly,
highly irregular. The County of Hawaii has frustrated and gone through 6 developers, (Mark Twain yr
1962, Green Sands 1967, Cal Pacific, American Showa yr 1971, Discovery Harbor Holdings yr2000, and
SPIG yr 20091. Have you ever asked why? The County of Hawaii Development and Planning Department
keeps changing the zoning, thus require ring special use permits, does not even follow Statutory Law
designed to prevent this very thing from happening, (delaying and stalling of Development). The
Department does not even recognize the grandfathering in of this project under the changed zoning to
agricultural. People in the Department of Development and Planning have even said that is not their job
to interpret Act 164. Despite the fact that the language and the purpose of the act are so clearly and
concisely stated, that even a lay person can understand and interpret the legislature's intent and
reasons the Law was passed in the first place.
Thank you for your time in considering what my read on this topic is as I know you have a very busy
schedule. This proposed Development is very important to the communities and the volunteer golf
course maintence crew and golfers at discovery Harbor golf Course, as Sea Mountain Golf Course at
Black Sands Beach is in a state of continuing decline.
Discovery Harbour Community Association/Jung & Vassar, P.C. Attorneys at Law
RE: South Point Investment Group, LLC
TM K: (3) 9-4-001:019 (Lot 825)
(3) 9-4-001:020 (Lot 515)
(3) 9-4-001:021 (Lot 825)
(3) 9-4-001:022 (Lot 821)
(3) 9-4-024:025 (Lot 824)
10
We reiterate our position that the Petition For Charter of Incorporation for the Discovery Harbour
Community Association ("Association") was executed by Association members on May 25, 1982, filed
May 27, 1982 — together with the Charter of Incorporation as approved by the State of Hawaii
Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs ("DCCA") on June 18, 1982 — is valid — not the 1972
"Charter".
Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 414-33:
(a) The corporate existence begins when the articles of incorporation are filed.
(b) The department director's filing of the articles of incorporation is conclusive proof that the
incorporators satisfied all conditions precedent to incorporation except in a proceeding by
the State to cancel or revoke the incorporation or involuntary dissolve the corporation.
Significantly, as you will note, the 1982 Association Charter was fully executed by the Association Board
of Directors which obviously authorized the filing of the Charter. For reasons unknown, the 1972
Charter that you (R. Vitousek) reference was never filed with the State of Hawaii Department of
Commerce and Consumer Affairs ("DCCS").
Revise the CDP
S. Shining
In review of your packet "Background Information: Development Discovery Harbour" dated August,
2015, we Discovery Harbour members want to bring to your attention, prior to your March 4, 2016 cut
off date, the following documents supporting zone approval of the gateway lots known as lot 515 (TMK -
001-020 and lot 824 TMK -442-025).
Document 1 attached: A recorded supplement declaration dated May 4, 1972 and recorded June 2, 1972
(liber 8342, page 29 references lots in question (gateway lots) (515 & 824) that these lots were in fact
part of the Discovery Harbour Protective Covenants.
Document 2 attached: Page 3 of your background packet, the statements made in section 2, "Summery
of Findings and Recommendations", item 2 is a complete reversal of what was stated in your initial
findings.
Document 3 attached: The Background packet page 9, 5.1 "Background and Context", under the section
titled "Protective Covenants for Discovery Harbour Subdivision " reads [long excerpt from document].
Today the Discovery Harbour Members are requesting the removal of item 3 on page 3:
If the Subdivision Covenants are AMENDED to allow it, allow for small scale resort development on the
gateway parcels, etc etc.
Approval of 2/3's votes from Discovery Harbour members in good standing could never be reached;
hence this item could never be amended.
We strongly feel our Protective Covenants do reflect the possibility for corrective zoning, and that item 3
on page 3 is inaccurate.
Please review all documents submitted and advise us of your position on maintaining your page
processing the desired re -zoning as requested by the CDP before you.
11
This confuses information provided to the Steering Committee (i.e., the "Number 3"
referenced) with the policies in the CDP.
J. Deck/ K. Deck
We are home owners in Discovery Harbour and are somewhat concerned about our Home Owners
Association board position regarding zoning. We are in favor of zoning the commercial parcels in
Discovery Harbour "Resort" for many reasons. The development of this property which is already
located in a developed home owners community with water and electricity would not involve any
conservatory land. Developing the land would be beneficial to the entire Kau district.
Do Not Revise the CDP
B. Morrow/R. Morrow
We understand that you are in the final process of reviewing the Ka'u Community Development Plan
recommendations to County Council. As a property owners and residents of Discovery Harbour, we
have been very pleased with the transparency of the whole CDP process. Members of the Steering
Committee always listened to the input of the citizens, and Ron Whitmore was a great leader. He kept
the community informed and was always quick to respond to the myriad of questions and comments
from the community. And he handled himself well when attacked by those who disagreed with him.
Of particular interest to those of us in Discovery Harbour has been the two lots mauka and makai of the
intersection of Kahiki and Wakea (called "gateway parcels"). The property owner wants to build a resort
and commercial uses on those two lots, which is not permitted in our CC&Rs. The CDP Steering
Committee didn't think it was realistic to propose uses for these lots that are inconsistent with the
CC&Rs, so they chose Low Density Urban (LDU) as a future use. The Steering Committee also
recommended that a small scale resort be permitted only if the DH CC&Rs are amended to allow it.
The Steering Committee's recommendations for the CDP came after many, many public meetings,
including an open house in Discovery Harbour. People in the community let the Steering Committee
know their concerns about the impacts of any future large development, and the Planning Department
and Steering Committee heard us. My husband and I fully support the recommendations of the
Planning Department and the Steering Committee.
I. Eklund / N. Eklund
My husband and I are full time residents of Discovery Harbour in the Ka'u District of the Big Island of
Hawaii. I am writing this in support of the final CDP recommendations soon to be turned over to you for
review before turning them over to the County Council for review and hopefully approval. I attended
the CDP meetings and would like to applaud the efforts of the Steering Committee and Ron Whitmore in
engaging the community and listening to our concerns when it pertained to property in Discovery
Harbour. Even when a large land owner acted less than professional to Ron Whitmore, he maintained
his professionalism and kept the meetings going in a positive direction to benefit the community and
Hawaii Island.
Again we support the final CDP recommendations and thank the Ron Whitmore, the Steering Committee
and the County of Hawaii for allowing us to be part of planning for the future of Hawaii Island.
Anti-SPIG Proposal
12
D. Ord
With regard to the proposed development at Discovery Harbour of a hotel, shops, restaurants, and so
forth, I have no objection in principle as a property owner here. Shops and restaurants could be of
benefit to us as well as to the local economy.
However, my concern with this project is that I am concerned it will flop and become a white elephant,
which would be detrimental to the area.
I don't see lots of people flocking to stay in a hotel here, and neither do I see a solid market for people
to eat here—in contrast, for instance, to Volcano. Yes, we have a golf course, but there are plenty at the
resorts. In fact, I understand some are struggling. My main point is that it's windy, extremely so at times,
as well as rainy quite a bit of the time—not what visitors to Hawaii are in the main looking for.
In particular, I have noticed that the preponderance of visitors to this area are not older people with
money to spend, but college age. They are not going to come to this area and stay; they simply want to
see, and in many cases jump off the cliffs at South Point, as well as swim at Green Sands Beach. I walk at
South Point for an hour most days and have a pretty good feel for the fact that these are not people
who wish to come and stay here for a few nights.
Unless some really solid studies are conducted, or already have been, to demonstrate that there is a
demand, it just seems to me that the whole thing would end up a disaster.
Policies 8 and 9
Planning Division (J. Darrow)
Policy 8: The GP LDU category only allows 6 units per acre. When you say "RM -7.5 or higher", do you
mean higher number like RM -10, which would be RM -10,000 sf, or do you mean higher density (which
would be a lower number like RM -5)? (can be confusing).
Section 25-5-31(a) of the County Code states "Each RM (multiple -family residential)
district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "RM" followed by a
number which indicates the required land area, in thousands of square feet, for each
dwelling unit or for each separate rentable unit...." Therefore, RM -7.5 would allow 6,
7,500 square foot units, as provided in the Low Density Urban category in the LUPAG.
Office of Planning
Section 3.4, Policies 8 and 9. Expansion of residential use for low density urban needs should consider
and mitigate or avoid potential impacts on significant agricultural activities and infrastructure
investments that the State would want to enhance and protect as identified in the 2015 Statewide Ag
Land Use Baseline Report, in particular, around Pahala and Wood Valley. In addition, the application of
Policy 8 in the Ocean View area would require a State land use district boundary amendment since the
lands are classified in the State Agricultural District.
Yes, as provided in Policy 15: "Amend the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide and, as needed, State Land Use boundaries, to conform with the official Ka'u CDP
Land Use Policy Map."
13
Policy 10
Planning Division (J. Darrow)
Policy 10: It might be better to use the phrase "change of zoning district" vs "zoning code amendment"
in this section as I believe you are referring to a rezoning.
Style preference.
Policy 14
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 14: Vague on expectations. To ask for these requirements at PA is too late. This is the final step
right before building permit. Current requirements for submittal of plan approval are significantly
different from Policy 14. Applicants currently not required to submit relevant information or studies in
order for us to review and impose conditions for some of the listed concerns. These requirements
should be determined prior to plan approval — change of zone level, PUD, SP or other. Also, what would
you require from the applicant to measure whether these are adequately addressed? Suggested
Change: delete
Policy 14 is simply the integration of existing code (25-2-77(a) & 76), with specific
references added to Ka'u's "community characteristics," "natural features," and
"natural and man-made features of community value." If existing application forms or
review processes are not consistent, that is an administrative issue to address.
14
Section 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources
4.1 Expand the Local System of Preserves
National Park Service
Section 4.1.3.1 (pg 48): We do not think this section (4.1.3.1) is necessary now. Priority lands for Hawai'i
Volcanoes National Park have been funded or identified in the President's budget and are outlined in
the park's General Management Plan. The park no longer needs the described special resource study.
The request to Congress is not specific to Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, and the
coastal area may not be part of the Park.
Section 4.1.3.2 (pg 48): Please change this language to- As outlined in the Hawai'i Volcanoes National
Park General Management Plan (GMP), continue to pursue acquisition priorities, such as the Great Crack
parcels and other properties as described in the GMP. You can include the parcel numbers if it is needed
Revise as recommended. The GMP wasn't completed when this language was drafted.
4.2 Protect the Coast from Development.
Office of Planning
Consistency with Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) objectives and policies, Hawaii Revised
Statutes(HRS)205A-2. The CDP incorporates a range of policies that are consistent with and advance
CZM objectives and policies related to recreational, historic, and scenic and open space resources,
coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, beach
protection, and marine resources.
Section 4.2.2, Policy 28, and Section 4.2.3, Policy 30, related to shoreline setbacks. Policy 28 (p. 50)
proposes a minimum shoreline setback of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) in the subject CDP planning area, in
excess of the current forty -foot setback required under HRS § 205A-43 and County rules. Policy 30(p. 52)
accordingly requests amending Planning Department Rule 11, Shoreline Setback, as would be required
by HRS § 205A-45, to conform to the larger setback proposed in Policy 28. OP recommends the CDP
a rationale or iustification for the Iareer 1.320 -foot setback in this area. so that there is a
defensible basis for an expanded setback area in the rule-making process.
See the Rationale in Appendix 5.
Section 4.2.4.1, second bullet. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-5-40(b) governs public hearings
before the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), not the State Land Use Commission. In Chapter
III, Guidance to Agencies, page 26, the first bullet should be under Section 3.9, Land and Natural
Resources, since the BLNR administers Conservation District subzones.
Make necessary corrections.
15
National Park Service
Section 4.2.2, Policy 29, second to last bullet (pg 51): While this section is focused on SMA's, it should be
discussed either here or elsewhere in the document that the natural hazards of lava flows needs to be
addressed, specifically egress routes when considering community planning. Mauna Loa flows have
reached the ocean in as little as 2 - 3 hours in the past 150 years.
See Policy 118.
Planning Division (J. Darrow)
Policy 28: What happens to lots more than 200 feet (40 -foot setback) and less than 1,320 feet? Is there
an adjusted setback dependent on the size of the lots greater than 200 feet in depth?
In Ka'u, lots that fall into that category are very limited and are mostly in the Punalu'u
area. a language "and in consideration of the physical limitations of the property" was
added to account for site-specific conditions.
Policy 29: Might want to must say "No development, including subdivision, shall be approved in the SMA
unless it meets requirements under HRS 205A-22(3) & 205A -26(2)(A)" versus quoting it.
The same format for referencing existing, supportive policy is used throughout the CDP.
Policy 30: Not sure about this. If we change PD Rule 11 for Kau, we will need to change it for all CDP's
with adjusted shoreline setback policies.
That's an administrative issue to be addressed when the recommended rule changes are
considered. The assumption is that this will prompt the County to reconsider and clarify
Rule 11 more comprehensively, since the current rule doesn't address a number of
issues, including sea level rise.
Planning Division (M. Jackson)
Policy 28: Recommend the last sentence say..."the shoreline setback line shall be 40 feet unless a
greater setback is required by state law." Just in case the State changes it. Thought I saw a measure in
the current Leg session changing it to 60 feet.
Changes in State law would trump the CDP. That being said, the suggested change in
language or similar would be an improvement. However, given the lengthy debate that
concluded with this policy language, any proposed changes would not be simple.
Policy 29: 1 don't understand this policy since we already do this.
Yes, this is a repackaging of existing statute and rules. However, there are many
instances when such a thorough review is not done, in part because the applications
don't require the information from the applicant. The intention of this policy is to try to
ensure that a comprehensive review is done.
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 24: Lands in Agricultural districts are already used for residential purposes. What does this mean
when a landowner comes in with a building permit?
The language used in these expressions of Policy Intent is directly from the referenced
statute and code, so the original language was retained to maintain consistency. These
are not controlling policies.
Policy 29: If new criteria for approving SMAA then applicant needs likewise, to submit information
documenting these 6 bulleted points. Suggested Changes: Action Step — amend application form, PC
Rule 9
That's an administrative issue to be addressed.
4.3 Protect Agricultural Lands & Open Space
Office of Planning
Section 4.3.2, Land Use Policy for Agriculture and Open Space, Policy 36. This policy statement is unclear
and should be clarified. Substitution or inclusion of the term, "subdivided, "may help clarify the intent,
since a zone change does not in itself change the existing physical dimensions of the affected lot. Word
choice notwithstanding, OP supports the policy intent of retaining agricultural land in parcels of
sufficient size for efficient farming operations and flexibility in crop selection and production.
The language was taken directly from the GP, and the lack of clarity was retained to
maintain consistency.
Section 4.3.2, Policy 37. OP has concerns about keeping residential subdivisions such as Ocean View,
Mark Twain, and Green Sands classified in the State Agricultural District. The settlement pattern of
these subdivisions fragment the land and make it difficult to farm on a medium to large scale. These
subdivisions are largely rural residential in character and have scattered farm activity, and are thus,
more suited in the Rural District. Agriculture is a permitted use in the Rural District. OP would prefer
that the phrase "including continued inclusion in the State Land Use Agricultural District (not Rural)"be
deleted, since the presence of non-agricultural residential use weakens the intent and purpose of the
State Agricultural District and makes agricultural land more valuable for housing.
That language was specifically requested by community members because SLU Rural
allows for %-acre lots. Residents recognize that further fragmentation of the
subdivisions would only worsen already challenging conditions.
Section 4.3.2, Policy 38. Community facilities are not a permissible use in the State Agricultural District
and would require a State special permit.
That is why they are listed in Policies 40 and 41.
Section 4.3.2, Policies 40 and 41. Similarly, a State special permit pursuant to HRS § 205-6 may be
required for some of the uses listed depending on the underlying State land use district classification.
Special permits are use variances, and special permits should be limited in application to uses of a
temporal nature or where unique site-specific conditions exist. Otherwise, it is more appropriate to
reclassify the land if the proposed use is of a permanent nature, does not conform to the purpose of the
underlying district, or would displace or alter the protected uses and character of the district. We have
particular concerns for the non-agricultural uses listed for lands that are classified as State Agricultural.
OP does not object to the broader range of uses on lands that are classified as State Rural District,
17
provided the character, intensity, and development standards sustain rural character and the viability of
the rural resource economy.
The community considers all of the listed uses to be consistent with the rural,
agricultural character of the area and finds them critical to either diversifying the
economy or addressing deficiencies in vital facilities and services.
Section 4.3.2, Policy 43. OP supports the concept of consolidation and resubdivision of pre-existing lots
where it results in a more effective rural land use pattern. However, it should be noted that HRS § 205-
5(b) prohibits pre-existing lots of one acre or more to be less than that minimum after the consolidation
and resubdivision action.
That has not been the consistent interpretation of HRS 205-5(b) by the County; hence,
the need for this policy.
Section 4.3.3, Policy 48. OP supports County policy to limit the abuse of agricultural tax dedication
provisions and actions to strengthen the utility of this incentive for bona fide agriculture.
Section 4.3.3, Policy 50 and Section 4.3.4.1 related to funding IAL designation. The County's General Plan
(GP) defines the criteria used to identify "important agricultural lands" (IAL), and IAL lands are mapped
in the County GP Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) maps. The LUPAG IAL classifications have
been the subject of numerous public reviews through the GP revision processes and the CDP
development processes. OP believes that these lands could constitute the County's recommended lands
for IAL, and that such recommendations meet the provisions in HRS §205-47(c) that would allow the
County to move forward with the county process for the identification of lands for designation as IAL
pursuant to HRS §205-47.
That interpretation is not universally shared, so the County has not proceeded as
recommended.
Planning Division (J. Darrow)
Policies 32 to 37: May want to consider changing "agricultural lands" to "important agricultural lands"
as a large amount of lands zoned "Agriculture" in Kau are very poor soil (lava). If that is the case, what
are you protecting? Some of the policies are limiting ag zoned land to ag uses when it is very poor soil.
The language used in these expressions of Policy Intent is directly from the referenced
statute and code, so the original language was retained to maintain consistency. These
are not controlling policies.
Policy 37 states maintain rural character of the listed subdivisions but does not allow them to go SLU
Rural even though these subdivisions are in the GP Rural designation.
That language was specifically requested by community members because SLU Rural
allows for %-acre lots. Residents recognize that further fragmentation of the
subdivisions would only worsen already challenging conditions.
Policy 40 and 41: This will help us in our review of Special Permits in Kau. Under Policy 40, which is the
section for Special Permits in the IAL or EA LUPAG area, you have a reference to Urban Uses in Ocean
18
View. There is only a very little EA at the top of Ocean View so this may need to go into Policy 41 (Rural)
as Ocean View is mainly Rural. (Unless you are referring to Ranchos as part of Ocean View)
Policy 47: Enforcement on lack of ag activity for additional farm dwellings is currently done by our
zoning inspectors when there is a complaint. By adding more reporting and inspection requirements will
require more personnel, which we do not have and are not looking at getting in this year's budget or the
next year. We don't even have the man power to follow up on existing conditions of permits. Is there a
way this can be done without the need for additional man power?
That's an administrative issue to be addressed when the recommended code changes
are considered.
Planning Division (M. Jackson)
Policy 35: Does "agricultural land" refer to land being farmed or agriculturally -zoned lands not
necessarily being used for agriculture? I assume this policy anticipates full build -out of Ocean View with
residences but is intending to prevent future entitlements that would allow residences on ag-zoned
lands? Need to define what is meant by "agricultural lands".
Policy 36: What acreage is too small?
The language used in these expressions of Policy Intent is directly from the referenced
statute and code, so the original language was retained to maintain consistency. These
are not controlling policies.
In Policy 38: How is 'agriculture' defined in the phrase" shall be limited to agriculture, related economic
infrastructure....". Do you mean crop and livestock production? Agriculture as defined by the zoning
code? Or agriculture defined by HRS 205-2 and 4.5? Or something else? The statement "unless
otherwise permitted by law" kind of makes this policy pointless since so many uses, including some of
the ones specifically listed in the policy, are permitted by law. Need to be very clear here. Probably
would have been best to just say "in addition to uses permitted by the zoning code and HRS 205, cottage
industries and community facilities are also permitted in IAL and EA".
As defined in existing statute and code. This policy is intended to be a link to the land
use policy map in Policy 7 and as an overarching policy for section 4.3 of the CDP.
Policy 38: has a typo on the first line on page 20, section 4.2.
Correct the typo.
Policy 40: Commercial shooting ranges or only public (Police) shooting ranges? Indoor/outdoor, either?
All of the above.
Policy 42: Will landowners really do this if it is not mandated? How many subdividers have used this
provision of code to date?
This is highlighted as one of many tools available to retain productive agricultural land.
It is a reasonable response to the common request for smaller lots for high-value
agriculture if that is the true intent.
19
Policy 43: Do we really currently allow lots less than one acre for PELOR's even though this is contrary to
HRS 205?
Yes.
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 37: To what extent and how do we maintain the open space and rural character of Ocean View,
Mark Twain, Green Sands areas? Suggested Changes: Provide examples
The language used in these expressions of Policy Intent is directly from the referenced
statute and code, so the original language was retained to maintain consistency. These
are not controlling policies.
Policy 40 & 41: Limiting the special permit uses may be problematic if a use not listed meets the criteria
for approving an SP. What are the grounds for limiting the uses? Is this listed somewhere?
These lists were developed at the request of the Planning Division. See the Rationale in
Appendix 5.
Policy 42: Subdivision of Ag lands —This is primarily for leasing; habitable structures not allowed. How do
you encourage? Suggested Changes: Recommend deletion
This is highlighted as one of many tools available to retain productive agricultural land.
It is a reasonable response to the common request for smaller lots for high-value
agriculture if that is the true intent. Encouragement could be as simple as minor
additions to the standard subdivision application and form letters.
4.4 Protect Mauka Forests
Office of Planning
Section 4.4.4, Advocacy, Protect Mauka Forests. OP notes the policy requesting OP to designate forest
and watershed areas into the Conservation District during boundary reviews. Much of the forest and
watershed areas in the Kau CDP area are already in the Conservation District, and some pockets were
recommended for reclassification in the 1992 Boundary Review report. OP is currently conducting a
review of existing district boundaries, but will not be requesting any boundary amendments for this
review. We will keep this request in mind for future reviews.
4.5 Preserve Scenic Areas
National Park Service
Section 4.5.2, Policy 54, end of sentence (pg 58): Change 'plans' to 'planes'.
Correct typo.
Section 4.5.2, Policy 58 (pg 58): Another consideration for wind energy facilities and telecommunications
towers and antennas are the threatened, endangered, rare, or endemic species that may be impacted
by these structures. It could be argued that these species are important to the scenic and natural beauty
of Ka'G. If you feel it does not fit in this section, this potential impact and consideration should be
addressed elsewhere in this document.
20
This policy is specific to scenic resources. Impacts on threatened, endangered, rare, or
endemic species are already considered during appropriate application and review
process for a range of proposed uses and activities.
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 56, 57 & 58: If these are principles that should be in all applications, maybe more appropriately
included in GP since should be required across the board so that all Application Forms be amended and
not only for Kau CDP.
Related policies are already included in the GP (see CDP Policies 53, 54, 55). Policies 56,
57, and 58 are an effort at using existing tools to protect scenic resources until a scenic
resource protection program is established, following Policies 59, 60, and 61.
4.6 Protect and Enhance Ecosystems
National Park Service
Section 4.6.2, Policy 63 (pg 60): Please consider adding to this policy statement that grading and
grubbing permit s will also encourage permit holder to only grade and grub that absolute necessary
amount to encourage the protection of native ecosystems as much as possible. It is easier to protect an
area than it is to restore it once it has been graded.
Policy 63 is consistent with existing code.
Section 4.6.4.1 (pg 61): Please add the National Park Service to the list of agencies that should receive
sufficient funding to adequately implement critical conservation programs.
Amend as recommended.
4.7 Protect and Enhance Cultural Assets
Planning Division (M. Jackson)
Policy 71: HRS6E-42 was recently changed (see 6E-42.2) to clarify which structures over 50 require
review by SHPD. Policy 71 is now more restrictive than HRS. Has Corp Counsel advised how to
implement when CDP conflicts with HRS or code? Would staff still send all apps to SHPD for review or
just those required by HRS, in spite of CDP?
Revise Policy 71 to be consistent with the recent amendments to HRS 6E-42: "Review
and comment by DLNR's State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) shall be requested
for any permit or entitlement for use which may affect any building, structure, obiect
district area, or site that is over fifty years old, except as provided in HRS section 6E-
42.2. (HRS 6E-42)
21
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 72: 72 is contrary to 94. PUD allows for exceptions. 94 asks for conformity.
See comments for Policy 94 below.
Office of Planning
Section 4.7.3, Policy 77, Section 5.2.2, Policy 93, toward articulation of rural development and level of
service standards. One of the key findings from OP's 2006-7 Rural Policy and Best Practices Project is
the need for the establishment of development and level of service standards uniquely tailored to rural
areas. Other jurisdictions have found that rural standards are essential to retaining rural character and
form, keeping land affordable for agricultural and natural resource-based extractive industries, and
managing public service costs commensurate with the ability to finance or pay for rural infrastructure
and services. OP supports the adoption of CDP policies toward this end, which includes establishing
water system service boundaries coincident with designated growth areas. Rural standards like these
also help manage public expectations about the level of services to be provided by the County, and
facilitate fiscally -responsible public investments in County service delivery systems.
4.8 Establish and Manage Public Access
Office of Planning
Section 4.8, Establish and Manage Public Access, for Natural and Cultural Resources. There is strong
community sentiment for a County program of public access to mauka and makai areas, as well as
support for a regional trail system. This needs to be balanced with CDP policy for "appropriate access"
that balances use with protection from degradation and preservation of natural resources, ecosystems,
habitat, or sensitive cultural resources. In this regard, OP suggests changes to Policy 81, so that
subdividers are not required to dedicate land for public access to coastal or mauka areas and mountain
trails unless a need for access has already been identified in a public access/regional trails system plan
with an approved, localized program for how access or trail segments will be acquired. Otherwise, the
creation of too many access points may do more harm than good with respect to management of the
resource.
Policy 81 is simply the integration of existing statute and code. The recommended
revision would require amendments therein.
Planning Division (M. Jackson)
Policy 81: Is Planning currently implementing this policy? What resource will Admin Permits have to
identify existing facilities and existing mountain trails? Current GIS Trails layer?
That's an administrative issue to be addressed. Policy 81 is simply the integration of
existing statute and code.
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 81: Add clarifying statement Suggested Changes: Add after units, or interests: "that abut the
shoreline or highway"
The current wording of Policy 81 is consistent with HRS 46-6.5 and HCC 34-4(c), which
do not limit their applicability to subdivision that abuts the shoreline or highway.
22
National Park Service
Section 4.8.4.2 (pg 66): It may be helpful to point out to the reader that Three Mountain Alliance does
not own the land; the members of TMA are the various landowners (member agencies, NGOs, and
private landowners). For example, under the third bullet it could be misconstrued that TMA is the
landowner.
Delete reference to TMA the third bullet.
4.9 Establish and Manage a Regional Trail System
Office of Planning
Section 4.9.2,Policy 84. Similarly, these resource opportunities should be identified as "regional network
of trails" planning gets underway on a plan -wide or area -wide basis. This would also provide more
predictability in the planning and permitting process.
See the remainder of Section 4.9, especially Policy 85 and Community Action 13.
4.10 Establish and Manage Access and Trail Facilities
No comments
23
Section 5: Strengthen Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services
5.1 Coordinate Infrastructure. Facilitv. and Service Improvements
Department of Accounting and General Services
The Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) acknowledges the advocacy for additional
parking and building updates at Naalehu Civic Center due to comments received during public review of
the draft CDP. Facility and parking improvements will be taken into consideration as part of our ongoing
efforts to assess DAGS managed facilities based on building tenant needs and the services provided.
Department of Health — Clean Water Branch
The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of your
memorandum, dated January 25, 2016, requesting comments on your project. The DOH-CWB has
reviewed the subject document and offers these comments. Please note that our review is based solely
on the information provided in the subject document and its compliance with the Hawaii Administrative
Rules (HAR), Chapters 11-54 and 11-55. You may be responsible for fulfilling additional requirements
related to our program. We recommend that you also read our standard comments on our website at:
http://health.hawaii.gov/epo/files/2013/05/Clean-Water-Branch-Std-Comments.pdf.
1. Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the following criteria:
a. Antidegradation policy (HAR, Section 11-54-1.1), which requires that the existing uses and the
level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the receiving State water be
maintained and protected.
b. Designated uses (HAR, Section 11-54-3), as determined by the classification of the receiving State
waters.
c. Water quality criteria (HAR, Sections 11-54-4 through 11-54-8).
2. You may be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
coverage for discharges of wastewater, including storm water runoff, into State surface waters (HAR,
Chapter 11-55).
For NPDES general permit coverage, a Notice of Intent (N01) form must be submitted at least 30
calendar days before the commencement of the discharge. An application for an NPDES individual
permit must be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge. To
request NPDES permit coverage, you must submit the applicable form ("CWB Individual NPDES Form" or
"CWB NOI Form") through the e -Permitting Portal and the hard copy certification statement with the
respective filing fee ($1,000 for an individual NPDES permit or$500 for a Notice of General Permit
Coverage). Please open the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-
cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/epermit!. You will be asked to do a one-time registration to obtain your login and
password. After you register, click on the Application Finder tool and locate the appropriate form.
Follow the instructions to complete and submit the form.
3. If your project involves work in, over, or under waters of the United States, it is highly recommended
that you contact the Army Corp of Engineers, Regulatory Branch (Tel: 835-4303) regarding their
permitting requirements.
Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control Act [commonly known as the "Clean Water Act" (CWA)],
Paragraph 401(a)(1), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for"[a]ny applicant for
24
Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters..." (emphasis added).
The term "discharge" is defined in CWA, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6); Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 122.2; and HAR, Chapter 11-54.
4. Please note that all discharges related to the project construction or operation activities, whether or
not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 WQC are required, must comply with the State's Water
Quality Standards. Noncompliance with water quality requirements contained in HAR, Chapter 11-54,
and/or permitting requirements, specified in HAR, Chapter 11-55, may be subject to penalties of
$25,000 per day per violation.
5. It is the State's position that all projects must reduce, reuse, and recycle to protect, restore, and
sustain water quality and beneficial uses of State waters. Project planning should:
a. Treat storm water as a resource to be protected by integrating it into project planning and
permitting. Storm water has long been recognized as a source of irrigation that will not deplete
potable water resources. What is often overlooked is that storm water recharges ground water
supplies and feeds streams and estuaries; to ensure that these water cycles are not disrupted, storm
water cannot be relegated as a waste product of impervious surfaces. Any project planning must
recognize storm water as an asset that sustains and protects natural ecosystems and traditional
beneficial uses of State waters, like community beautification, beach going, swimming, and fishing.
The approaches necessary to do so, including low impact development methods or ecological bio-
engineering of drainage ways must be identified in the planning stages to allow designers
opportunity to include those approaches up front, prior to seeking zoning, construction, or building
permits.
b. Clearly articulate the State's position on water quality and the beneficial uses of State waters.
The plan should include statements regarding the implementation of methods to conserve natural
resources (e.g., minimizing potable water for irrigation, gray water re -use options, energy
conservation through smart design) and improve water quality.
c. Consider storm water Best Management Practice (BMP) approaches that minimize the use of
potable water for irrigation through storm water storage and reuse, percolate storm water to
recharge groundwater to revitalize natural hydrology, and treat storm water which is to be
discharged.
d. Consider the use of green building practices, such as pervious pavement and landscaping with
native vegetation, to improve water quality by reducing excessive runoff and the need for excessive
fertilization, respectively.
e. Identify opportunities for retrofitting or bio -engineering existing storm water infrastructure to
restore ecological function while maintaining, or even enhancing, hydraulic capacity. Particular
consideration should be given to areas prone to flooding, or where the infrastructure is aged and
will need to be rehabilitated.
Department of Health — Environmental Planning
Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the proposed project. The review was routed to
the District Health Office on Hawaii, the Clean Air, Clean Water, Wastewater, Safe Drinking Water, Solid
25
Hazardous Waste, and Indoor & Radiological Health Branches and the Office of Environmental Quality
Control. The review was also forwarded to the Environmental Health Services Division, Sanitation
Branch. They will provide specific comments to you if necessary. EPO recommends that you review the
standard comments and available strategies to support sustainable and healthy design provided at:
http://health.hawaii.gov/epo/landuse. Projects are required to adhere to all applicable standard
comments.
EPO also encourages you to examine and utilize the Hawaii Environmental Health Portal. The portal
provides links to our e -Permitting Portal, Environmental Health Warehouse, Groundwater
Contamination Viewer, Hawaii Emergency Response Exchange, Hawaii State and Local Emission
Inventory System, Water Pollution Control Viewer, Water Quality Data, Warnings, Advisories and
Postings. The Portal is continually updated. Please visit it regularly at: https:Heha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov
We request that you utilize all of this information on your proposed project to increase sustainable,
innovative, inspirational, transparent and healthy design.
5.2 Improve Water Infrastructure
No comment
5.3 Enhance the Roadway Network
National Park Service
Section 5.3.3, Policy 96 (pg 73): We recommend that the safety be improved South Point Road to
Highway 11 (currently it states to Kama'oa Road).
Clarify Policy 96: "Improve safety along Kama'oa Road, Ka'alu'alu Road through Green
Sands, and South Point Road from Highway 11 to Kama'oa Road.
Administrative Permits (S. Gagorik)
Policy 94: 72 is contrary to 94. PUD allows for exceptions. 94 asks for conformity. CPR basicly are
required to conform to code Suggested Changes: Delete
Policies 72 and 94 are not inconsistent. Policy 72 speaks to the need for flexibility in the
application of variances to allow design that matches existing town character. Policy 94
simply affirms that the street and block structure in Ka'u is consistent with existing code,
so community character will be best preserved by applying existing connectivity
standards.
5.4 Formalize Alternative Routes
No comment
5.5 Expand Mass Transit Facilities and Services
No comment
5.6 Strenethen Emereencv and Health Facilities
National Park Service
Section 5.6.2, Policy 112 (pg 77): Please change the sentence to read- "Harden critical infrastructure to
ensure its effective use after an earthquake, hurricane, or eruption, including ..."
Revise as recommended.
Hawai'i Fire Department (submitted standard comment response)
NFPA 1, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 2006 EDITION
Note: Hawai'i State Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association 2006 version, with County of Hawaii
amendments. County amendments are identified with a preceding "C-" of the reference code.
Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply
18.1 General. Fire department access and water supplies shall comply with this chapter. For
occupancies of an especially hazardous nature, or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal
hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or areas where there is an
inadequate fire flow, or inadequate fire hydrant spacing, and the AHJ may require additional safeguards
including, but not limited to, additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special
systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved.
18.1.1 Plans.
18.1.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire
department for review and approval prior to construction.
18.1.1.2 Fire Hydrant Systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the
fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
C- 18.1.1.2.1 Fire Hydrant use and Restrictions. No unauthorized person shall use or operate any Fire
hydrant unless such person first secures permission or a permit from the owner or representative of the
department, or company that owns or governs that water supply or system. Exception: Fire Department
personnel conducting firefighting operations, hydrant testing, and/or maintenance, and the flushing and
acceptance of hydrants witnessed by Fire Prevention Bureau personnel.
18.2 Fire Department Access.
18.2.1 Fire department access and fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with Section 18.2.
18.2.2 * Access to Structures or Areas.
18.2.2.1 Access Box(es). The AHJ shall have the authority to require an access box(es) to be installed in
an accessible location where access to or within a structure or area is difficult because of security.
18.2.2.2 Access to Gated Subdivisions or Developments. The AHJ shall have the authority to require fire
department access be provided to gated subdivisions or developments through the use of an approved
device or system.
18.2.2.3 Access Maintenance. The owner or occupant of a structure or area, with required fire
department access as specified in 18.2.2.1 or 18.2.2.2, shall notify the AHJ when the access is modified
in a manner that could prevent fire department access.
27
18.2.3 Fire Department Access Roads. (*may be referred as FDAR)
18.2.3.1 Required Access.
18.2.3.1.1 Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated.
18.2.3.1.2 Fire Department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking lots lanes, or a
combination thereof.
18.2.3.1.3 * When not more than two one- and two-family dwellings or private garages, carports, sheds,
agricultural buildings, and detached buildings or structures 400ft2 (37 m2) or less are present, the
requirements of 18.2.3.1 through 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be modified by the AHJ.
18.2.3.1.4 When fire department access roads cannot be installed due to location on property,
topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the AHJ shall be authorized
to require additional fire protection features.
18.2.3.2 Access to Building.
18.2.3.2.1 A fire department access road shall extend to within in 50ft (15m) of at least one exterior
door that can be opened from the outside that provides access to the interior of the building. Exception:
I and 2 single-family dwellings.
18.2.3.2.1.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that
is installed in accordance with NFPA 13,NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in
18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased to 300 feet.
18.2.3.2.2 Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft (46 m) from
fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility.
18.2.3.2.2.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that
is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in
18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted to be increased to 450ft (137m).
18.2.3.3 Multiple Access Roads. More than one fire department access road shall be provided when it is
determined by the AHJ that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of
terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access.
18.2.3.4 Specifications.
18.2.3.4.1 Dimensions.
C- 18.2.3.4.1.1 FDAR shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20ft with an approved turn
around area if the FDAR exceeds 150 feet. Exception: FDAR for one and two family dwellings shall have
an unobstructed width of not less than 15 feet, with an area of not less than 20 feet wide within 150
28
feet of the structure being protected. An approved turn around area shall be provided if the FDAR
exceeds 250 feet.
C-18.2.3.4.1.2 FDAR shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less then 13ft 6 in.
C-18.2.3.4.1.2.1 Vertical clearances may be increased or reduced by the AHJ, provided such increase or
reduction does not impair access by the fire apparatus, and approved signs are installed and maintained
indicating such approved changes.
18.2.3.4.1.2.2 Vertical clearances shall be increased when vertical clearances or widths are not adequate
to accommodate fire apparatus.
C-18.2.3.4.2 Surface. Fire department access roads and bridges shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads (25 Tons) of the fire apparatus. Such FDAR and shall be comprised of an all-
weather driving surface.
18.2.3.4.3 Turning Radius.
C- 18.2.3.4.3.1 Fire department access roads shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet, and
a minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet.
18.2.3.4.3.2 Turns in fire department access road shall maintain the minimum road width.
18.2.3.4.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft (46 m) in length
shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around.
18.2.3.4.5 Bridges.
18.2.3.4.5.1 When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire department access road, it shall be
constructed and maintained in accordance with county requirements.
18.2.3.4.5.2 The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire
apparatus.
18.2.3.4.5.3 Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges where required by the AHJ.
18.2.3.4.6 Grade.
C- 18.2.3.4.6.1The maximum gradient of a Fire department access road shall not exceed 12 percent for
unpaved surfaces and 15 percent for paved surfaces. In areas of the FDAR where a Fire apparatus would
connect to a Fire hydrant or Fire Department Connection, the maximum gradient of such area(s) shall
not exceed 10 percent.
18.2.3.4.6.2 *The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall
not exceed 1 ft drop in 20ft (0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire
department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ.
18.2.3.4.6.3 Fire department access roads connecting to roadways shall be provided with curb cuts
extending at least 2ft (0.61 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane.
18.2.3.4.7 Traffic Calming Devices. The design and use of traffic calming devices shall be approved the
AHJ.
29
18.2.3.5 Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Road.
18.2.3.5.1 Where required by the AHJ, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and
maintained to identify fire department access roads or to prohibit the obstruction thereof of both.
18.2.3.5.2 A marked fire apparatus access road shall also be known as a fire lane.
18.2.4 *Obstruction and Control of Fire Department Access Road.
18.2.4.1 General.
18.2.4.1.1 The required width of a fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any manner,
including by the parking of vehicles.
18.2.4.1.2 Minimum required widths and clearances established under 18.2.3.4 shall be maintained at
all times.
18.2.4.1.3 * Facilities and structures shall be maintained in a manner that does not impair or impede
accessibility for fire department operations.
