HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.006 2002-2004 February 4, 2003
David Drury
To: Fred Holschuh, Hawaii County Council P.O. Box 206
CC: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Honomu, HI 96728
909 963-5151
Hawaii County Council daviddrurvCa~hiloba
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo 96720
From: David Drury
Subject: Some comments in opposition to the proposed change in the
County General Plan relating to added heavy industry at the HCPC site on
Pepe'ekeo Point
3rting the proposed waste incinerator plant at Pepe'ekeo Point would violate several of
the standards in the December 2001 draft General Plan.
There are at least three standards in the plan that relate directly to this project (in bold,
below). They appear in the Land use-Industrial element, p. 381 of the Dec. 21 2001
draft.
3T~ANDA~2DS
• Industrial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present
environment.
• Industrial activities may be located close to raw materials or key resources.
• Topography of industrial land shall be reasonably level.
• Industrial development shall be conveniently located to its labor resource.
• Buffer zones shall be established between industrial and adjacent
[noncompatible] incompatible uses of land.
• The direction of wind patterns and the absence of tradewinds shall be
considered in the siting of industrial areas.
Plan language is always designed to be a bit vague to allow for flexibility,' but the intent
of these standards is clear:
(1) Don't site a polluting facility upwind of inhabited places, especially if there are
alternatives.
(2) Don't site it in places where there is no adequate buffer zone. In thinking about buffer
zones, the Council must take into consideration the new developments coming up in
Onomea Bay and on both sides of the road near Pepe'ekeo. Quite a bit of residential
housing is coming in to that area, and will be built just before the plant is built. The
County will have a lot more angry citizens on its hands when they sniff and discover who
their new industrial neighbor is- but by then it will be too late.
(3) Lastly, the Plan's standards say it is preferable to locate facilities near their sources
of raw materials, to reduce road congestion, fuel use, and reduce the chances of toxic ~
Comm. No.
File No.
1 _
Ref. To: FE
Q
Ref. Date
spills, among other things. Pepe'ekeo is not near the main sources of the incinerator's
materials.
On points 2 and 3 there is a clear prima-facie case against siting the incineratorfacility at
the HCPC site. Regarding point 1, advocates need to present concrete, convincing
evidence that pollution will not be blown toward inhabited areas by prevailing winds, or
that the plant will not generate any pollution (including actual track records of similar
ongoing operations, not simply the technical specifications of the equipment). If they can
not produce that evidence (and satisfy points 2 and 3), how can advocates of the plant
confirm that it conforms to standards in the general plan? Plant advocates bear a
positive burden of proof. If County Council members want to discharge their duties
faithfully under the Charter, they must demand this evidence.
You will stand on solid ground if you argue that non-conformance to relevant standards
in the General Plan constitutes a fatal impediment to making the proposed change. This
county's charter contains relatively clear and strong language about the relationship
between the General Plan and specific development proposals. 3-17):
(a) The council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and other ordinances which shall
contain the necessary provisions to carry out the purposes of the general plan.
(b) No public improvement or project, or subdivision or other ordinance,
shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms to and implements
the general plan.
Advocates for the plant will reply that the facility will implement the Plan, because the
plan itself will be changed. That is legalistic smoke-and-mirrors, and makes a mockery of
the whole General Plan process. The point to keep in mind is that General Plan includes
standards like those on p. 381 for the express purpose of guiding decisions like the one
you are called upon to make-- i.e., changing the existing Plan to allow a particular
development or facility. The standards are real, they reflect current best practice in the
planning profession, and they are not meant to be tossed aside when they lead to
inconvenient conclusions.
One final point. Advocates for the facility might argue that the Dec 21 2001 Plan is,
technically speaking not the county's governing law at present, as it has not yet been
adopted by ordinance. Technically we are still governed by the 1989 plan. Although this
is true, it is not meaningful unless the County Council decides that the siting of a major,
problematic facility should be decided by a legal technicality.
To my knowledge, no one has objected to the three Industrial standards in question
during the entire 2+ year review process that the Plan has been through with the County
Planning Department, State departments, the Planning Commission, and citizen input.
Council members should ask themselves, "Would I vote against including these
industrial standards if the General Plan as a whole came up for a vote tomorrow?" If not,
then it is the new General Plan policies and standards that should govern practical
decisions about long-term development for the island, not the ghost of the 1989 plan.
We have come a long way since then.
~w ,>D Ufa-eJ~R~-1
l 2