Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.020 2002-2004 BOBBY JEAN LEIfHI AD-TODD ,,.vo•x~w ~fel: (808) 961-8261 C'nuned Member ~~,u-~n... p. lee, Fax: (808)961-8912 ,.;r .s OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL ('ounty ojHawai'r //au~ui'i C'ounry Building O 25 Anpuni Sh~ee~ j7 W Hdo. Hmvai'i 967?0 r Z L C.J ~ i F-+ n, July 31, 2003 ~ r,- MEMORANDUM ~ - ~ e - ti To: .lames Y. Arakaki, Council Chair And Members of the Hawaii County Council From: Bobby Jean I~eithead-Todd. Chair Planning Committee Re: General Plan Before I leave 1 would like to sum up some observations and recommendations on dte General Plan. 1. `The amendments [o reclassify subdivisions of less than 3 acre parcels to I2ura1 from Agriculture. [ believe that this is a good idea but needs to be applied equally to all such subdivisions. As one example, the Hokulia, I-acre subdivision in Kona needs a proposed amendment to reclassify the area to Rural. It makes no sense to treat this subdivision differently than similar 1-acre subdivisions in Ka'u, Puna and Hilo. Similarly the maps need to be reviewed to see if any other similar areas including, those curremly under rezoning consideration, for example R.M. Towill's request, should also be amended to Rural. 2 Kohanaiki, Keopuka, O'oma and other coastal conservation proposals. While I am still not sure if the County should hate a "Conservation" classification, the current proposals do not reflect recent negotiations between the County and some property owners. In particular, the County has been negotiating with the Kohanaiki owners to acquire a beachfront park. The Planning Dept. is supposed to be drafting an amendment to reflect this change. Keopuka has similar changes, which need to he proposed. In exchange for dedication of coastal areas as conservation, the upper areas of Keopuka should be considered for reclassification as Rural to allow for [he same density the property would have been allowed under 5-acre Ag. Subdivision. If the proposed conservation amendments are changed for Kohanaiki and Keopuka, similar changes in the proposals for other coastal properties should also he proposed to treat them equally. 3. Additional Urban Expansion/Industrial/Commercial areas for Puna and Kau. The rate of population growth in the areas of Ka'u and Puna indicate that these areas will continue to increase signiticantly in population over the next ten to twenty years. Reducing or eliminating current areas designated for urban expansion and industrial/commercial use do not make sense in light of this Comm. Nv. ~ O Ref. Tos Ref. Date Chairman James Y. Arakaki and Council Members .iuly 3I, 200; Page 2 growth pattern. These areas present the only truly affordable housing opportunities for many people. Without planning for local business opportunities, these residents will be forced to commute to work in Hilo, Kona, and South Kohala. This will only exacerbate existing traffic problems in these areas. Instead of reducing and eliminating urban uses, the Committee should be proposing additional areas for such uses. It makes far more sense to try and encourage local business opportunities in order to reduce the distance people commute to work. Given the number of tourists who travel from Kona and South Kohala to [he Volcano, 1 believe there is an opportunity to take advantage of this market in the Occanview, Na'alehu, Pahala, Punalu'u, Kea'au and Pahoa areas. The committee should consider designations, which would allow for such uses and retain existing designations rather than shrink opportunity. By encouraging and planning for business growth, you will reduce the need to ameliorate the problems inherent in Iargc nwnhers of people commuting long distances to work. 4. Designation of an industrial area in Volcano. Hilo side of [he Volcano Village area by the existing transfer station should be considered for an amendment for Industrial/commercial uses. As the Volcano area becomes more populated there will be a demand for services which are not compatible with the existing coral ahnosphere of Volcano Village. 5. Resort nodes. The current proposed amendments would reduce the areas proposed for resorts without proposing any other area, for resort development, yet the commentary in the plan recognizes the importance of this business and the resulting revenues the County receives. _At the very least, the Committee should be looking for additional areas where resort development may be appropriate, rather than reducing Yhis designation. In particular, some areas may be appropriate for development of "retreat resort" destinations similar to what the Kona Village was like before. An example of this possibility might be Molokai Ranch with its campground facilities featuring solar electricity, composting toilets, nature hikes and cultural activities which appeal to a tourist looking for alternatives to the "Waikiki" type of tourism. F. Slimming down the General Plan. Several councilmembers have expressed concern over the fornat and length of the General Plan. At this stage of [he process it may be difficult to start all over, especially because any new proposals would have to go back to the Planning Director The easiest way to accomplish slimming down the plan maybe to move most of the background information out of the General Plan and into a "reference document". 7. Important Ag. Lands. I do not like this classification because I believe that it will be confused with the state classification of important ag. lands. [believe that the existing classifications of intensive and cx tensivc agriculture are sufficient. If the committee decides to retain intensive and extensive as the designations, then the Kona coffee lands need to be moved into the intensive classification. "Those "Orchard" classifieatiom, which ara not moved into "Rural", should be moved into extensive. If the committee should decide to keep the "Important Ag" classification then I would suggest that you look carefully at the maps we have regarding where crops can be best grown on the island. BJI,~I'