18.2.4.1.4 Entrances to fire departments access roads that have been closed with gates and barriers in
accordance with 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles.
18.2.4.2 Closure of Accessways.
18.2.4.2.1 The AHJ shall be authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or other
approved barricades across roads, trails, or other accessways not including public streets, alleys, or
highways.
18.2.4.2.2 Where required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved manner.
18.2.4.2.3 Roads, trails, and other access ways that have been closed and obstructed in the manner
prescribed by 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the owner and the
AHJ.
18.2.4.2.4 Public officers acting within their scope of duty shall be permitted to access restricted
property identified in 18.2.4.2.1.
18.2.4.2.5 Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags, or seals that have been
installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked,
destroyed, tampered with, or otherwise vandalized in any manner.
18.3 Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants
18.3.1 *A water supply approved by the county, capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire
protection shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are
hereafter constructed, or moved into or within the county. When any portion of the facility or building is
in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a water supply on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on- site fire hydrants and mains
capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when required by the AHJ. For on-site fire
hydrant requirements see section 18.3.3.
30
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are completely protected with an approved
automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of section 18.3.1 may be modified by the AHJ.
2. When water supply requirements cannot be installed due to topography or other conditions,
the AHJ may require additional fire protection as specified in section 18.3.2 as amended in
the code.
3. When there are not more than two dwellings, or two private garage, carports, sheds and
agricultural. Occupancies, the requirements of section 18.3.1 may be modified by AHJ.
18.3.2 *Where no adequate or reliable water distribution system exists, approved reservoirs, pressure
tanks, elevated tanks, fire department tanker shuttles, or other approved systems capable of providing
the required fire flow shall be permitted.
18.3.3 *The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of
delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on a fire apparatus access road on the site of the
premises or both, in accordance with the appropriate county water requirements.
18.3.4 Fire Hydrants and connections to other approved water supplies shall be accessible to the fire
department.
18.3.5 Private water supply systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25 or
county requirements as determined by the AHJ.
18.3.6 Where required by the AHJ, fire hydrants subject to vehicular damage shall be protected unless
located within a public right of way.
18.3.7 The AHJ shall be notified whenever any fire hydrant is placed out of service or returned to
service. Owners of private property required to have hydrants shall maintain hydrant records of
approval, testing, and maintenance, in accordance with the respective county water requirements.
Records shall be made available for review by the AHJ upon request.
C- 18.3.8 Minimum water supply for buildings that do not meet the minimum County water standards:
• Buildings up to 2000 square feet, shall have a minimum of3,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
• Buildings 2001- 3000 square feet, shall have a minimum of6,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
• Buildings, 3001- 6000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 12,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
• Buildings, greater than 6000 square feet, shall meet the minimum County water and fire flow
requirements.
• Multiple story buildings shall multiply the square feet by the amount of stories when
determining the minimum water supply.
• Commercial buildings requiring a minimum fire flow of2000gpm per the Department of Water
standards shall double the minimum water supply reserved for firefighting.
31
Fire Department Connections (FDC) to alternative water supplies shall comply with 18.3.8 (1)-(6) of this
code.
NOTE: In that water catchment systems are being used as a means of water supply for firefighting, such
systems shall meet the following requirements:
1) In that a single water tank is used for both domestic and firefighting water, the water for
domestic use shall not be capable of being drawn from the water reserved for firefighting;
2) Minimum pipe diameter sizes from the water supply to the Fire Department Connection (FDC)
shall be as follows:
a) 4" for C900 PVC pipe;
b) 4" for C906 PE pipe;
c) 3" for ductile Iron;
d) 3' for galvanized steel.
3) The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall:
a) be made of galvanized steel;
b) have a gated valve with 2-1/2 inch, National Standard Thread male fitting and cap;
c) be located between 8 ft and 16 ft from the Fire department access. The location shall
be approved by the AHJ;
d) not be located less than 24 inches, and no higher than 36 inches from finish grade, as
measured from the center of the FDC orifice;
e) secure and capable of withstanding drafting operations. Engineered stamped plans may
be required;
f) not be located more than 150 feet of the most remote part, but not less than 20 feet, of
the structure being protected;
g) also comply with section 13.1.3 and 18.2.3.4.6.1 of this code.
4) Commercial buildings requiring a fire flow of2000gpm shall be provided with a second FDC.
Each FDC shall be independent of each other, with each FDC being capable of flowing 500gpm
by engineered design standards. The second FDC shall be located in an area approved by the
AHJ with the idea of multiple Fire apparatus' conducting drafting operations at once, in mind.
5) Inspection and maintenance shall be in accordance to NFPA 25.
6) The owner or lessee of the property shall be responsible for maintaining the water level, quality,
and appurtenances of the system.
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 18.3.8:
1) Agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and shade houses with no combustible or equipment
storage.
2) Buildings less than 800 square feet in size that meets the minimum Fire Department Access
Road requirements.
3) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and detached garages
800 to 2000 square feet in size, and meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road
requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 1000 feet.
4) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, and storage sheds greater than
2000square feet, but less than 3000 square feet and meets the minimum Fire Department
32
Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to
500 feet.
5) For buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the minimum water supply required
may be modified.
5.7 Expand Emergency Services
National Park Service
Section 5.7.2 (pg 78): We recommend a new policy be added- "Work with the National Park Service-
Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park and US Geological Survey- Hawaiian Volcano Observatory on
emergency response planning and implementation for natural disasters, such as seismic or eruptive
events."
Add suggested Advocacy item to Section 5.7.
Office of Planning
Given the presence of natural hazard and wildfire risks in this region and the dispersed nature of public
emergency services and the region's scattered population centers, OP suggests that this chapter contain
more explicit policy statements related to how community resiliency and disaster recovery efforts will
be addressed in the face of these threats. This could entail referencing policies and strategies developed
in other County plans or documents.
See Objective 1, Policy 29, and Section 5.7 for references to hazard mitigation.
5.8 Improve Environmental Management Facilities
Department of Environmental Management
Wastewater Division (WWD): County has two projects planned for Ka'u at N5'51ehu and Pahala. These
projects are to replace the C. Brewer plantation camp systems and have been in planning for several
years. The design capacity of these projects can only pick up a limited amount of additional growth. Any
changes to accommodate growth that would result in significant changes to the design and land area
requirements cannot be done without risking sanctions from the EPA. Changes to the current plans for
the wastewater treatment plant would also require additional staff and funding.
Solid Waste Division (SWD): The SWD priorities for Ka'u are improvements and repair of the Wai'ohinu
Transfer Station which is not even mentioned in the proposed CDP. The Wai'ohinu facility has 19 acres
and the capacity to be turned into a Regional Transfer Station with a full range of services. The
department envisions consolidating rubbish from the Pahala and Ocean View Transfer Stations at
Wai'ohinu in order to reduce the number of trucks that haul solid waste from Ka'u to their eventual
destinations at Pu'u Anahulu or Hilo.
Office of Planning
Section 5.8.3.1, Environmental management facilities. OP has concerns regarding the statement that
urges the Department of Health (DOH) to establish place -specific policies based on an analysis of local
environmental conditions, instead of prohibiting cesspools. OP supports DOH efforts to eliminate the
use of cesspools statewide, as this initiative advances and implements the State's approved Hawaii
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Management Plan, June 1996. OP suggests the statement
be revised to promote the identification of appropriate individual or package wastewater systems for
33
differing localized conditions within the region, which could be used to develop a systematic strategy for
cesspool replacement and closures. This coupled with the statement for financial assistance programs
for cesspool conversion would facilitate the conversion process.
Department of Health — Wastewater Branch
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed development and have the following comments
to offer. The subject project is located in the critical wastewater disposal area as determined by the
Hawaii County Wastewater Advisory Committee. Please be informed that all proposed wastewater
systems shall conform to applicable provisions of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-62,
"Wastewater Systems." Please be informed that the proposed wastewater systems for the
subdivision/development may have to include design considerations to address any effects associated
with the construction of and/or discharges from the wastewater systems to any public trust, Native
Hawaiian resources or the exercise of traditional cultural practices.
Department of Health: Wastewater Branch
In reference to TMK (3) 9-7-001:002 etc. The subject project is located in the critical wastewater
disposal area as determined by the Hawaii County Wastewater Advisory Committee. Please be
informed that all proposed wastewater systems shall conform to applicable provisions of the Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-62, "Wastewater Systems."
5.9 Strengthen and Expand Education Facilities and Services
Department of Education
The Department of Education (DOE) has reviewed the Kau Community Development Plan and would like
to respond to your request for agency review. The DOE appreciates the time that members of the Kau
volunteers have spent providing their comments on the needs and desires of their communities. Our
comments are focused on your identified need and goal of building a loin school and community library
in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (HOVE).
The DOE continues to monitor the enrollment growth of Kau's two public schools, which both serve
HOVE. We maintain that there is sufficient space in Naalehu Elementary and Kau High and Pahala
Elementary to accommodate growth in the population of school age children in the next few years. We
are also aware that many DOE students listing the HOVE zip code in their home address attend other
DOE schools in West Hawaii.
DOE and Hawaii State Library System determined that there are a number of difficulties in operating
ioint school/community libraries. There is a significant difference between the library collections needed
for schools and the collections desired by community patrons. There are also significant differences in
the skills and experience of school and community librarians. Finally, there is an increasing preference
for schools to be able to control campus access for student safety reasons. Adults want to access
libraries when it is convenient, schools can't have wide open access throughout the school day.
The DOE will continue to monitor enrollment figures and collect information, but there are no plans at
this time to begin a new DOE school in HOVE.
National Park Service
Section 5.9.3.2. educational facilities at Ocean View, charter schools in Kau. We defer to the Department
of Education as to whether new school campuses or facilities in the Kau CDP area are warranted or
34
needed. However, OP has general concerns about creating new facilities that would disperse limited
State resources rather than invest them for improving and expanding existing facilities and educational
programs.
5.10 Expand Parks and Recreation Facilities
No comments.
35
Section 6: Build a Resilient, Sustainable Local Economy
Office of Planning
Section 6.1. The policies in this section should reference the need to support and expand agricultural
production and agricultural infrastructure for the region as identified in the 2015 Statewide Ag Land Use
Baseline Project report.
See Section 6.3. See the Rationale in Appendix 5, and Appendix 4C.
Section 6.1.3.1, alignment of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) with the Kau
CDP. The Statewide CEDS is generally a compilation of CEDS priorities defined by the individual counties.
The County economic development agency and the local economic development board generally
develop and implement the County CEDS component. Thus, alignment of the CEDS with regional plan
policies is best accomplished by working with the County economic development agency and the
appropriate local economic development board in their efforts to develop and implement the Hawaii
County CEDS. A project to revise and update the county and statewide CEDS is set to get underway this
year.
Change 6.1.3.1 to a County Action and Identify the County Department of Research
and Development as the implementing agency.
Section 6.4.4.1, amendment of HRS Chapter 205 for a blanket prohibition of renewable energy projects,
mills, major processing facilities as permitted uses. OP does not support the policy request, since such an
exclusion will have an impact on permitted uses in the affected State land use districts statewide.
Furthermore, such a blanket restriction would have the effect of hindering permit processing for
agricultural processing facilities or similar facilities that directly support agricultural or rural resource
industry like forestry. It is more appropriate to deal with public concerns regarding the potential
impacts of such proposed uses in the county permitting process.
6.4.4.1 reads: "Amend Hawai'i Revised Statues §205 to exclude commercial renewable
energy projects, mills, and major processing facilities as permitted uses in areas
designated "Rural" on the County of Hawai'i's Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG) map." This is not a blanket prohibition; it is limited to the "rural residential"
subdivisions with the LUPAG Rural designation.
Section 7: Pursue Potential Synergistic Projects
No Comments
37
General Comments
Department of Human Services
The DHS contacted Mr. Ron Whitmore, CDP project manager for clarification as the Ka'u district covers
an extensive portion of the island of Hawaii. After reviewing Chapter III, Guidance to agencies of the
CDP, the DHS does not see any conflict. However the DHS request they continue to be informed as the
CDP progresses.
Office of Planning
Consistency with HRS Chapter 226, the Hawaii State Plan. Similarly, the CDP contains a range of
objectives and policies consistent with HRS Chapter 226 goals, objectives, policies, and priority
guidelines related to the economy, physical development, protection of agricultural, natural, and
archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, and socioeconomic advancement.
Police Department
No objections to offer at this time.
Planning Department Internal Review (M. Jackson)
Send CDP to US Fish and Wildlife Service? Nature Conse
Both are members of the Three Mountain Alliance, which received a request for comments.
Suggest reducing the size of the CDP. Section II alone is 56 pages which makes it challenging for
planners to effectively implement the CDP.
CDPs are very comprehensive and therefore dense. Chapters II, III, and IV were specifically
designed to facilitate implementation by planners, agencies, and the community.
Planning Department Internal Review (S. Gagorik)
In order for the proposed policies to be implementable, next steps should to be identified. Every Policy
needs an action step. Are these listed somewhere? Many would require code amendments or in some
cases, application amendments to require applicants submit confirmation that issues are adequately
addressed so that these policies could be used as criteria for approving or denying applications. le. Policy
29.
See Section 1.1.6. Chapter IV.2, the Action and Monitoring Guide, will be developed after
adoption.
38
G DEPARTMENT
OF HAWAII
William P. Kenos BJ Leithead Todd
Mayor +' •' Psi � 3� 06 Director
Randy Kurohara ••;;•N;r'� John A. Medeiros
Managing Director Deputy Director
�
vUlik of'funi`t
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
345 Kekuanlo`a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
(808) 961-8083 . Fax (808) 961-8086
cohdem@co.hawai i.hi.us
http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/environmental-managementl
MEMORANDUM
Date : March 1, 2016
To Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department
From BJ Leithead Todd, Director m
/
Environmental Management Department
Subject : Review of the Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP)
The Environmental Management Department offers the following comments:
Wastewater Division (WWD)
County has two projects planned for Kau at Na`alehu and Pahala. These projects are to replace
the C. Brewer plantation camp systems and have been in planning for several years. The design
capacity of these projects can only pick up a limited amount of additional growth. Any changes
to accommodate growth that would result in significant changes to the design and land area
requirements cannot be done without risking sanctions from the EPA. Changes to the current
plans for the wastewater treatment plant would also require additional staff and funding.
Solid Waste Division (SWD)
The SWD priorities for Kau are improvements and repair of the Wai`6hinu Transfer Station
which is not even mentioned in the proposed CDP. The Wai`6hinu facility has 19 acres and the
capacity to be turned into a Regional Transfer Station with a full range of services. The
department envisions consolidating rubbish from the Pahala and Ocean View Transfer Stations at
Wai`6hinu in order to reduce the number of trucks that haul solid waste from Ka'u to their
eventual destinations at Pu`uanahulu or Hilo.
If you require further clarification, please contact me at 961-8083 or BobbyJean.Leitbead-
Todd(@hawaiicounty.gov.
cc: John Medeiros, Deputy Director Planning Dept.
Dora Beck, P.E., WWI) Chief Exhibit 4
Greg Goodale, SWD Chief
County of Hawaii is an Equal opportunity Provider and Employer. 104001
William P. Kenoi
All?
6 FEB 4
art"oi'M►+ P AN N i i `] Ca
COUNT"
couutp of �)atuaiii
HAWAII FIRE DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Suite 2501 • pito, llawai'i 96720
(808) 932-2900 9 Fax (808) 932-2928
February 4, 2016
TO: DUANE KANUHA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: DARREN J. ROSARIO, FIRE CHIEF
Pn 4 08
PT1;;HTMENT
OF HAWAII
SUBJECT: Review of the Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP)
Darren J. Rosario
F7re Chief
Renwick J. Victorino
Deputy F7re Chief
In regards to the above-mentioned review of the Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP)
application, the following shall be in accordance:
NFPA 1, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 2006 EDITION
Note: Hawai `i State Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association 2006 version, with County
of Hawaii amendments. County amendments are identified with a preceding "C " of the
reference code.
Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply
18.1 General. Fire department access and water supplies shall comply with this chapter.
For occupancies of an especially hazardous nature, or where special hazards exist in addition to
the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or
areas where there is an inadequate fire flow, or inadequate fire hydrant spacing, and the AHJ
may require additional safeguards including, but not limited to, additional fire appliance units,
more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard
involved.
18.1.1 Plans.
18.1.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the
fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
18.1.1.2 Fire Hydrant Systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be
submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 5
Q'V)
10346.
Hawaii County is an Egnal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 2
C— 18.1.1.2.1 Fire Hydrant use and Restrictions. No unauthorized person shall use or operate
any Fire hydrant unless such person first secures permission or a permit from the owner or
representative of the department, or company that owns or governs that water supply or system.
Exception: Fire Department personnel conducting firefighting operations, hydrant testing, and/or
maintenance, and the flushing and acceptance of hydrants witnessed by Fire Prevention Bureau
personnel.
18.2 Fire Department Access.
18.2.1 Fire department access and fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained
in accordance with Section 18.2.
18.2.2* Access to Structures or Areas.
18.2.2.1 Access Box(es). The AHJ shall have the authority to require an access box(es) to be
installed in an accessible location where access to or within a structure or area is difficult
because of security.
18.2.2.2 Access to Gated Subdivisions or Developments. The AHJ shall have the authority to
require fire department access be provided to gated subdivisions or developments through the
use of an approved device or system.
18.2.2.3 Access Maintenance. The owner or occupant of a structure or area, with required fire
department access as specified in 18.2.2.1 or 18.2.2.2, shall notify the AHJ when the access is
modified in a manner that could prevent fire department access.
18.2.3 Fire Department Access Roads. (*may be referred as FDAR)
18.2.3.1 Required Access.
18.2.3.1.1 Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility, building,
or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated.
18.2.3.1.2 Fire Department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking lots lanes,
or a combination thereof.
18.2.3.1.3* When not more than two one- and two-family dwellings or private garages, carports,
sheds, agricultural buildings, and detached buildings or structures 400ft2 (37 mZ) or less are
present, the requirements of 18.2.3.1 through 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be modified by the
AHJ.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 3
18.2.3.1.4 When fire department access roads cannot be installed due to location on property,
topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the AHJ shall be
authorized to require additional fire protection features.
18.2.3.2 Access to Building.
18.2.3.2.1 A fire department access road shall extend to within in 50 ft (15 m) of at least one
exterior door that can be opened from the outside that provides access to the interior of the
building. Exception: 1 and 2 single-family dwellings.
18.2.3.2.1.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in
18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased to 300 feet.
18.2.3.2.2 Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft
(46 m) from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior
of the building or facility.
18.2.3.2.2.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in
18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft (137 m).
18.2.3.3 Multiple Access Roads. More than one fire department access road shall be provided
when it is determined by the AHJ that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle
congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access.
18.2.3.4 Specifications.
18.2.3.4.1 Dimensions.
C— 18.2.3.4.1.1 FDAR shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20ft with an approved
turn around area if the FDAR exceeds 150 feet. Exception: FDAR for one and two family
dwellings shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 15 feet, with an area of not less than
20 feet wide within 150 feet of the structure being protected. An approved turn around area shall
be provided if the FDAR exceeds 250 feet.
C— 18.2.3.4.1.2 FDAR shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less then 13ft 6 in.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 4
C- 18.2.3.4.1.2.1 Vertical clearances may be increased or reduced by the AHJ, provided such
increase or reduction does not impair access by the fire apparatus, and approved signs are
installed and maintained indicating such approved changes.
18.2.3.4.1.2.2 Vertical clearances shall be increased when vertical clearances or widths are not
adequate to accommodate fire apparatus.
C— 18.2.3.4.2 Surface. Fire department access roads and bridges shall be designed and
maintained to support the imposed loads (25 Tons) of the fire apparatus. Such FDAR and shall
be comprised of an all-weather driving surface.
18.2.3.4.3 Turning Radius.
C— 18.2.3.4.3.1 Fire department access roads shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30
feet, and a minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet.
18.2.3.4.3.2 Turns in fire department access road shall maintain the minimum road width.
18.2.3.4.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft (46 m) in
length shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around.
18.2.3.4.5 Bridges.
18.2.3.4.5.1 When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire department access road, it shall
be constructed and maintained in accordance with county requirements.
18.2.3.4.5.2 The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of
fire apparatus.
18.2.3.4.5.3 Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges where required by
the AHJ.
18.2.3.4.6 Grade.
C— 18.2.3.4.6.1The maximum gradient of a Fire department access road shall not exceed 12
percent for unpaved surfaces and 15 percent for paved surfaces. In areas of the FDAR where a
Fire apparatus would connect to a Fire hydrant or Fire Department Connection, the maximum
gradient of such area(s) shall not exceed 10 percent.
18.2.3.4.6.2* The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road
shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft (0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire
apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 5
18.2.3.4.6.3 Fire department access roads connecting to roadways shall be provided with curb
cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.61 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane.
18.2.3.4.7 Traffic Calming Devices. The design and use of traffic calming devices shall be
approved the AHJ.
18.2.3.5 Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Road.
18.2.3.5.1 Where required by the AHJ, approved signs or other approved notices shall be
provided and maintained to identify fire department access roads or to prohibit the obstruction
thereof of both.
18.2.3.5.2 A marked fire apparatus access road shall also be known as a fire lane.
18.2.4* Obstruction and Control of Fire Department Access Road.
18.2.4.1 General.
18.2.4.1.1 The required width of a fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any
manner, including by the parking of vehicles.
18.2.4.1.2 Minimum required widths and clearances established under 18.2.3.4 shall be
maintained at all times.
18.2.4.1.3* Facilities and structures shall be maintained in a manner that does not impair or
impede accessibility for fire department operations.
18.2.4.1.4 Entrances to fire departments access roads that have been closed with gates and
barriers in accordance with 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles.
18.2.4.2 Closure of Accessways.
18.2.4.2.1 The AHJ shall be authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or
other approved barricades across roads, trails, or other accessways not including public streets,
alleys, or highways.
18.2.4.2.2 Where required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved manner.
18.2.4.2.3 Roads, trails, and other access ways that have been closed and obstructed in the
manner prescribed by 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the
owner and the AHJ.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 6
18.2.4.2.4 Public officers acting within their scope of duty shall be permitted to access restricted
property identified in 18.2.4.2.1.
18.2.4.2.5 Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags, or seals that have been
installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed,
unlocked, destroyed, tampered with, or otherwise vandalized in any manner.
18.3 Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants
18.3.1* A water supply approved by the county, capable of supplying the required fire flow for
fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities or buildings, or portions
thereof, are hereafter constructed, or moved into or within the county. When any portion of the
facility or building is in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a water supply on a fire apparatus
access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-
site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when
required by the AHJ. For on-site fire hydrant requirements see section 18.3.3.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are completely protected with an
approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of section 18.3.1 may be
modified by the AHJ.
2. When water supply requirements cannot be installed due to topography or other
conditions, the AHJ may require additional fire protection as specified in section 18.3.2
as amended in the code.
3. When there are not more than two dwellings, or two private garage, carports, sheds and
agricultural. Occupancies, the requirements of section 18.3.1 may be modified by AHJ.
18.3.2* Where no adequate or reliable water distribution system exists, approved reservoirs,
pressure tanks, elevated tanks, fire department tanker shuttles, or other approved systems capable
of providing the required fire flow shall be permitted.
18.3.3* The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of
delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on a fire apparatus access road on the site of
the premises or both, in accordance with the appropriate county water requirements.
18.3.4 Fire Hydrants and connections to other approved water supplies shall be accessible to the
fire department.
18.3.5 Private water supply systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25
or county requirements as determined by the AHJ.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 7
18.3.6 Where required by the AHJ, fire hydrants subject to vehicular damage shall be protected
unless located within a public right of way.
18.3.7 The AHJ shall be notified whenever any fire hydrant is placed out of service or returned
to service. Owners of private property required to have hydrants shall maintain hydrant records
of approval, testing, and maintenance, in accordance with the respective county water
requirements. Records shall be made available for review by the AHJ upon request.
C— 18.3.8 Minimum water supply for buildings that do not meet the minimum County water
standards:
Buildings up to 2000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 3,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
Buildings 2001- 3000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 6,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
Buildings, 3001- 6000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 12,000 gallons of water available for
Firefighting.
Buildings, greater than 6000 square feet, shall meet the minimum County water and fire flow
requirements.
Multiple story buildings shall multiply the square feet by the amount of stories when determining
the minimum water supply.
Commercial buildings requiring a minimum fire flow of 2000gpm per the Department of Water
standards shall double the minimum water supply reserved for firefighting.
Fire Department Connections (FDC) to alternative water supplies shall comply with 18.3.8 (1)-
(6) of this crude.
NOTE: In that water catchment systems are being used as a means of water supply for
firefighting, such systems shall meet the following requirements:
1) In that a single water tank is used for both domestic and firefighting water, the water for
domestic use shall not be capable of being drawn from the water reserved for firefighting;
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 8
2) Minimum pipe diameter sizes from the water supply to the Fire Department Connection
(FDC) shall be as follows:
a) 4" for C900 PVC pipe;
b) 4" for C906 PE pipe;
c) 3" for ductile Iron;
d) 3' for galvanized steel.
3) The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall:
a) be made of galvanized steel;
b) have a gated valve with 2-112 inch, National Standard Thread male fitting and cap;
c) be located between 8 ft and 16 ft from the Fire department access. The location shall be
approved by the AHJ;
d) not be located less than 24 inches, and no higher than 36 inches from finish grade, as
measured from the center of the FDC orifice;
e) be secure and capable of withstanding drafting operations. Engineered stamped plans
may be required;
f) not be located more than 150 feet of the most remote part, but not less than 20 feet, of the
structure being protected;
g) also comply with section 13.1.3 and 18.2.3.4.6.1 of this code.
4) Commercial buildings requiring a fire flow of 2000gpm shall be provided with a second
FDC. Each FDC shall be independent of each other, with each FDC being capable of flowing
500gpm by engineered design standards. The second FDC shall be located in an area
approved by the AHJ with the idea of multiple Fire apparatus'conducting drafting operations
at once, in mind.
5) Inspection and maintenance shall be in accordance to NFPA 25.
6) The owner or lessee of the property shall be responsible for maintaining the water level,
quality, and appurtenances of the system.
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 18.3.8:
1) Agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and shade houses with no combustible or equipment
storage.
2) Buildings less than 800 square feet in size that meets the minimum Fire Department Access
Road requirements.
Duane Kanuha
February 4, 2016
Page 9
3) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and detached
garages 800 to 2000 square feet in size, and meets the minimum Fire Department Access
Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 1000
feet.
4) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, and storage sheds greater than
2000square feet, but less than 3000 square feet and meets the minimum Fire Department
Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased
to 500 feet.
5) For buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the minimum water supply
required may be modified.
If there are any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Fire Prevention
Bureau at (808) 932-2911.
DARREN J. ROSARIO
Fire Chief
CB:ds
From:
Gaaorik, Susan
To:
Whitmore, Ron; Surprenant, April
Cc:
Mercado, Keiko
Subject:
Kau CDP Comments
Date:
Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:13:25 AM
Attachments:
SGaaorik comments Kau CDP 3 2016.docx
Hi Ron,
Sorry so late; hard to keep up with everything. See attached comments to the
land use policy section.
Let me know if questions.
susan
Susan K. Suzuki Gagorik
Planning Program Manager - Administrative Permits Division
County of Hawaii Planning Dept.
101 Pauahi Street Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
Phone: (808) 961-8154 Fax: (808) 961-8742
http://www.cohplanningdept.com
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 6
March 10, 2016
To: Ron Whitmore, April Surprenant
From: Susan Gagorik, Administrative Permits Division
Re: Comments to Kau CDP = Land Use Policy Guide: Dec 2015
General Comments:
1. In order for the proposed policies to be implementable, next steps should to be identified. Every Policy
needs an action step. Are these listed somewhere? Many would require code amendments or in some
cases, application amendments to require applicants submit confirmation that issues are adequately
addressed so that these policies could be used as criteria for approving or denying applications. Ie. Policy
29.
2. Not sure how the CDPs are interfacing with the GP. Difficult for planners to implement if a policy in the
Kau CDP requirements are unique to only 1 CDP.
3. CDP cannot trump GP.
4. Words such as "shall, may, should" are used interchangeably throughout policies. What is the level of
power that a policy holds? May need legal interpretation.
Specific Comments in Table below:
Page #
Section/Policy
Comment
Suggested Changes
17 and
Policy 7
Based on recent legal opinion memo from
• Remove sentence # 2 or revise
throughout
Duane dated Feb 24, 2016, CDPs do not
sentence 1 and 2. Cannot
document
have authority to amend/ override other
override what is currently in the
Ordinances. The CDP does not
GP.
automatically amend the GP. I would
remove reference that specific figures in
the CDP are also approved in the General
Plan. Describe differently.
19
Policy 14
Vague on expectations. To ask for these
• delete
requirements at PA is too late. This is the
final step right before building permit.
Current requirements for submittal of
plan approval are significantly different
from Policy 14. Applicants currently not
required to submit relevant information
or studies in order for us to review and
impose conditions for some of the listed
concerns.
These requirements should be
determined prior to plan approval —
change of zone level, PUD, SP or other.
Also, what would you require from the
applicant to measure whether these are
adequately addressed?
29
Policy 29
IF new criteria for approving SMAA then
• Action step - amend application
applicant needs likewise, to submit
form, PC Rule 9
information documenting these 6
bulleted points.
20
Policy 24
Lands in Agricultural districts are already
•
used for residential purposes. What does
this mean when a landowner comes in
with a building permit?
23
Policy 42
Subdivision of Ag lands —This is primarily
• Recommend deletion
for leasing; habitable structures not
allowed. How do you encourage?
25
Policy 37
To what extent and how do we maintain
• Provide examples
the open space and rural character of
Ocean View, Mark Twain, Green Sands
areas?
23
Policy 81
Add clarifying statement
• Add after units, or interests:
"that abut the shoreline or
highway"
27
Policy 6, 56, 57,
If these are principles that should be in all
58,12,14-
applications, maybe more appropriately
included in GP since should be required
across the board so that all Application
Forms be amended and not only for Kau
CDP.
36
40-41
Limiting the special permit uses may be
problematic if a use not listed meets the
criteria for approving an SP. What are the
grounds for limiting the uses? Is this listed
somewhere?
52
72/94
72 is contrary to 94. PUD allows for
exceptions. 94 asks for conformity.
52
94
CPR basicly are required to conform to
• Delete
code
From:
Darrow, Jeff
To:
Whitmore, Ron
Subject:
FW: Ka'u CDP: Changes since 2014
Date:
Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:37:57 PM
Attachments:
2016 Draft Kau CDP Review Notes.docx
Comments for Draft Ka'u CDP.doc
Aloha Ron,
Here are some of our comments for the revised Kau CDP.
We may have more coming soon. Let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff
From: Arai, Daryn
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:31 AM
To: Darrow, Jeff <Jeff. Darrow@ ha wa i icou nty.gov>
Cc: Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Mead, Lucas
<Lucas.Mead@hawaiicounty.gov>; Kay, Christian<Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: FW: Ka'u CDP: Changes since 2014
Jeff,
Please coordinate amongst the division planners to assemble comments/suggestions regarding the
draft Kau CDP as directed below.
Let's try to get something to Ron and April by the end of February.
Thanks
Daryn
From: Whitmore, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:36 PM
To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty-pov>; Gagorik, Susan
<Susan.Gagorik@hawaiicounty.gov>
Cc: Surprenant, April <April.Surprenantna hawaiicounty.gov>; Mercado, Keiko
<Keiko.Mercado@hawaiicounty.goy>
Subject: Ka'u CDP: Changes since 2014
Daryn and Susan,
If you haven't already, you'll soon be receiving the attached memo requesting your review of the
Ka'u CDP, as recommended for adoption by the Steering Committee.
As was the case in 2014, you can focus your attention on the land use and permitting policies, which
are organized for planners in a "Land Use Policy Guide": http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/kau-
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 7
cdp/documents/ka-u-cdp-land-use-policy guide. You may also find the "Strategy Rationale" helpful:
http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/kau-cdp/documents/ka-u-cdp-strategy-rationale. If you'd prefer,
we can provide you a copy of these or any other CDP documents in Word. The land use policy map
GIS layers are also available.
To simplify your review, in the attached, I also summarized the substantive, land -use -related
differences between the December 2015 CDP (http://www.hawaiicount)zcdp.info/kau-
cdp/documents/ka-u-community-development-plan) and the last draft you reviewed during the
summer of 2014.
We'd appreciate comments by March 4. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any
additional information.
Thanks,
Ron
Ron Whitmore
Senior Long Range Planner (Planner VI)
Hawaii County Planning Department
101 Pauahi, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 961-8137
Fax: (808) 961-8742
ron.whitmore@hawaiicounty.gov
2016 Draft Kau CDP Review Notes
• Send CDP to US Fish and Wildlife Service? Nature Conservancy?
• Suggest reducing the size of the CDP. Section II alone is 56 pages which makes in
challenging for planners to effectively implement the CDP.
• Policy 35: Does "agricultural land" refer to land being farmed or agriculturally -zoned
lands not necessarily being used for agriculture? I assume this policy anticipates full
build -out of Ocean View with residences but is intending to prevent future entitlements
that would allow residences on ag-zoned lands? Need to define what is meant by
"agricultural lands".
• Policy 36: What acreage is too small?
• In Policy 38: How is 'agriculture' defined in the phrase" shall be limited to agriculture,
related economic infrastructure....". Do you mean crop and livestock production?
Agriculture as defined by the zoning code? Or agriculture defined by HRS 205-2 and 4.5?
Or something else? The statement "unless otherwise permitted by law" kind of makes
this policy pointless since so many uses, including some of the ones specifically listed in
the policy, are permitted by law. Need to be very clear here. Probably would have been
best to just say "in addition to uses permitted by the zoning code and HRS 205, cottage
industries and community facilities are also permitted in IAL and EA".
• Policy 28: Recommend the last sentence say..."the shoreline setback line shall be 40 feet
unless a greater setback is required by state law." Just in case the State changes it.
Thought I saw a measure in the current Leg session changing it to 60 feet.
• Policy 29: I don't understand this policy since we already do this.
• Policy 81: Is Planning currently implementing this policy? What resource will Admin
Permits have to identify existing facilities and existing mountain trails? Current GIS Trails
layer?
• Policy 38 has a typo on the first line on page 20, section 4.2.
• Policy 40: Commercial shooting ranges or only public (Police) shooting ranges?
Indoor/outdoor, either?
• Policy 42: Will landowners really do this if it is not mandated? How many subdividers
have used this provision of code to date?
• Policy 43: Do we really currently allow lots less than one acre for PELOR's even though
this is contrary to HRS 205?
• Policy 71: HRS6E-42 was recently changed (see 6E-42.2) to clarify which structures over
50 require review by SHPD. Policy 71 is now more restrictive than HRS. Has Corp
Counsel advised how to implement when CDP conflicts with HRS or code? Would staff
still send all apps to SHPD for review or just those required by HRS, in spite of CDP?
Comments for Draft Ka`u CDP Update (mainly on land use policies and ma
Policy 8: The GP LDU category only allows 6 units per acre. When you say
"RM -7.5 or higher", do you mean higher number like RM -10, which would be
RM -10,000 sf, or do you mean higher density (which would be a lower
number like RM -5)? (can be confusing).
Policy 10: It might be better to use the phrase "change of zoning district" vs
"zoning code amendment" in this section as I believe you are referring to a
rezoning.
Policy 28: What happens to lots more than 200 feet (40 -foot setback) and less
than 1,320 feet? Is there an adjusted setback dependent on the size of the lots
greater than 200 feet in depth?
Policy 29: Might want to just say "No development, including subdivision,
shall be approved in the SMA unless it meets requirements under HRS 205A-
22(3) & 205A -26(2)(A)" versus quoting it.
Policy 30: Not sure about this. If we change PD Rule 11 for Kau, we will need
to change it for all CDP's with adjusted shoreline setback policies.
Policies 32 to 37: May want to consider changing "agricultural lands" to
"important agricultural lands" as a large amount of lands zoned
"Agriculture" in Kau are very poor soil (lava). If that is the case, what are u
protecting? Some of the policies are limiting ag zoned land to ag uses when it
is very poor soil. Policy 37 states maintain rural character of the listed
subdivisions but does not allow them to go SLU Rural even though these
subdivisions are in the GP Rural designation.
Policy 40 and 41: This will help us in our review of Special Permits in Kau.
Under Policy 40, which is the section for Special Permits in the IAL or EA
LUPAG area, you have a reference to Urban Uses in Ocean View. There is
only a very little EA at the top of Ocean View so this may need to go into
Policy 41 (Rural) as Ocean View is mainly Rural. (Unless you are referring to
Ranchos as part of Ocean View)
Policy 47: Enforcement on lack of ag activity for additional farm dwellings is
currently done by our zoning inspectors when there is a complaint. By adding
more reporting and inspection requirements will require more personnel,
which we do not have and are not looking at getting in this year's budget or
the next year. We don't even have the man power to follow up on existing
conditions of permits. Is there a way this can be done without the need for
additional man power?
Maps: Can you consider changes the map colors to be similar to the GP?
Some colors are the same as the GP but are for different land uses (mdu is
yellow, which is ldu in the GP and the ldu is orange, which is mdu in the GP)
Can be confusing.
Pahala: Looks good
Naalehu: Looks good
Waiohinu: Why do you have Rural to the north? Shouldn't this stay in EA?
Discovery Harbour: Going from Rural to LDU will open the door to go SLU
Urban and RS, which will allow ohanas on the lots over 10,000 sf. Going LDU
is appropriate though because the lots are small and area is residential in
character. What happened to the "resort or commercial" node in DH?
Ocean View: I would suggest leaving Ranchos in EA as the definition for
Rural in the GP is for lots 2 acres and less. Ranchos is mainly 3 acres and
more. I still suggest that you should make the little nodes on the out skirts of
Ocean View MDU instead of LDU. Even though LDU says neighborhood and
convenience type commercial uses in the GP, there is no similar type of
commercial type of uses listed in RS zoning. If you intention is to rezone to
commercial, easier if you make this a mdu node vs a ldu.
William P. Kenoi
Mayor
IILANI�IQIG DEPAGTIAENT
cmli--W nr lit%1It"11
2016 UP 18 All 11: 50
County of Hawaii
POLICE DEPARTMENT
349 Kapi'olani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998
(808) 935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2389
February 11, 2016
TO UAN NUHA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: P . KEALOHA JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF, AREA II OPERATIONS
SUBJECT : REVIEW OF THE KA'O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP)
Harry S. Kubojiri
Police Chief
Paul K. Ferreira
Deputy Police Chief
Our staff has reviewed the Ka'u Community Development Plan and has no objections to offer at
this time.
Should you need further assistance, please contact Captain Burt Shimabukuro, Commander of
the Ka'u District, at (808) 939-2520.
BS
RS160058
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 8
"Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer"
103694
DAVID Y. IGE
GOVERNOR
DOUGLAS MURDOCK
Comptrdler
AUDREY HIDANO
Deputy Comptroller
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES
P O BOX 119, HONOLULU, HAWAII 96810-0119
N "ZI
FEB 2 5 2016.
-X737 6
rn
Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director
County of Hawaii, Planning Department w
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
Subject: Review of the Ka'u Community Development Plan (CDP)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the subject project. The Department of
Accounting and General Services (DAGS) acknowledges the advocacy for additional parking
and building updates at Naalehu Civic Center due to comments received during public review of
the draft CDP. Facility and parking improvements will be taken into consideration as part of our
ongoing efforts to assess DAGS managed facilities based on building tenant needs and the
services provided.
If you have any questions, your staff may call Mr. David DePonte of the Planning Branch
at 586-0492.
Sincerely,
JAMES K. KURATA
Public Works Administrator
DD:hm
c: Mr. Jerry Watanabe, DAGS Hawaii District
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 9
10396
Tt, OF N'(1.
DAVID Y. IGE ' KATHRYN S. MATAYOSHI
GOVERNOR P1.^tN1}}G DEfr11CNT
SUPERINTENDENT
2016 MAR -7 PN 4: 23
STATE OF HAWAn
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. BOX 2360
HONOLULU, HAWAI.196804
OFFICE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES
March 1, 2016
Mr. Duane Kanuha
Director, County of Hawaii
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Kau Community Development Plan
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
The Department of Education (DOE) has reviewed the Kau Community Development Plan and
would like to respond to your request for agency review. The DOE appreciates the time that
members of the Kau volunteers have spent providing their comments on the needs and desires of
their communities. Our comments are focused on your identified need and goal of building a join
school and community library in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (HOVE).
The DOE continues to monitor the enrollment growth of Kau's two public schools, which both
serve HOVE. We maintain that there is sufficient space in Naalehu Elementary and Kau High and
Pahala Elementary to accommodate growth in the population of school age children in the next few
years. We are also aware that many DOE students listing the HOVE zip code in their home address
attend other DOE schools in West Hawaii.
DOE and Hawaii State Library System determined that there are a number of difficulties in
operating joint school/community libraries. There is a significant difference between the library
collections needed for schools and the collections desired by community patrons. There are also
significant differences in the skills and experience of school and community librarians. Finally,
there is an increasing preference for schools to be able to control campus access for student safety
reasons. Adults want to access libraries when it is convenient, schools can't have wide open access
throughout the school day.
The DOE will continue to monitor enrollment figures and collect information, but there are no plans
at this time to begin a new DOE school in HOVE.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 10 104066
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 1, 2016
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Heidi Meeker with the Planning Section of the Facilities
Development Branch at (808) 377-8301.
Kenneth G. Masden II
Public Works Manager
Planning Section
KGM:jmb
c: Chad Farias, Complex Area Superintendent, Kau/Keaau/Pahoa Complex Areas
kiOEP
UIt [t
NtP -OA ;
j
"
SEC TAAY s
G RANCE ZNYISxf,
] PLANNER ..
SHORT RANO : i}i 1St.
] PLAWIM
DRA1'TING SECIVIA I'll
] DRAFTSMAN ^ —
GENERAL ADA'1 13Te. '
] SECRETARY TO Ctwl— : '. '2N______
7 FILE L R: '.11:',NAN0CCPANIENT
7 SEE ME C] P.?C.':OPRIATE ACTION
] CIRCULATE 0 INVESTIGATE E REPORT
5 DRAFTREPL7 Q iiECO.44MENDATION
REIVARKS— ��.
01 A'4
l� r...f
t
t•
-t 1
i
DAVID Y. IGEVIRGINIA
G OF HAWAII, '
PRESSI-ER, M.D.
2016 ; t - 7
Prl
11: 2 S DIRECTOR Of W&TH
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
In reply, please refer b:
P. 0. BOX 3378
EMOCM
HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378
03006PNN.16
March 3, 2016
.
Mr. Ron Whitmore
Project Manager
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Whitmore:
SUBJECT: Comments on the Kau Community Development Plan (CDP)
Kau, Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii
The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of
your memorandum, dated January 25, 2016, requesting comments on your project.
The DOH-CWB has reviewed the subject document and offers these comments.
Please note that our review is based solely on the information provided in the subject
document and its compliance with the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),
Chapters 11-54 and 11-55. You may be responsible for fulfilling additional requirements
related to our program. We recommend that you also read our standard comments on
our website at:
http://hea Ith. hawa ii.gov/epo/files/2013/05/Clean-Water-Branch-Std-Comments. pdf.
1. Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the following criteria:
a. Antidegradation policy (HAR, Section 11-54-1.1), which requires that the existing
uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the
receiving State water be maintained and protected.
b. Designated uses (HAR, Section 11-54-3), as determined by the classification of
the receiving State waters.
c. Water quality criteria (HAR, Sections 11-54-4 through 11-54-8).
2. You may be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit coverage for discharges of wastewater, including storm water
runoff, into State surface waters (HAR, Chapter 11-55).
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 11 104067
Mr. Ron Whitmore
March 3, 2016
Page 2
03006PNN.16
For NPDES general permit coverage, a Notice of Intent (NOI) form must be submitted
at least 30 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge. An application
for an NPDES individual permit must be submitted at least 180 calendar days before
the commencement of the discharge. To request NPDES permit coverage, you must
submit the applicable form ("CWB Individual NPDES Form" or "CWB NOI Form")
through the e -Permitting Portal and the hard copy certification statement with the
respective filing fee ($1,000 for an individual NPDES permit or $500 for a Notice of
General Permit Coverage). Please open the e -Permitting Portal website located at:
https:Heha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/ePermit/. You will be asked to do a one-time
registration to obtain your login and password. After you register, click on the
Application Finder tool and locate the appropriate form. Follow the instructions
to complete and submit the form.
3. If your project involves work in, over, or under waters of the United States, it is highly
recommended that you contact the Army Corp of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
(Tel: 835-4303) regarding their permitting requirements.
Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control Act [commonly known as the "Clean
Water Act" (CWA)], Paragraph 401(a)(1), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) is required for "[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which
may result in any discharge into the navigable waters..." (emphasis added).
The term "discharge" is defined in CWA, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6);
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 122.2; and HAR, Chapter 11-54.
4. Please note that all discharges related to the project construction or operation
activities, whether or not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 WQC are
required, must comply with the State's Water Quality Standards. Noncompliance
with water quality requirements contained in HAR, Chapter 11-54, and/or permitting
requirements, specified in HAR, Chapter 11-55, may be subject to penalties of
$25,000 per day per violation.
5. It is the State's position that all projects must reduce, reuse, and recycle to protect,
restore, and sustain water quality and beneficial uses of State waters. Project
planning should:
a. Treat storm water as a resource to be protected by integrating it into project
planning and permitting. Storm water has long been recognized as a source of
irrigation that will not deplete potable water resources. What is often overlooked
is that storm water recharges ground water supplies and feeds streams and
estuaries; to ensure that these water cycles are not disrupted, storm water
cannot be relegated as a waste product of impervious surfaces. Any project
Mr. Ron Whitmore
March 3, 2016
Page 3
03006PNN.16
planning must recognize storm water as an asset that sustains and protects
natural ecosystems and traditional beneficial uses of State waters, like
community beautification, beach going, swimming, and fishing. The approaches
necessary to do so, including low impact development methods or ecological
bio -engineering of drainage ways must be identified in the planning stages to
allow designers opportunity to include those approaches up front, prior to seeking
zoning, construction, or building permits.
b. Clearly articulate the State's position on water quality and the beneficial uses of
State waters. The plan should include statements regarding the implementation
of methods to conserve natural resources (e.g., minimizing potable water for
irrigation, gray water re -use options, energy conservation through smart design)
and improve water quality.
c. Consider storm water Best Management Practice (BMP) approaches that
minimize the use of potable water for irrigation through storm water storage
and reuse, percolate storm water to recharge groundwater to revitalize natural
hydrology, and treat storm water which is to be discharged.
d. Consider the use of green building practices, such as pervious pavement and
landscaping with native vegetation, to improve water quality by reducing
excessive runoff and the need for excessive fertilization, respectively.
e. Identify opportunities for retrofitting or bio -engineering existing storm water
infrastructure to restore ecological function while maintaining, or even enhancing,
hydraulic capacity. Particular consideration should be given to areas prone to
flooding, or where the infrastructure is aged and will need to be rehabilitated.
If you have any questions, please visit our website at:
http://health.hawaii.ciov/cwb, or contact the Engineering Section, CWB, at (808) 586-4309.
Sincerely,
QAA'� ALEC WONG, P.E., IEF
Clean Water Branch
NN:ak
c: DOH -EPO #16-035 [via e-mail Noella.NarimatsuCa)-doh.hawaii.gov only]
DAVID Y. IGE
GwvwDROFHAWM
Mr. Duane Kanuha
Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
►t� o, N,k
�`' t`i.i.���r�rin ����n•r�rc�li
VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D.
DIRECTOR of IC&TH
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Inreply, pFile: erb:
Baa
P. 0. BOX 3378
HONOLULU, HI 968013378 EPO 16-035
February 16, 2016
SUBJECT: Review of the Kau Community Development Plan
The Department of Health (DOH), Environmental Planning Office (EPO), acknowledges receipt of your review to our
office on February 1, 2016. Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the proposed project. The review
was routed to the District Health Office on Hawaii, the Clean Air, Clean Water, Wastewater, Safe Drinking Water,
Solid Hazardous Waste, and Indoor & Radiological Health Branches and the Office of Environmental Quality Control.
The review was also forwarded to the Environmental Health Services Division, Sanitation Branch. They will provide
specific comments to you if necessary. EPO recommends that you review the standard comments and available
strategies to support sustainable and healthy design provided at: hfQ://health.hawaii.-gov/ePoAanduse. Projects are
required to adhere to all applicable standard comments.
EPO also encourages you to examine and utilize the Hawaii Environmental Health Portal. The portal provides links
to our e -Permitting Portal, Environmental Health Warehouse, Groundwater Contamination Viewer, Hawaii
Emergency Response Exchange, Hawaii State and Local Emission Inventory System, Water Pollution Control
Viewer, Water Quality Data, Warnings, Advisories and Postings. The Portal is continually updated. Please visit it
regularly at: https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov
We request that you utilize all of this information on your proposed project to increase sustainable, innovative,
inspirational, transparent and healthy design.
Mahalo nui loa,
i
�Zura�Leialoha Phillips McIntyre, AI" CP
Program Manager, Environmental Planning Office
LM:nn
Attachments: Historic Sugarcane Lands Map Viewer- http:#health.hawaii.gov/epo/egis/sugarcane
OEQC viewer - http://eha-web.doh.hawaii.gov/oegc-viewer
U.S. EPA EJSCREEN Map 3 page report - http://www2.epa.gov/eiscreen
c: DHO Hawaii, CAB, CWB, WWB, SDWB, SHWB, IRHB, OEQC, & SAN (via email only)
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 12
103"716
EC'
NA
h4jt,a, Self R4
KANUKU
AHUPUA'A
H
A,
W
A I
s
m
WOOD VALLEY
HOMESSiw.-S
H 1 LEA- I�l��
AHUPUA A�
WAIOHINU
AHUPUA A i y � Q�
�ro
�►
y
!+Aama�eflaa aalehu
}
KAWE LA
AHUPUA A
IC:�MAon"
"AHUPUA A
r '1
i!
Pl:M1YEREC, BY 41
es i
® HIM
? Show sr(ss with no IocaUon
Kau Forest Rew" Management Plan
(FEA-FONSI)
Envtmrvtel Ambi lAQwxv)
Kau Gym and Sheffer in Pahala (FFA-
FONSI)
5wtv.,—,(A Aarew rwt (19WKv)
Kau Faesl Reserve Managernenl Plan
(DEA AFNSQ
Em Mvywtal Aoewrw%lAplrcvl
KAU PRESERVE NATURAL AREA
PARTNERSHIP (FEA-FONSI)
El—u—," Aew_Lvrrf..l vgxlk
Naaletlu and Pahala Villages LCCC
(FEA. FON SI)
E"IWMIetel Aerea A(AWKyI
SEA MOUNTAIN PUNALUU IFEA-
EISPN)
Esvrm+W d Irapa[ I SUdw.W (ADric W)
SEA MOUNTAIN PUNALUU (DEIS)
6wtmrvts Irtpaei Stated (AP*wd)
Kau Dlsowl Gym and W~ IDEA-
AFNSI)
Hh.vVtat A�It IA9e1KY)
Ocean View RecydbV Pont and
Convenience Center IF LI S)
[Twvrrotal impact StOomwt (A9eMY)
EPAt't""'t'u EISCREEN Report
for the User Specified Area, HAWAII, EPA Region 9
Approximate Population: 5422
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
EPA Region
Percentile
USA
Percentile
El Indexes
El Index for PM2.5
WA
WA
NIA
El Index for Ozone
WA
WA
WA
telex for NE '.se! PM'
EJ lndex for NATA -q,r Toyi, '*k'
WA
index for NATA Resp,
LJ Index =nr NATA Neur, 41 �+77arrf rlex'
El Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume
24
43
67
El Index for Lead Paint Indicator
79
73
84
El Index for Proximity to NPL sites
22
40
63
El Index for Proximity to RMP sites
16
30
63
EJ Index for Proximitv to TSDFs
22
30
65
El Index for Proximity to Major Direct Dischargers
15
41
63
is
•—
��� ° �� �� e L'' 4•�0„ �', �4ti a h al' "4 Ail
111Ny
IN?
E) Index for ft Selected Mee Compared to A I P----pk's Clods Groups in the Saft Rlegi nNS
U Indexes
L___7
State Perxntiie -R.egional rercertl e N U---4 zercert;e
This n*ort shows emmunrrrlr0l, derroagraphuc. and EI irxica w values- It shows erwnrwwnental and demographic raw dab (e 6. the estimated mrmiti-aDw+ c f
ozone i, tt a airj, and also shows what percentile each raw data value rrpirrerru These penceno}s provide per-,pectrw on howthe 9eiected bloc VvW or
buffer area carrr)ares to five entire scour, EPA rrIpon or rurbon For example, if a gvrn botion is at the 95th p rmvi ie nahoriwide, this means tra- only 5
pemnwt of the US popcdatwm has a higher blo* gaup rake tha^ the average person in dirt kx2wn being analiyae d The years for rhictr the dao are avail able
and the rrrethods userd, vary across tlw sw srldK:a D — trnpoetwit cwveats and rrmt=fties apply tothn informaban so it is essent:a totrdersand
the initamrts or appnowwiate .R"etaboru and appintioru of ttrese i+6atncs_ Please see EISCREEN doa nerit2bon for c sa ion of these issues before using
reports.
Febl uay 12.20113 1/3
VDEPA F.- -' &'`i EISCREEN Report
for the User Specified Area, HAWAII, EPA Region 9
Approximate Population: 5022
F4tnkuy 12 2016 c 1 288 8% c
- D gMed Polypon
C• 2 ri
iw W �.ot� O�wI fii a�^i Od1w� d
Fetnay 12, 2016 2/3
►EPA �'�"' F" d"` ' EJSCREEN Report
for the User Specified Area, HAWAN, EPA Region 9
Approximate Population: 5022
Selected Variables
Raw
Data
State
A
Me in
State
EPA
Region
A
%ie �
EPA
R on
USA
Avg.
A
%ile in
USA
Environmental Indicators
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 in µ6/m3)
NIA
NIA
WA
9.95
WA
9.78
WA
ozone (ppb)
WA
WA
WA
49.7
WA
48.1
WA
tarx � sfeo^x � mtl6on j•
F,
NA -;A RPsT �y Hazafe
N' aurowvgfcal Hazarr.
t:
Traffic Proximity and Volume (daily trsl5c wunt/dstance to road)
6-6
280
8
190
8
110
15
Lead Paint Indicator (x tee -1960 Mousing)
0.28
0.17
72
0.25
62
0.3
57
NPL Proximity (sit courtt/tan d=rwe)
0.0027
0 092
OV
6
0.11
0
0.096
0
RMP Proximity (faaTay ww%lb + daurtoe)
0-011
0
0.41
0
0.31
0
TSDF Proximity (~`achy oourtMt distance)
0.0027
0.092
6
0-12
0
0.054
2
Water Discharger Proximity (polity mun0an dirbnoe)
0.011
0.33
4
0.19
0
0.25
0
Demographic Indicators
Demographic Index
5
51%
73
40%
88
35%
80
Minority Population
67%
77%
24
57%
58
36%
78
Low Income Population
49%
25%
88
35%
72
34%
75
Linguisticalty isolated Population
396
6%
45
9%
32
5%
61
Population With less Than Nigh Sdxx34 Education
10%
10%
62
18%
41
14%
47
Population Under S years of age
6%
6%
57
7%
49
7%
54
Population over 64 years of age
17%
14%
67
12%
80
13%
75
Pw National -sale Air Tmoa Assessment i LATA) envirein me rtaJ indicators and EJ indeXs..• ^,Ch ina:rde cantor risk respiratory hmard neuradevdespn eint
hazard, and diesel portia,iate matter will be added ^to E15CRE04 during the first full public update after the soon -w -be released 2011 dataset is made
ava abie. The National -Sok Air Toxic Assessmem NATA) . EPA's on6oin6 comprehensive eyaivaoon of a- touocs in the United Sate EPA developed erre
NATA to pruvitim air to,m:%, emission soun:es. and ootiorts of interest for further study. It : imPort2vft to remember that NATA pow des broad estimaas of
health risks over geosraphic area,- of the murrtry not definitive rides to specific nd v+dLials or kz:iotas More information on the NATA anafys+s on be found
at http /www.epa-6m'ttt^/2tw/nztamainfiindahmt
For additional information see: www-epa_gov/environmentaijustice
EJSCREEN is a s m -ening too for prt-dmsionai use only It on heip identrfy arez that -,ay vrarraM adctora consideration, analysis or outreach, r, does not
provide a basis lo, densi+rrnitiny, but t may help t+entify potentia areas of E) mrmm. Users Dmuid keep;n m -%c ti+at saeenins tools are abject to nikem•t a
uncertainty in their demograpik and ermranmental data, particu" when looking at small glst6ra [ arras inQ -: csveats and unoetainties dap,w to this
screening -level ^'or*r:tion, so ' is essentai to understand the 67katrom on appiapnaoe--erpremmons and 2pg4k2borb of these indatm Plea2e see
EJSCREEN don,rner+titiom for disnasim of these issues before usin6 reports. This surervns -oo does riot provide dab on every ertvironmertbl impec and
de"no6raphK factor that may be rzk ant to a particular location. EIS3UTN outputs shoLdd be sL:rt/eirxrrted with add tion.-, ;nfT:mavm and bol knowledge
befu,eta+.rS arty aCbW w address potential EJ .-trams
February 12. 2016 3.1
♦4D Oi ~,W
T
C- RNOROFiwwuI 6 FEB 16
a
rim -1 1O
VIRGINIA CRROFWAER,M.D.
TH
PLANINiNC;
L. ! :I'P\F TRENT
STATE OF HAWAI OUNT'Y
01" HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH--
-`�
In reply, pleasereferID:
P. 0. BOX 3378
File:
HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378
LUD - 3 9 7 001 002 Kau Comm
Dev Plan-ID2631
February 12, 2016
Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department, County of Hawaii
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
Subject: Review of Ka'u Community Development Plan
Using as reference TMK (3) 9-7-001: 002 etc
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide comments on the above subject
project.
We have the following information to offer.
The subject project is located in the critical wastewater disposal area as determined
by the Hawaii County Wastewater Advisory Committee. Please be informed that all
proposed wastewater systems shall conform to applicable provisions of the Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-62, "Wastewater Systems."
Should you have any questions, please contact Mark Tomomitsu of our branch at
(808) 586-4294.
Sincerely,
SING PRUDER, P.E.; CHIEF
Wastewater Branch
LM/MST:Imj
c: Ms. Laura McIntyre, DOH -Environmental Planning Office, via email
Mr. Dane Hiromasa, DOH WWB's Kona Staff, via email
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 13
103662
DAVID Y. IGE
GOVERNOR OF INWAk
Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
►tom o e ~�k
d ( I t•!-}' n 4 I t t i'r '• 11 VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D.
i i74;ir:7t
00MOROFWµ7H
Ae'
2016 f;":R -7 RN 4: 27
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH In reply, pleaserele to:
P. O. BOX 3378 Fie:
HONOLULU, HI 96801.3378
March 3, 2016
LUD - 3 9 5 021 006 Kau
Community Dev Plan-ID2661
Subject; Review of the Kau Community Development Plan (CDP)
As Recommended by the Kau CDP Steering Committee for adoption by
the County of Hawaii
located at 95-5657 Mamalahoa Highway, Naalehu, Hawaii 96772
TMK (3) 9-5-021: 006
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed development and have the
following comments to offer.
The subject project is located in the critical wastewater disposal area as determined
by the Hawaii County Wastewater Advisory Committee. Please be informed that all
proposed wastewater systems shall conform to applicable provisions of the Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-62, "Wastewater Systems."
Please be informed that the proposed wastewater systems for the
subdivision/development may have to include design considerations to address any
effects associated with the construction of and/or discharges from the wastewater
systems to any public trust, Native Hawaiian resources or the exercise of traditional
cultural practices.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 14
104065
Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
March 3, 2016
Page 2
Should you have any questions, please contact Mark Tomomitsu of our branch at
(808) 586-4294.
Sincerely,
SINA PRUDER, P.E., CHIEF
Wastewater Branch
LM/MST:Imj
c: Ms. Laura McIntyre, DOH -Environmental Planning Office (16.035), via email
Ms. Amy Cook, DOH-WNVB's Hilo Staff, via email
Mr. Dane Hiromasa, DOH-WNB's Kona Staff, via email
DAVID Y. IGE 4+ o • N+ RACHAEL WONG, DrPH
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
A01 PANKAJBHANOT
FEB 1 fi 7 O DEPUTY DI ECTOR
��; l)i-r-, ;TMENT
COUNT" OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Benefit, Employment & Support Services Division
820 Mililani Street, Suite 606
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
February 11, 2016 Re: 16-0051
Duane Kanuha, Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
Subject: Review of the Ka'u Community Development Plan (CDP)
This is in response to your memorandum dated January 25, 2016 requesting the
Department of Human Services (DHS) review and comment on the long range
comprehensive Ka'u Community Development Plan (CDP).
The DHS contacted Mr. Ron Whitmore, CDP project manner for clarification as the
Ka'u district covers an extensive portion of the island of Hawaii. After reviewing Chapter
III, Guidance to agencies of the CDP, the DHS does not see any conflict. However the
DHS request they continue to be informed as the CDP progresses.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Ms. Jill
Arizumi, Child Care Program Specialist, at (808) 586-5240.
Sincerely,
Scott Nakasone
Assistant Division Administrator
c: Rachael Wong, DrPH, Director'
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 15
10366'
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY
PI.l` WING HPAPTMENT
OFFICE OF PLANNING rruFtT'r a tlAVY,ll
STATE OF HAWAII
235 South Beretania Street, 6th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Mailing Address: R.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804
Ref. No. P-15069
March 14, 2016
Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
ISi�7
Subject: Kau Community Development Plan, December 2015 draft
DAVID Y, IGE
GOVERNOR
LEO R. ASUNCION
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUNNING
Telephone: (808) 587-2846
Fax: (808) 587-2824
Web: http://planning.hawaii.gov/
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Kau Community
Development Plan (CDP). The review notice was transmitted to our office by letter dated January 25,
2016.
It is our understanding that the Kau CDP is the culmination of extensive community meetings,
background studies, and workshops to develop and map policies that will guide near-term and long-term
development of the Kau CDP planning area and the communities within the CDP. We wish to
acknowledge that planning effort and express our appreciation that the resource materials are available to
the public on the CDP website.
The Kau CDP seeks to translate broad General Plan policies into specific actions to meet
community needs and desires at the regional level, and to coordinate and guide delivery of County
services to the community. The Kau CDP contains community -defined objectives in four thematic areas:
encouraging sustainable settlement patterns; conserving and managing natural and cultural resources;
enhancing community infrastructure; and building a resilient local economy.
The Office of Planning (OP) offers the following comments and observations.
I. Consistencv with Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) obiectives and Dolicies
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 205A-2. The CDP incorporates a range of policies that
are consistent with and advance CZM objectives and policies related to recreational,
historic, and scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal
hazards, managing development, public participation, beach protection, and marine
resources.
2. Consistency with HRS Chapter 226, the Hawaii State Plan. Similarly, the CDP contains
a range of objectives and policies consistent with HRS Chapter 226 goals, objectives,
policies, and priority guidelines related to the economy, physical development, protection
of agricultural, natural, and archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, and
socioeconomic advancement.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 16
104281
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2016
Page 2
3. Consistency with HRS Chapter 205, the State Land Use Law, in particular, Section 3.1,
Preferred settlement pattern. OP notes that the proposed CDP land use maps for the most
part conform to existing State land use district boundaries; therefore, it appears that the
CDP will not require significant boundary amendments during the CDP plan timeframe.
OP supports the preferred settlement pattern that prioritizes infill residential and
commercial development to existing rural centers and settlements at Pahala, Punaluu,
Naalehu, Discovery Harbour, and Ocean View. We concur that this regional land use
strategy will help achieve community desires to: maximize the use of existing
infrastructure; limit development along shorelines; preserve viable agricultural lands,
open space, and viewscapes; preserve historic sites, buildings, and construction in
character with Kau's rural sense of place; and protect people and facilities from lava flow
hazards. The infill settlement strategy is prudent given the significant development
capacity already in place.
However, we note that the character and land use pattern of existing settlements are not
entirely consistent with the purposes of the State land use districts in HRS Chapter 205.
There are residential subdivisions on lands in the State Agricultural District that would be
more appropriately classified in the State Rural District. In addition, the existing rural
centers are classified in the State Urban District, although they are rural in character and
form. The consistency of specific policy statements with HRS Chapter 205 is discussed
separately below.
4. Comment related to Figure 1, Kau CDP Land Use Policy Map: Regional. A tract in the
Keauhou area designated as "Extensive Agriculture" on the CDP Land Use Policy Map
was identified in the Office of State Planning's 1992 State Land Use District Boundary
Review, Hawaii report as a candidate for reclassification from the Agricultural to the
Conservation District (Recommendation 18, Kilauea-Keauhou). This recommendation
stemmed from the tract's central location in an area of managed native intact ecosystems.
This area constitutes one of largest upper elevation protected native forests in the State,
and provides habitat for six endangered bird species, the Hawaiian hoary bat, and five
rare plant species. Although the district boundary amendment was not pursued, due to
this tract's sensitive nature, uses should be carefully regulated and monitored to manage
access and avoid encroachment from activities and uses that would degrade or further the
fragmentation of remaining intact ecosystems in this area. See Figure 1 on the next page.
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2416
Page 3
Figure 1. 1992 Boundary Review Recommendation, Kilauea-Keauhou
• i,\• :'♦.j • :moi' :,• • : • • • • • ♦ • ♦ _f s a ♦• •' • • - •
i •irf' • • 1 • s •+• • •�\'•'• rY... i•• `• r''• • ♦-• t"Y Y"Y'• • •'•~ '. t�.
• t i
Mme• . ••Y s" i 1 • 'i : • • • e • • •. ' / • 1� • • • •. • • .t • J.--. •� •',r' f , .1
. • •_• _• L, • • • • . • • •'• • .' •'tet•• • •A/1•tftt/l1ae�U•t►dlgMp -�",,.!:'
• ♦ • .-: a e • • • a a! • :']'.,. t,• : • • • r . tU►At [fttrtw tplrtllwt •• ky
• • • • ! w'" •-, f "t r • }' f • • `• • •.♦ � • • /�/f r✓ ! • Yom•, -1 ♦ .!'�f ♦ • . • � "".;
`'a,-,• • ♦ •'... q+.• • r• ••r'•'r i�ie '♦ : Ki) ti•K • :• r.♦ • ••-�i. ••'y _ ;
J v �
• •
4�
a . . • • • • • T • • • R•asttawN�lt `$wa.,- �/ f # '�` .. • • • -•�• '�•_%
• i.r • • • • w • •.'r -1f'i�r..'.'. v••'f r ♦ a . •a'• ,,y ~ .?i: a
• .. i ••� • • . •, • •.• • •,,'• , '•.,.•L •tom • `Stry,
• • • • • • ♦ •"♦`i.s"-1 • • • �' '" ♦'•e ♦ •••moi • ."..• •«i . •r:'�Li• r,H..• ♦;•�� .,,•.'..,tea
.....''. .:".�'. •r�� �''.-.t _ ... .•fit•. `..•. �_ •�_• •... a rf: .,'. ':".•._
• .� L�. • • • • ''r' - ' 1 .� • •i. .. t.«• •...I:elfti•'• •♦ _ •�-•li a.-i.��•-•.�'� rte.
r
Source: Office of Planning Statewide Geographic Information System (State land use district boundaries,
Development plan boundaries, Hawaii County LUPAG, 1992 OSP Boundary Review recommendations, USGS
DRG files)
5. Section 3.4, Land Use Policy, Policies 3 and 5. OP supports adoption of CDP policies to
direct commercial facilities to areas already serviced, and to require a localized program
of public and private capital improvements to meet expected needs concurrent with the
development of more intense uses. Policy 5 for the rehabilitation and reuse of designated
resort areas serves a similar purpose and allows for fiscally responsible public
investments in capital improvements and service delivery.
6. Section 3.4, Policies 8 and 9. Expansion of residential use for low density urban needs
should consider and mitigate or avoid potential impacts on significant agricultural
activities and infrastructure investments that the State would want to enhance and protect
as identified in the 2015 Statewide Ag Land Use Baseline Report, in particular, around
Pahala and Wood Valley,
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2016
Page 4
In addition, the application of Policy 8 in the Ocean View area would require a State land
use district boundary amendment since the lands are classified in the State Agricultural
District.
7. Figure 6, Kau CDP Land Use Policy Map: Ocean View. As noted above, planned urban
and industrial uses at Ocean View would require State land use district boundary
amendments. As currently configured, the urban uses would disperse urban -like features
and services along Highway 11, contrary to Section 3.4, Policy 2, which aims to
concentrate commercial uses in central cores and not allow for strip or spot commercial
development. The same land use policy should apply to industrial uses in order to
achieve the preferred settlement pattern of compact settlements. Furthermore, a portion
of mauka lots in Ocean View are in the highest Lava Flow Hazard zone, Zone 1; the
remainder of the subdivision is in Zone 2. With a dispersed population base and limited
resources to provide public services over the CDP area, public entities need to carefully
consider the potential impacts on public investment in infrastructure or facilities in these
Zones, and whether additional investments could attract more people where services are
already stretched thin. This calculus would include whether to fund projects that would
establish new public school facilities in this area as proposed in Section 5.9.3.2.
8. Section 4.2.2, Policy 28, and Section 4.2.3, Policy 30, related to shoreline setbacks.
Policy 28 (p. 50) proposes a minimum shoreline setback of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) in the
subject CDP planning area, in excess of the current forty -foot setback required under
HRS § 205A-43 and County rules. Policy 30 (p. 52) accordingly requests amending
Planning Department Rule 11, Shoreline Setback, as would be required by HRS § 205A-
45, to conform to the larger setback proposed in Policy 28. OP recommends the CDP
provide a rationale or justification for the larger 1,320 -foot setback in this area, so that
there is a defensible basis for an expanded setback area in the rule-making process.
9. Section 4.2.4.1, second bullet. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-5-40(b) governs
public hearings before the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), not the State
Land Use Commission. In Chapter III, Guidance to Agencies, page 26, the first bullet
should be under Section 3.9, Land and Natural Resources, since the BLNR administers
Conservation District subzones.
10. Section 4.3.2, Land Use Policy for Agriculture and Open Space, Polic,L This policy
statement is unclear and should be clarified. Substitution or inclusion of the term,
"subdivided," may help clarify the intent, since a zone change does not in itself change
the existing physical dimensions of the affected lot. Word choice notwithstanding, OP
supports the policy intent of retaining agricultural land in parcels of sufficient size for
efficient farming operations and flexibility in crop selection and production.
11. Section 4.3.2, Polices OP has concerns about keeping residential subdivisions such as
Ocean View, Mark Twain, and Green Sands classified in the State Agricultural District.
The settlement pattern of these subdivisions fragment the land and make it difficult to
farm on a medium to large scale. These subdivisions are largely rural residential in
character and have scattered farm activity, and are thus, more suited in the Rural District.
Agriculture is a permitted use in the Rural District. OP would prefer that the phrase
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2016
Page 5
"including continued inclusion in the State Land Use Agricultural District (not Rural)" be
deleted, since the presence of non-agricultural residential use weakens the intent and
purpose of the State Agricultural District and makes agricultural land more valuable for
housing.
12. Section 4.3.2, Policy 38. Community facilities are not a permissible use in the State
Agricultural District and would require a State special permit.
13. Section 4.3.2, Policies 40 and 41. Similarly, a State special permit pursuant to
HRS § 205-6 may be required for some of the uses listed depending on the underlying
State land use district classification. Special permits are use variances, and special
permits should be limited in application to uses of a temporal nature or where unique site-
specific conditions exist. Otherwise, it is more appropriate to reclassify the land if the
proposed use is of a permanent nature, does not conform to the purpose of the underlying
district, or would displace or alter the protected uses and character of the district. We
have particular concerns for the non-agricultural uses listed for lands that are classified as
State Agricultural. OP does not object to the broader range of uses on lands that are
classified as State Rural District, provided the character, intensity, and development
standards sustain rural character and the viability of the rural resource economy.
14. Section 4.3.2, Policy 43. OP supports the concept of consolidation and resubdivision of
pre-existing lots where it results in a more effective rural land use pattern. However, it
should be noted that HRS § 205-5(b) prohibits pre-existing lots of one acre or more to be
less than that minimum after the consolidation and resubdivision action.
15. Section 4.3.3, Policy 48. OP supports County policy to limit the abuse of agricultural tax
dedication provisions and actions to strengthen the utility of this incentive for bona fide
agriculture.
16. Section 4.3.3, Policy 50 and Section 4.3.4.1 related to funding IAL designation. The
County's General Plan (GP) defines the criteria used to identify "important agricultural
lands" (IAL), and IAL lands are mapped in the County GP Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG) maps. The LUPAG IAL classifications have been the subject of
numerous public reviews through the GP revision processes and the CDP development
processes. OP believes that these lands could constitute the County's recommended
lands for IAL, and that such recommendations meet the provisions in HRS § 205-47(c)
that would allow the County to move forward with the county process for the
identification of lands for designation as IAL pursuant to HRS § 205-47.
17. Section 4.4.4, Advocacy, Protect Mauka Forests. OP notes the policy requesting OP to
designate forest and watershed areas into the Conservation District during boundary
reviews. Much of the forest and watershed areas in the Kau CDP area are already in the
Conservation District, and some pockets were recommended for reclassification in the
1992 Boundary Review report. OP is currently conducting a review of existing district
boundaries, but will not be requesting any boundary amendments for this review. We
will keep this request in mind for future reviews.
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2016
Page 6
18. Section 4.8, Establish and Manaize Public Access, for Natural and Cultural Resources.
There is strong community sentiment for a County program of public access to mauka
and makai areas, as well as support for a regional trail system. This needs to be balanced
with CDP policy for "appropriate access" that balances use with protection from
degradation and preservation of natural resources, ecosystems, habitat, or sensitive
cultural resources. In this regard, OP suggests changes to Policy 81, so that subdividers
are not required to dedicate land for public access to coastal or mauka areas and mountain
trails unless a need for access has already been identified in a public access/regional trails
system plan with an approved, localized program for how access or trail segments will be
acquired. Otherwise, the creation of too many access points may do more harm than
good with respect to management of the resource.
19. Section 4.9.2, Policy 84, Similarly, these resource opportunities should be identified as
"regional network of trails" planning gets underway on a plan -wide or area -wide basis.
This would also provide more predictability in the planning and permitting process.
20. Section 4.7.3, Policy 77, Section 5.2.2, Policy 93, toward articulation of rural
development and level of service standards. One of the key findings from OP's 2006-7
Rural Policy and Best Practices Project is the need for the establishment of development
and level of service standards uniquely tailored to rural areas. Other jurisdictions have
found that rural standards are essential to retaining rural character and form, keeping land
affordable for agricultural and natural resource-based extractive industries, and managing
public service costs commensurate with the ability to finance or pay for rural
infrastructure and services. OP supports the adoption of CDP policies toward this end,
which includes establishing water system service boundaries coincident with designated
growth areas. Rural standards like these also help manage public expectations about the
level of services to be provided by the County, and facilitate fiscally -responsible public
investments in County service delivery systems.
21. Section 5.8.3.1, Environmental manaizement facilities. OP has concerns regarding the
statement that urges the Department of Health (DOH) to establish place -specific policies
based on an analysis of local environmental conditions, instead of prohibiting cesspools.
OP supports DOH efforts to eliminate the use of cesspools statewide, as this initiative
advances and implements the State's approved Hawaii Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program Management Plan, June 1996. OP suggests the statement be revised to
promote the identification of appropriate individual or package wastewater systems for
differing localized conditions within the region, which could be used to develop a
systematic strategy for cesspool replacement and closures. This coupled with the
statement for financial assistance programs for cesspool conversion would facilitate the
conversion process.
22. Section 5.9.3.2, educational facilities at Ocean View, charter schools in Kau. We defer to
the Department of Education as to whether new school campuses or facilities in the Kau
CDP area are warranted or needed. However, OP has general concerns about creating
new facilities that would disperse limited State resources rather than invest them for
improving and expanding existing facilities and educational programs.
Mr. Duane Kanuha
March 14, 2016
Page 7
23. Section 6.1. The policies in this section should reference the need to support and expand
agricultural production and agricultural infrastructure for the region as identified in the
2015 Statewide Ag Land Use Baseline Project report.
24. Section 6.1.3.1, alignment of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS) with the Kau CDP. The Statewide CEDS is generally a compilation of CEDS
priorities defined by the individual counties. The County economic development agency
and the local economic development board generally develop and implement the County
CEDS component. Thus, alignment of the CEDS with regional plan policies is best
accomplished by working with the County economic development agency and the
appropriate local economic development board in their efforts to develop and implement
the Hawaii County CEDS. A project to revise and update the county and statewide
CEDS is set to get underway this year.
25. Section 6.4.4.1. amendment of HRS Chanter 205 for a blanket nrohibition of renewable
energy_nrojects, mills, major processing facilities as permitted uses. OP does not support
the policy request, since such an exclusion will have an impact on permitted uses in the
affected State land use districts statewide. Furthermore, such a blanket restriction would
have the effect of hindering permit processing for agricultural processing facilities or
similar facilities that directly support agricultural or rural resource industry like forestry.
It is more appropriate to deal with public concerns regarding the potential impacts of such
proposed uses in the county permitting process.
26. Given the presence of natural hazard and wildfire risks in this region and the dispersed
nature of public emergency services and the region's scattered population centers, OP
suggests that this chapter contain more explicit policy statements related to how
community resiliency and disaster recovery efforts will be addressed in the face of these
threats. This could entail referencing policies and strategies developed in other County
plans or documents.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact Josh Hekekia, Coastal Zone Management Program, (808) 587-2845, or Ruby
Edwards, Land Use Division, (808) 587-2817.
Sincerely,
40 5 Z-7 � 0
Leo R. Asuncion
Director
IN REPLY REFER TO:
HAVO T.D. (L7619)
March 2, 2016
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Post Office Box 52
Hawaii National Park, Hawaii 96718
Ron Whitmore
County of Hawaii Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96 20
Dear Mr.'tmore,
NATIONAL
PARK
SERVICE
�)
J
C=:)
r
—a
o
-�rT13
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Ka'(! Community Development
Plan dated December 2015. We respectfully submit the following comments.
Section 4.1.3.1 (pg 48): We do not think this section (4.1.3.1) is necessary now. Priority lands for
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park have been funded or identified in the President's budget and
are outlined in the park's General Management Plan. The park no longer needs the described
special resource study.
Section 4.1.3.2 (pg 48): Please change this language to — As outlined in the Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park General Management Plan (GMP), continue to pursue acquisition priorities, such
as the Great Crack parcels and other properties as described in the GMP. You can include the
parcel numbers if it is needed.
Section 4.2.2, Policy 29, second to last bullet (pg 51): While this section is focused on SMA's, it
should be discussed either here or elsewhere in the document that the natural hazards of lava
flows needs to be addressed, specifically egress routes when considering community planning.
Mauna Loa flows have reached the ocean in as little as 2 — 3 hours in the past 150 years.
Section 4.5.2, Policy 54, end of sentence (pg 58): Change `plans' to `planes'.
Section 4.5.2, Policy 58 (pg 58): Another consideration for wind energy facilities and
telecommunications towers and antennas are the threatened, endangered, rare, or endemic
species that may be impacted by these structures. It could be argued that these species are
important to the scenic and natural beauty of Ka`u. If you feel it does not fit in this section, this
potential impact and consideration should be addressed elsewhere in this document.
Section 4.6.2, Policy 63 (pg 60): Please consider adding to this policy statement that grading and
grubbing permits will also encourage permit holder to only grade and grub that absolute
Planning Dept. .
Exhibit 17 0 40
necessary amount to encourage the protection of native ecosystems as much as possible. It is
easier to protect an area than it is to restore it once it has been graded.
Section 4.6.4.1 (pg 61): Please add the National Park Service to the list of agencies that should
receive sufficient funding to adequately implement critical conservation programs.
Section 4.8.4.2 (pg 66): It may be helpful to point out to the reader that Three Mountain Alliance
does not own the land; the members of TMA are the various landowners (member agencies,
NGOs, and private landowners). For example, under the third bullet it could be misconstrued
that TMA is the landowner.
Section 5.3.3, Policy 96 (pg 73): We recommend that the safety be improved South Point Road
to Highway 11 (currently it states to Kama oa Road).
Section 5.6.2, Policy 112 (pg 77): Please change the sentence to read - "Harden critical
infrastructure to ensure its effective use after an earthquake, hurricane, or eruption, including..."
Section 5.7.2 (pg 78): We recommend a new policy be added -- "Work with the National Park
Service — Hawai` i Volcanoes National Park and US Geological Survey -- Hawaiian Volcano
Observatory on emergency response planning and implementation for natural disasters, such as
seismic or eruptive events."
We did not directly receive notice of the agency review from your office. Please ensure Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park is on your mailing list for future communication.
If you have questions, please contact Danielle Foster, Environmental Protection Specialist, at
(808) 985-6073 or danielle—foster@nps.gov.
Since y,
Cynthia L. Orlando
Superintendent
koins
>L1�- iAic
TORtv :CC: ronU QV Melia Lane-Kamahele, NPS-PWRH
Sl•!' 11 T FIAW,C. € �uf f
i�1_ '"!'ifs � S* ., i•.,
«.
�
t"i:.E
as v%M1iM1AEI�'
0 s'[F,14ic
0 WICULL
8083261175 CADESSCHUTTE CADESSCHUTTE 01:40:46 p.m. 02-25-2016 113
c a d e s z s c h u t t e I a limited liability law partnership
N Zi
0
Facsimile Cover Sheet
v1 rn
DATE February 25, 2016 �' F
fv M
TO Name Fax No. Phone No, N r +
Duane Kanuha, Planning Director (808) 961-8742 (808) 961-8288
County of Hawaii -
FROM : Name:
Roy A. Vitousek III
Fax Number:
(808) 326-1175
Phone Number:
(808) 329-5811
E-mail Address:
rvitousek@cades.com
RE : Subject:
Discovery Harbour Draft Community Development Plan
Pages:
3
Transmitting:
Letter dated today re: Discovery Harbour Draft Community
Fa=808
Development Plan
Remarks:
Cs
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 18
CadeaSdruttebuilding
Knas Office
ldauiOffice
two lilftp street. suite I=
75.170Hushial good. Suite U-303
444Ham H
Honolulu, Havalf 96813
Kallua Staaa, Hawall 96740
Kahulw."
Tel: 808.521-9200
Tel., BM 329.5811
am an
Far: 808321.9210
T= 808346-1175
Fa=808
twuzeades mm
ANDITED
ME 03849
February 25, 2016
VIA FACSIIVHLE 961-8742 AND
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Duane Kanuha
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Discovery Harbour Draft Community Development Plan
South Point Investment Group, LLC Properties:
TMK No. (3) 9-4-001: 019 (Lot 825)
TMK No. (3) 9-4-001: 020 (Lot 515)
TMK No. (3) 9-4-001: 021 (Lot 825)
TMK No. (3) 9-4-001: 022 (Lot 82 1)
TMK No. (3) 9-4-024: 025 (Lot 8241,
Dear Mr. Kanuha:
Roy A. Vitousek Iii
Direct Une: (808) 329-5811
Direct Fax: (808) 326-1175
E-mail: rvitausek0cades,com
Our office represents South Point investment Group, LLC. We are in receipt of the
Summary of Findings and Recommendations for the Discovery Harbor Draft CDP. The CDP
Planning Team made four (4) proposed revisions. Proposal 3 states:
If the Subdivision Covenants are amended to allow it, allow for
small scale resort development on the "gateway" parcels in
Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat Resort Area"
on the Land Use Policy Map (Policy 7) and, if concurrent,
necessary improvements in infrastructure are made, by rezoning
portions of them Resort (V-7.5). This establishes a path for the
addition of visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf
course.
The bold printed portion of the proposal is unnecessary inasmuch as the subject parcels
are not subject to Discovery Harbour Covenants and the limitation to "Retreat Resort Area" is
inconsistent with prior County approvals. We, therefore, request that recommendation number
CS
Cades Schutte Building
Kona Office
Maui Office
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200
75.170 Hualalal goad, Suite B-303
444 Hans 111ghway, Suite 204
Honolulu, ilawaii 96813
Kaliva Kona. Nawab 96740
Kahului,HawaII96732
Tet_ 808.521.9200
Tel: 808.329.5811
Tel: 808.871-6016
Fax: 808.521-9210
Fax: 80&326-1175
Fa=808.871.6017
www.cades.com
8083261175 CARES SCHUTTE CARES SCHUTTE 01:42:18 p.m. 02-25-2016 313
Duane Kanuha
February 25, 2016
Page 2
three (3) be revised to immediately designate the "gateway parcels" as a "Minor Resort Area"
and with necessary improvements in infrastructure to rezone portions of them to Resort (V-.75).
The above -listed lots constitute two undeveloped lots and three golf course lots. None of
these lots are residential lots and by definition do not qualify for membership in the Discovery
Harbour Homeowners Association.
The original Charter of Incorporation granted to the Association on June 7, 1972,
specifically limited the authorization to residential lots and defined and limited the (mandatory)
membership in the Association to owners of "Residential Lots" See Article VIII. The Charter
states that the term "residential lots" shall have the meaning given it in the Declaration. The
Declaration does not define "residential lots" but states that lots will be classified ""single-family
residential", or "multi -family residential", or "village commercial". None of the above lots have
ever been treated as residential lots. As such, none of the above -referenced lots are subject to the
Declaration and the owners of these lots have never been, and cannot be, members of the
Association.
Article XV of the Charter requires a two-thirds vote of membership to amend the Charter.
The Association has confirmed and is not claiming that there has ever been a two-thirds approval
vote to change the Charter or the Bylaws. As a result not only is it unnecessary for an
amendment, an amendment would be improper.
In addition, the subject lots were approved for resort use in 1963 and SP 141 authorized
for development at a much greater density than even allowed by Minor Resort Area.
As noted in the Summary of Findings and Recommendations, there was considerable
support for the South Point Investment Group's resort proposal. In fact, this support represented
the single greatest public comment.
Based upon the foregoing, we request that recommendation number three (3) be revised
to immediately designate the "gateway parcels" as a "Minor Resort Area" and with necessary
improvements in infrastructure to rezone portions of them to Resort (V-.75).
Very truly yours,
ep_
#noy A. Vitousek III
for
CADES SCHUTTE
A Limited Liability Law Partnership
cc; South Point Investment Group
EAS
From: info@hawaiicountycdp.info
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:13 AM
To: admin
Subject: resort development at Discovery Harbor
Categories: Todo
First Name
marvin
Last Name
grendahl
Email Address
Phone number
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Subject
resort development at Discovery Harbor
Comments
To: Ron Whitmor CDP Kau district Project Manager county of Hawaii
From: Discovery Harbor Golf Course Resident Maintenance Crew and Resident Golfers
Date: Feb 14, 2016
Subject: No conflict with CC&R's and SPIG's proposed resort development
We were all surprised when we heard that misinformation was transmitted to you that there is a conflict
in the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the current SPIG plans to build a resort, with 3 story structures
on the parcels of land designated in the SUPLAMENTAL DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as "Village
commercial (resort, shops) or multi -family residential (condos, town houses) or single-family
residential. These are parcels number 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres).
Because of this we got on the addenda of the February 13, 2016 Discovery Harbor Board Meeting to
express our concerns over the transmittal of this misinformation to you.
Your proposed recommendation to limit the construction to a max of 2 stories has no basses in the in the
Discovery Harbor CC&R's. In fact 3 stories are permitted in the Discover Harbor Subdivision on
Residential lots. III. GENERAL APPLICATION MULI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTION (page
276 CC&R's) 4. Subject to the approval by the committee multi -family dwellings may be of single or
multiple story construction, but no more than 3 stories and may be detached or joined by common walls.
Keep in mind that this 3 story restriction applies only to residential lots 1-820 not to parcels 515 or 824.
We also do not desire to see the zoning changed to light urban and would like to see the zoning Resort.
Enclosed is a copy of the presentation presented to the Discovery Harbor Board meeting of February 13,
2016 by Marvin Grendahl (who has developed a subdivision in Arizona and written Articles of
Incorporation, Bylaws and CC&R's) and a resident of Discovery Harbor.
This meeting was attended by 40+ residences, many of whom were the golf course maintenance people
and resident golfers, but not all.
What we detected at this meeting was that the Board members do not understand the Charter or articles
of incorporation. We explained to them that the purpose of the Charter is to convey (by the State of
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 19
Hawaii) upon the Homeowner's Association and its Board the powers to administer the Rules as set
down by the CC&R's upon residential lots 1-514, 517- 820 in the discovery Harbor Subdivision and
homes owners (see Charter of incorporation). The Board mistakenly thinks that the CC&R's apply also
to the Village commercial parcels 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres). The Charter of Incorporation
clearly states (ARTICLE XI) "Each person, corporation or other legal entity who is, or such persons,
corporations or other legal entities who are, the "Owner" of any "Residential lot" (1-514,517-820)
(within Discovery Harbor Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a member of the
corporation".
In conclusion we not think that the right information was transmitted to you and suggest that your
recommendations be based on facts.
We would be happy to supply you with the Charter of incorporation and CC&R's so you can confirm all
of this for yourself.
Written by: Marvin Grendahl
presentation to Discovery Harbor Board on Feb 13,2016
Over the last 6 years all of you have seen the transition of the golf course from weeds to beautiful
Fairways, Greens and T -boxes.
This is a result of the Discovery Harbor community coming together and pulling together in the same
direction with a common purpose to restore the golf course. We all have witnessed a restored sense of
pride in the golf course and the Discovery Harbor golf community.
Everyone benefits from this endeavor.
!. Fire Hazard Reduction
2. Beautification (new housing starts)
3. Property Values go up and are
maintained
4.Walkers have a place to walk other
than on hard pavement
5.Dog walkers have a place to walk
Their dogs
6.Golfers have a place to golf and
Exercise
7.Golfers have a place to hold lessons
Golf classes
8.Realtors have easier sales of houses
And lots and at higher commissions
This has all come to fruition at a continual cost
1.Diesel per year $5,000
2.Mower costs $12,000
3 -Cleaning sand traps/year $1,200
5.Sand for lower 9 onetime $ 5,000
6.Mower maintenance $3,500
7.Sprinkeler system green 5 $1,500
8.Annual sand for traps $600
9.Man hrs/year2000 x$25/hour $50,000
Volunteer
10. Trap poison $1,000
The golf course volunteers have found a way to partially fund the ongoing maintenance of the golf
course. This is by holding golf lessons/classes/tournaments every Saturday.
We request that the Board allow us to use the community center building on the Saturdays that it not
being used so as to meet in the building after the golf lessons/classes/tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us to place pictures and articles in the news letter about the golf
lessons /classes / tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us to use the building to hold an awards banquet f'or the golf
lessons /classes / tournament on a Saturday or Sunday or another day or evening this month.
We can't continue the ongoing work on the golf course forever
1.Some volunteers have burned out and
stopped working
2. Some have moved away
3.Some have died
4. Some slow down or quit working
because of spousal concerns
We now have a unique opportunity to transfer all this work, cost and effort to the proposed Resort that
SPIG wants to build. The proposed resort would
!.Take over maintenance and costs of
the golf course
2. Construct a water sprinkler system for
The Fairways. T -boxes and Greens
a. Reduceing the fire hazard in the
Summer when the fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up and
Turn brown.
a. Enhanced beatification in the summer when the Fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up
Disinformation was given to Ron Whitmor of CDP by either a member of the Discovery Harbor Board
or a member of the Architectural committee. This misinformation needs to be corrected in a letter to Ron
Whitmore of CDP from the Board of Discovery Harbor within the next week. This comes from a request
from Ron Whitmore
The misinformation was that there is a conflict in the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the current SPIG
plans to build 3 story structures on the parcels of land designated in the SUPLAMENTAL
DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as Village commercial or multi -family residential (condos) parcels
number 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres)
The Discovery Harbor CC&R's only pertain to lots 1-820 of the Discovery Harbor Subdivision not to
parcels 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres) that are designated as Village commercial or multi -family
residential (condos). The current zoning on these 2 parcels are designated open and do not fall under the
controls of the Discovery Harbor CC&R's the Board or its sub committees. See CC&R's designate V.
ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL COMMITTEE section 1.General Powers of the Committee,
subsection a. (page 278) Power of Approval. No approval by the Committee shall be required for
development work by Declarant (owner /developer)
Think about it for a minute, the original Developer (CAL-PASIFIC RECSORSES OF HAWAII (who
wrote the Discovery Harbor CC&R's 1972 and the SUPLEMENTAL DECLORATION) would never
consider giving over control of their commercial property a homeowners association board. In fact they
did not. In the Discovery Harbor 1972 CC&R's (designated V. ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL
COMMITTEE section 1.General Powers of the Committee, subsection a. (page 278) Power of
Approval. No approval by the Committee shall be required for development work by Declarant (owner
/developer. This is handed down to any and all subsequent owners.No one in the Discovery Harbor Golf
Community thinks that the Discovery Harbor board has any control over parcels 825 (79 aches lower 9
golf course) nor 821 (90 aches upper 9 golf course. It is designated Common area and is commercial in
nature (a golf course).
3
Similarly the Discovery Harbor Board has no control over parcels 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres)
that are designated as Village commercial (Hotel) or multi -family residential (Condos. Town houses) or
single family residential.
The CC&R's as written are complicated to say the least and are subject to misinterpretation. We think
that where some members of the board and some members of the architectural committee got this
misinformation/misinterpretation (that there is a conflict in the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the
current SPIG plans to build 3 story structures on the parcels of land designated in the SUPLAMENTAL
DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as Village commercial or multi -family residential (condos) parcels
number 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres)) comes from an area of the CC&R's designated II.
GENERAL APPLICATION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (page272) section 1 b. Single Story
Construction: Each such dwelling shall be single -story construction, unless split level or two-story
construction is approved by the committee and the area designated III. GENERAL APPLICATION
MULI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTION (page 276) 4. Subject to the approval by the committee
multi -family dwellings may be of single or multiple story construction, but no more than 3 stories and
may be detached or joined by common walls.
What they misunderstood was that these are sections in the in the DISCOVERY HARBOR CC&R's that
pertain only to lots 1-820 of the Discovery Harbor subdivision and not to parcels 515 and 824, as set
forth in the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLORATION dated May 4th 1972 (page 290 and 29 1) Now
Therefore, the declarent and trustee agree that the following lots and as shown and described on File
plan 1261 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyance of the State of Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of that certain Declaration of protective covenants dated May 4,1972, the terms of which
document is incorporated herein by reference and shall be limited to the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential 517-820, inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
or Village commercial or
multi -family residential
Now parcel 526 is 12 acres north of Kamiki street and parcel 824 is 18.4 acres south of Kamiki street is
where the proposed resort would be constructed and is not subject to the restrictions nor in conflict with
the CC&R's on lots 1-820. The current zoning is "OPEN" on parcel 526 and 824. It can be single-family
residential (time share or not) or Village commercial (hotel, shops) or multi -family residential (condo,
town houses) and is entirely up to the owner /developer as clearly spelled out in the SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLORATION. These are the documents that we all have to understand and abide by when making
any statements to any governmental agency including the CDP.
So what we need from the board is a letter to Ron Whitmore of CDP stating that there is no conflict in
the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the plans that SPIG has to develop a resort on parcels 515 and 824.
This will give the golf course volunteer workers the best chance to hand over the maintenance and
maintenance costs to the proposed resort and the best chance to get water for the golf course for
continued fire hazard reduction and basification in the dry summer months. This letter was requested by
Ron Whitmor of the CDP and he wants it prior to his written recommendation being transmitted to the
County Planning and Development Department in the beginning of March, time is of the essence.
It is our contention that it was one of the representatives of the Discovery Harbor Board or its designated
subcommittee (architectural committee) that disseminated the misinformation and thus it our contention
that it is the board's responsibility to rectify this matter immediately.
If the misinformation has adversely affected the SPIG's ability to proceed with their planed construction
than I am afraid the homeowners association is at serious legal risk.
We have Goggled the legal risk of errant golf balls striking people and property and accidents on the
golf course, slip and fall. The Statutory Law and English common law are all in favor of the golf course
owners and organizations that promote.
4
What are the essential elements that would be in such a letter:
To: Ron Whitmor CDP director county of Hawaii
From: Board of Discovery Harbor
Date: Feb ,2016
Subject: No conflict with CC&R's and SPIG's proposed resort development
We the Board of Discovery Harbor after further review of the Discovery Harbor CC&R's and the
SUPLIMENTAL DECLORATION dated May 4 1972 have determined that there exists no conflict in
the CC&R's with the proposed resort development on parcel numbers 515 and 824 by the
owner/developer SPIG (South Point Investment Group)
Signatures
5
From: Jim S
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Whitmore, Ron
Subject: CDP/KDP/Discovery Harbour
Ron
We have been full time residents of Discovery Harbour for six years now and did attend almost all local CDP
meetings regardi'hg our subdivision. When the opportunity arose we did state our support for the proposed
development on the parcels/lots (515, 516, 823 and 824) adjoining Wakea and Kahiki streets.
It has recently come to our attention that a couple of individuals spoke at a meeting we did not attend where
they represented Discovery Harbour CC&R's as prohibiting village commercial zoning for parcels/lots 515, 516
823 and 824. While two of those who attended the meeting are HOA Board members, they were NOT speaking
on behalf of either the board nor the community itself.
The links, referenced below, shows the supplement to our CC&R's, dated and file in May of 1972, clearly states
those parcels/lots may be designated village commercial. Any other representation is patently false.
Additionally, the original charter, link below, allows for village commercial designations.
We have experienced overwhelming support for the proposed development and would find it to be detrimental
to the entire local area for these parcels/lots to be erroneously zoned in the CDP/KDP recommendations based
upon a complete misrepresentation by a very few disgruntled individuals.
Thank you,
Jim Saathoff & Kevin Ann Asman
http://discovervharbour.net/dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Supplement- Lpdf
http://discovervharbour.net/dev/wp-content/up loads/2014/02/ 1972 -05 -04 -CC R -Declaration -72-39324. pdf
April
April J. Surprenant, AICP, AIA
Manager of Long Range Planning & Board of Appeals
County of Hawaii, Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
808-961-8131 phone
808-961-8742 fax
http;(lwww_cghplanningdept.com
`,A Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Camero, Tracie -Lee
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:16 PM
To: Surprenant, April
Subject: FW: COR -16-103778 - Letter to director of planning concerning discovery harbor
Good Afternoon April,
The following email is for your review. Hardcopy will be placed in your intray. Sorry I didn't get to scan it into Laserfiche
just yet but I wanted to forward it asap for your review.
Sincerely,
Tracie -Lee Camero
Clerk III
Planning Department
From: tom shining
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:15 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>; David, Maile <Maile.David@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: COR -16-103778 - Letter to director of planning concerning discovery harbor
This email is directed to the Hawaii County Planning Director Duane Kanuha, February 19 2016 Please contact
Sharon Shining r with anyfurther questions. Thank you foryourtime
see attached items.
From:
Surprenant, April
Sent:
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:02 PM
To:
Whitmore, Ron
Subject:
FW: COR -16-103778 - Letter to director of planning concerning discovery harbor
Attachments:
1.png; 2.png; 3.png; 4.png; S.png; Scan_20160219 (2).png; Scan_20160219 (3).png; Scan_
20160219 (4).png; Scan_20160219 (5).png; Scan_20160219 (6).png; Scan_20160219
(7).png; Scan_20160219 (8).png; Scan_20160219 (9).png; Scan_20160219 (10).png; Scan_
20160219 (11).png; Scan_20160219 (12).png; Scan_20160219 (13).png; Scan_20160219
(14).png; Scan_20160219 (15).png; Scan_20160219 (16).png
April
April J. Surprenant, AICP, AIA
Manager of Long Range Planning & Board of Appeals
County of Hawaii, Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
808-961-8131 phone
808-961-8742 fax
http;(lwww_cghplanningdept.com
`,A Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Camero, Tracie -Lee
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:16 PM
To: Surprenant, April
Subject: FW: COR -16-103778 - Letter to director of planning concerning discovery harbor
Good Afternoon April,
The following email is for your review. Hardcopy will be placed in your intray. Sorry I didn't get to scan it into Laserfiche
just yet but I wanted to forward it asap for your review.
Sincerely,
Tracie -Lee Camero
Clerk III
Planning Department
From: tom shining
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:15 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>; David, Maile <Maile.David@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: COR -16-103778 - Letter to director of planning concerning discovery harbor
This email is directed to the Hawaii County Planning Director Duane Kanuha, February 19 2016 Please contact
Sharon Shining r with anyfurther questions. Thank you foryourtime
see attached items.
TO: County of Hawaii Planning Department
FROM: Discovery Harbour Members
In review of your packet "Background Information: Development in Discovery Harbour"
dated August, 2015, we Discovery Harbour members want to bring to your attention,
prior to your March 4, 2016 cut off date, the following documents supporting zone
approval of the gateway lots known as lot 515 (TMK 9-4-001-020 and lot 824
TMK 9-4-024-025).
Document l attached:
A recorded supplemental declaration dated May 4, 1972 and recorded June 2, 1972 (liber
8342, page 29 references lots in question (,gate -way lots) (515 & 824) that these lots were
in fact part of the Discovery Harbour Protective Covenants .
Document 2 attached:
Page 3 of your Background packet, the statements made in section 2, "Summery of
Findings and Recommendations", item 2 is a complete reversal of what was stated in
your initial findings.
Document 3 attached:
The Background packet page 9, 5.1 'Background and Context", under the section
titled "Protective Covenants for Discovery Harbour Subdivision" reads:
On May 4, 1082, a "Supplemental Declaration" to the "Declaration of Protective
Covenants for Discovery Harbour Subdivision" was adopted, which limited permitted uses
on those two parcels (gateway lots) to "Single-family residential or Village commercial or
multi -family residential." In the County Zoning Code, in addition to housing (6 and 58
units per acre, respectively), the Single-family residential (RS) and Multi -family residential
(RM) zones allow boarding facilities, time share units, and small scale commercial and
personal uses. Village Commercial allows 34 units per acre and permits a range of uses,
including:
x Housing: Multi -family dwellings, Boarding facilities, group living facilities
x Visitor Unite: Bed & Breakfast establishments, hotels, lodges
x Retail: Retail establishments, Convenience stores, Automobile sales and rentals
• Dining: Restaurants
* Services; Automobile service stations, Repair establishments, Commercial
parking lots and garages, business services
Offices
Light industrial: Light manufacturing, Publishing plants for newspapers
Health Care: Medical clinics, Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent
nursing and rest homes
Entertainment: Bars, Theaters Indoor amusement and recreation facilities
Cultural: Art galleries, Museums
Today the Discovery Harbour Members are requesting the removal of item 3 on page 3:
If the Subdivision Covenants are AMENDED to allow it, allow for small scale
resort development on the-atewaparcels, etc etc.
Approval of 2/3`s votes from Discovery Harbour members in good standing could never
be reached hence this item could never be amended.
We strongly feel our Protective Covenants do reflect the possibility for corrective zoning,
and that item 3 on page 3 is inaccurate.
Please review all documents submitted and advise us of your position on maintaining
your page 9 in processing the desired re -zoning as requested by the CDP before you.
Sincerely
Fj"'C'�
G� l/�
Lt3EP, S3 4 2 FACE 29
is incorporated herein by reference and shall be limited
to the following uses:
Lots
Uses
1-514, inclusive Single-family residential
517-820, inclusive
515, 516, 823'and 824 Single-family residential or
Village commercial or
multi -family residential
IjY`�, vt f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this instrument the day and year first above
written.
CAL -PACIFIC RESOURCES OF
HAWAII, LTD.
Declarant
• LAND ESCROW,
-4.
./,//f�•',i�%fit",
ab `
By
Its
Trustee
i
s
1
Lt3EP, S3 4 2 FACE 29
is incorporated herein by reference and shall be limited
to the following uses:
Lots
Uses
1-514, inclusive Single-family residential
517-820, inclusive
515, 516, 823'and 824 Single-family residential or
Village commercial or
multi -family residential
IjY`�, vt f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this instrument the day and year first above
written.
CAL -PACIFIC RESOURCES OF
HAWAII, LTD.
Declarant
• LAND ESCROW,
-4.
./,//f�•',i�%fit",
ab `
By
Its
Trustee
2 Summary of Findings and Recommendations
There were many public comments about Discovery Harbour (Policy 17 in the Draft CDP). Most, though
not all, were in response to the recent master pian proposed by South Point Investment Group (SPIG)
for the subdivision's "gateway" parcels at Kahlki at Wakea. Nevertheless, they provide a useful reading
on the pulse of the community about potential commercial or resort development in the area.
Commerds were all over the map but clearly support non-resfdentW develrtpmwrt in Vismrery
Harbouras long as infrastructure and other impacts are mitigated:
o No development (5) Keep the scale appropriate (5)
Any development (4) a Small scale visitor lodging (3)
® Preserve agricultural land (3.) o Develop a resort (6)
c Redevelop the golf course (1) Support the SMG resort proposal (140,
0 Residential development only (2) including 134 on a petition)
o Commercial development only (6) p Ensure feasibility (3)
® No resort development (1) m Require concurrent infrastructure
Not what SPIG proposes (4) improvements (25),
At the same time, a Discovery Harbour homeo-wrier pointed out that the Subdivisibn Oavenrants limit
uses 04, the e :u;Z -e!Mderetiol and nomrf;e%£'Cc#,
Give that range of comments and the constraints of the Covenants, and based on careful review of land
use planning options, the CDP Planning Team proposes the following CDP revisions.
Preserve the residential area in Discovery Harbour by designating it Low Density Urban (LDU)
on the Land Use Policy Map (Policy 7) and by rezoning it into the State land Use Urban district
and the County Single -Family Residential (RS -20) zone. The area is currently in the 5LU
Agriculture district and has agricultural zoning, which allow for many uses that are incompatible
with the residential nature of the area.
Allow small, neighborhood -scale commercial uses on the "gateway" parcels in [discovery
Harbour by designating them Low Density Urban (LDU) on the Land Use Policy Map (Policy 7)
and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in infrastructure are made, by rezoning them to
Residential -Commercial Mixed -Use (RCX 7.5). This allows for limited, viable commercial uses
without impacting Ka'u's designated commercial centers.
If the Subdivision Covenants are amended to allow it, allow for small scale resort
development on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat
Resort Area" on the Land Use Policy Map (Policy 7) and, if concurrent, necessary improvements
f' in infrastructure are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort (V-7.5). This establishes a path
for the addition of visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
• Rewire that a legally -executed development agreement or community benefits agreement
ensure community benefits and mitigation of potential impacts from any large-scale
development in Ka'u.
These recommendations were derived from the analysis summarized below in the table in Section 3:
Summary of Alternatives and Associated Trade-offs.
5.1 Background and Context
The Discovery Harbour subdivision was approved in 1972 (SUB 3122), creating over 800, mostly 15,000
square foot lots. The Mark Twain Estates subdivision was approved in 1962 (SUB 1846), creating over
700, mostly -20,000 square foot lots. Both subdivisions pre -date 1976, when restrictions were added to
the zoning code to limit farm dwellings. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands owns 40 residential
lots in Discovery Harbour.
Though more than 40 years old, the Discovery Harbour subdivisions is less than 30ib built -out. This is
largely due to the gross imbalance in the supply of and demand for buildable lots in Ka'u as well as the
failure of the Discovery Harbour golf course.
Discovery Harbour was designed as a golf community, so many believe that its future is tied to the fate
of the golf course, club house, and related amenities, which are the extent of non-residential uses in the
area.
However, there are two large parcels (11.75 and 18.3 acres) at the gateway to Discovery Harbour and
across from Mark Twain (Kahiki at Wakea) that might be well-suited to some small-scale "residential
commercial" or "rural visitor" facilities to complement the golf course. This, in conjunction with
refurbishment of the golf course, could kick-start revitalization in the area. Those lots are each currently
allotted two water units (-800 gpd), so water system upgrades would be required, and any development
of 50 units or more would require a wastewater system.
In addition, Ka'u has a limited number of visitor units and no resort area away from the coast, so
Discovery Harbour and its golf course might be a way to boost Ka'u's visitor industry.
Protective Covenants for Discovery Harbour Subdivision
On May 4, 1972, a "Supplemental Declaration" to the "Declaration of Protective Covenants for Discovery
Harbour Subdivision" was adopted, which limited permitted uses on those two parcels to "Single-family
residential or Village commercial or multi -family residential." In the County Zoning Code, in addition to
housing (6 and 58 units per acre, respectively), the Single-family residential (RS) and Multi -family
residential (RM) zones allow boarding facilities, time share units, and small scale commercial and
personal uses. Village Commercial allows 34 units per acre and permits a range of uses, including
• Housing: Multi -family dwellings, Boarding facilities, Group living facilities
• Visitor Units: Bed and breakfast establishments, Hotels, Lodges
• Retail: Retail establishments, Convenience stores, Automobile sales and rentals
• Dining: Restaurants
• Service: Automobile service stations, Repair establishments, Commercial parking lots and
garages, Business services
• Offices
• Light Industrial: Light manufacturing, Publishing plants for newspapers
• Health Care: Medical clinics, Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest
homes
• Entertainment: Bars, Theaters Indoor amusement and recreation facilities
• Cultural: Art galleries, Museums.
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawan to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka' u, Hawai' 1, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mamalahoa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
ja�J� u�r 3/20115
View, other
3 -se-
2. /fir %2r
q f
uo-' iJe--41QkC
ht
3.
,E (s
4c---( cy GX(--- f
,_
5. L�e-: A
7.
- I� t u Sl
.!;�i lVrzf t/ltt rf Ok
KA u t
) A tl [ f: 17V
f
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented ibis Pefdm to the above signers Date
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawail, identified as TMK (3) 9-"24:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4.001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mamalahoa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
,joPiJo�te,�• 3120115
View, other
XOR PAI
��vrrtr-�tlu)
2.ti
3.piscov-er'
Ila -
4. lilv f/e-S`r9
/
' 3 f f S
Ci,� cry S
/5 ,�'t 0,e
5. a �� �e C� fa s s .�
P - ism
/
V. Ja�G4 �~ .ice � td� /'
�iY'c�i ��?�S
-1y
7.
.v-
8.
9.
10.
n
1
G J ✓c(�/ AYi
Fal
12. AAL:, '3 5c►t��;-c.�c�`- /
1110 t iU07k.+ C,®i
7--c,
13. fj1A;,e7,
14. IdhIc F Ai��=
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
w`
>kr
PETITION
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'I, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ( "Lot B") .
Print Name
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mammlahoa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
JoPi joy Pr�r 3120/15
View, other
1.
2.
1i✓ 5
i q0 4kaAA s
P f,
5.
Q(ompo Yacy
?a Cu.& ctv,
6.
�'d
e 5 cam, n
i
U-
7.
ccrrLI fI
m) -,L k a- )� v P-
/)/a alc
8.
C -V "erv-1k e-
?qG Bele I-na
9.
- t� " .3 HO kvw—,,,-
0QZW W
1
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented this Petitihove signers Date
PETMON
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka' u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name,
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mamalahoa. Hwy
Naalehi4 Ocean
3/20115
View, other
S7--
3.4?
5 Le-i�er
'f/i/is
9'f - SS S�:tlo %�o 1 7t Pj
We- 47
" lid
C Q IL- �-
7.
ZZZ
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
PIETMO
We, the under signed, petition the County of Haw'aft- to approve zoning for
Discovery Radxxff Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-02*. 025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Physical A&kcm
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pah" Volcano
Sign Dale
95-1234 Mmialahm Hwy
Naalehu, Omn
JovJov� ens- 3/20/15
View, odwr
94
4.
qq-j q!sg (;A'aKp�kx
�Vif*2 A�
51 ZV-
_/aebw-
6.
A C,
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Pk.rson who msenw this Petition to the above Mouffs Elate
f)
f
Id"er
PETITION COPY
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the, Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Nam
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pabala, Volcano
Sig! Name Dale
95-1234 Mamalaboa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
3/20/15
View, other
0'-j
IV ela hm
2.. CIIR(3'L- Mfi5SEI- �aO 1
Pl-RCE
I sc-ou E &-y
Ca' -LI—
H AMuo R
3. 0V I
Cq 7 A6qtI I�
��scr�U� y
40
5. 0,
h
6.
7—
'9
8. e
9. -Pa:da_-
L4.-n-Ir6c, 0—.
A
12.
Aar.= . .. ... ... ..
14 A14"I f
15.4
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
I/
PETITION
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawari to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024-.025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mamalaboa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
JoPifovLPrjr 3120/15
View, other
CAM �
2. stre-
4AA,41,#4;-I
VA.41ek,
3
t
PIZ, k 2t rA
4-
5.
6.
tt ,Uk
q st
Pau_ 4
8. JaP1,1f n A
12.
13.
-1 S
-ZF
14.PAVI-VA
Ley
I -r
IJAW M.
15 4,"Al fYya4b",.,
W
L?4- I(( d/ I
- - I00q*W1_ ,
h_aQ_�
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers —Date
MWON
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Kau, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 94-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4.001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Joe Jones
Sim Name Date
Jo�iJovae.� 3/20/15
Physical Address
95-1234 Mamaiahoa Hwy
Your area:
Pahala, Volcano
Naalehu, Ocean.
View, other
.%�- 7
4. 'u t t ivy � .c s
yy- /1 -
�kiv,4�u 'a
5.
��t.L
Iv �n�-
b. 64Y 6NRtQt1i?-S
4-C##fit Rolf
Po okl-g It4
I-Iu v*Lje-W
777
7.
8.
9.
10:
i1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers ____ Date
PETITION
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawari to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B").
Print Name
Joe Jones
Sign Name Date
JO&JOVW-41 3/20/15
Physical Address
95-1234 Mamalahoa Hwy
Your area:
Pahala, Volcano
Naalehu, Ocean
View, other
1. t" Let /IfL-'n4-as tt T!1'`
q� �- - -
qc4 — j 6 67 Rae -A q L��
NQa fe k H
2. �, i2yate
Ar;
9y Cv`P
fl
3. -Iy die #z�Cs
Liz
�cQ��1Gl�Ec�r
4
5-
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
PETITI COPY
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaiii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka'u, Hawai'l, identified as TMK (3) 9-402*. 025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 94-001:020 ("Lot B")_
Print Name
Physical Address
Ymr area:
Joe Jones
Pahala, Volcano
Sign Name Date
95-1234 Mamabboa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
3/20/15
View, other
1. L rte' OTI- 2
2..5` SA&3 i06-x5stZs
,Oc�
q C/ - Y/ Fre, x�-o
Vf 4, le -
3.
fS
CIS_ S .. 1
4.
j 14
5.
�
2- X q
Vie W
Al 9737
6
Arn E/Lz -d Xz,
V AP114ff
8.
9
10. Wx
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Person who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
m/
ZV
PETITION COPY
We, the under signed, petition the County of Hawaii to approve zoning for
Discovery Harbour Resort, as outlined in RTKL's proposal dated February 13,
2015 and Appendix dated March 12, 2015, located on two lots in the Discovery
Harbour Subdivision, Ka' u, Hawai' 1, identified as TMK (3) 9-4-024:025 ("Lot A")
and TMK (3) 9-4-001:020 ("Lot B")-
Print
")_
Print Name
Physical Address
Your area:
Joe Jones ti
Pahala, Volcano
Sign. Name
Date
95-1234 Mamalahoa Hwy
Naalehu, Ocean
JO& -TO"*
3/20115
View, other
zf(k-�AI-A 99
-naUL
2.
--A-\
D 4,U6 U
3& e
�
7
F
r tel 9
ST
(�
4.
5
,-daLai140—e-
7.r
Rtd
0 di..Z-Jam'
-" Pf ZFlit !? It
V(Vrj
10.
11.
12.
13_
14.
15.
Person: who presented this Petition to the above signers Date
From: John Marvin
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:44 AM
To: Whitmore, Ron
Subject: RE: resort development at Discovery Harbor
Attachments: responds to ron Whitmore.docx
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2/16/16, Whitmore, Ron <Ron.Whitmore@hawaiicounty.gov> wrote:
Subject: RE: resort development at Discovery Harbor
To: "johnmarvi
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 5:31 PM
the attachment is my responds to your request please direct us to the section of the CC&Rs or supplements that
defines "village commercial" and its permitted uses. This by necesity is a long resonds but clear and consice thank you
for reading it best regards Marvin Grendahl
Mr.
Grendahl,
We received the
information you provided below and your 2/16 voicemail.
To clarify,
information provide to our office was related to the Ka'u Community Development Plan (CDP), and was not specific to
any current or previous development
proposal. In addition, the CDP does speak to or limit construction heights.
To help us in our
understanding, please direct us to the section of the CC&Rs or supplements that defines "village commercial" and its
permitted uses.
Thank
you.
Ron
Whitmore
Senior Long Range
Planner (Planner VI)
Hawaii County
Planning Department
101 Pauahi, Suite
1
3
Hilo, HI
96720
(808)
961-8137
Fax: (808)
961-8742
ron.whitmore@hawaiicounty.gov
From: info@ha4iicountycdp.info
[mailto:info@hawaiicountycdp.info)
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:13 AM
To: admin
Subject: resort development at Discovery Harbor
First Name
marvin
Last Name
grendahl
Email Address
Phone number
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Subject
resort development at Discovery
Harbor
Comments
To: Ron Whitmor CDP Kau district
Project Manager county of Hawaii
From: Discovery Harbor Golf Course Resident Maintenance Crew and Resident Golfers
2
Date: Feb 14, 2016
Subject: No conflict with CC&R's and SPIG's proposed resort development
We were all surprised when we heard that misinformation was transmitted to you that there is a conflict in the
Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the current SPIG plans to build a resort, with 3 story structures on the parcels of land
designated in the SUPLAMENTAL
DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as "Village commercial (resort,
shops) or multi -family residential (condos, town houses) or single-family residential. These are parcels number 515 (12
acres) and 824 (18.4 acres).
Because of this we got on the addenda of the February 13,
2016 Discovery Harbor Board Meeting to express our concerns over the transmittal of this misinformation to you.
Your proposed recommendation to limit the construction to a max of 2 stories has no basses in the in the Discovery
Harbor CC&R's. In fact 3 stories are permitted in the Discover Harbor Subdivision on Residential lots. III.
GENERAL APPLICATION MULI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SECTION (page 276 CC&R's) 4. Subject to the approval by the committee multi -family dwellings may be of single or
multiple story construction, but no more than 3 stories and may be detached or joined by common walls. Keep in mind
that this 3 story restriction
applies only to residential lots 1-820 not to parcels 515 or 824.
We also do not desire to see the zoning changed to light urban and would like to see the zoning Resort.
Enclosed is a copy of the presentation presented to the Discovery Harbor Board meeting of February 13, 2016 by
Marvin Grendahl (who has developed a subdivision in Arizona and written Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and
CC&R's) and a resident of Discovery
Harbor.
This meeting was attended by 40+ residences, many of whom were the golf course maintenance people and resident
golfers, but not all.
What we detected at this meeting was that the Board members do not understand the Charter or articles of
incorporation.
We explained to them that the purpose of the Charter is to convey (by the State of Hawaii) upon the Homeowner's
Association and its Board
the powers to administer the Rules as set down by the CC&R's upon residential lots 1-514, 517- 820 in the discovery
Harbor Subdivision and homes owners (see Charter of incorporation). The Board mistakenly thinks that the CC&R's
apply also to the Village commercial
parcels 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres). The Charter of Incorporation clearly states (ARTICLE XI) "Each person,
corporation or other legal entity who is, or such persons, corporations or other legal entities who are, the "Owner" of
any "Residential lot"
(1-514,517-820) (within Discovery Harbor Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a member of the
corporation".
In conclusion we not think that the right information was transmitted to you and suggest that your recommendations
be based on facts.
We would be happy to supply you with the Charter of incorporation and CC&R's so you can confirm all of this for
yourself.
Written by: Marvin Grendahl
presentation to Discovery Harbor Board on Feb 13,2016
Over the last 6 years all of you have seen the transition of the golf course from weeds to beautiful Fairways, Greens and
T -boxes.
This is a result of the Discovery Harbor community coming together and pulling together in the same direction with a
common purpose to restore the golf course. We all have witnessed a restored sense of pride in the golf course and the
Discovery Harbor golf
community.
Everyone benefits from this endeavor.
!. Fire Hazard Reduction
2. Beautification (new housing starts)
3. Property Values go up and are
maintained
4.Walkers have a place to walk other
than on hard pavement
5.Dog walkers have a place to walk
Their dogs
6.Golfers have a place to golf and
Exercise
7.Golfers have a place to hold lessons
Golf classes
8.Realtors have easier sales of houses
And lots and at higher commissions
4
This has all come to fruition at a continual cost
1.Diesel per year $5,000
2.Mower costs $12,000
3.Cleaning sand traps/year $1,200
5.Sand for lower 9 onetime $ 5,000
6.Mower maintenance $3,500
7.Sprinkeler system green 5 $1,500
8.Annual sand for traps $600
9.Man hrs/year2000 x$25/hour $50,000
Volunteer
10. Trap poison $1,000
The golf course volunteers have found a way to partially fund the ongoing maintenance of the golf course. This is by
holding golf lessons/classes/tournaments every Saturday.
We request that the Board allow us to use the community center building on the Saturdays that it not being used so as
to meet in the building after the golf lessons/classes/tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us to place pictures and articles in the news letter about the golf lessons
/classes / tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us to use the building to hold an awards banquet for the golf lessons /classes
/ tournament on a Saturday or Sunday or another day or evening this month.
We can't continue the ongoing work on the golf course forever
1.Some volunteers have burned out and
stopped working
2.Some have moved away
3.Some have died
5
4. Some slow down or quit working
because of spousal concerns
We now have a unique opportunity to transfer all this work, cost and effort to the proposed Resort that SPIG wants to
build. The proposed resort would
!.Take over maintenance and costs of
the golf course
2. Construct a water sprinkler system for
The Fairways. T -boxes and Greens
a. Reduceing the fire hazard in the
Summer when the fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up and
Turn brown.
a. Enhanced beatification in the summer when the Fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up
Disinformation was given to Ron Whitmor of CDP by either a member of the Discovery Harbor Board or a member of
the Architectural committee. This misinformation needs to be corrected in a letter to Ron Whitmore of CDP from the
Board of Discovery Harbor within
the next week. This comes from a request from Ron Whitmore
The misinformation was that there is a conflict in the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the current SPIG plans to build 3
story structures on the parcels of land designated in the SUPLAMENTAL DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as Village
commercial or multi -family residential
(condos) parcels number 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres)
The Discovery Harbor CC&R's only pertain to lots 1-820 of the Discovery Harbor Subdivision not to parcels 515 (12
acres) and 824 (18.4 acres) that are designated as Village commercial or multi -family residential (condos). The current
zoning on these 2 parcels
are designated open and do not fall under the controls of the Discovery Harbor CC&R's the Board or its sub
committees. See CC&R's designate V. ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL COMMITTEE section 1.General Powers of the
Committee, subsection a. (page 278) Power of Approval.
No approval by the Committee shall be required for development work by Declarant (owner /developer)
6
Think about it for a minute, the original Developer (CAL-PASIFIC RECSORSES OF HAWAII (who wrote the Discovery
Harbor CC&R's 1972 and the SUPLEMENTAL DECLORATION) would never consider giving over control of their
commercial property a homeowners association
board. In fact they did not. In the Discovery Harbor 1972 CC&R's (designated V. ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL
COMMITTEE section 1.General Powers of the Committee, subsection a.
(page 278) Power of Approval. No approval by the Committee shall be required for development
work by Declarant (owner /developer. This is handed down to any and all subsequent owners.No one in the Discovery
Harbor Golf Community thinks that the Discovery Harbor board has any control over parcels 825 (79 aches lower 9 golf
course) nor 821 (90 aches
upper 9 golf course. It is designated Common area and is commercial in nature (a golf course).
Similarly the Discovery Harbor Board has no control over parcels 515 (12 acres) and 824 (18.4 acres) that are
designated as Village commercial (Hotel) or multi -family residential (Condos. Town houses) or single family residential.
The CC&R's as written are complicated to say the least and are subject to misinterpretation. We think that where some
members of the board and some members of the architectural committee got this misinformation/misinterpretation
(that there is a conflict in
the Discovery Harbor CC&R's with the current SPIG plans to build 3 story structures on the parcels of land designated
in the SUPLAMENTAL DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as Village commercial or multi -family residential (condos) parcels
number 515 (12 acres) and 824
(18.4 acres)) comes from an area of the CC&R's designated II. GENERAL APPLICATION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(page272) section 1 b. Single Story Construction: Each such dwelling shall be single -story construction, unless split level
or two-story construction
is approved by the committee and the area designated III.
GENERAL APPLICATION MULI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTION (page
276) 4. Subject to the approval by the committee multi -family dwellings may be of single or multiple story
construction, but no more than 3
stories and may be detached or joined by common walls.
What they misunderstood was that these are sections in the in the DISCOVERY HARBOR CC&R's that pertain only to
lots 1-820 of the Discovery Harbor subdivision and not to parcels 515 and 824, as set forth in the SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLORATION dated May 4th 1972 (page
290 and 291) Now Therefore, the declarent and trustee agree that the following lots and as shown and described on
File plan 1261 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyance of the State of Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and conditions
of that certain Declaration
of protective covenants dated May 4,1972, the terms of which document is incorporated herein by reference and shall
be limited to the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential 517-820, inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
N
or Village commercial or
multi -family residential
Now parcel 526 is 12 acres north of Kamiki street and parcel
824 is 18.4 acres south of Kamiki street is where the proposed resort would be constructed and is not subject to the
restrictions nor in conflict with the CC&R's on lots 1-820. The current zoning
is "OPEN" on parcel 526 and 824. It can be single-family residential (time share or not) or Village commercial (hotel,
shops) or multi -family residential (condo, town houses) and is entirely up to the owner /developer as clearly spelled out
in the SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLORATION. These are the documents that we all have to understand and abide by when making any statements to
any governmental agency including the CDP.
So what we need from the board is a letter to Ron Whitmore of CDP stating that there is no conflict in the Discovery
Harbor CC&R's with the plans that SPIG has to develop a resort on parcels 515 and 824. This will give the golf course
volunteer workers the
best chance to hand over the maintenance and maintenance costs to the proposed resort and the best chance to get
water for the golf course for continued fire hazard reduction and basification in the dry summer months. This letter
was requested by Ron Whitmor
of the CDP and he wants it prior to his written recommendation being transmitted to the County Planning and
Development Department in the beginning of March, time is of the essence.
It is our contention that it was one of the representatives of the Discovery Harbor Board or its designated
subcommittee (architectural committee) that disseminated the misinformation and thus it our contention that it is the
board's responsibility to rectify
this matter immediately.
If the misinformation has adversely affected the SPIG's ability to proceed with their planed construction than I am
afraid the homeowners association is at serious legal risk.
We have Goggled the legal risk of errant golf balls striking people and property and accidents on the golf course, slip
and fall. The Statutory Law and English common law are all in favor of the golf course owners and organizations that
promote.
What are the essential elements that would be in such a
letter:
To: Ron Whitmor CDP director county of Hawaii
From: Board of Discovery Harbor
Date: Feb_,2016
Subject: No conflict with CC&R's and SPIG's proposed resort development
We the Board of Discovery Harbor after further review of the Discovery Harbor CC&R's and the SUPLIMENTAL
DECLORATION dated May 4 1972 have determined that there exists no conflict in the CC&R's with the proposed resort
development on parcel numbers 515 and
824 by the owner/developer SPIG (South Point Investment
Group)
Signatures
Yes I am responding to the document posted on your
website Discovery Harbor Information packet further
designated Background Information: Development in
Discovery Harbor.
You made the declaratory statement- to help us in
our understanding, Please direct us to the section of
the CC&R's or supplements that defines "village
commercial" and its permitted uses. This is my
responds as well as more comments to the
information packet.
The purpose of the articles of Incorporation (Charter) is
to convey (by the State of Hawaii) upon the Homeowner's
Association and its Board the powers to administer the
Rules as set down by the CC&R's upon residential lots 1-
5141 517- 820 in the Discovery Harbor Subdivision and
not on parcels number 515,516,823 and 824 (see Charter
of incorporation) The Charter of Incorporation clearly
states (ARTICLE XI) "Each person, corporation or other
legal entity who is, or such persons, corporations or other
legal entities who are, the "Owner" of any "Residential
lot" -(1-514,517-820) (within Discovery Harbor
Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a
member of the corporation". "Membership shall be
appurtenant to and may not be separated from the
ownership of any such Lot, and such ownership shall be
the sole qualification for membership in the
,corporation." Therefore, by definition, properties held
by SPIG cannot be members of the corporation and
therefore the corporation has no control over those
properties.
In the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION (part of the
CC&R's) dated May 4t'' 1972 (page 290 and 291) Now
Therefore, the declarant and trustee agree that the
following lots and as shown and described on File plan
1261 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyance of the State of
Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that
certain Declaration of protective covenants dated May 4,
1972, the terms of which document is incorporated herein
by reference and shall be limited to the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential 517-820,
inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
or Village commercial or
multi family residential
The three designations of uses (single-family residential or
Village commercial or multi -family residential) on parcels
515,516,823 and 824 are left completely up to the
Declerent/owner/develope r.
The definition of Village commercial is not found in the
CC&R's because the CC&R's were written only for lots 1-
5141 517- 820 in the discovery Harbor Subdivision and
not for parcels 515,516,823 and 824. This is precisely
what the Discovery Harbor Board and Architectural
committee members do not understand. The CC&R's
were written by Cal -Pacific Resources of Hawaii in 1972
and to find the definition of Village commercial you have
to look at their intent in special use permit # 141 filed in
the State of Hawaii County of Hawaii in 1969 and in the
Planning Departments office files. The definition of
Village commercial is found in special use permit # 141.
The intent was to construct two 7 story structures (Hotel),.
shops, restaurants etc.
The County tabled the plans indefinitely in 1969, which
was a common practice at that time in the County of
Hawaii. The county could not deny the petition because
they had stamped and approved it in 1963. The County of
Hawaii failed to acquire the necessary Bonding. This
'tabling' was such a common problem, that the State
Legislature subsequently passed Act 164 (1998) stating
that any Permits that had been tabled indefinitely were
automatically approved. (See State of Hawaii Statutory
Law number 164 and 165). Senate bill number 164. A bill
for an act relating to regulatory process. Senate bill
number 2204. Be it enacted by the Legislator of the State
of Hawaii. Section 2. (page 613) "'The legislator recognizes
the need to take constructive steps to improve Hawaii's
business climate. Business inside and outside of the State
of Hawaii have described a lengthy and indeterminate
time required for business and development related
regulatory approvals. Issuing agencies would be required
to review applications for completeness in a timely
manner and then to act upon the application in a
established time frame or application approval would be
automatic." Section 3. Chaptor9l. Hawaii Revised
Statutes. "All such issuing agencies shall take action to
grant or deny any application for a business or
development related permit, license or approval within
the established period of time, or the application shall be
deemed approved."
As you know, you can also find the Hawaii definition of
Village commercial in Chapter 25 ZONING, Article 25, and
Zoning District Regulations. Division 12. CV, Village
Commercial Districts. Section 25-5-122 (pages 25-74 and
2575) Permitted uses are Hotel, shops, restaurants etc,
golf courses are permitted by special use permits. There
are a total of 51 different uses. Section 25-5-123 Height
limit 30 feet (that is 3 story). I don't know when these
zoning codes were written but a Special Use Permit was
applied for because the intent of the declarant was to
construct two 7 story structures for the Hotel (which is
not the usual under the Code Village commercial).
I did a subdivision in Arizona and have written CC&R's
Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Many of these are
written in boiler plate fashion and these are poorly
written, but when it states in the articles of incorporation
"Residential lots" it clearly does not mean Village
commercial. Unfortunately the CC&R's are vague and
nondescript.
Why is it that Parcels number 825 (75 acres) and 821 (90
acres) both clearly part of Discovery Harbour are not even
mentioned in the CC&R's? It was because the intent by
the Declarant was to designate these two parcels as golf
course. So here we have to again look at intent. These
two golf course parcels clearly are not controlled by the
CC&R's. The same hold true for parcels 515,516,823 and
824.
I also own multiple properties in STARR PASS GOLF
COMMUNITY in Tucson Arizona and there is no mention
of the commercial property (Marriott Hotel, the golf
course and club house) in the CC&R's of the houses and
lots oriented about the fairways. I am very familiar with
these CC&R's for many reasons. Who in their presences
of mind would even think that the developer would give
over control of the Marriott Hotel property, the golf
course and club house property to the Starr Pass
Homeowners Association, but yet all part of Starr Pass
Golf Community? Asper the usual Golf Community
CC&R's, Starr Pass CC&R's do not mix commercial and
residential language in the residential CC&R's.
Unfortunately the Discovery Harbor CC&R's are vague,
nondescript, poorly written and mixes residential and a
mere mention of the uses of commercial parcels.
Unfortunately this has left the Board (who are not familiar
with the usual golf course community CC&R's) with a
mistaken interpretation.
Pima County, State of Arizona, Planning and
Development Department did not want to see another
golf course in the City of Tucson go bankrupt and close. So
the Planning and Development Department in their
wisdom did not put height or story restrictions on the
Marriot Hotel. There is no profit in running golf courses
but the profits made by the Marriott Hotel with rooms,
meetings, shops etc, fund running and maintenance of
the golf course. If you put building restrictions and size
limits on this proposed project you will have been part
and parcel of the eventual demise of this golf course and
proposed development. Simply put this is the business of
golf courses. The restrictions that you have proposed
simply put, do not pencil out from a business point of
view to support the golf course and for it to continue on
into the future. Not only do you have to think of all of the
jobs this will mean for the local people and what is good
for this community, you also have to think of the right size
so the business model pencils out. This will then assure
that the locals from the towns of Naalehu, Wiahenu,
Pahala, Ranchos and Ocean View will have jobs far into
the future.
The other thing that I need to comment on in the CDP
document is found on page 3, 2. Summary of Findings
and Recommendations. If the Subdivision Covenants are
amended to allow it, allow for small scale resort development
on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating
them a "Retreat Resort Area" on the Land Use Policy Map
(Policy 7) and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in
infrastructure are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort
(V-7.5). This establishes a path for the addition of visitor units
to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
Look at the Articles of incorporation 1982 vision, the first
2 pages and last 2 pages consist of one type of font and
sandwiched in between are 6 pages of articles (dated
4/94 at the bottom of the pages) of another font and filed
with the State of Hawaii dated May 25, 1982. All of these
changes from the original 1972 were done without the
required %approval vote by the home and lot owners in
Discovery Harbor. "Granted under my hand and seal of
the office of Director of regulatory Agencies of the State
of Hawaii, this 7`h day of June, 1972, EWIN H. HONDA".
The point is that it calls into question the current legal
status of the homeowners association. Looking at the
1972 and the 1982 they have similar substance but clearly
a difference and a change. The other fact is that in 1982
the Board of Discovery Harbour tried to change the
CC&R'Rs but could not get the required %approval vote
to pass, the Board had to revert back to the original 1972
written by Cal -Pacific. Why is it that the Board could not,
and will never be able to amend the current CC&R's to
reflect the changes that you desire? This is because of the
nature of the makeup of the home and lot owners. Only
half of the lots have houses on them, and half of them are
owned by the part time snow birds of which are only here
for 3- 90 weeks out of the year and the homeowners and
empty lot owners are from different parts of the US and
different countries. The other point is that the 1972
CC&R's are poorly written and just because Cal -Pacific mix
mention of Lots 1-514 and 517-820 with parcels
515,516,823and 824 does not mean that the CC&R's in
any way apply to parcels 515,516,823and 824.
I would like to respond to 1.2 Draft CDP
strategies. • Concentrating commercial uses in core areas
in Pahala, Na'alehu, and Ocean View and not allowing
spot commercial development elsewhere (Policies 2 and
7). The grocery store in Naalehu closed last year, the
residence of Waiohinu Naalehu and Discovery Harbor
need one so we don't have to drive 12 miles. There could
be one in the proposed resort area. Tourists ( from all
parts of the island are already coming to this area to visit
Volcano National Park, Green Sands and Black Sands
beaches Kau Coffee Mill and Wood valley and the
Buddhist temple. They can't see it all in one day. Just look
at the parking lot of the entrance to green sands beach, it
is packed with 50 cars / day. Local business have popped
up in the parking lot ranging from shuttle services to and
from Green Sands Beach, to refreshment stands, all
owned and run by locals, providing them with JOBS. I
think the tourists would take advantage of the proposed
resort development and stay at the resort. I don't think
that this proposed development is not in competition
with the local community business but would
complement it. The tourist is already here and we might
as well capture some of the tourist dollars while they
come here already. Tourists staying at the Resort would
sometimes eat out other than at the resort (which is a
common practice); they would buy gas for their rental
cars, visit the surrounding communities and spend their
tourist dollars at local businesses. Some of these tourists
will buy and or build homes in Discovery Harbor and the
surrounding local communities, thus creating new jobs for
the locals. New local jobs are important because the Kau
district has many people on the welfare rolls and this in
the long run is not sustainable for our government.
Having Development experience myself, and knowing the
detailed history of this stalled development of the
commercial property here at Discovery Harbor, I must say
that what has happened here is highly, highly irregular.
The County of Hawaii has frustrated and gone through 6
developers, (Mark Twain yr 1962, Green Sands 1967, Cal
Pacific, American Showa yr 1971, Discovery Harbor
Holdings yr2000, and SPIG yr 2009). Have you ever asked
why? The County of Hawaii Development and Planning
Department keeps changing the zoning, thus require ring
special use permits, does not even follow Statutory Law
designed to prevent this very thing from happening,
(delaying and stalling of Development). The Department
does not even recognize the grandfathering in of this
project under the changed zoning to agricultural. People
in the Department of Development and Planning have
even said that is not their job to interpret Act 164. despite
the fact that the language and the purpose of the act are
so clearly and concisely stated, that even a lay person can
understand and interpret the legislature's intent and
reasons the Law was passed in the first place.
Thank you for your time in considering what my read on
this topic is as I know you have a very busy schedule. This
proposed Development is very important to the
communities and the volunteer golf course maintence
crew and golfers at discovery Harbor golf Course, as Sea
Mountain Golf Course at Black Sands Beach is in a state of
continuing decline.
From: John Marvin -
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:30 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail
Cc: Whitmore, Ron
Subject: Deveelopment in Discovery Harbor
Attachments: talk to Discovery Harbor board.docx; responds to ron Whitmore.docx
To: Duane Kanuha
From: Marvin Grendahl
Date 2/21/2016
The first attachment is the talk that I gave at the Discovery Harbor home owners Association Board meeting held on
2/13/2016 after I was made aware of the fact that misinformation ("there was a conflict In the Discover Harbor
homeowners association CC&R's with the proposed development of a resort in Discovery Harbor) had been transmitted
to Ron Whitmore at a locally held CDP meeting on the proposed Resort Development here in Discovery Harbor Golf
community. I sent this to Ron Whitmore by the CDP website asking for comments on the Proposed CDP report.
Information Packet: Development in Discovery Harbor.
The second attachment is my responds to Ron Whitmore's e-mail asking me to point out in the Discovery harbor CC&R's
were the definition of Village Commercial can be found. It also contains further comments to the Information Packet:
Development in Discovery Harbor.
Over the last 6 years all of you have
seen the transition of the golf course
from weeds to beautiful Fairways,
Greens and T -boxes.
This is a result of the Discovery Harbor
community coming together and pulling
together in the same direction with a
common purpose to restore the golf
course. We all have witnessed a
restored sense of pride in the golf
course and the Discovery Harbor golf
community.
Everyone benefits from this endeavor.
!. Fire Hazard Reduction
2. Beautification (new housing starts)
3. Property Values go up and are
maintained
4.Walkers have a place to walk other
than on hard pavement
5.Dog walkers have a place to walk
Their dogs
6.Golfers have a place to golf and
Exercise
7.Golfers have a place to hold lessons
Golf classes
8.Realtors have easier sales of houses
And lots and at higher commissions
This has all come to fruition at a continual
cost
1.Diesel per year
2.Mower costs
3.Cleaning sand traps/year
S.Sand for lower 9 onetime
6.Mower maintenance
7.Sprinkeler system green 5
8.Annual sand for traps
$12,000
$3,500
$1,500
9.Man hrs/year2000 x$25/hour $50,000
Volunteer
10. Trap poison $1,000
The golf course volunteers have found a
way to partially fund the ongoing
maintenance of the golf course. This is by
holding golf lessons/classes/tournaments
every Saturday.
We request that the Board allow us to use
the community center building on the
Saturdays that it not being used so as to
meet in the building after the golf
lessons/classes/tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us
to place pictures and articles in the news
letter about the golf lessons /classes /
tournament.
We further request that the Board allow us
to use the building to hold an awards
banquet for the golf lessons /classes /
tournament on a Saturday or Sunday or
another day or evening this month.
We can't continue the ongoing work on
the golf course forever
1.Some volunteers have burned out and
stopped working
2.Some have moved away
3.Some have died
4. Some slow down or quit working
because of spousal concerns
We now have a unique opportunity to
transfer all this work, cost and effort to the
proposed Resort that SPIG wants to build.
The proposed resort would
!.Take over maintenance and costs of
the golf course
2. Construct a water sprinkler system for
The Fairways. T -boxes and Greens
a. Reduceing the fire hazard in the
Summer when the fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up and
Turn brown.
a. Enhanced beatification in the
summer when the Fairways
T -Boxes and Greens dry up
Disinformation was given to Ron Whitmor
of CDP by either a member of the
Discovery Harbor Board or a member of
the Architectural committee. This
misinformation needs to be corrected in a
letter to Ron Whitmore of CDP from the
Board of Discovery Harbor within the next
week. This comes from a request from Ron
Whitmore
The misinformation was that there is a
conflict in the Discovery Harbor CC&R's
with the current SPIG plans to build 3 story
structures on the parcels of land
designated in the SUPLAMENTAL
DECLORATION May 4th 1972 as Village
commercial or multi -family residential
(condos) parcels number 515 (12 acres)
and 824 (18.4 acres)
The Discovery Harbor CC&R's only pertain
to lots 1-820 of the Discovery Harbor
Subdivision not to parcels 515 (12 acres)
and 824 (18.4 acres) that are designated
as Village commercial or multi -family
residential (condos). The current zoning on
these 2 parcels are designated open and
do not fall under the controls of the
Discovery Harbor CC&R's the Board or its
sub committees. See CC&R's designate V.
ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL COMMITTEE
section 1.General Powers of the
Committee, subsection a. (page 278)
Power of Approval. No approval by the
Committee shall be required for
development work by Declarant (owner
/developer)
Think about it fora minute, the original
Developer (CAL-PASIFIC RECSORSES OF
HAWAII (who wrote the Discovery Harbor
CC&R's 1972 and the SUPLEMENTAL
DECLORATION) would never consider
giving over control of their commercial
property a homeowners association board.
In fact they did not. In the Discovery
Harbor 1972 CC&R's (designated V.
ENVIORMENTAL CONTROLL COMMITTEE
section 1.General Powers of the
Committee, subsection a. (page 278)
Power of Approval. No approval by the
Committee shall be required for
development work by Declarant (owner
/developer. This is handed down to any
and all subsequent owners.
No one in the Discovery Harbor Golf
Community thinks that the Discovery
Harbor board has any control over parcels
825 (79 aches lower 9 golf course) nor 821
(90 aches upper 9 golf course. It is
designated Common area and is
commercial in nature (a golf course.
Similarly the Discovery Harbor Board has
no control over parcels 515 (12 acres) and
824 (18.4 acres) that are designated as
Village commercial (Hotel) or multi -family
residential (Condos. Town houses) or
single family residential.
The CC&R's as written are complicated to
say the least and are subject to
misinterpretation. We think that where
some members of the board and some
members of the architectural committee
got this misinformation/misinterpretation
(that there is a conflict in the Discovery Harbor
CC&R's with the current SPIG plans to build 3 story
structures on the parcels of land designated in the
SUPLAMENTAL DECLORA TION May 4t" 1972 as
Village commercial or multi family residential
(condos) parcels number 515 (12 acres) and 824
(18.4 acres)) comes from an area of the
CC&R's designated II. GENERAL
APPLICATION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(page272) section 1 b. Single Story
Construction: Each such dwelling shall be
single -story construction, unless split level
or two. -story construction is approved by the
committee and the area designated III.
GENERAL APPLICATION MULI- FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SECTION (page 276) 4. Subject
to the approval by the committee multi-
family dwellings maybe of single or
multiple story construction, but no more
than 3 stories and maybe detached or
joined by common walls.
What they misunderstood was that these
are sections in the in the DISCOVERY
HARBOR CC&R's that pertain only to lots 1-
820 of the Discovery Harbor subdivision
and not to parcels 515 and 824, as set forth
in the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLORATION
dated May 4t" 1972 (page 290 and 291)
Now Therefore, the declarent and trustee
agree that the following lots and as shown
and described on File plan 1261 recorded in
the Bureau of Conveyance of the State of
Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of that certain Declaration of
protective covenants dated May 4,1972, the
terms of which document is incorporated
herein by reference and shall be limited to
the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential
517-820, inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
or Village commercial or
multi family residential
Now parcel 526 is 12 acres north of Kamiki
street and parcel 824 is 18.4 acres south of
Kamiki street is where the proposed resort
would be constructed and is not subject to
the restrictions nor in conflict with the
CC&R's on lots 1-820. The current zoning is
"OPEN" on parcel 526 and 824. It can be
single-family residential (time share or not)
or Village commercial (hotel, shops) or
multi -family residential (condo, town
houses) and is entirely up to the owner
/developer as clearly spelled out in the
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLORATION. These are
the documents that we all have to
understand and abide by when making any
statements to any governmental agency
including the CDP.
So what we need from the board is a letter
to Ron Whitmore of CDP stating that there
is no conflict in the Discovery Harbor
CC&R's with the plans that SPIG has to
develop a resort on parcels 515 and 824.
This will give the golf course volunteer
workers the best chance to hand over the
maintenance and maintenance costs to the
proposed resort and the best chance to get
water for the golf course for continued fire
hazard reduction and basification in the
dry summer months. This letter was
requested by Ron Whitmor of the CDP and
he wants it prior to his written
recommendation being transmitted to the
County Planning and Development
Department in the beginning of March,
time is of the essence.
It is our contention that it was one of the
representatives of the Discovery Harbor
Board or its designated subcommittee
(architectural committee) that
disseminated the misinformation and thus
it our contention that it is the board's
responsibility to rectify this matter
immediately.
If the misinformation has adversely
affected the SPIG's ability to proceed with
their planed construction than I am afraid
the homeowners association is at serious
legal risk.
We have Goggled the legal risk of errant
golf balls striking people and property and
accidents on the golf course, slip and fall.
The Statutory law and English common
law are all in favor of the golf course
owners and organizations that promote.
What are the essential elements that
would be in such a letter:
To: Ron Whitmor CDP director county of
Hawaii
From: Board of Discovery Harbor
Date: Feb_,2016
Subject: No conflict with CC&R's and SPIG's
proposed resort development
We the Board of Discovery Harbor after
further review of the Discovery Harbor
CC&R's and the SUPLIMENTAL
DECLORATION dated May 4 1972 have
determined that there exists no conflict in
the CC&R's with the proposed resort
development on parcel numbers 515 and
824 by the owner/developer SPIG (South
Point Investment Group)
Signatures
Yes I am responding to the document posted on your
website Discovery Harbor Information packet further
designated Background Information: Development in
Discovery Harbor.
You made the declaratory statement- to help us in
our understanding, Please direct us to the section of
the CC&R's or supplements that defines "village
commercial" and its permitted uses. This is my
responds as well as more comments to the
information packet.
The purpose of the articles of Incorporation (Charter) is
to convey (by the State of Hawaii) upon the Homeowner's
Association and its Board the powers to administer the
Rules as set down by the CC&R's upon residential lots 1-
514, 517- 820 in the Discovery Harbor Subdivision and
not on parcels number 515,516,823 and 824 (see Charter
of incorporation) The Charter of Incorporation clearly
states (ARTICLE XI) "Each person, corporation or other
legal entity who is, or such persons, corporations or other
legal entities who are, the "Owner" of any "Residential.
lot" -(1-514,517-820) (within Discovery Harbor
Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a
member of the corporation". "Membership shall be
appurtenant to and may not be separated from the
ownership of any such Lot, and such ownership shall be
the sole qualification for membership in the
corporation." Therefore, by definition, properties held
by SPIG cannot be members of the corporation and
therefore the corporation has no control over those
properties.
In the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION (part of the
CC&R's) dated May 4t'' 1972 (page 290 and 291) Now
Therefore, the declarant and trustee agree that the
following lots and as shown and described on File plan
1261 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyance of the State of
Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that
certain Declaration of protective covenants dated May 4,
1972, the terms of which document is incorporated herein
by reference and shall be limited to the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential 517-820,
inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
or Village commercial or
multi family residential
The three designations of uses (single-family residential or
Village commercial or multi -family residential) on parcels
515,516,823 and 824 are left completely up to the
Declerent/owner/developer.
The definition of Village commercial is not found in the
CC&R's because the CC&R's were written only for lots 1-
514, 517- 820 in the discovery Harbor Subdivision and
not for parcels 515,516,823 and 824. This is precisely
what the Discovery Harbor Board and Architectural
committee members do not understand. The CC&R's
were written by Cal -Pacific Resources of Hawaii in 1972
and to find the definition of Village commercial you have
to look at their intent in special use permit # 141 filed in
the State of Hawaii County of Hawaii in 1969 and in the
Planning Departments office files. The definition of
Village commercial is found in special use permit # 141.
The intent was to construct two 7 story structures (Hotel),
shops, restaurants etc.
The County tabled the plans indefinitely in 1969, which
was a common practice at that time in the County of
Hawaii. The county could not deny the petition because
they had stamped and approved it in 1963. The County of
Hawaii failed to acquire the necessary Bonding. This
'tabling' was such a common problem, that the State
Legislature subsequently passed Act 164 (1998) stating
that any Permits that had been tabled indefinitely were
automatically approved. (See State of Hawaii Statutory
Law number 164 and 165). Senate bill number 164. A bill
for an act relating to regulatory process. Senate bill
number 2204. Be it enacted by the Legislator of the State
of Hawaii. Section 2. (page 613) ""The legislator recognizes
the need to take constructive steps to improve Hawaii's
business climate. Business inside and outside of the State
of Hawaii have described a lengthy and indeterminate
time required for business and development related
regulatory approvals. Issuing agencies would be required
to review applications for completeness in a timely
manner and then to act upon the application in a
established time frame or application approval would be
automatic." Section 3. Chaptor9l. Hawaii Revised
Statutes. "All such issuing agencies shall take action to
grant or deny any application for a business or
development related permit, license or approval within
the established period of time, or the application shall be
deemed approved."
As you know, you can also find the Hawaii definition of
Village commercial in Chapter 25 ZONING, Article 25, and
Zoning District Regulations. Division 12. CV, Village
Commercial Districts. Section 25-5-122 (pages 25-74 and
2575) Permitted uses are Hotel, shops, restaurants etc,
golf courses are permitted by special use permits. There
are a total of 51 different uses. Section 25-5-123 Height
limit 30 feet (that is 3 story). I don't know when these
zoning codes were written but a Special Use Permit was
applied for because the intent of the declarant was to
construct two 7 story structures for the Hotel (which is
not the usual under the Code Village commercial).
I did a subdivision in Arizona and have written CC&R's
Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Many of these are
written in boiler plate fashion and these are poorly
written, but when it states in the articles of incorporation
"Residential lots" it clearly does not mean Village
commercial. Unfortunately the CC&R's are vague and
nondescript.
Why is it that Parcels number 825 (75 acres) and 821 (90
acres) both clearly part of Discovery Harbour are not even
mentioned in the CC&R's? It was because the intent by
the Declarant was to designate these two parcels as golf
course. So here we have to again look at intent. These
two golf course parcels clearly are not controlled by the
CC&R's. The same hold true for parcels 515,516,823 and
824.
I also own multiple properties in STARR PASS GOLF
COMMUNITY in Tucson Arizona and there is no mention
of the commercial property (Marriott Hotel, the golf
course and club house) in the CC&R's of the houses and
lots oriented about the fairways. I am very familiar with
these CC&R's for many reasons. Who in their presences
of mind would even think that the developer would give
over control of the Marriott Hotel property, the golf
course and club house property to the Starr Pass
Homeowners Association, but yet all part of Starr Pass
Golf Community? As per the usual Golf Community
CC&R's, Starr Pass CC&R's do not mix commercial and
residential language in the residential CC&R's.
Unfortunately the Discovery Harbor CC&R's are vague,
nondescript, poorly written and mixes residential and a
mere mention of the uses of commercial parcels.
Unfortunately this has left the Board (who are not familiar
with the usual golf course community CC&R's) with a
mistaken interpretation.
Pima County, State of Arizona, Planning and
Development Department did not want to see another
golf course in the City of Tucson go bankrupt and close. So
the Planning and Development Department in their
wisdom did not put height or story restrictions on the
Marriot Hotel. There is no profit in running golf courses
but the profits made by the Marriott Hotel with rooms,
meetings, shops etc, fund running and maintenance of
the golf course. If you put building restrictions and size
limits on this proposed project you will have been part
and parcel of the eventual demise of this golf course and
proposed development. Simply put this is the business of
golf courses. The restrictions that you have proposed
simply put, do not pencil out from a business point of
view to support the golf course and for it to continue on
into the future. Not only do you have to think of all of the
jobs this will mean for the local people and what is good
for this community, you also have to think of the right size
so the business model pencils out. This will then assure
that the locals from the towns of Naalehu, Wiahenu,
Pahala, Ranchos and Ocean View will have jobs far into
the future.
The
other
thing
that
I
need
to
comment on in the
CDP
document
is found on
page
3,
2. Summary of Findings
and Recommendations. If the Subdivision Covenants are
amended to allow it, allow for small scale resort development
on the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating
them a "Retreat Resort Area" on the Land Use Policy Map
(Policy 7) and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in
infrastructure are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort
(V-7.5). This establishes a path for the addition of visitor units
to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
Look at the Articles of incorporation 1982 vision, the first
2 pages and last 2 pages consist of one type of font and
sandwiched in between are 6 pages of articles (dated
4/94 at the bottom of the pages) of another font and filed
with the State of Hawaii dated May 25, 1982. All of these
changes from the original 1972 were done without the
required %approval vote by the home and lot owners in
Discovery Harbor. "Granted under my hand and seal of
the office of Director of regulatory Agencies of the State
of Hawaii, this 7`h day of June, 1972, EWIN H. HONDA".
The point is that it calls into question the current legal
status of the homeowners association. Looking at the
1972 and the 1982 they have similar substance but clearly
a difference and a change. The other fact is that in 1982
the Board of Discovery Harbour tried to change the
CC&R'Rs but could not get the required %approval vote
to pass, the Board had to revert back to the original 1972
written by Cal -Pacific. Why is it that the Board could not,
and will never be able to amend the current CC&R's to
reflect the changes that you desire? This is because of the
nature of the makeup of the home and lot owners. Only
half of the lots have houses on them, and half of them are
owned by the part time snow birds of which are only here
for 3- 90 weeks out of the year and the homeowners and
empty lot owners are from different parts of the US and
different countries. The other point is that the 1972
CC&R's are poorly written and just because Cal -Pacific mix
mention of Lots 1-514 and 517-820 with parcels
515,516,823and 824 does not mean that the CC&R's in
any way apply to parcels 515,516,823and 824.
I would like to respond to 1.2 Draft CDP
strategies. • Concentrating commercial uses in core areas
in Pahala,. Na'alehu, and Ocean View and not allowing
spot commercial development elsewhere (Policies 2 and
7). The grocery store in Naalehu closed last year, the
residence of Waiohinu Naalehu and Discovery Harbor
need one so we don't have to drive 12 miles. There could
be one in the proposed resort area. Tourists ( from all
parts of the island are already coming to this area to visit
Volcano National Park, Green Sands and Black Sands
beaches Kau Coffee Mill and Wood Valley and the
Buddhist temple. They can't see it all in one day. Just look
at the parking lot of the entrance to green sands beach, it
is packed with 50 cars / day. Local business have popped
up in the parking lot ranging from shuttle services to and
from Green Sands Beach, to refreshment stands, all
owned and run by locals, providing them with JOBS. I
think the tourists would take advantage of the proposed
resort development and stay at the resort. I don't think
that this proposed development is not in competition
with the local community business but would
complement it. The tourist is already here and we might
as well capture some of the tourist dollars while they
come here already. Tourists staying at the Resort would
sometimes eat out other than at the resort (which is a
common practice); they would buy gas for their rental
cars, visit the surrounding communities and spend their
tourist dollars at local businesses. Some of these tourists
will buy and or build homes in Discovery Harbor and the
surrounding local communities, thus creating new jobs for
the locals. New local jobs are important because the Kau
district has many people on the welfare rolls and this in
the long run is not sustainable for our government.
Having Development experience myself, and knowing the
detailed history of this stalled development of the
commercial property here at Discovery Harbor, I must say
that what has happened here is highly, highly irregular.
The County of Hawaii has frustrated and gone through 6
developers, (Mark Twain yr 1962, Green Sands 1967, Cal
Pacific, American Showa yr 1971, Discovery Harbor
Holdings yr2000, and SPIG yr 20091. Have you ever asked
why? The County of Hawaii Development and Planning
Department keeps changing the zoning, thus require ring
special use permits, does not even follow Statutory Law
designed to prevent this very thing from happening,
(delaying and stalling of Development). The Department
does not even recognize the grandfathering in of this
project under the changed zoning to agricultural. People
in the Department of Development and Planning have
even said that is not their job to interpret Act 164. despite
the fact that the language and the purpose of the act are
so clearly and concisely stated, that even a lay person can
understand and interpret the legislature's intent and
reasons the Law was passed in the first place.
Thank you for your time in considering what my read on
this topic is as I know you have a very busy schedule. This
proposed Development is very important to the
communities and the volunteer golf course maintence
crew and golfers at discovery Harbor golf Course, as Sea
Mountain Golf Course at Black Sands Beach is in a state of
continuing decline.
From: info@hawaiicountycdp.info
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:04 AM
To: info@hawaiicountycdp.info
Subject: Development in discovery harbor
Yes I am responding to the document posted on your website Discovery Harbor Information packet further designated
Background Information: Development in Discovery Harbor.
You made the declaratory statement- to help us in our understanding, Please direct us to the section of the CC&R's
or supplements that defines "village commercial" and its permitted uses. This is my responds as well as more comments
to the information packet.
The purpose of the articles of Incorporation (Charter) is to convey (by the State of Hawaii) upon the Homeowner's
Association and its Board the powers to administer the Rules as set down by the CC&R's upon residential lots 1-
514, 517- 820 in the Discovery Harbor Subdivision and not on parcels number 515,516,823 and 824 (see Charter of
incorporation) The Charter of Incorporation clearly states (ARTICLE XI) "Each person, corporation or other legal entity
who is, or such persons, corporations or other legal entities who are, the "Owner" of any "Residential lot" (1-514,517-
820) (within Discovery Harbor Subdivision) as defined in the Declaration shall be a member of the corporation".
"Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from the ownership of any such Lot, and such
ownership shall be the sole qualification for membership in the corporation." Therefore, by definition, properties held
by SPIG cannot be members of the corporation and therefore the corporation has no control over those properties.
In the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION (part of the CC&R's) dated May 4th 1972 (page 290 and 291) Now Therefore,
the declarant and trustee agree that the following lots and as shown and described on File plan 1261 recorded in the
Bureau of Conveyance of the State of Hawaii shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Declaration of
protective covenants dated May 4, 1972, the terms of which document is incorporated herein by reference and shall be
limited to the following uses;
Lots Uses
1-514, inclusive single-family residential 517-820, inclusive
515,516,823,824 single-family residential
or Village commercial or
multi -family residential
The three designations of uses (single-family residential or Village commercial or multi -family residential) on parcels
515,516,823 and 824 are left completely up to the Declerent/owner/developer.
The definition of Village commercial is not found in the CC&R's because the CC&R's were written only for lots
1-514, 517- 820 in the discovery Harbor Subdivision and not for parcels 515,516,823 and 824. This is precisely what the
Discovery Harbor Board and Architectural committee members do not understand. The CC&R's were written by
Cal -Pacific Resources of Hawaii in 1972 and to find the definition of Village commercial you have to look at their intent in
special use permit # 141 filed in the State of Hawaii County of Hawaii in 1969 and in the Planning Departments office
files. The definition of Village commercial is found in special use permit # 141. The intent was to construct two 7 story
structures (Hotel), shops, restaurants etc.
The County tabled the plans indefinitely in 1969, which was a common practice at that time in the County of Hawaii.
The county could not deny the petition because they had stamped and approved it in 1963. The County of Hawaii failed
to acquire the necessary Bonding. This 'tabling' was such a common problem, that the State Legislature subsequently
passed Act 164 (1998) stating that any Permits that had been tabled indefinitely were automatically approved. (See
State of Hawaii Statutory Law number 164 and 165). Senate bill number 164. A bill for an act relating to regulatory
process. Senate bill number 2204. Be it enacted by the Legislator of the State of Hawaii. Section 2. (page 613)"The
legislator recognizes the need to take constructive steps to improve Hawaii's business climate. Business inside and
outside of the State of Hawaii have described a lengthy and indeterminate time required for business and development
related regulatory approvals. Issuing agencies would be required to review applications for completeness in a timely
manner and then to act upon the application in a established time frame or application approval would be automatic."
Section 3. Chaptor9l. Hawaii Revised Statutes. "All such issuing agencies shall take action to grant or deny any
application for a business or development related permit, license or approval within the established period of time, or
the application shall be deemed approved."
As you know, you can also find the Hawaii definition of Village commercial in Chapter 25 ZONING, Article 25, and Zoning
District Regulations. Division 12. CV, Village Commercial Districts. Section 25-5-122 (pages 25-74 and 2575) Permitted
uses are Hotel, shops, restaurants etc, golf courses are permitted by special use permits. There are a total of 51 different
uses. Section 25-5-123 Height limit 30 feet (that is 3 story). I don't know when these zoning codes were written but a
Special Use Permit was applied for because the intent of the declarant was to construct two 7 story structures for the
Hotel (which is not the usual under the Code Village commercial).
I did a subdivision in Arizona and have written CC&R's Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Many of these are
written in boiler plate fashion and these are poorly written, but when it states in the articles of incorporation
"Residential lots" it clearly does not mean Village commercial. Unfortunately the CC&R's are vague and
nondescript.
Why is it that Parcels number 825 (75 acres) and 821 (90 acres) both clearly part of Discovery Harbour are not even
mentioned in the CC&R's? It was because the intent by the Declarant was to designate these two parcels as golf
course. So here we have to again look at intent. These two golf course parcels clearly are not controlled by the
CC&R's. The same hold true for parcels 515,516,823 and 824.
1 also own multiple properties in STARR PASS GOLF COMMUNITY in Tucson Arizona and there is no mention of the
commercial property (Marriott Hotel, the golf course and club house) in the CC&R's of the houses and lots oriented
about the fairways. I am very familiar with these CC&R's for many reasons. Who in their presences of mind would
even think that the developer would give over control of the Marriott Hotel property, the golf course and club house
property to the Starr Pass Homeowners Association, but yet all part of Starr Pass Golf Community? As per the usual Golf
Community CC&R's, Starr Pass CC&R's do not mix commercial and residential language in the residential
CC&R's. Unfortunately the Discovery Harbor CC&R's are vague, nondescript, poorly written and mixes
residential and a mere mention of the uses of commercial parcels. Unfortunately this has left the Board (who are not
familiar with the usual golf course community CC&R's) with a mistaken interpretation.
Pima County, State of Arizona, Planning and Development Department did not want to see another golf course in the
City of Tucson go bankrupt and close. So the Planning and Development Department in their wisdom did not put height
or story restrictions on the Marriot Hotel. There is no profit in running golf courses but the profits made by the Marriott
Hotel with rooms, meetings, shops etc, fund running and maintenance of the golf course. If you put building restrictions
and size limits on this proposed project you will have been part and parcel of the eventual demise of this golf course and
proposed development. Simply put this is the business of golf courses. The restrictions that you have proposed simply
put, do not pencil out from a business point of view to support the golf course and for it to continue on into the future.
Not only do you have to think of all of the jobs this will mean for the local people and what is good for this community,
you also have to think of the right size so the business model pencils out. This will then assure that the locals from the
towns of Naalehu, Wiahenu, Pahala, Ranchos and Ocean View will have jobs far into the future.
The other thing that I need to comment on in the CDP document is found on page 3, 2. Summary of Findings and
Recommendations. If the Subdivision Covenants are amended to allow it, allow for small scale resort development on
the "gateway" parcels in Discovery Harbour by designating them a "Retreat Resort Area" on the Land Use Policy Map
(Policy 7) and, if concurrent, necessary improvements in infrastructure are made, by rezoning portions of them Resort
(V-7.5). This establishes a path for the addition of visitor units to the area as a means to revitalize the golf course.
Look at the Articles of incorporation 1982 vision, the first 2 pages and last 2 pages consist of one type of font and
sandwiched in between are 6 pages of articles (dated 4/94 at the bottom of the pages) of another font and filed with the
State of Hawaii dated May 25, 1982. All of these changes from the original 1972 were done without the required
approval vote by the home and lot owners in Discovery Harbor. "Granted under my hand and seal of the office of
Director of regulatory Agencies of the State of Hawaii, this 7th day of June, 1972, EWIN H. HONDA". The point is that it
calls into question the current legal status of the homeowners association. Looking at the 1972 and the 1982 they have
similar substance but clearly a difference and a change. The other fact is that in 1982 the Board of Discovery Harbour
tried to change the CC&R'Rs but could not get the required % approval vote to pass, the Board had to revert back
to the original 1972 written by Cal-Pacific. Why is it that the Board could not, and will never be able to amend the
current CC&R's to reflect the changes that you desire? This is because of the nature of the makeup of the home and
i
lot owners. Only half of the lots have houses on them, and half of them are owned by the part time snow birds of which
are only here for 3- 90 weeks out of the year and the homeowners and empty lot owners are from different parts of the
US and different countries. The other point is that the 1972 CC&R's are poorly written and just because Cal -Pacific
mix mention of Lots 1-514 and 517-820 with parcels 515,516,823and 824 does not mean that the CC&R's in any
way apply to parcels 515,516,823and 824.
I would like to respond to 1.2 Draft CDP strategies.0•ENConcentrating commercial uses in core areas in Pahala, Na'alehu,
and Ocean View and not allowing spot commercial development elsewhere (Policies 2 and 7). The grocery store in
Naalehu closed last year, the residence of Waiohinu Naalehu and Discovery Harbor need one so we don't have to drive
12 miles. There could be one in the proposed resort area. Tourists ( from all parts of the island are already coming to this
area to visit Volcano National Park, Green Sands and Black Sands beaches Kau Coffee Mill and Wood Valley and the
Buddhist temple. They can't see it all in one day. Just look at the parking lot of the entrance to green sands beach, it is
packed with 50 cars / day. Local business have popped up in the parking lot ranging from shuttle services to and from
Green Sands Beach, to refreshment stands, all owned and run by locals, providing them with JOBS. I think the tourists
would take advantage of the proposed resort development and stay at the resort. I don't think that this proposed
development is not in competition with the local community business but would complement it. The tourist is already
here and we might as well capture some of the tourist dollars while they come here already. Tourists staying at the
Resort would sometimes eat out other than at the resort (which is a common practice); they would buy gas for their
rental cars, visit the surrounding communities and spend their tourist dollars at local businesses. Some of these tourists
will buy and or build homes in Discovery Harbor and the surrounding local communities, thus creating new jobs for the
locals. New local jobs are important because the Kau district has many people on the welfare rolls and this in the long
run is not sustainable for our government.
Having Development experience myself, and knowing the detailed history of this stalled development of the commercial
property here at Discovery Harbor, I must say that what has happened here is highly, highly irregular. The County of
Hawaii has frustrated and gone through 6 developers, (Mark Twain yr 1962, Green Sands 1967, Cal Pacific, American
Showa yr 1971, Discovery Harbor Holdings yr2000, and SPIG yr 2009}. Have you ever asked why? The County of Hawaii
Development and Planning Department keeps changing the land use and the zoning, (1968 the land use was changed
from Agricultural to Urban and zoning from agricultural to Resort Hotel District and then to Village Commercial, thus
requirering special use permits, (Now you want to change it yet again to Light Urban). No developer can develop
properties whose land use and zoning keeps changing, it is a moving Target. The Planning Department does not even
follow Statutory Law (Act 164) designed to prevent this very thing from happening, (delaying and stalling of
Development). The Department does not even recognize the grandfathering in of this project (Special use Permit 141)
when the zoning was changed to Agricultural. People in the Department of Development and Planning have even said
that is not their job to interpret Act 164, despite the fact that the language and the purpose of the act are so clearly and
concisely stated, that even a lay person can understand and interpret the legislature's intent and reasons the Law was
passed in the first place. Final issuance of Special Use Permit 141 has been unreasonably withheld from developers for
years despite the fact that the last item required was the construction of a 12 inch water main, which was completed
years ago.
No wonder the first 5 Developers through up their hands in utter frustration and sold it off to another unsuspecting and
uninformed Developer.
Thank you for your time in considering what my read on this topic is as I know you have a very busy schedule. This
proposed Development is very important to the communities and the volunteer golf course maintence crew and golfers
at discovery Harbor golf Course, as Sea Mountain Golf Course at Black Sands Beach is in a state of continuing decline.
Hawai'i County Planning Department
You are receiving this mail because marvin john grendahl is sending feedback about the site
you administer at http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info.
From:
Surprenant, April
Sent:
Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:44 AM
To:
Whitmore, Ron; Kanuha, Duane; Command, Bobby
Subject:
FW: COR -16-103802 - CDP for Ka'u
FYI
From: Irene Eklund
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:47 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicountV.gov>
Subject: COR -16-103802 - CDP for Ka'u
Aloha Director Kanuha
My husband and I are full time residents of Discovery Harbour in the Ka'u DIstrict of the Big Island of
Hawaii. I am writing this in support of the final CDP recommendations soon to be turned over to you for
review before turning them over to the County Council for review and hopefully approval. I attended the CDP
meetings and would like to applaud the efforts of the Steering Committee and Ron Whitmore in engaging the
community and listening to our concerns when it pertained to property in Discovery Harbour. Even when a
large land owner acted less than professional to Ron Whitmore, he maintained his professionalism and kept the
meetings going in a positive direction to benefit the community and Hawaii Island.
Again we support the final CDP recommendations and thank the Ron Whitmore, the Steering Committee and
the County of Hawaii for allowing us to be part of planning for the future of Hawaii Island.
With Much Aloha
Irene & Nels Eklund
Discovery Harbour
PLAN NINO'DEPARTMEA
PA1- *
aor
f t
ll
From: Babette Morrow < "'"FEB 26 Pik 4: 32
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Planning Internet Mail
Subject: Attention: Duane Kanuha, Director
Mr. Kanuha,
We understand that you are in the final process of reviewing the Ka'u Community Development Plan
recommendations to County Council. As a property owners and residents of Discovery Harbour, we
have been very pleased with the tranparency of the whole CDP process. Members of the Steering
Committee always listened to the input of the citizens, and Ron Whitmore was a great leader. He
kept the community informed and was always quick to respond to the myriad of questions and
comments from the community. And he handled himself well when attacked by those who
disagreed with him.
Of particular interest to those of us in Discovery Harbour has been the two lots mauka and makai of
the intersection of Kahiki and Wakea (called "gateway parcels"). The property owner wants to build
a resort and commercial uses on those two lots, which is not permitted in our CC&Rs. The CDP
Steering Committee didn't think it was realistic to propose uses for these lots that are inconsistent
with the CC&Rs, so they chose Low Density Urban (LDU) as a future use. The Steering Committee
also recommended that a small scale resort be permitted only if the DH CC&Rs are amended to
allow it.
The Steering Committee's recommendations for the CDP came after many, many public meetings,
including an open house in Discovery Harbour. People in the community let the Steering
Committee know their concerns about the impacts of any future large development, and the
Planning Department and Steering Committee heard us. My husband and I fully support the
recommendations of the Planning Department and the Steering Committee.
Mahato
Babette
and Rich Morrow
103881.
From: Domian, Jesse
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:39 AM
To: Whitmore, Ron
Subject: FW: Zoning in Discovery Harbour
Hard copy routed to April.
From: Jim Deck Na
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:41 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: Zoning in Discovery Harbour
Attn: Duane Kanuhe,
We are home owners in Discovery Harbour and are somewhat concerned about
our Home Owners Association board position regarding zoning. We are in favor
of zoning the commercial parcels in Discovery Harbour "Resort" for many reasons.
The development of this property which is already located in a developed home
owners community with water and electricity would not involve any conservatory
land. Developing the land would be beneficial to the entire Kau district.
Thank You for your consideration.
Jim & Kathy Deck
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hard copy to routed to April.
Domian, Jesse
Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:40 AM
Whitmore, Ron
FW: Discovery Harbour proposed development
-----Original Message -----
From: David Ord
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: Discovery Harbour proposed development
Dear Mr. Kanuha,
With regard to the proposed development at Discovery Harbour of a hotel, shops, restaurants, and so forth, I have no
objection in principle as a property owner here. Shops and restaurants could be of benefit to us as well as to the local
economy.
However, my concern with this project is that I am concerned it will flop and become a white elephant, which would be
detrimental to the area.
I don't see lots of people flocking to stay in a hotel here, and neither do I see a solid market for people to eat here—in
contrast, for instance, to Volcano. Yes, we have a golf course, but there are plenty at the resorts. In fact, I understand
some are struggling. My main point is that it's windy, extremely so at times, as well as rainy quite a bit of the time—not
what visitors to Hawaii are in the main looking for.
In particular, I have noticed that the preponderance of visitors to this area are not older people with money to spend,
but college age. They are not going to come to this area and stay; they simply want to see, and in many cases jump off
the cliffs at South Point, as well as swim at Green Sands Beach. I walk at South Point for an hour most days and have a
pretty good feel for the fact that these are not people who wish to come and stay here for a few nights.
Unless some really solid studies are conducted, or already have been, to demonstrate that there is a demand, itj ust
seems to me that the whole thing would end up a disaster.
Resident,
David Robert Ord
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
First Name
Earl
Last Name
Spradling
Email Address
info@hawaiicountycdp.info
Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:29 AM
admin
Discovery Harbor Zoning
Phone number
Mailing Address
r
City, State, Zip Code
Subject
Discovery Harbor Zoning
Comments
To whom it may concern,
My wife Carol and I are fairly new homeowners in Discovery. We purchased a lot in 2013 and built a
home in 2014. The entire process from a governmental standpoint was the easiest and less stressful
process we have ever had while building a home. We have attended Board Meetings at Discovery
Harbour and also Ka'u CDP meetings. We have been members of HOA's in the past and the Discovery
Harbour HOA is not much different, as there are always a couple of sides to every situation. One thing
that is not often up for debate is the interruption of the Articles of Incorporation and the subsequent
CC&R's. I have been on the Board of Directors of many different types of organizations, including
HOA's, currently I serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Nordstrom Federal Credit
Union. I know how to read, interrupt, and understand the intent of CC&R's and Discovery Harbour's do
not apply to the lots where the proposed Resort is to be built. Please move in the positive direction of
properly zoning the area within Discovery Harbour that will allow the much needed influx of commence
to happen. Respectfully, Earl Spradling
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
MINUTES
MAY 10, 2017
The Windward Planning Commission met in special session at 5:31 p.m. in the Nd`dlehu
Community Center, 95-5635 Mdmalahoa Highway, Nd`dlehu, Hawaii, with Chairman Gregory
Henkel presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles
Miyasato.
ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation
Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), April Surprenant (Planning Program
Manager), Ron Whitmore (Project Manager for the Ka' -Ci CDP), Christian Kay (Planner), Leana
Gloor (Planner), Grace Armstrong (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary).
A quorum was present. Chairman Henkel introduced Windward Planning Commissioners and
staff to members of the public and went over the procedures for public testimony.
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC — No statements were presented under this section of the
agenda.
1. KA`U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
On October 27, 2015, the Ka`u Community Development Plan (CDP) Steering Committee
recommended approval of the Ka`u CDP. After reviewing agency comment, the Planning
Director is recommending non -substantive amendments to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28
of the Hawaii County Code, within sixty days after receipt of the Planning Director's
recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the
Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development plan or any
amendment with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise,
pursuant to Section 15.1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the
community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering
Committee and the Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment
upon substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan.
The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the Ka`u CDP and for the Commission to review the CDP and
consider its recommendation to the County Council.
Page I of 2
Windward Planning Corrunission
May 10, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes
The Commission took this item up at 5:32 p.m. with 39 people from the public in attendance.
(SEE EXHIBIT A)
Chair Henkel called a recess at 6:39 p. m., and the meeting was reconvened at 6:44 p.m.
This item ended at 7:21 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT — There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Miyasato
and seconded by Commissioner Ikeda that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was unanimously
carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. Chairman Henkel adjourned the
meeting at 7:21 p.m.
ATTEST:
c
Gregory Henkel, Chairman
Windward Planning Commission
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Windward Planning Conunission
May 10, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MAY 10, 2017
A special advertised hearing regarding the Ka`u Community Development Plan was called to
order at 5:32 p.m. in the Nd`dlehu Community Center, 95-5635 Mdmalahoa Highway, Nd'dlehu,
Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles
Miyasato.
ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation
Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), April Surprenant (Planning Program
Manager), Ron Whitmore (Project Manager for the Ka`u CDP), Christian Kay (Planner), Leana
Gloor (Planner), Grace Armstrong (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary).
And 39 members from the public in attendance.
KA`fJ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
On October 27, 2015, the Ka' -Ci Community Development Plan (CDP) Steering Committee
recommended approval of the Ka`u CDP. After reviewing agency comment, the Planning
Director is recommending non -substantive amendments to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28.1
of the Hawaii County Code, within sixty days after receipt of the Planning Director's
recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the
Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development plan or any
amendment with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise,
pursuant to Section 15.1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the
community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering
Committee and the Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment
upon substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan.
The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the Ka' -Ci CDP and for the Commission to review the CDP and
consider its recommendation to the County Council.
HENKEL: There's only one agenda item tonight, and that's the Ka`u Community Development
Plan. On October 27, 2015) the Ka`u Community Development Plan Steering Committee
recommended approval of the Ka`u CDP. After reviewing agency comment, the Planning
Director is recommending non -substantive amendments to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28-1,
.1 of the Hawaii County Code, within 60 days after receipt of the Planning Director's
recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the
EXHIBIT A
1
Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development plan, or any
amendment, with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise,
pursuant to Section 15.1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the
community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering
Committee and the Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment
upon substantive amendments or modifications before the final adoption of the plan.
The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the Ka`u CDP and for the Commission to review the CDP and
consider its recommendation to the County Council.
So, first, we're ready to present. Ron, are you? Ron Whitmore for the Planning Commission
will do his presentation.
WHITMORE: Thank you, Chainnan Henkel, and thank you members of the Planning
Commission for making the trip out to Ka`u this evening to hear from the people of Ka`u and
their perspectives on this community development plan. Thank you, Director Yee and County
Planning staff for arranging the meeting and staffing it, and having me as guest. I'm actually no
longer with the Planning Department. I'm Deputy Director of the Department of Research and
Development, but because I was Project Manager for the Ka`u Community Development Plan, it
seemed fitting for me to see this through the adoption process. So, I'm here because I'm familiar
with the plan and can probably answer questions about it fairly well.
I want to also thank members of the Steering Committee who are here. This—to make sure
we're covered with Sunshine Law, tonight's meeting is agendized also as a Steering Committee
meeting so that we can have the Steering Committee members here and who are free then to talk
and share their perspectives. With us here tonight are John Cross, Loren Heck, Michelle
Galimba, and Ron Ebert. Thank you very much for coming out. They aren't part of the
presentation tonight, but they're free to provide testimony is my understanding and also to
respond to any questions Commissioners may have for them.
Okay, I also wanted to thank all the members of the community who are out here tonight to share
their perspectives, hear the Commissioners' comments. It's part of what's made this planning
process so successful is the active involvement of community members and the Steering
Committee's efforts at listening very carefully what people have to say, working it into the plan
to produce a plan that is the best representation of how to achieve the community's goals that we
could come up with.
Oh, also with us here tonight is Council Member Maile Davis [sic]. Thank you for coming out.
Appreciate that. It's nice that she's here because the next stop for the plan after the Planning
Commission is the County Council.
So, what I'm going to do tonight is first provide a little context to make sure we're on the same
page in terms of where, what community development plans are all about, where they come
from. Then, I'm going give you a bit of an overview of the plan, speak to next steps to some
EXHIBIT A
2
extent. And, we have, we continue to receive some comment about the draft plan, so I'll speak
to some of the comments that have been shared as well to help you in your deliberations.
First, a little context. It's important to understand the community development plans in terms of
the evolution of community planning in the County of Hawaii. I, sometimes, refer to it
developmentally and the County Planning Department's kind of have been an adolescent in
terms of community planning through the CDP stage because prior to the 2005 General Plan,
there wasn't an active community planning prograin. And, so in 2005, they explicitly included
Chapter 15 in response to the public's desire to have a more active role and more meaningful
role in the planning process. And, so this is the fifth of six CDP's that have been initiated since
then, and they're fundamentally an effort at balancing different perspectives related to what
needs to go into a strong community plan.
I like to joke about "Community Planning 101" but, quite seriously, when you think about—it's
easy to embrace the idea of involving people in a greater, in a greater way in governance and in
planning specifically. But, when you begin to think about how to do that, it raises a number of
dilemmas and challenges.
The first one is really, what is "the community?" Very often, people talk about or ask the
question, "What does the community want?" And, usually, the answer to that is, "Well, depends
on who you ask." Right? Because, communities are not homogenous; they're extremely diverse
typically. And, so, when you sit down and start thinking about how to design a community
planning process, you have to be very aware of that diversity within the community and snake
sure you're hearing from that diversity throughout the process and making sure people feel
involved and heard through each step of the process.
Another challenge you face in community planning is the need to balance critical perspectives.
Obviously, community planning fundamentally is about hearing the local perspective in all its
diversity and so you gotta fundamentally make sure a community plan is very much grounded in
the local context—what you know about the place, what local people know about the place, and
what they've identified as their core values and vision and goals moving forward.
At the same time, in the same way, you don't—well, I don't build my own house. I would hire
an architect if I was going to design a house. But, in the same way, in communities, they are
often very clear about what they'd like to see but don't always have the skills like an architect. I
would need to build a house, to actually design it, and get the strictures right and snake sure it
stands up in a storm, that sort of thing. And so, local communities need to work also with
planners and others who have industry and technical expertise that's needed. And, they help
keep it practical and grounded in the law and in practice so that you're assured to get a plan that
you can actually move forward in implementation, right?
And, then, finally—and those folks are usually local folks that come in the form of planners,
local consultants, etc., but there's also a whole lot of knowledge out there from community
planning that's been done around the world successfully and so it's also important to look at how
other people and other communities have solved similar challenges or achieved similar goals.
And, so the third critical perspective to balance in community planning is, is really making good
EXHIBIT A
3
use of that planner's toolbox, and be clear about what you're trying to do, what barriers you have
in your way, what tools are best suited to overcome those barriers and get to that goal. Right?
And, so, to balance all those three, and to be always mindful of the diversity in community, you
really need to stay anchored in a fundamentally open planning process. And, what that means, it
means many things, but a few key things here are: You need to remember that not everybody is
going to be able to come to meetings. We like to think that the planning goes on at meetings like
this, but it really can't be limited to that. They are obviously critical, but they can't be limited to
that. People, particularly in places like Ka`u, are working multiple jobs, have long commutes,
have other things going on in their lives. Not everybody has the time, and I would even say the
privilege, of being able to come out and participate actively in a process like that. And, so you
have to figure out ways along the, in the planning process, to make sure you're engaging people
who otherwise are never going to come to you. You gotta go to them, right?
The second thing is there's always, there's oft—there's common shared goals, but often diversity
and preferences over, over how to achieve those goals. And, part of it is understanding the
complexity some times and the challenges you have to overcome to achieve them. And, so,
another key element of community planning and an open community planning process is to keep
it objective and based .in clear analysis. And, that's one thing we've done very extensively with
the Ka`u CDP to, to actually quite to a fatiguing level. We were so meticulous about some of
these things, but the advantage of it is it's all transparent. It's all open. People can see the
reasoning, challenge it, question assumptions so that we're all on the same page, considering the
same facts, seeing how we're arriving at the same conclusions, right?
And, then amongst all that, it's always important to recognize that there's an element of truth in
every perspective. I was taught that long ago, and I found it to be one of the critical things to
remember in life. As you may, someone may be yelling at you and you may disagree
vehemently with what they're saying, but they, they believe what they believe for a reason
because there's an element of truth in what they see. And, the job of a planning committee and
of planners is to hear that truth and to make sure it's understood and consider when choosing
strategies and making decisions.
And, so everybody involved in a community planning process—community members, Steering
Committee members, planners, commissioners—need to come to this with a learner's hat. With
an open mind. With an effort to hear and understand where people are coining from and, and the
willingness to accommodate and understand it and try to find common ground.
And, so, having done all that with Ka`u, we're really here tonight to celebrate. The last meeting
of the Steering Committee, when they made their final recommendations, was a celebration of
years of hard work of an excellent job of them listening to, hearing, and acting on what they
heard from the community. In a similar way, this is another step. This is another reason to
celebrate. We're now at the, one of the, nearing the end of adoption. We have another
opportunity to hear from folks who see issues coming in kinda cold with a clear perspective used
to, used to considering other types of land use applications. So, it comes with a very useful,
critical perspective to help us further strengthen the plan, if appropriate, right?
EXHIBIT A
4
And, we're here to celebrate in part because there's three fundamental things that if you leave
with nothing else tonight, I'd ask you to try to remember these three things: credible process,
thorough vetting, and this idea that the work is really ongoing as long it stays, and it's going to
improve the plan as long as it stays based in fact -based analysis and clear rationale, right?
And, so just to quickly overview. This has been an extremely credible process, highly
participatory at every step of the way. Highly collaborative. Bouncing those different
perspectives. Very strategic in terms of a building block approach to planning. I'll say more
about this later. Systematic and transparent. You could see all along the way what was being
considered, why different options were being considered, the pros and cons and how the Steering
Committee arrived at different decisions.
So, not only was the plan developed in a very credible way, but then once it was developed, it
went through thorough, thorough vetting. First, with the Steering Committee who decided first
of all, it needed to massage the plan to snake sure it's even ready for community review. And,
they went through extensive review of every strategy and the rationale behind it. Then, when
they thought it was ready for the community, then it went through an extensive community
review process then back to the Steering Committee. They incorporated more strengthening and
revisions based on community feedback. Then, it went to the Planning Department, the agency
review, and now it's to you for further review. So, it's, this thing has been vetted by everybody
from every different perspective.
And, so considering all that, we ask you to continue along that vein as you consider this plan.
Remember what the community's objective are because that's fundamental. That's really what
we're trying to achieve here. And, keep your own analysis. Build on the fact -based analysis that
has been done already. Help us improve it if you see ideas for improvement. But, help us keep
it to be, keep it a clear, rational approach to, to planning.
Okay, so now I'm going to get a, do some quick overview of the plan just to, so we're all on the
same page about what these are all about. Fundamentally, CDP's and other community plans are
a form for strengthening the three pillars of any sustainable and healthy community:
enviromnent, community, and economy. And, CDP's are empowered to do that, particularly in
two ways. One is around directing land use, because we all know that settlement patterns are
fundamental to a healthy community. And, secondly, through actions. And, those actions can
take a variety of forms, and I'll say more about that in a, in a few minutes. You should note at
this point that the planning area is the judicial District of Ka`u, with the exception of a couple
areas in the Volcano area that were part of the Puna CDP. So, it does include all of Ocean View,
Nd`dlehu, South Point area, Waiohinu, Pdhala, Wood Valley, Punalu`u, and all the Ag and
Conservation area in between those towns, Discovery Harbour, Mark Twain.
We were really blessed with a fantastic Steering Committee, and unfortunately, not everybody
was able to make it here tonight, and I really hope you don't see their, their absence tonight as
any indication of their enthusiasm for their work or the plan. Two of them are on Oahu for
medical reasons; a third is on the mainland for a family emergency; and two others had work
commitments they couldn't get out of. This was a great group not because, not only because
they're great people because they're extremely representative not only of the different geography
EXHIBIT A
5
of Ka`u but of different perspectives that are inherent in this community. So, you can see on the
screen the geographies that were represented, but I want to also emphasize -the background and
perspective of some of these folks. We had a realtor. We had a land use manager, developer.
We had a community builder by profession. An Army Reserve officer, a pastor, actually two
pastors, I think. A rancher. Who am I missing?
HECK (from audience): Farmer.
WHITMORE: Right. Farmer? Yeah you're—yes, thank you. I was going to say joker, but
farmer works. Yes, Loren provided levity. Kept us all sane during the process.
So, anyway, great credible group of people who were good listeners both to each other and to the
rest of the community and really brought an extreme diversity to perspectives to the process.
What's important to note, too, is that these folks were not the crafters of the plan. Their roles
were really three fundamentally. Because they are of the community, they played a critical role
in helping the planning team design a process that was very participatory and really tailored to
the context here. And, then, when implementing that process, they were, they played an
instrumental role in maximizing community engagement along the way. And, then the, probably
the most important role is the buck really stops with the Steering Committee. The plan does not
enter the adoption process until the Steering Committee says it's ready, and so, they made that
last and final call when they thought it was ready for your review. And, by the way, they're
volunteers like you also. They put in tremendous amount of time and effort into this.
You don't need to see the detail on this, but basically, it describes four phases of the planning
process followed by a fifth phase which is implementation. And, I'm going to touch on each of
these phases. Just to give you an idea of the color coding here. The green is community
engagement, the blue is Steering Committee key decisions, and the black is Planning team work.
And, so you, again, you see just in colors on the screen the balance of perspectives and different
roles and the thought that went into engaging the right people at the right time in the process.
So, anyway, we started with the foundations which was to identify the core values and vision that
the community has. And, I think at the time, that we set a record, but then Hdmdkua followed
and beat our record, but Ka`u CDP was the fourth CDP, but at the time had heard from the most
people during that initial values and visioning process. And part of the reason for our success is
we made it really easy for people to answer, answer two core questions: "What do they love
about Ka`u?" and "What do they want to see 20 years out?" We did a—obviously surveys were
available either online or paper, but more importantly, we had, we trained volunteer facilitators
who would hold a smaltmeeting anywhere—in a pavilion, in a carport, on the beach, in your
home or living room, and go through a quick process to identify those, those core values and
vision.
We heard from 14 percent of the population which if you only think about statistics is a
ridiculously high number. Probably more importantly, though, is we were tracking participation
as we went relative to what we knew from the census where the, were the demographics of Ka`u
and assured and made an extra effort in communities where we knew we were not capturing the
EXHIBIT A
6
people who we knew were there. Because, again, we knew, many people were not going to
come to us; we had to go to them, and so we made that extra effort. And, it was really critical at
this stage because it's these goals that come out of this process that are the foundation for the
plans. We wanted to make sure that we heard from the maximum number of people at that stage
so that we had high confidence in the goals and objectives that we established from there.
I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Ka`u, but it is really a unique and very special
place. If you talk to anybody in Ka`u, you'll hear that right away. And, so they're very clear
about what they love about this place and don't want to lose, and it really boils down to these
three main things. There is a fundamentally, you know, just an extremely strong network of
community, ohana, family, interwoven throughout the district. And, it's actually strange to even
call them three different things because part of that is people's relationship with the environment
here—the coastline, the mountains, the ag land. Life in Ka' -Ci in many ways is interwoven with
the place, the physical place. And, that exhibits itself in terms of a country or rural lifestyle
which is quiet, which is friendly, which is extremely hospitable and generous, and people want to
preserve that to the extent that they can.
And, so, the Steering Committee poured through all that data and tried to capture it in this values
and vision statement, and it, again, touches on some of those same themes—unique rural
lifestyle, that connection between people and place, and a truly distinctive Hawaiian cultural
heritage, probably more so in Ka`u then you'll probably find any other places in Hawaii
anymore. And given all that, looking ahead, they do want to increase economic opportunity and
that really was the highest priority for the community. But, they want to do it in a way that's
appropriate for Ka`u—diverse, resilient, and sustainable. They also want to protect and provide
reasonable access mauka and makai as well as preserve Open space and have the appropriate
facilities to support their recreational and subsistence use as associated with mauka and makai
access. And, then finally, fundamentally recognize that they don't want to do any of that at the
expense of family and community.
So, again, I mentioned earlier the systematic approach. So, each of these key steps in the
process, we stopped, and the Steering Committee made a fundamental decision. In this case,
they adopted this values and vision statement to guide the work that would follow.
So, the next thing we did was a community profile, and the way we engaged the community that
time is through what we call the community summits. We first did a whole lot of research
ourselves. Found out what we could about Ka`u through census data and natural resources
information and information from NOAA and all kinds of different places, but then we brought
that out to community and (a) asked them to confirm it and (b) we had, we had pukas. We had
holes in our information so we had to get, learn more about it from people who knew the places
and particular places really well to fill in those gaps.
So, we did that in community summits and then captured all of that --the community knowledge
and secondary knowledge in the community profile. And, then the Steering Committee took the
community profile, combined it, findings from the community profile, combined it with the
values and vision statement, and came up with the objectives.
EXHIBIT A
7
And, they really fall into three main areas. There's 12 core objectives, and they all are
fundamentally about managing conserving natural resources, preserving and strengthening
cominunity character, and building a resilient and sustainable economy. They aren't on the
screen, but in your Backgrounds and Recommendations. They're in the CDP near the end of
Section 1, I believe. I'm sorry, I don't have the page number on me.
So, then, the community had done kind of its core fundamental work at that point and then it, a
lot of the attention turned to the CDP team whose job it was to take those community objectives,
identify what's already in place to help achieve them, where the gaps are and then, therefore,
what needs to be done in the plan to achieve the community's objectives. And you see that
represented here in kind of a foundational way. Again, the values and vision are the foundation
built upon that, and further refined are the objectives. And then we need to find the appropriate
policies and actions to achieve those objectives.
And, this is an important point which is a little unique for Ka'-ii but really kind of critical,
because some of the confusion in people's interpretation of the CDP is rooted in these
differences. We, as we were doing the work, realized that you gotta be careful what you call
things `cause that means different things depending on what you call `em. And,'even looking at
the General Plan, there's often confusing language about what something really means when it
says it's a policy versus an action or an objective, right? And, so we identified four fundamental
different types of strategies.
The first one is what we call land use policies, and those really are an expression of the ability
the CDP's have to detail and designate land uses to try to really influence the settlement patterns,
right? And, so those, those become the official land use policy for the CDP, and there's two
types of those actually in a CDP. There's those that are really just intent. They're an expression
of what's desired, and they aren't controlling in nature. But, others are controlling in nature,
those that are very specific about what, what is appropriate where.
And, then the second type of County policy is what we call County actions. Those are things
that don't just automatically happen when the plan is adopted. You can identify capital
improvement priorities like road improvements, water improvements, what have you, but just
because it's in the plan and the plan gets adopted doesn't mean it has to happen. It requires
follow-up action on the part of the Council and the administration in terms of budgeting and staff
dedication, that sort of thing, right? It's still important to do in a CDP because a community
should be very clear about what it thinks its priorities are, but you gotta understand that that's
not, you know, mandated by law when the CDP is adopted.
And then there's, and this isn't the best term probably, but something we called advocacy, things
that are fundamentally outside County jurisdiction. Because what you realize very quickly when
trying to find strategies to achieve community goals is much of what needs to be done is outside
County jurisdiction especially here in Hawaii where health, education, highways, and many
other important issues are outside of County jurisdiction.
And, then the fourth and, I would argue, arguably most important strategy, are those community
based collaborative strategies. Those things that the County can't do anything about, the State
EXHIBIT A
8
can't do anything about, the Feds can't do anything about that really require local leadership and
initiative.
And, so the CDP is clear about those four distinct types of strategies, and it's really helpful
because, in part, once it's adopted, implementation then is very clear. Planning Department
knows what it needs to do to guide its land use decision snaking. CIP priorities are clear. We
can clearly communicate to DLNR. You know, DOA, what we'd like them to do to support
community, and then the community has a roadmap itself for moving forward on achieving the
community's objectives.
This really doesn't do justice to the CDP, but this is the CDP in a nutshell. So, it becomes a
County policy document, guides Federal and State agencies, and guides community-based action
to do four fundamental things. And, those numbers are simply correlated with the sections in the
CDP.
So, Section 3 is the land use section where we—where the community tries to be clear about
what the preferred settlement patterns are and how it, and what tools it thinks are appropriate to
use to achieve those settlement patterns. Section 4, then, is the environmental piece, and there's
subsections for all the different types of natural and cultural resources—coastline, agriculture,
mauka forests, historic resources, etc. Fifth is community infrastructure—roads, water, parks,
schools, etc.
And, then, finally economic development. And that was another bit of a difference in Ka'u—is
because, (a) because the economy really was the highest priority in the community development
planning process and (b) even though we knew it was largely outside County jurisdiction, we
thought it would be an injustice to not give the economic section as much attention as we gave
everything else. And, so, you'll see that chapter or Section 6 of the CDP is just as robust and
detailed as the, the other sections of the plan.
Okay, so that work was done, and a draft CDP was developed. And as I mentioned earlier, it
then went to the Steering Committee, and they went through an extension, exhaustive review
themselves, then they made a lot of refinements, and then they said, okay, it's ready for
community review. And, we didn't just hold a hearing like this, explain, do a 45 -minute
presentation and ask for comment. We bent over backwards to make it easy for people to
understand what's in the plan and provide meaningful feedback. We had, we obviously, the plan
was available in hard copy in various community centers and libraries. You could rent a copy.
You could buy a copy. You could review it at the Planning Department. We would deliver it to
your house if you wanted one. So, the CDP was available for review.
We also had what we called, "Speak -Outs" which is where in a room like this, you put up posters
with stations, organized roughly by the way the CDP is organized. And, people could see on a
poster fundamentally what the CDP is trying to achieve and how. And, then people could put
post -it notes on it, provide, could just talk story, and there were recorders there who would
transcribe everything people were saying so we, so we were able to capture thousands of
comments that way through people just talking story, asking questions, sharing their perspective
on what they saw and heard.
EXHIBIT A
9
And then we also had what we called "focused discussions" because there are some hot topics in
Ka`u. You're going to hear about some of them tonight. We knew what they are, and so we said
all right, these merit even more attention. We're going to have meetings just focused on these
issues—economy, coastal management, Discovery Harbour, Ocean View, Punalu`u. You know,
all the hot issues that we know are very high priority and also somewhat contentious. And, so
we gave people an opportunity to come, tell us what they wanted to talk about, talk through how
the strategies do or don't address their priorities, and use their input to further strengthen the
plan.
So, then, all that came back to the Steering Committee. They further strengthened the plan based
on all that very useful community input, and then in October of 2015, as you heard earlier, it
went to the, the Steering Committee made its final recommendations to adopt the CDP.
So, then, it went to the Planning Department and went through agency review. And, that's what
you primarily have in your binder in front of you. I just want to give you a very quick
orientation to it if you haven't had a chance to dive in completely yet. But, up front, and it's in
the, with the red tab, first red tab, you have the recommendation, then in that section there's a
table of contents. And the first section then is the background, and it shares, it's very clear about
the authority of a CDP vis-a-vis the General Plan. That's the white tab. I hope yours are colored
the same way mine are.
And, then there's the plan elements. It's just a, kind of a guide to how the plan is organized
where you can find what we worked hard to kind of index it and make it cross reference so it's
easy to find things. There's an executive summary. There's a more detailed explanation of the
CDP strategies. There's a whole lot of supporting working documents that were developed
while developing the CDP, so those are all available. You can have access to those.
And, perhaps, and most importantly, for every one of the strategies in the CDP, there's a written
rationale explaining what it's trying to achieve and why this particular strategy was chosen.
And, that, I think, is of particular importance to look at if you do have any questions about any of
the strategies `cause that should answer your question, and if you have ideas and questions that
then prompt potential improvements or strengthening of it, that's the place to have the
conversation.
And, then, there's a planning process explanation in the back and a few words about
implementation. And, then as exhibits, you have the full CDP, the full strategy rationale, and
also the Planning Team's comments on all the agency comment that was received once the plan
had arrived at the Director's desk.
So, yeah, so in early of, early part of last year, the plan went out for agency review, and we did it
at this point because when we, we obviously were engaging different agencies along the way
while developing the plan, and many of them were kind of, were anxious, we're happy to
provide input but kinda anxious to kind of just see what the final product was, right? And, so,
once it was done, we sent it out to all those same agencies when you get applications that come
before you typically go to, so County, State, Federal, and many private organizations as well.
EXHIBIT A
10
And, the types of comments we receive fundamentally fell into four categories. Some were just,
you know, simple stuff like typos and style preferences. Others were just, were coining at things
without a full understanding. They didn't have time to read the rationale, and so they just didn't
quite get the full context. Others were substantive. Many were just expressions of support.
Others saw issues differently or thought other strategies might be more effective. And, then,
there's a whole lot of comment about Discovery Harbour which you'll hear more about tonight I
imagine. And, then there were a lot of comments specific to implementation and how the CDP
would go from adoption to implementation.
So, like every other time when the plan went through review, lots of good ideas, suggestions, and
so, you'll see many of those are reflective in the draft that you have before you tonight.
So, then, it went back to the Director's desk, and the Director considered all the draft CDP, all
the agency comment, all the work that went into all of that, and at the end of the day, decided to
make a favorable recommendation to you for your recommendation to the Council. At the same
time, included some non -substantive revisions, and that "non" part is important because as
Chairman Henkel read at the beginning, if Council is considering any substantive amendments,
then before they make their final decision, it has to come back to the Steering Committee and
back to the Planning Commission before they make their final decision, so—.
And, those non -substantive revisions are really of three types—incorporating agency
recommendations for improvements, some organizational improvements, and then what really is,
most simply, clarification. I'm not going to go through the first two. They're, really pretty
straightforward and included some improvements in flow, some updates from agencies, that sort
of thing. If you would like to see a kind of a track changes version of that, I have it on my
computer tonight if you'd like to or can provide it to you otherwise.
But, the clarification really boiled down to the land use scope of CDP's. And, this gets touchy
because, you know, obviously we're doing CDP's because we want to have the community's
perspective in preferences and goals for their community expressed through a CDP, and yet, we
also need to be mindful that the General Plan is very clear that the General Plan is controlling if
there's a conflict between CDP's and the General Plan, right? And, so I put this on the screen in
part because they informed the Director's suggested refinements but also because they speak to
some of the comment that you received recently as well. But, these are all verbatim quotes from
Chapter, Chapters 14 and 15 of the General Plan, and then I highlighted in blue the kind of a key
land use related ones. So, the CDP's do have the authority to direct development. To designate
development patterns and to guide zoning and land use, but, in those instances, if there's
conflicts between the CDP and the General Plan, the General Plan is controlling, right So, that's
really important to understand. And, it gets a little messy because, so, you'll see in a CDP,
recommendations for land use policy that we know is different from what's in the General Plan.
And, that's important because the whole point of a CDP is for the community to be very clear
about what it'd like to see. But, at the same time, you gotta recognize that until, if and until,
those recommended changes are actually adopted as amendments to the General Plan, they, they
make the community's preference clear, but fundamentally, the General Plan is controlling in
terms of land use decisions, so—.
EXHIBIT A
11
So, what that meant in practice was refinements in some upfront sections. Section 2 is the
authority section, so you'll, I'll show you some of those here in a second. And, then, those same
clarifications have implications for Policy 7, 39, and 93. Seven is the policy, map policy, and
39—I forget, it's also a land use related policy. I forget which one. The "shalls" and "should"
are also a refinement in that they, we looked again very hard about the Planning Director's
authority, and these two policies speak to both the Planning Director's and the Water Supply
Department's authority to make decisions and decide that "shall" was a, was, could be implied
to, you know, supersede somehow the authority that the Code otherwise gives the Planning
Director or the Department of Water Supply. So the thought "should" was more appropriate.
And, just so you know, I should have mentioned this earlier, we had a meeting with the Steering
Committee a couple weeks ago to go through all of this, to review it, and so they're very aware
of all of this. We walked through every one of the detailed revisions, and so they understand
what was recommended and why. So, I'm sorry for the small print, but I did want to show you
examples of what those meant, so Section 2 is the applicability section of the CDP which
describes basically the authority of the CDP. And, so you'll see how those refinements are
reflected here, so the best example is the addition of managing growth and the addition at the end
of 2.1 there of the very specific language directly from the General Plan about what a CDP can
do.
And then 2.2 very importantly makes it clear that if there are direct conflicts that the General
Plan shall be controlling. And, that, the Chapter 15 also explicitly pen -nits the CDP's to
recommend amendments to the General Plan and so it's very appropriate for there to be things in
the CDP that are, that are different from the GP and for an action in the CDP to say, hey, we
need to now go -and amend the General Plan. And that's Policy 7, the land use policy map, and
so you see again there the replacement of definitions with the word, "designations" `cause
designations is what is used in the General Plan and also the addition of the language. This was
assumed and understood. They thought it was helpful to make it crystal clear that this applies
unless the CDP and the General Plan are in direct conflict.
So—ah, great. So, now we're at the, in the adoption phase obviously at the Planning
Commission meeting and what comes next then is tonight's meeting, as already been mentioned,
a follow-up meeting on June 1St back in Hilo. And, just so the public understands, that's a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission so there'll, there are other agenda items. Is that
correct? [Secretary's Note: Ms. Hata-Finley nodded yes to Mr. Whitmore.] Yeah. And, that
will be at 9 o'clock at the Aupuni Conference Center [sic] Room in Hilo. And, then you'll make
your recommendations within the 60 -day window that you're given, and then it'll go to Council.
They'll go through a similar process before they're making, making their final decisions.
Okay, so, because you've received comment since receiving the Director's Backgrounds and
Recommendations, we thought you'd find it helpful for us to cover those a little bit because—
and we wanted to handle this the same way we've handled all the public comment all along
which is to help the decision -makers understand it in the context of the working draft we have
before us, right?
EXHIBIT A
12
And, there was one that came in today that we did, we didn't have time to incorporate, but they
were rather, there were the three other main topics that were mentioned in the comment recently.
Discovery Harbour was one of `em, shoreline setbacks another, and land use in Pahala at the old
Pahala Mill Site was the third. But, before diving into that, we again wanted to remind you that,
you know, this, this is really an opportunity to celebrate, and part of that celebration is
continuing this kind of robust, fact -based, objective approach to achieving the community's
objectives, and we'd invite you to embrace it in that spirit. I see this, really, as another
opportunity to further improve and refine the CDP if it does have deficiencies, but let's make
sure the, that conversation, that debate stays grounded in the, all the work and analysis that has
come before.
Okay, first up. You know, I really appreciate the enthusiasm and obviously care and compassion
people in Discovery Harbour have for their community. They've been to a lot of these meetings.
Probably find it very frustrating that there is seemingly, you know, miscommunication about
what it is we're trying to do and what it means relative to the past and the current state of affairs
in Discovery Harbour. So, I'm going to try and clarify it, but you'll probably hear additional
testimony. We can discuss it further afterwards as well.
So, what people are referring to is those two parcels. These two here. I generally call them the
"Gateway Parcels" `cause I can't ever remember the TMK numbers, but we are here in Nd'alehu.
You go down the highway, take a left on Kamaoa Road, another left on road whose name I
always forget, and then you enter the, one of the main entrances of the community is here. And
that, the community center, fire station, and the old restaurant which is now a school are at that
intersection. Just so you have your bearings. And, the explanation for—well, you have two
resources that you're supposed to understand—what the Steering Committee recommended, one
is Exhibit 2, Pages 4 and 5. You can also turn to the rationale for the CDP for Policy 7. There's
a Discovery Harbour subsection there. But, let me try to summarize the drivers of the decision
that the Steering Committee made.
Now, what the Steering Committee was trying to do was use the symbology and designations of
the LUPAG Map, which you're all familiar with, and apply them and revise them as appropriate
for Ka`u..The idea was to keep it simple. Let's use the same nomenclature, same tool, same
language and that facilitates, then, subsequent considerations of amendments to the General Plan,
right?
And, so what it was doing is around the whole community looking at current land use
designations in the General Plan and considering whether they were still appropriate relative to
the community's objectives. S'o, the four sub -bullets, they are what the Steering Committee
fundamentally considered when it was considering (a) whether to make any change in Discovery
Harbour and if so, to what. And, I probably should start by saying that the current LUPAG in
Discovery Harbour is Rural. So, it's not an Urban or an Ag designation. It's Rural. And, where
the Steering Committee landed was to recommend a change to Low Density Urban. Let me
explain why.
So, first of all, we heard a tremendous amount from people in the community about the strong
desire, at those two parcels in particular, for something that's not Residential. It wasn't complete
EXHIBIT A
13
unanimity about what that should be. A lot of people support the idea of some kind of resort at
one scale or another. And, but, but there is fairly, there's very high level of support for
something other than housing there.
But, then it gets a little more complicated. A lot of agreement as well about the suitability of a
small-scale resort as long as the infrastructure challenges were considered `cause road
improvements would be required, water system upgrades, and probably some other things as
well. So, people were happy to see a small-scale resort there as long as it was mitigated
appropriately.
So, everyone's pretty much on the same page at that point. Not universally, but most people.
And, then, then you run into this challenge and this gets confusing because fundamentally, the
covenants of the community have nothing to do with zoning or County land use designations or
what not. But, they came into play here because the CDP Steering Committee considered this at
some length and decided that it didn't think it was practical to recommend a land use designation
for an area that would, that it knew was inconsistent with CC&R's. Where it also knew that it'd
be next to impossible to revise those CC&R's because the requirements, the legal requirements
within the document in terms of the number of lot owners or homeowners required us consent to
a, a change. So that was in the back of their minds. And, unfortunately, and I'll get to this in a
second, the CCR's, CC&R's are a bit limiting in what they allow, but there's also debate about
that.
But, given the constraints, the Steering Committee understood about those, it wanted to honor
the desire for non-residential. It didn't think Resort was possible given the CC&R's. It also
wanted to recognize that Ka`u doesn't have a large enough population to support four large
commercial centers, and that the General Plan and the CDP reiterated this. Had identified
Pdhala, Nd`dlehu, and Ocean View as those primary commercial centers. It didn't want to create
a fourth, and so it compromised by, with the land, Low Density Urban designation, which is
consistent with the existing residential development nature of that area. Plus, it does allow for
some small-scale commercial development. It would even allow for small-scale resort
development, potentially, but at very low density.
A couple things to consider. And this, this is really geared towards folks from Discovery
Harbour. I know—I know that I just explained that the CDP can designate and detail land use,
but in this particular instance, the CDP is not going to be the driver for what happens on those
two parcels `cause fundamentally, you gotta work with the State Land Use District that the
parcels are in and the zoning that they have `cause the CDP doesn't change that anyway. And,
it's in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and they're zoned Open. And, given that, the
landowner can at any time, and could have for the last however many years they've owned it,
submit a Special Permit application to propose doing whatever he would like at whatever scale.
It would come to the Planning Commission for consideration, but that has been an option and
still is an option.
The other route—there's two routes the owner has—the second route is the more arduous one, to
actually go through the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and
EXHIBIT A
14
Change of Zone. So, I just want to snake clear that the CDP doesn't affect that and won't affect
that.
And, I also may want to, and given that, my understanding is that fundamentally, this is a
disagreement within community that the CDP isn't going to resolve. And, the disagreement
centers around, and if you read the testimony during agency comment that we got about
Discovery Harbour, you'll see this. Letters from attorneys from both sides of the issue. Letters
from community members from both sides of the issue, and they're basically arguing about three
things: this legal status of the charter of the homeowners' association, the legal status of past
development plans for the area including those two parcels; and what the CC&R's allow.
There's also disagreement about whether the CC&R's that the Board is working with are the
legal CC&R's. But most people, the Board, the CC&R's that the Board is using identify that the
uses for these two parcels are in quotes there. "Single-family residential or Village commercial
or multi -family residential," right? So, again, though, the Steering Committee looked at that and
saw it, "Well, given our options, LDU is the best fit for that." And, so that's more or less where
it landed. And, we can talk more about that if you need to.
Okay, second issue that carne up through testimony lately or in the last week or two was the
Pahala Mill Site, and the arrow there is pointing kinda to the center of it. If you're familiar with
Pahala, it's on the makai side of town just after the Plantation House, just mauka of the highway.
So, if as you were passing Pahala, if you looked up to your right, you would have seen a mill
near the highway. Beyond that was the old, current—I'm sorry, current—mac nut processing
facility, and beyond that, the Old Mill site. And, in this case, it is important to understand all the
land use designations. It's, it's mostly Urban although this portion here is also a part of this
TMK in question, and that's in the State Land Use Ag District. And, it's zoning is five different
types. So, we have Open, two types of Residential, I believe if memory serves, Ag -1, Ag -20,
ML, and MG. So, that's the zoning, and as you all know, the zoning is what drives permitted
uses.
And, then, the General Plan, like in many places, is messy and not very helpful. The large
yellow blob in the middle is Medium Density Urban. The orange is Low Density. This bluish
gray is Industrial. And, strangely enough, the pink and green are Ag. And, so, the task of the
Steering Committee was to try to make this be more sensical, right? `Cause, you look at that,
even the broad brush stroke doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Since the role of these maps is to
guide fixture land use, right? So, they suggested this change. And, it does a few things. One, is
it centralizes mixed use and commercial development into two nodes, and if you know Pahala, it
kind of has those two nodes and it wants to further infill around those with mixed use and
commercial uses. It retains the actively used Industrial area here which is along—it's actually a
road here you don't see on the map, but it's an active baseyard. And, then it thought, okay, so
we'll use it. How about a nice and Medium Density Urban node here, extend it across the road
and include the Plantation House and beyond. But, then otherwise, when you think about Pahala
and its settlement pattern, its future settlement pattern, from a land use and planning perspective,
it makes sense to make this area available for in -fill residential development to accommodate
future growth. So, that's where the Steering Committee landed on that particular area.
EXHIBIT A
15
And, here's some of the rationale behind it. So, a lot of the Industrial zoning around the Island,
particular in rural communities is legacy zoning from the plantation area. A lot of the old mill
sites were zoned Industrial at the time. Today, that, in many cases, it wouldn't even be necessary
`cause many of the uses associated with agricultural processing and manufacturing and value
added are permitted in the State Land Use Ag District. But, again, many of these small towns
have these legacy zoned areas often right in the heart of town, which really, in many cases, aren't
appropriate any longer given the proximity to residential areas, and because within Industrial
broadly defined, very noxious uses are permitted, right? Which people are entitled to—to
develop in those cases.
And, so, the other thing is, though, there's water and roads available there, which if you—as you
know, with development are critical to any successful development or redevelopment project,
and so we thought, okay, let's make use of the resources there, keep the village tight and
clustered and small, snake that available for infill development.
Oh, and the fourth bullet, as you can imagine, doing a mapping exercise like this, it's impractical
to contact all landowners. We did in some cases where we were suggesting a change to
Conservation or Open because in the General Plan, if you ever do that type of amendment,
you're required to bring the landowner into the loop. However, in this case, we actually thought
this was an advantage for the landowner, and so it didn't reach out this landowner specifically
because we though, you know, it's actually more likely they'd want the higher density associated
with Residential development than what they'd otherwise be allowed with Ag -1, Ag -20, or even
Industrial designations so—. The final thing to remember is at the end of the day, the CDP's
intended in this case to designate preferred future uses. It doesn't immediately change the
General Plan. So, the General Plan is still controlling.
Okay, final issue, shoreline structural setback. Now, this, this was probably the most talked
about issue during the planning process, and if you know Ka' -Ci at all, you quickly understand
why because the landscape in general, the environment, the resources, natural and cultural, are
just part in parcel the community out here—and, the shoreline and coastal areas in particular.
They're unique. They have a unique set of resources, and people protect thein here with passion.
And so what the CDP tries to do is use every tool available to limit development on the
shoreline, and those words in quotes there are straight out of the community's objectives, and
this is very high priority for the community. Again, for a number of reasons: subsistence,
recreation, culture, ecosystems, views. You have soiree—you have some unique ecosystems in
the coastal areas of Ka`u you're not going to find anywhere else.
And, then, it also understands that Ka' -U's economic future is not through housing development
along the coastline. The CDP clearly identifies where coastal development is appropriate.
Redevelop Punalu`u in a way that's appropriate and aligned with the community's objectives.
And, the General Plan is very clear. Don't develop other coastal areas until you've fully
developed those that are already designated, right? And, so, this is not a question of jobs versus
environment or anything like that. It's fundamentally about really what is most aligned with
community values and what is the greatest economic benefit for the community. One of the
Steering Committee members said it very eloquently while discussing the setback and said, "you
EXHIBIT A
16
know what? You know, this really is an economic issue. In fact, the coastline in many ways is
Ka`u's greatest economic asset. And, so, it's critical that we protect that in our CDP."
And, so, the CDP uses every strategy at its disposal to try to do that. Most of the coastline is in a
combination of State Land Use Conservation and LUPAG Conservation and Open up to varying
distances inland and lot, and much of it is in the SMA. Sometimes, quite a distance inland; in
many cases, about 500 feet.
So the CDP makes maximum use of all those available tools. But for years, the community has
also been pushing very hard for some kind of structural setback at the shoreline. Very frustrated
with the fact that there's a 40 -foot minimum established in State law and County rules, which
from someone in Ka`u just seems ridiculous given the 80 miles, roughly, of undeveloped, mostly
undeveloped coastline and such unique pristine resources. And, so, the community was insistent
on using the structural setbacks as, as one of the tools.
I'm going to share these pictures just to—and if you haven't spent a lot of time in Ka`u, you
really need to understand the unique nature of this coastline. So, a bit of understanding about
structural setbacks, this is—State law and County rules speak to the shoreline setbacks. And,
fundamentally, the State gives the County's authority to establish setbacks by rule or ordinance
at distances greater than 40 feet if it would like to. And, so, the Steering Committee through the
CDP is snaking effort to do that, right?
The Planning Department Rule 11-5 establishes a minimum shoreline setback at forty, but it also
gives—but it doesn't establish any kind of protocol for how to establish an appropriate setback.
And, so the basic argument is that because the unique conditions here, it makes a whole lot of
sense to consider those unique, local conditions when considering what an appropriate setback
would be in Ka`u. And the other unique thing about Ka`u is you're not dealing with hundreds of
TMK's across the coastline. You're really dealing, talking about a, just a handful. Much of the
coastline is already publicly owned. Remaining parcels are ginonnous parcels where there's a
whole lot of room to be flexible about where you would place structures on the landscape, right?
And, so what Policy 28 does is fundamentally, when, when a development is proposed on lots
that are at least partially and in the Special Management Area, it establishes a setback at a
minimum of 1,320 feet or a quarter mile. And, this was not an arbitrary number that the Steering
Committee or anybody else came up with. It was based fundamentally on two things. One was
we looked, we had already snapped all the coastal resources in Ka'-[1—natural, cultural—and as
well as hazard related issues, and when looking at the map, it becomes pretty clear that once you
get to a quarter anile, you're pretty much outside the areas that are richest in ecological and
cultural resources.
We also know as planners that, you know, if you want to maintain reasonable access to the '
coastline, a quarter mile is generally considered the standard walkable distance to a destination.
And, so we thought okay, so if we put the setback at, you know, a quarter mile, and those areas,
for instance, that are, where's there's preserves, you could establish a small, you know, a small
gravel parking lot, you know, some kind of lua, and then people could easily access the
shoreline. `Cause access to the shoreline is also important for the folks in Ka`u.
EXHIBIT A
17
All that being said, I need to emphasize that nobody in Ka`u is really happy about a quarter mile.
There's a coastal commission that was State mandated some years ago where their
recommendation was 1.5. And, you don't know how many people we heard from that said, "Go
deeper. Go deeper. Go deeper." Right? You know, but we wanted to have a distance that had
some, some grounding and justification, right?
So, what—so important to also understand is that the policy also makes it very possible for the
applicant, through the normal process, it's `cause they're gonna have to submit a Special
Management Area application anyway. In that application, they can provide whatever
justification they think is reasonable to snake a case for a closer setback. Because at the end of
the day, it's the Director's authority to establish the setback, right?
And, also important to understand, this is a structural setback. It is not, it is not speaking to
permitted uses at all. It's simply saying where they should be relative to the shoreline, right?
And, all these parcels are Conservation, near the shoreline, and in most cases, Agriculture
beyond that. And so when you think about the range of permitted uses on Ag land, you're
talking about farm dwellings, barns, what not, right? None of which you really need anywhere
near the shoreline. So, this does not affect permitted uses on the shoreline.
I just thought I'd throw this out there. This is a snapshot of one of the maps we used to help us
identify a reasonable distance for the shoreline, right? So, you can't see it very well here, but the
orange line is a quarter mile. This is Ka`alu`alu Bay, and so the quarter mile here, you can see
there's a whole lot of resources. These are identifying anchialine ponds, Hawksbill nesting sites,
beauty sites, etc. You know, the other hatchings are hazards and what not, so—which, by the
way, the Special Management Area review process also needs to consider when considering
appropriate placing of structures.
Okay! I think I am just about to the end. I think we're now turning to the opportunity for
questions, oh no, testimony, and then you guys.
HENKEL: First, Ron, are there any questions from staff. I mean, from the Commission to staff?
Yes, Mr. Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Yes. I'm a—I'm still confused about the issue of conflict with the General Plan.
How many of the previous CDP's have been—where you said adopted by the Council as
amendments to the plan.
WHITMORE: In reference to the General Plan?
CLARKSON: Yes.
WHITMORE: They're all adopted individually as ordinances and if you read Chapter 16 at the
top of it in the County Code, there's basically placeholders that basically says this is
administratively where the community plan, plans, so that's how it's adopted. By ordinance and
incorporated into the zoning or the, not the Zoning Code, the County Code, right? Malia, if I'm
EXHIBIT A
18
mis—inisspeaking, let me know—. So, they're adopted as ordinances. They don't
immediately—they're not adopted as amendments to the General Plan.
CLARKSON: Oh, okay. So that makes sense. That's where the conflict still remains.
WHITMORE: Yeah, right.
CLARKSON: Because the General Plan is not amended at all by the adoption.
WHITMORE: But the General Plan in Chapter 15 is also very clear that it's very appropriate for
a CDP to recommend amendments to the General Plan.
CLARKSON: But, none of them have actually amended the General Plan yet?
WHITMORE: Well, certainly not automatically. I can't think of any that through
implementation have done it either. Yeah, so, that does tie into the General Plan review that the
Planning Department is also in the middle of, and you should know that, that is being heavily
driven by what the CDP's have said, so—.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
HENKEL: Commissioners, any other questions? All right, thank you, Ron. We're going to
move onto the public testimony portion and then, you know, everybody that wants to is going to
get a chance to have three minutes to testify, and then Ron might want to respond to, you know,
specific testimony after.
And, here, we've got seven people signed up. So, we'll do four first. The first four on the list
and then the last three second. Is everybody good to go? Let's recess for five minutes, okay, and
everybody can gather themselves, and we'll be right back.
Chair Henkel called a recess at 6:39 p. m., and the meeting was reconvened at 6:44 p.m.
HENKEL: Could we call the meeting back to order, please? I'll ask the first four people to, that
wish to testify that are signed up to come forward and sit at the table. Samantha Sherline, Kathy
Garson, Jim Simpson, and Michelle Galimba, please come up and make yourselves comfortable.
Would you please raise your right hands while we take care of the legal fonnalities? Do you
affirm or swear to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: Yes.
HENKEL: Thank you. We'll start with the young lady on the right, and please speak into the
microphone. State your name and where you're from, and you have three minutes. Malia here
will be keeping time.
HO: It should be on.
EXHIBIT A
19
HENKEL: I think it's on.
HO: Yeah. Just speak in it.
SHERLINE: Just hold it then—oh.
HENKEL: There you go.
SHERLINE: Thank you for calling me young. I'll be 79 in 27, in 14 days, 17 days. First of all,
how many of you are from the Big Island? How many of you live in Ka' -d? Nd`dlehu? So,
where are you from? Oahu? Well, the reason I'm asking is I grew up on Oahu when it was
beautiful. I used to surf with the dinosaurs, and don't laugh, because they don't even like it there
anymore. And, now, I finally get to come home, and I'm living in a rural, quiet, peaceful,
beautiful environment. And, now, condos, apartments, overbuild Ka`u? Nd`dlehu? Get it
crowded, cluttered, congested? No! Why do you want to do that to us? Oh, that's right. The
money. The money. The money. Don't shake your head, "no." That's what it's all about, and I
don't like the idea, and I know it's going to happen anyway, but I can still voice my opinion.
We live in Discovery Harbour where it's quiet. It's peaceful. It's beautiful. It's tranquil. And,
it's going to get messed up. It always does. Every time it gets overbuilt, nobody stops to think
about what they're doing to the environment. To the whole situation. It just gets totally messed
up. And South Point? You wanna build down there? Leave it alone! It's beautiful. It's rural.
It's natural. It's pristine. A hundred—a mile and a half from the shoreline? That's not far
enough. Ten miles from the shoreline. How about a hundred? Leave us alone! And that's what
I have to say. And, I don't need two more minutes. I think I've already said it.
HENKEL: Thank you. Please state your name and where you're from.
GARSON: Hi. My naive is Katherine Garson. Good evening. I'm an attorney with the law
office, with Carlsmith Ball LLP. I'm here on behalf of LLC Kawala today, and we submitted
written testimony about the unconstitutionality of Policy 28. And, we just urge you to consider
that as you're making the recommendations to the County Council.
But, we also wanted to make some general comments, and first of all, I'd like to thank the
Steering Committee, Planning Department, everybody for working so hard. It's obvious that
Ka`u cares about the community. It is, it's beautiful down here, and we do note that in the
Planning Department, in the Planning Director's Background Report and in the General Plan, the
CDP's are supposed to translate broad policy statements into specific actions. And, they should
not conflict with or be contrary to the General Plan. And, again, the Planning Director and the
CDP itself state that where the CDP and General Plan conflict, the General Plan is controlling.
So, the Steering Committee, through the CDP, can recommend the amendments to the General
Plan, but those amendments still need to be made to the General Plan itself via an ordinance, so
similar to what the .question that member Clarkson was asking.
Now, while this all seems very, fairly straightforward, there has been confusion in the past over
the legal effect of certain provisions of the various CDP's. And, so, just to kind of help assist .
EXHIBIT A
20
you with this, we wanted to provide—and, I'm sorry, I should have passed this out earlier—but
this is a, this is a letter, February 24, 2016, from the prior Planning Director to the Kona
Community Development Action Committee. I'll pass that out later. But, basically, what it
says, is that it clarifies that it was for the Kona CDP. Like the Ka`u CDP, it's, it, the CDP does
not amend sections of the County Code. Okay? It can't amend sections of the County Code.
And, again, you're probably wondering why we emphasize this `cause I think Mr. Whitmore
agreed with those statements. In the Director's report and in the CDP, it states that the land use,
in the land use policy section, the policy controls limit the range of decisions that can be made in
the future, and from a legal standpoint, the policies imperative are mandatory. That statement is
incorrect. Where those policies conflict with the General Plan, existing laws, codes,
administrative agency rules, and as the General Plan itself states, the CDP's are to recommend
amendments as appropriate to the codes, maps, or administration and enforcement. The CDP
cannot do that automatically.
And, so for the, those reasons, we just urge you to please carefully consider all of those policy
controls to avoid any confusion as to, which can impair the legal rights of the landowners in
Ka`u and could possibly subject the legal community to do more challenges with what's
happening with the CDP.
So, I, again, thank you for allowing us to have this input, and as you make recommendations to
the County Council. Thank you.
HENKEL: Thank you, Kathy. Jim? You're next.
SIMPSON: My name is Jim Simpson. I live on Kamaoa Road over here after the Ka`u
[inaudible]. Ka`u' has changed. Ka`u does not need to change anymore. I came to this meeting
because I read the paper, and they said they're gonna do something in Discovery Harbour, so I
said I'm not going to shut up anymore.
There's only a few places in the whole islands that is still partly Hawaiian, very, very local. The
mix of people here is good. Molokai has some. Maui has some. We have some. We don't want
that support. We don't want that support. The shoreline, you get as much as you can put it in.
The wildlife or forestry, anything, you can't get that. You go Honolulu, they had their beaches
what they thought would be beaches. There's no room. We have to have room for the people.
People, this is what they do. They said do we, the plantations close down. It's all changed now.
We have people here that don't even realize that there was sugar. And they are our community.
One of the things that is really important is we keep it like it is. There is going to be things come
and we're going to have things built. Let it work for us, not for outside, outside. Straight to
Ka`u is its people. The mix of people. They call it rainbow because it's all different kind of
people, religions, food. It's all, again, you get Hawaii values, still are here to help people take
care of people. We need to take care the land. You guys talk to us too much stuff. I did come
because I understood that everything was done. Yes, I do, and so I hadn't read the things. So,
this is just all off the cuff.
EXHIBIT A
21
Ocean View when I came here, Ocean View when I came here had four houses. Discovery
Harbour had three houses. Now, nobody, people lived in Ocean View. Nobody lived in
Discovery Harbour. They had model homes. The other two subdivisions, Green Sands and
Mark Twain, had nobody in it. I lived at Kamaoa Road. You come around by [inaudible].
From there, Discovery Harbour, there was a dirt cinder road. From Discovery Harbour to South
Point Road were two ti plants. Everybody knows what that means. Just [inaudible] to go
fishing. Now, it was nice, and it is still nice. We had to not have a prison here. We had to not
have the spaceport here. So people have fought to keep this place like it is. And, thank you for
listening to me, and thank you for all your work because it seems like it maybe it's going to work
out.
HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Clarkson [sic] or Mr. Simpson, sorry. Next?
GALIMBA: Aloha, Coiuinissioners. My name is Michelle Galimba. I'm a cattle rancher here
in Ka`u, and I was on the Ka`u Community Development Plan Steering Committee. And, I want
to thank you for coming all the way out here. I often have to drive out there, and I know it's a
long way to come here, so thank you very, very much.
I'm going to keep this pretty short, but if you do have any questions from, that I could help from
the Steering Committee perspective, of course, I'd be happy to answer those questions later.
I was born and raised here in Ka`u, but I've lived in many places. Grew up and went away, and
lived in other places, and then I came back. So, I know how unique and precious Ka`u is. There
is both good and bad things about Ka' -U. That's, that's the truth about it. But, the good things—
the undeveloped coastline, the rural character, the strong community ties, the pristine mountain
forests—these are all things that we can't just take for granted are going to be protected anymore
by our distance from everything. So, with this CDP, we, we did. It's very protective of our
place, and we, we have this very strong community support for that protection.
On the other hand, I think the CDP also addresses some of the bad things that we have like, as
Ron as mentioned, a very strong economic development portion, and although the County can't
do that much to actively create economic development, what they can do, I think, they've,
they've addressed that.
Another thing that would help with economic development that can be, the County can help
with, is better public transportation and the updated land use policies. I just wanted to say that
Ron is correct in saying that we really worked hard on that, that shoreline setback and we tried to
moderate it because there was a lot of people that really wanted to go farther. And, we did, and
we were, served more radical, and we came back to try and keep it legal as much as possible.
So, with that, I just want to say that this CDP does express the vision and the will of the people
of Ka`u, and as the CDP Steering Committee, I, I can attest to that. Thanks.
HENKEL: I thank all of you, and you may be seated, and I'll call the next four people up.
Kevin Asman, Lorry Brocks [sic -Brooks], Thomas Gandy, and Aubrey Hounshaw [sic-
Hounshell]. Would you please raise your right hands, and we'll have one mic at each table.
EXHIBIT A
22
There we go. Raise your right hands. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter
before the Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do/yes.
HENKEL: Thank you. We'll start on the right again. Please state your naive and where you're
from and proceed. You have three minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.
ASMAN: Okay. My name is Kevin Asman, and I live in Discovery Harbour with my husband
for seven years now. When we came here, it's been basically the same as it is now. There hasn't
been any development there. When we moved here, we thought there was going to be some
resort planning and which, it was fine. We were, we're happy where we are. But, what my
concern is, is that the CDP has changed the zoning from Resort Commercial for the two Gateway
Lots. Resort Commercial to Low Density Urban, and like Ron Whitmore said, that, and that's 30
acres. You can put six home on each acre to be a 180 homes. We already have like 500 home
sites available in Discovery Harbour. I don't think we need more home sites. Said we can also
put a 7-11 there. We don't want a 7-11 there.
A small-scale resort. We have a beautiful golf course, which is maintained by, by volunteers.
To advance that which the, the plan, or the South Point Investment Group, is a community resort
with concurrent maintenance of fixing up and maintaining the golf course. Getting the driving
range in. And, when it was that way before 30 years ago when it was developed, there were 13
full-time employees who worked that golf course, who kept it cut. There was restaurant, that's
employees—one more minute. And, my concern is I live in Ka`u, and I love the coastline. I
love everything about it. I love the fishing and the hunting and the people who do all that.
We've got plenty of pigs here. People coming and getting our pigs for us. Even in Discovery
Harbour.
But, having a resort there isn't going to take away from the beauty of Ka' -d. It's going to, and
when I look around and I worked at, I've worked, I do work off and on at two of the schools
here. I see the poverty. I see the kids who can't even afford local flip flops. I know, and the
people that I've lived across the street from and neighbors in Discovery Harbour, some of them
are homeless. They just move in with somebody else, and they've got kids with them, and these
people need employment. And, you're talking about sustainable economy? Building a 180
home sites and having that, what I would think would be more low income housing—please
stop—isn't sustainable. Isn't a sustainable economy, but having a small scale resort area would
provide a lot of jobs. Thank you.
HENKEL: Thank you. Next, please. State your name.
BROOKS: Lorry Brooks, and I live in Discovery Harbour. My husband and I are originally
from Alaska. I've lived up there for 45 years. The reason I'm telling you this is where we came
from is very similar to this area, and this is why we choose it. We were hunters. We were
fishermen. We were subsistence. Here, I see the same thing. I am a teacher at the Ka`u
Learning Academy so I have a really unique perspective, I think, both Kevin and I, dealing with
the students and talking with a lot of the parents. I think it's very usual that the number of pigs
EXHIBIT A
23
have increased with the golf course. I had students telling me that they're getting `em almost
every week. Anytime you clear area, yeah, just like up in Alaska, you get the moose. I think
Anchorage has the highest density of moose in the whole state.
But, anyway, so what's not going to hurt the hunting, and the resort, if it were built, has nothing
to do with the ocean, but anyway, I think I agree with her. I listen to the students, and I talk to
the parents. Most of the parents that work have to live, have to work in Kona or Hilo, and I
thought it was interesting that Ron Whitmore said, you know, it's difficult to reach everybody.
To have them come to these meetings. And, a lot of these parents don't get home until six or
seven at night because it's an hour and a half in the traffic coming from Kona. Many of them
can't make it to parent -teacher conferences so they call me on the phone, and once they get
home, they want to spend time with their family.
Many of my students have said they don't see a future, and they're very bright. I'm really
impressed with the students here and how bright they are and interesting. But, some of them
have come in and said, "Miss, I don't see what we're gonna, what I'm gonna do." Where I think
that a resort would give many of them better opportunity. Something here, also. I know that it
was mentioned like having a 7-11 or small businesses. We already have small businesses, and I
do not want to produce competition for the ones that are already here where a resort would not be
competition. It would bring people in. It would enhance the businesses. I know the policeman
that lives next to me has said he's always asked by people is there any place to stay around here.
I'd like to stay another day or two. No, we don't have any hotel. We don't have any motel. So,
there's definitely a need.
So, it's a service that does not exist as yet. Another thing, it's a private business. There's no
taxes being used to develop it, and it brings revenue. I know some people don't want to hear
that, but it brings revenue to the County and to the State.
I guess that's it.
HENKEL: Thank you, Mrs. Brooks. Next?
GANDY: Yes, hello. My name is Thomas Gandy. I live in Mark Twain Estates. I apologize in
advance if I'm in the wrong time and place, but my issue is yurts. I have just a few talking
points I'd like to run through. That plastic single-wall structures are not compatible with
conventional houses built to stringent and expensive Code standards, yurt cause an adverse effect
on property values and quality of neighborhoods. In a realistic situation, low -value dwellings
would reduce the tax base and the County's revenue. There needs to be some control over where
substandard dwellings can be placed so it's not to ruin existing subdivisions. And, I think the
Planning, you know, should—shouldn't even allow these yurts in just small lotted subdivisions.
I have pictures to share, to show you the existing houses and then this yurt that was built there
that, that's incompatible in my view. So, thank you very much.
HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Gandy. And, Avery? [sic]
MIYASATO: Aubrey.
EXHIBIT A
24
HENKEL: Aubrey.
HOUNSHELL: My name is Aubrey Hounshell. I am a member of your community. I've been
here for 20 years. I'm from Denver, Colorado. I own five acres on Road to the Sea; three acres
that this CDP will turn Commercial on the highway; two acres up in Ocean View; and I just sold
my property in Eden Roc. So, I'm heavily invested in your community regardless of what you
do with the planning and the zoning. Some places that will benefit me; other places it may not.
But, I think the most important thing for the people of Ka`u and, more importantly, the children
of Ka`u is that this place stays to some degree the way it is with open country, 4 -wheel drive,
access to shoreline fishing, and surfing. The cultural sport of surfing, kuwa [sic-he'e nalu], as
you may know has been removed from our ability to get close to the beach. We have to leave
our vehicles out. Road to the Sea has exquisite surf spots, and we are separated from Pohue Bay.
I have a subdivision thing where by purchasing in Ocean View, I have a right to a slip in the
harbor at Pohue Bay, and I see it in black and white. So, it's very easy to make black and white
pictures or documents that say what you're gonna do and how you're gonna do it and to put
parks and schools in communities like Ocean View.
But, the truth is, is that Ocean View has become overpopulated, a proverbial wasteland of poor
people. Immigrants from other countries that don't have opportunities. And whereas I'm very
fortunate because my mind was developed in Denver, Colorado, and I came here. I see
opportunity in land use, and I want that as we developed this community we keep the truth of
Hawaiian practitioner, cultural, surfing, fishing, diving. We gotta keep it open. No more closed
gates on the, the ranchlands. 'Pohue Bay is up for sale. So, as we go to do these things, just
please consider the children and the access that they have to the resource and that another
commercial entity or development isn't going to continue to close doors. And, if you travel,
Kailua-Kona, you'll see that it's no different than Westminster or Nevada or Aurora, Colorado.
Shopping malls and strip malls, and that's where we're heading. The developers don't need the
County money. They don't need the tax base. They bring the money, and to some degree
they're allowed to shift and move gears and do whatever they want. And, then the community—
the children and the people of the community—are the by-product of those decisions. The
Napo`opo`o extension, there's a shoreline access. I've been denied access so many times to
there. And, it's just, it's, it's not right to put up gates and to close the people's access to their
resource. And that will be my testimony.
HENKEL: Thank you, Aubrey. That's—I've got one more to testify that signed up. If there's
anybody else, please sign up now, but you, you four, I really appreciate your testimony. You
may be seated. And, we'll call Starlette Freitas up.
FREITAS: Do I sit here?
HENKEL: Yeah, wherever you're comfortable. Would you raise your right hand, please,
Starlette? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning
Commission?
EXHIBIT A
25
FREITAS: Yes, I do.
HENKEL: All right. Please speak into the microphone and proceed.
FREITAS: Okay. God, I'm nervous. I don't do this stuff. I grew up here in Ka`u in South
Point, and growing up, we didn't have a lot of these things we have today. You know, South
Point Road, Kamaoa Road was red cinder. You know, hardly had houses. Ocean View lucky if
had two houses. Two lights from South Point you could see, you know? My parents raised us to
live with what we had. We lived off the land. We hunt pig. We eat fish. You know, the plants
that we have here is medicine for us, you know? I grew up here, and I used to think, "Oh, no
more nothing." You know, and then I moved away and then I come back and I learned that we
live in the best place in Hawaii, you know what I mean? You guys put one resort there, it'd be
killing our natural resources, you know? It's like already with what Discovery Harbour has over
there. Our local people, you cannot do this. You cannot do that. You cannot do this. You
know? And, even the shorelines. It's like one time we go to the beach and these people make
like we going kill the animals, but we swim with these animals for years. You know what I
mean? We protect the animals. We protect the land. You know?
We need more schools and we need a lot of things, but we don't need no condominiums. You
know what I mean? Our water today is getting damaged. You know, you get people that coming
over here, they take the water, and they selling the water, and we buying our own water, you
know?
Ocean View get plenty people that got nowhere to go, you know. It doesn't need—we need
schools. We need things. But, we don't need no resort. You know, people, we travel far, but we
do what we do because we love our `dina. It's been this way for years, you know. All I can say
is that we live off this land. You know the love we have for this land and the people is how we
go around, we take care and we like it this way. You know, kids can still be kids. You can run
around, you know. Your kid can run up the street and the other aunty or the uncle going take
care, "eh!" You know? You cannot do that any kine place. And, we like keep our traditions,
you know.
But, I just ask that you guys humbly consider what I had to say, you know. And, that's all.
Thank you.
HENKEL: Thank you, Starlette. You may be seated. Ron, would you like to respond to any of
the testimony?
WHITMORE: Sure. Just very briefly. So, two main points, I guess. And, I apologize. I know
the land use language and designations are confusing. But, just again, one more time to try to
explain the Discovery Harbour situation. The, those two parcels, their current zoning is Open.
They are not zoned Village Commercial. And, the CDP, anyway, doesn't change the zoning.
The problem is not the CDP or any County or State land use entitlements. Tthe challenge is the
CC&R's, okay? The current landowner tomorrow could submit an application to develop a
resort. There's no land use designation in his way, okay? And, the CDP isn't going to impact
EXHIBIT A
26
that one way or another. I apologize for the confusion. The Village Cominercial term is in your
CC&R's. It's not anywhere in the State Land Use Law, Zoning Code, or General Plan. So, just
to clarify that.
ASMAN (from audience): But, it isn't in our CC&R's. [inaudible]
HENKEL: Excuse me, but I'm sorry, but we cannot allow any testimony outside of the public
testimony portion. He's responding. All of you, this is going to—you know, we're not going to
do an action today. We're going to in our June 1st meeting, and you'll have another opportunity
to testify there. But, Ron, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
WHITMORE: No, I just, I apologize. I know this stuff gets confusing. So, and then the only
second point is, you know, Kathy, I really appreciate your comments. I think you're right on the,
you know, the General Plan isn't as clear as it should be about the meaning of and the authority
of CDP's vis-a-vis the General Plan, and we're, the Planning Department I believe is trying to, it
has plans to clarify that during this General Plan review. And, so, you know, the Steering
Committee and community did the best it could to find language it though was consistent with
what authority the General Plan gave it and tried to be, used all the existing tools available. So
yes, it is very specific in some cases about the—what it really liked the Planning Director to do
in certain cases where the Director has authority to do something, but we, I don't think we
crossed the line and said you trump the authority of the Director or the authority of the Planning
Commission or the authority of the Council, right? So, it's, it's really a balancing act. Trying to
be super clear, trying to make good use of the tools that are in the toolbox without overstepping,
right? And, it, but fundamentally, the language in the GP isn't clear enough in terms of
distinguishing the authority, and so, but you're right. At the end of the day, the General Plan is
controlling and so that's always going to be the last call, right? So—.
HENKEL: All right. Could we have a motion to close public testimony?
IKEDA: Motion to close public testimony.
MIYASATO: Second.
HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Ikeda. Seconded by Commissioner Miyasato. All
in favor, say "aye."
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
HENKEL: Opposed? The public testimony portion is closed. Will there be a motion for action?
We're limited to specifically what action we can take and basically that's to—I think Christian
was going to clarify this, right?
KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. It's our understanding that because we're going to be
continuing this to June 1st, there's no action to take tonight.
HENKEL: Would there not be a motion to continue?
EXHIBIT A
27
KAY: Yes, you can take a motion to continue. That's correct.
HENKEL: I would look for a motion like that.
MIYASATO: Chair Henkel, before I make a motion, you know, I'd just like to thank everyone
for coming out and expressing your concerns. And, you know, my uncle used to have the ranch
right down this road, right next door to the Galimba's one. Our ranch, we ranched this land for
many years, 12,000 acres all the way down to the ocean. The ocean down here, the,beach, the
shoreline is amazing, yeah? We'd stay at that house, that green house right across Hana Hou
Restaurant. I'd hunt up in these mountains with the Cabreros family. I learned how to rodeo
right here in this arena with Hano Grace, and you know we'd rush to do our cattle work, and
jump on the four wheelers and, head down to the shoreline. Go fishing, check out the beach. So,
I share all your passion and concern for this area. And, just thank you for coming out and
sharing your testimony and concern.
With that, Chair, I'd like to make a motion for a continuance.
IKEDA: Second.
HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to continue to the June 1" meeting. Discussion? I
would like to concur with Commissioner Miyasato that we really do value all of your input, and
we appreciate you coming out, and we realize, too, the distance involved. You know, Hilo is the,
the seat of our government. I live in lower Puna, and I thought that we were kind of
geologically, geographically separated by my 30 miles, but, you know, driving out here today, I
realized that I could walk to, walk to Hilo from there. And—and, we really do appreciate it.
And, I appreciate the work that the Steering Committee did, too. So, any other discussion on the
motion, Commission? Then, with that, all in favor for a continuance, say "aye."
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
HENKEL: Opposed? Then, the, this hearing will be continued to June 1St, and I'm looking
forward to seeing you some of you there if you can snake it. Oh, is there a motion to adjourn?
MIYASATO: Motion to adjourn.
HENKEL: Sorry, we got one more motion. We didn't adjourn. I'm sorry. My bad.
IKEDA: Second.
HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, say, "aye."
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
HENKEL: Opposed? All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, staff.
EXHIBIT A
28
The discussion ended at 7:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4� -off �<
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
29
EXHIBIT A
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JUNE 1, 2017
A regularly advertised hearing regarding the Ka`u Community Development Plan was called to
order at 9:39 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street,
Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles
Miyasato. _
ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz, Thomas Raffipiy.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director). Daryn Arai (Deputy Planning Director,
9:16 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the -Planning Director, 9:26
a.m. to 10:41 a.m.), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning
Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), April- Surprenant (Planning Program
Manager, 9:50 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.), Ron Whitmore (Project Manager for the Ka`u`CDP, 9:16 a.m.
to 10:33 a.m.), Maija Jackson (Planner),:::0 stian Kay (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner),
Leana Gloor (Planner, 9:43 a.m. to 10:33 A.m ), Keiko Mercado .(Planner, 9:43 a.m. to 10:33
a.m.), and Sarah Hata-Finley. (Commission Secretary):
And 8 members from the public iii= attendance-
pub
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN:;
On October_ 27;:2015, the I{a`u Community -.Development Plan (CDP) Steering Committee
recommeiided-approval-of the-Ka`u CDP.- After reviewing agency comment, the Planning
Director is recommending non -substantive amendments to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28.1
of the Hawaii County Code, -within sixty days after receipt of the Planning Director's
recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the
Windward Planning Commission, shall transmit the draft community development plan or any
amendment with .its: recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise,
pursuant to section 15.:1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the
community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering
Committee and the Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment
upon substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan.
The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the Ka`u CDP and for the Commission to review the draft Ka`u
Community Development Plan (CDP) submitted by the Ka`u CDP Steering Committee and the
Planning Director and consider its recommendation to the County Council.
HENKEL: Okay, we're going to move on to Item No. 4, the Ka`u Community Development
Plan with—Ron is going to do the presentation.
WHITMORE: Thank you, Chair. I'm Ron Whitmore. I'm the Deputy Director of the
Department of Research and Development with the County. Here today on behalf of the .
Planning Director because I was the Project Manager for the Ka`u CDP as it was going through
its development process. I want to thank the Director, thank the Commissioners, counsel, staff
for this opportunity. I also want to thank folks who I see here today from Ka`u. It was a
tremendous pleasure for me working with the people of Ka`u and supporting development of this
plan, and many of my favorite people and friends from Ka`u are here today so appreciate you
guys coming out.
Just so I'm clear on the protocol as well as for the Steering Committee members, this -meeting is
agendized as well as a Steering Committee meeting. Is that_ correct?
HENKEL: I don't think so.
WHITMORE: We don't know.
HALL: How many—how many of them are here`?.:_
WHITMORE: There are—there are =four,here, and just to reeognize them—John' Cross is a
member of the Steering Committee, non=voting member,Michelle Galimba to his right. I'm
sorry, there's three here, excuse me. John; you'_re not a Steering-.Committee—and Ron Ebert in
the back over here, so—. So,, there's three.' There'=s not.quorum, but there's more than two.
They're gonna confirm but-I-it'smy understanding tfiat-it is.agendized as a Steering Committee
meeting which allows thb. m both.to testify and to,.respoiid to` any ,questions the Commissioners
may have during discussion. Is that :correct? Okay:
HENKEL: Ron; excuse me, I don t. see that..on the agenda. It's a Sunshine Law issue, though,
right? Maybe
HALL: =It's fine. As long-ey'
as thre:not talking to each other. You guys can ask them
questions. They're just members of the public first of all, and then after that, as long asI really
know how to explain this properly
SELF (from audience): --They're going to check and see because they are not supposed to
HALL: Oh, okay.
WHITMORE: Oh, these folks can probably answer that question. [Referring to Leana Gloor
and Keiko Mercado who entered the room.]
SELF (from audience): They can't have a discussion if—
WHITMORE: Keiko—
HENKEL: —Amongst themselves -
2
SELF (from audience): Right. Or even with you guys.
WHITMORE: Keiko, quick question. This meeting is agendized as a Steering Committee
meeting. Is that correct?
MERCADO (from audience area): Yes.
WHITMORE: Yes, all right—we have an answer.
HALL: There we go.
HENKEL: Okay, thank you.
WHITMORE: Okay, very briefly. I have everything -we presented back in May at the hearing,
but I have no intention to present it all again because it's the same fou Commissioners here
present, same staff. Do want to give a very brief refresher and then toucl,on a few items. One is
a question that came from a Commissioner that I'd -Tike to respbnd to, and tle,'second is some
additional public comment that was received by the DD artmerit between meetings.
Again, big picture. I tend to have a pretty calm -demeanor ;but I am really very excited to be at
this point in the process, and this very much is a cause for celebration because the Ka`u
community and the Steering Committee inembers specifically have -worked long and hard to get
to this point, and we very much;appreciate the. support that we, that- the plan received through
agency review and through the -Director's posit%ve:recomrriendation. But, again, just to reinforce
some of the three key -things to keep, in mind as :you're concluding your deliberations is that this
was, this process that resulted in thisy -recommended "plan was extremely credible, highly
participatory; collab-orativ'every systematic, strategic, and transparent. So, throughout the
process, the, process was_- clear, -the decision points were clear, and everybody who had a stake in
the decisions being made -=had more -.than ample 'opportunity to weigh in.
Which leads to, the second point. that this has been vetted at all levels to an extreme—at the
community level;; -Steering Committee level -twice, and through agency review. And, again, to
remind you, every single strategy in the Community Development Plan has a rationale behind it
that is in writing, and -so. if questions do come out, come up about specific policies or actions, we
ask that you start with -the rationale behind those when considering any potential recommended
revisions to be consistent with'the process that's led us to this point.
So, again, the CDP does what you would expect from a community plan,. and as is provided,
as—for the direction also provided in the General Plan in Chapter 15, does four fundamental
things. One is it lays out the preferred land use pattern for the district. And, then building on
that foundation, it tackles very specifically, the three main pillars of what makes for healthy,
sustainable communities: natural and cultural resource management; the building blocks of
community including infrastructure facilities and services; and then what builds on top of that, a
resilient, sustainable local economy. And, those numbers on the screen there correspond with
3
the four main substantive sections of the plan. I'm not going to go into that in detail, but if you
have any questions about any of that, many of us here are available to respond.
And, again, where we're at is the Steering Committee made its formal recommendation for
approval in October of 2015. That recommended version of the plan then went through agency
review. The Director then considered the Steering Committee's recommendation as well as all
the agency comments and made his favorable recommendation that included some non -
substantive revisions that were really just a function of useful insights from agency comment.
An effort to smooth out some of the organizational elements of the plan that were a little bumpy,
and then in those cases, to provide clarification, as needed. And -,:we went through much of that
at the hearing in May. -
And, again, so we're all on the same page, we're now atthat June l St hearing, the second of two.
You have 60 days from when you received the plan,•which I think brings you to sometime in late
June, and so, again, Counsel, correct me if I'm wrong, -but if they don't act today, then it goes to
Council with a negative recommendation. Is th-af correct? But, the -bottom line is today is your
scheduled meeting to make a decision. I guess As4 if necessary, you could request a special
meeting some time before your deadline, but the assumption,:isthat today you'll conclude your
discussion and come to a recommendation. And, tier=it.goes to Council. Weil, go through a
similar process. Planning Committeea_rid-then to full Council. Before they make their final
decision, it goes to the Mayor's desk.'
So, again, that's the limitation, the limits of -the overview. What'I'm going to do is I'm going to
dive right in to some of tfie:comment we received since the, May meeting. And, again, just to
remind you because most of it -relates to sorrieof the=tarid use policies in the CDP—the shoreline
setback, the meaning of.he land useinaps in the -;CDP. I just want to remind you what the
General Plan says about` hb scope ofCDP's as it_relates to land use. And, these are all verbatim
quotes from Chapter 15 ofthe :General Plan.
And, the keyterms, I ihiiik, are direct, designate; and guide. And, fundamentally, what this is all
about is -what I would consider a healthy attention between the General Plan and the CDP's
where on the one hand, the General Plan is_ very clear that the General Plan is controlling when
there's conflict between the two. --,On the other, the General Plan itself uses very strong language
to empower community development plans to provide very specific land use guidance. And, just
for kicks, I lookedup-the definition- of "direct," "designate," and "guide," and they all speak
about control, govern, regulate, identify, steer, etc. And, so, it's, a significant authority on the
land use front is given to CDP's io direct physical development, detailed development patterns,
and provide clear guidance- on'preferred future settlement patterns.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there are four distinct types of strategies in the CDP, and
this was done very intentionally and very thoughtfully. Recognizing that the initial round of
CDP's created some confusion around what really different types of language and different types
of strategies in a CDP really mean. And, so we tried to be really clear on that front. The key
distinction is between what would be considered an action and what would be considered a
policy control. And, that's really where this healthy tension lies. So, the vast majority of what
you see in the CDP are either County actions which is basically, the County, the community's
expression of what they consider to be priorities of what the County should do. None of them
M
are mandatory. They're simply saying, "Hey, these are the infrastructure priorities for our
community. These are the problematic priorities for our community. Counsel and
administration, we'd like you to take the appropriate next steps, whether that's appropriations or
what have you to move on those fronts." And, then the other types of actions relate to non -
County agencies, State and Federal, and then community-based actions, those that require
leadership and initiative on the community front. Again, none of those are legally binding in any
way. They're simply trying to be clear that to achieve the community's goals, all these actors
really would need to do these things, right?
So, separate from those actions then are policies, and there's even two types of policies in the
CDP. One is called policy intent. `Cause what you'll see when looking at the General Plan in
particular is lots of language that described kind of the preferred future. This is what we'd like
to see. But, they're not specific enough or clear enough.to;provide any direct guidance on what
should be done. So, it's things like protect the shoreline: It's really hard to make meaning of
that when considering a specific, let's say, applicadion before the Commission. In contrast, that's
a policy intent. And then policy control, on the:other hand, is really iri;-tl e._spirit of, of these sorts
of, this authority that the General Plan gives to CDP. It's directing, designating, and guiding
and, sometimes, in fairly specific ways about how=to:achieve community goals using land use
tools. -
So, again, I just threw up a couple of eXamples,ao you're clear on how that's, how that displays
in the language of the CDP, and what I'm-showing:you here'is`actually the Planning Director's
recommended revisions because that's a lot of where the Direetor:-focused his recommendations.
To really be very clear on-these"P _oints about --what arethe different.types of strategies and
_
specifically as it relates 16 land -use :policy, what..authority does the CDP have vis-a-vis the
General Plan. And, so -you see,you know, corrections of language to make sure it's using
language that mirrors what's. in Chapter 15 of the General Plan and strong emphasis on the fact
that the General Plan is controlling when there are';direet conflicts between the CDP and the
General Plari:= And;=also clarifying that any; in, all^ those cases where there's conflict and/or
amendments would be, .need to be made to the General Plan to bring the two into alignment, the
CDP specifically notes where that would be necessary and appropriate and includes a follow-up
County action -to do that, right?
And, so a great example is Policy.,,.! and its corresponding Policy 15. So, you see in Section 3.4,
you have a land use policy. This -is -'a policy control. It's a map that is similar in nature to the
LUPAG Map in the General Plan but is the CDP's policy map, and it does some important
things. One is the red at the bottom clarifying, and although this was noted up in Section 2 there,
clarifying that if the CDP and General Plan are in conflict, the General Plan is controlling. And,
then 3.5 is the corresponding action, the follow-up action that would be required to bring the
General Plan and the CDP into alignment to the amendments required to the General Plan to, to
bring the two into alignment. So, that would be a follow-up step.
So, that's kind of general land use reorientation to what the CDP tries to do and the tools it tries
to use to achieve community objectives using land use tools.
5
And, then quickly on the shoreline setback as this is applied, and this relays, Joe, to some of the
questions you raised by email. You had some questions about ownership of shoreline parcels
and zoning, right? So, again, the Shoreline Setback Policy, Policy 28, is one of many tools that
the CDP tries to use to achieve one of the community's highest priorities, which is to limit
development on the shoreline. And, we don't need to go over the details again—can talk through
this again if you'd like during your discussion. But it's again, like every other strategy in the
CDP, it's an effort at using the tools that are already available—in this case, those described in
Planning Department Rule 11-5, giving the Planning Director the authority to establish shoreline
setback.
And, again, just to remind you what Policy 28 does and doesn't do, it's triggered when
development is proposed on any parcel that includes part.of the Special Management Area in
Ka`u. The starting point is the quarter mile setback; however,-_ihe applicant always has the
option, as part of their SMA review process or through other means; to make a case for a
different setback. And, the fundamental idea here is conditions and -coastal properties are often
very site specific and unique, and so it's important that information specific to that place and the
type of development being proposed is considered. -and weighed when making the final decisions
about what an appropriate setback should be, right? -.
So, I'm going to—I have available a number of resources if,Wd be helpful to look at—zoning,
land use designations, ownership relative to coastal parcels. --But, in general sense, Joe, to answer
your question, the privately owned parcels in Ka`u are, the coastal parcels in Ka'u at this point
are very few so there is two that are between basically Ocean View-and—I guess there's three.
Three between Ocean View, you know, Ranchos, and South Point. _One is the large parcel that
made the news just in the last couple days that's for sale again and the various public entities
have tried to purchase over the years: Another is the one, the smaller one immediately adjacent
to it—directly below the Ranchos Subdivision. And, the third is to its east, which is the large
Kamehameha Schools parcel, P.akini. _
And, then from there, you're into DHHL property through South Point. And, then when you
get—then there's a section of next public private ownership between South Point and Honu`apo.
All of, well, several of which have tried that—community organizations and PONC have tried to
purchase in the past, one of which is currently being subdivided to move the developable parcels
mauka adjacent to the town. A third, that are—I think again up for sale because the County
wasn't able to snake an offer that the owner could accept, and then a third, that's got a pending
subdivision application.
And, then from there between Honu`apo and Punalu`u, it's almost uniquely publicly owned with
a few exceptions—one mauka parcel just above Whittington Park. The Carroll property, which
has a house on it there at the shoreline, and then one other property which I think has a hundred
different people's names on the title which would be difficult to develop.
And, then from, between Punalu`u and the National Park then, you have a, a large—I think it's
either a DLNR Kamehameha Schools owned parcel, and between there, you have several very
large privately owned parcels including The Great Crack and several parcels that have large mac
nut orchards on thein, so—. Again, I can, if you'd like, I can show you much of that if you'd
like graphically in maps, so—.
So, that concludes what I prepared for the Commission today. Obviously, available to respond to
any follow-up questions that Commissioners may have.
HENKEL: Thank you, Ron. Are there any questions from the Commission? Yes, Joe?
CLARKSON: Well, I—I had asked Ron to, or somebody from Planning, to present that
information because I wanted to understand the potential for shoreline structural development in
Ka`u not knowing who owned the shoreline basically in detailand, thereby, understand the
motivations of, of the Steering Committee and all the people: who were so much in favor of a
very extensive setback. And, it looks to me like that six imles--worth of waterfront that are
associated with the 16,000 acres that has just been putonthe market, is the vast majority of Ka`u
shoreline that would be even subject to structural -development. -
WHITMORE: Yes. Yes, it's that one there.
CLARKSON: Right.
WHITMORE: And, then the other strip -is between, yeah, Honu`apo here and, and the DHHL
property here. So, this is, I think, Kamehameha Schools owned; and they've already I think gone
through a subdivision process where they agreed to a�significanf sfiuctural setback much farther
than a quarter mile, I believe_. -And, then, you have a. State=owned -property which is the green
hatching here, and then you have -this strip of -.privately owned between, between that and
Honu`apo.
CLARKSON. So, these aren't color -coded by ownership? This is zoning or—
WHITMORE: The ownership is -represented in the green hatching. That's publicly owned. The
rest are private.
CLARKSON:- Okay.
WHITMORE: And; -what you don't see in the colors here is the light—you don't see it very
well—the light blue is Cons—this is the State Land Use District. So, the light blue is
Conservation. The green is Agriculture. You don't see it very well, but all along the shoreline
you have about 200 feet of Conservation District at the, that heads in mauka.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
WHITMORE: The important thing I think to note here is that, you know, we don't have the
parcel layer on, but every one of those parcels with maybe—well, I'm not sure which exceptions
there'd be—are very deep, right? The ones in particular or all of these, the one here and all the
ones through this strip basically the boundaries go from the shoreline up to town or very near up
to town, right? And, so, part of the consideration was well, not only does the policy allow
7
flexibility for smaller parcels, those that are less than, 200 or less feet deep, but we certainly
looked at this issue of well, really, how is it impacting development potentially. And, they're all
so deep. It no way limits permitted uses in,. in these districts, right, because the landowner has
significant flexibility about where they would place permitted structures, right?
And, you don't even get a sense for the scale here, but these are significant distances you see
between the shoreline and the highway.
HENKEL: Are there any other questions? Thanks; Ron. This is the point where I would ask the
applicant to come forward, and I was thinking about the Steering ,Committee, but I, you know,
two of them are signed up to testify so, we'll just move to public -16" stimony at this point.
HO: Or you could, I mean if you guys have questions f&_them1`- you can call them up.
HENKEL: Would the Steering Committee, would 'you guys like to.come up and comment? Just
comment on the public testimony part? Okay. = :Thanks, Ron. So, well, move into the public
testimony. I've got three people signed up. If anybody else out there would like to sign up, it's
not too late. You can sign up by the door, or if you .have wriitt. e-ntestimonyyqw can submit it
and it'd be distributed. But, I'll call Michelle Galimba; John `Cf and John Replogle. Did I
get it?
REPLOGLE (from audience): You got. -it.
HENKEL: Thank you.,- - :
REPLOGLE (from audience): Am I -`supposed to go up? [Inaudible.]
HENKEL: And; we,have on-e_more signed up so we'=ve got four chairs, so we'll just wait and do
you all together. Thank you for your patience. And; Starlette Freitas. Would you please raise
your right-hand? Do you -swear ovaffirm to tell the -truth on this matter before the Windward
Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: -j-'-do/yes.
HENKEL: All righf.-_We'll start -with Starlette and work our way across. Please state you name
and where you reside, and proceed, and I'll give you three minutes, I guess. Is that, is that
enough time for you guys? :Okay.
FREITAS: My name is Starlette Freitas. I live in Na`alehu of Ka`u. I definitely support the
CDP, and I guess my only main concern was the shoreline thing because I myself have a lot of—
what do you call that—cultural, and ancestors that are all along these coastlines, you know? So,
that's my main concern and other than that, I support the CDP. Thank you.
HENKEL: Thanks. Michelle, you're next.
GALIMBA: Thanks. My name is Michelle Galimba, and I'm on the Ka`u CDP Steering
Committee, and I did testify in Nd`dlehu already so I'm going to keep this really short and just
ask that the Planning Commission approve the CDP because it does have strong support from the
community and expresses the desires of the community. And, I want to thank Ron Whitmore for
all the work, and the Planning Commission in general for the huge amount of work that they put
into making this CDP possible.
HENKEL: Thank you. John?
REPLOGLE: Thank you. My name is John Replogle. When the CDP idea first came out, the
community in Ka'responded pe
responded very well in regards to—the ople of Ka`u have always felt that
they wanted a say in how our district went into the future. if you will. There have been many
developments proposed in Ka' -d, and they've met with eoristant push back, and so this was an
opportunity for the people of the district to express what= -they were`looking for into the future.
And, so this, this CDP that we now have here, a lot`of work went into it. Effort. Fighting. And,
one, one issue in particular I want to speak to -is -1 e coastal setback. That, started out at three
miles, and arguing that three miles was too much; --+That would be like to the bottom of Nd'dlehu
school ground. So, we got it slowly. Over the debates, it went -,down. I warited,500 meters, not a
quarter mile, and eventually, we settled on the quarter_mile:= Then, it came down to there were
people who had property inside the quarter_mile that had--beeri zoned for development in 1979 or
something. And, so, the setback advocafes conceded and said,, "well, you already have that, you
should be able to maintain it and keep it and we'll go forward; -°but anything new, we want this in
place."
And, we were able to get this into .the CDP. "And, the thinkingin part is that if you are a quarter
mile back from the high water, you are still ori oceanfront property. And, it's just a short
distance to the front. It's-,siillyour-property. You.can still enjoy it. Nobody's going to build in
front of you. It's; :and as Ron". outthe properties we're talking about have the room to be
a quarter mile back: There, the -particular ones I know �of are zoned at 5 acres. That would allow
for that- thank you—"setback.
The other important thing in-Ka`u is NOAA does what they call a rapid assessment of what our
reefs and things-. are like around the State, and they get in a boat and they circle each island and
they have desigriated.points and -they dive in with aqua lungs for 20 minutes and out. And, in
that 20 minutes, they have to describe the biomass or that would include fish, limu, reefs,
everything. And, they found ori -the coast off of, makai of Na`alehu, they found the biomass to
be at least as great as or greater -than the biomass in the northwest Hawaiian Islands. And, that,
in part, is because there's no lights, there's no run-off, and it works. And, in this day and age
where we're losing our reefs, The Great Barrier Reef, I think we need to take care of Ka`u, and
that's—that's part of this, this whole setback. As Starlette mentioned, the cultural, the ability for
you to walk along the coast and not feel that somebody's looking out their bedroom window,
that's, that's who the people of Ka`u are. And, I truly hope you will support the CDP and the
setback. Thank you.
HENKEL: Thank you, John. Mr. Cross?
J
CROSS: I'm John Cross. I live in Hakalau. I work in Ka`u. That is why I'm a non-voting
member of the Steering Committee. I used to be the vice-president of real estate for C. Brewer.
Managed 31,000 acres of land in Ka' -d. Liquidated most of that land. Then, I worked for Ed
Olson Trust with about 10,000 acres in Ka`u. And, I've resigned from the Olson Trust if you
hadn't heard. I am no longer working for Ed Olson. I am now working for a firm called "Ka`u
Valley" that owns 1,600 acres in Ka`u. So, I'm, I'm rapidly disappearing.
I advocated large landowners on the Steering Committee, and one of my biggest issues was what
I thought was a taking. A taking of, of private property rights. The setback being one. Other
issues, changing of zone. And, I argued for the—against the quarter mile setback. And, we have
had, have a very powerful Steering Committee Chairman, Leira`ala Enos, and she said to me,
"John, listen. It's what the people of Ka`u want. It's not_wlat:°you want." And, I had to then
step back and say, "yes, it is what the people of Ka`u wanted:" : 'It may be my desire to have less
than a quarter mile, but that's for the future to decide, and that's`for-_the County Council or the
General Plan and someone else to take those things.:. It's not gonna_ -h`- n now.
So, as such, I agreed with the CDP. I like what -4--'e as a community have "presented to you. We
do have a document that represents what the people of Ka`u want.
HENKEL: I thank all of you very riuch: ;There's only the=four of you, and two of you were on
the Steering Committee, right? Or, three of ;you? Would--- u like to add anything? Give you a
:..
little more time?
GALIMBA: I'm good. _.-
HENKEL: Would anybody else like; to testify?::;;:
EBERT (from audience): Yeah. -
HENKEL: Well, let's=you guys can return to'your seats, and we have one more gentleman if
you would like to sign up".. Yeah, please,comeup and be seated. Would you raise your right
hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission?
EBERT: Yes, sit: ;.
HENKEL: Thank you. -Please_ _state your name and where you reside, and you can have three
minutes, sir.
EBERT: My name is Ron Ebert, and I reside at Punalu`u, just mauka of the highway down there
between Pahala and Na`alehu. And, I want to just say that I think that the CDP, the document is
much more than just a quarter mile setback. I know that everybody is really keen on that, but
there are things that have to do with public safety. One thing that has to do with public safety is
a little subdivision that was pre—in place before, and there is no ingress and egress and it's in
the CDP. One thing that I wish was in the CDP but I think that they thought was being taken
care of was Kawa Flats. Still floods after all these years, and it would just be an advocacy point
for the State Highway Department.
10
But, I think if you look at the CDP overall, there's much more than the quarter mile setback. It
has to do with many other things that people brought up over the period of time. More police,
better public safety functions, and so, I urge you guys to vote in favor of it. Thank you.
HENKEL: Thank you, Ron. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the testifiers? With
that then, we should close public testimony if there's a motion.
MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony.
IKEDA: Second.
HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato_;: secorde_d by Commissioner Ikeda to
close public testimony. All in favor say, "aye?"
COMMISSIONERS: Aye. =
HENKEL: Opposed? Public testimony is closed: Is there any -discussion aril is_ there a motion
for action? Yes, Mr. Clarkson. :
CLARKSON: I just want a little bit more clarification as to .the legal effect on, of this document
on land use regulations. I saw a lot of what Ron, said. Designate, guide, but all the language
about conflicting with the General Plan, L,just want to",verify that my impression that this is a
recommendation from ;the, -community of Ka`u to the:,Co' —iu Council that in and of itself, unless
it's in its entirety or in part, incorporated into the County Code-- General Plan, has no legal
effect. Is that a wrong impression orris that a correct impression?
HENKEL: Would .you like to 'respond,: Ron?
WHITMORE (from audience): I- can but Amy --can shut me up at any point if she thinks what I
say is inappropriate.
WHITMORE: Actually, Christian, do mea favor? There's a document there. It's Appendix
like V-1. So, that actually was out starting point before we started this whole process, right?
Let's start off being. very clear about the authority of CDP's, right?
And, so one of the first thins we did is put together this Appen—which is now Appendix, I
think, one of the CDP which is not, not adopted as part of the CDP. It's a supporting document.
So, we looked carefully at what the General Plan says; what the charter says; any related State
statute or County Code, and at the time, what we also had was a memo from the Director. And,
he wrote this at the tail end of the first round of CDP's. So, this is from May of 2008. And, he
was speaking, he was, he crafted this in response to several queries from the initial set of steering
committees at the time. Right? `Cause they had the same question. It's like what does this
really mean, right? What is the legal effect of a CDP? And, so, he drafted this memo trying to
respond to that question, and we, for the Ka`u CDP, drew on language from the General Plan,
11
Charter, and this memo to clarify all that in this particular Appendix, which then was reflected in
Section 2 of what is now the CDP, which is the authority section of the CDP.
And, so, that's what we're working from, and part of what's important here is that the Director at
that time clarified those different types of strategies that you can include in a CDP. The most
important distinction being the one that I noted earlier—the distinction between those policies
that are in effect controlling and those that are actions that require follow up. Action on the
Council's and/or the Administration's part that are not mandated, right? And, so, it was that, that
we were building on as our starting and working assumption for what a CDP can and cannot do.
Now, as is the case with all land use applications decisions, there are all made on an application
specific basis, right? And, so, how all of this is interpreted by.the Director or the Planning
Commission or Council, depending on the type of permit; we`really can't speak to at this point.
The Steering Committee and the community worked.to be clear in the CDP to make it clear to
those decision makers what (a) the goal was, what the- intent was; and°_(b) how it thought tools in
the planners' toolbox should be used in differerit-circumstances, but was,' --very careful at all times
to never cross the line of basically assuming more:authority than the CDP.had. It was very, it's
very differential to where authority lies in the regulatory framework, the Cliarter, General Plan,
Code. But—but in some cases, knowing the nature`of likelyRiture development in Ka`u, try to
be specific as possible so that those who .are making a decision had no doubts in their mind what
the intent and preference of the communtyis; xight? But; of the end of the day, the decision
makers are the decision makers, and they will ultimately make the call, and as you know, it's on
a case-by-case, application -by -application basis, fight - 9.
Is that fair? .:
SELF: Deputy Corporation_ Counsel, -Amy Self---- 1 -represent the Planning Department. So, I
think in answer to your question,- there is no way that you can develop any CDP or even amend
the General Plan -to prevent lawsuits from being filed. We still have a case in, at the Intermediate
Court of Appeals concerning the Kona CDP. So, people will interpret it in different situations
depending on what they want to gain for their client for permits, but the important thing to keep
in mind is that the CDP is guidance for how they want fiiture growth to occur in a particular
district; whereas;- the General Plan covers the entire Island.
So, you know, we can't sit here and say—`cause like Ron said, it's on a case-by-case basis. It
depends on the particular -landowner that comes in for whatever pen -nit they're applying for, and
it depends on at that time' --.-how- the language is interpreted. And, if we get a lawsuit, our office
will defend the Planning Department's decision. But, they did, you know, the thing that I looked
at when I was reviewing the policy on the shoreline setback is that at least it's not a mandate.
It's not mandatory language if you look at it. It's a—it's a guidance. So, that in and of itself to
me would be defensible.
So, I hope that helps.
CLARKSON: Well, let me, let me just ask this then as a follow-up. Since the ultimate decision
makers are judges, have any of them ever decided a case in favor, well, on the basis of the
12
language in the CDP, as opposed to the language in the General Plan? In other words, said to a
decision maker, it be at the Planning Department or the County Council, that they erred by not
deferring to the language in the CDP. Has that ever happened?
SELF: There is a Supreme, Hawaii Supreme Court case. I think it's—is it the Breshia case in,
but it's Maui County. Theirs is set up a little differently. Maui County adopted their CDP's by
amending their General Plan so their CDP's are part of the General Plan. I can tell you that there
is a Hawaii Supreme Court case. It says the General Plan—that the zoning has to be consistent
with -the General Plan. So, we have that. I'm going blank right now. There is a case regarding
the Maui CDP, and I can't recall right now the specifics, but the :court would look at that. I
mean, this is going to be adopted by ordinance so what the Planning Department will be doing is
when a permit application comes in for Ka`u area, they wiLbe-looking to see if it's consistent
with the CDP, with the language of the CDP. And, they;will- also, be looking to make sure that
it's consistent with the General Plan.
The language is like, for instance, let's take the --General Plan. The General Plan has a lot of
language describing what the direction they hope the growth will take, but=When you get to the
regulatory portion, that's actually the LUPAG 1VIap -'cause that:"actually defines."the use of
different areas of the Island. So, that's"why the Supreme Court -said the zoning:=has to be
consistent with the General Plan. Sol .if -,you, if you're"trymg-to get a—if you're trying to use
your land for a particular use and your-zoriina--does not niatch:what's in the General Plan
LUPAG Map, then you're going to have -;to ti 'd get the General Plan LUPAG Map amended.
T
So, there's a process for that.
Where you have language "in tlie' CDP that is "very .strong language encouraging certain growth
patterns, if it's not consistent with-lhe General Plan, just like Ron said, you would have to go in
for a General Plan amendment if you -want to pusli-that part of the CDP.
So, it's not- '- ' 7 to ever. be lik&black and White.- The"law never is. But, we just have to put
forth our_ _best argument if we get challenged Which is what we did with the Kona CDP, and we'll
see how that.turns out. Wo. -have no =idea yet.
HENKEL: Thank you, Amy. Any other "questions or comments from the Commission?
MIYASATO: Chair, _I have a comment.
HENKEL: Go ahead, Myles.: �^-'
MIYASATO: Yeah, you know, I'd just like to thank all of you for coming out. At least you
folks had to drive this time. Thank you for coming out, and, you know, great work on the CDP.
Thank you for your testimony. It gave us a lot of more insight on the development and what you
folks went through to put this CDP together.
You know, as far as the shoreline, you know, it seems to be a hot topic, and I can see how a lot
of discussion or argument between the community members went about on that subject. And,
you know, I think its healthy discussion that was, as was brought up on that topic. You know, I
13
was fortunate to have experienced that shoreline which is not readily accessible which is what
one of the testifiers had brought up at the Ka`u meeting who I guess enjoyed surfing. But, you
know, as he stated, not all the shoreline is accessible.
You know, I've seen that King's Trail down on that shoreline. And, to see a path that's in the
middle of a`a, smooth for miles. You just gotta imagine how many people walked that shoreline,
and that shoreline is still sustainable in food resources. I know areas down between Kalowalo
down to Galimba's property where we had our ranch. You have a carpet of limu kohu, yeah?
You actually gotta step on it to pick it. Fish, salt—you can pick your own salt—you know, you
can go down there and pick it and dry it. Lobsters—I not going -tell you guys where the lobsters
are but, they're walking on the reef.
So, you know, yeah, your guys footprints of old fishing.villages:'that you can see once existed
have been all the way down to Kapua where that trial continues; -you know, where's the
Hawaiian Slide, an amazing structure, smooth rocks=imprinted into th_e ground leading to
Queen's Bath. Just so rich in cultural and food:resources, you know. `Beautiful place to be.
And, I think John Cross put it the best where it's Ia_document. It's a document of what the people
of Ka`u want, yeah? That was very well put, and Chair, with that, I'd like to make a motion.
HENKEL: Yes, go ahead.
MIYASATO: Yeah, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council on the Ka`u Community Development Plan -,based on the Planning Director's
recommendations, recommended amendments, and findings which shall be adopted.
IKEDA: I second. _
HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato; seconded by Commissioner Ikeda.
With that, we'll do discussion, feel free to comment; and a roll call vote.
KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CoiYiinissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO -'Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Clarkson?
CLARKSON: Aye.
KAY: And, Chair Henkel.
HENKEL: Aye.
14
Q f
KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries four, nothing.
[Applause in audience.]
HENKEL: I'd like to, you know, second what Myles said about the work that the Steering
Committee did and to all the Ka`u citizens that contributed. It's been awesome. It's grass roots
democracy at its most, rewarding.
The discussion ended at 10:32 a.m.
15