HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.006 2008-2010 N[ * h u h'.. • .
William P. Kenoi ° • " BJ Leithead Todd
n k ,1�?,,V: yld1, ' Director
Mayor • • n
Margaret Masunaga
7,P44 oF•N►`e!.: Deputy Director
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone (808) 961 -8288 • Fax (808) 961 -8742
July 30, 2010
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and
Members of the Hawai'i County Council
Hawai'i County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members of the Hawai'i County Council:
Subject: Testimony Regarding Bill 194, Amendments to the Puna Community Develop Plan
The Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee respectfully submits for consideration by
the Members of the Hawai`i County Council the attached testimony regarding the amendments
proposed in Bill 194
Sincerely,
A C4411" ,
Barbara Bell, Chair
Puna CDP Action Committee
Encl:
Cc w /encl: William P. Kenoi, Mayor
Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Planning Director
Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Coma tio. `AO • VJ
Ref. Tai p-
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ref. Date iO4,4 0 Z 781t1
Testimony on behalf of PCDP Action Committee on Bill 194
The Puna CDP Action Committee consists of nine members of the greater Puna community, who have
volunteered to advocate for implementation of the PCDP. We are privileged to succeed a very fine and
dedicated Steering Committee, also volunteers from the community, who, along with consultants and
Planning Department officials, crafted the PCDP.
Community- driven long term management plans are a new feature in the planning landscape in Hawaii.
So are community -based Action Committees. We assembled several months ago, and are steadily
defining our purpose. We perceive our Committee to have two important tasks: 1) advise the County
Planning Director on matters that pertain to development in Puna District, and 2) represent the several
and diverse communities of Puna, and therefore provide a Zink between the people and the Planning
Director.
We are guided by a set of protocols, provided by the County, and known as the Operating Guidelines of
the PCDP Action Committee. These Guidelines define our purpose to: "...be a proactive, community -
based steward of the plan's implementation and update." We adopted a mission statement which
directs us to be faithful stewards of our Vision: Malama Puna a Mau Loa! Live forever in harmony with
the land of Puna. Among the several commitments we make, are these: "...assure the integrity of the
Puna CDP...be faithful to the determinations of the Puna community...promote community
participation in the implementation of projects..."
The Puna Community Development Plan is an outstanding expression of community desires for long
term development in Puna District. Through this plan the planning consultant, in close collaboration
with the community and its representative Steering Committee, and the Planning provided a progressive
and workable framework that will guide development in Puna District for many years, if it is properly
implemented. Since the PCDP was adopted by Ordnance by County Council in 2008, a number of
amendments were proposed that would improve the PCDP. These include mostly editorial changes and
some minor revisions to maps, etc. We members of the Action Committee endorse these changes, and
indicated so in our letter of April 16, 2010, to Planning Director Leithead -Todd.
However, some amendments were proposed that we think would neutralize the intent of the PCDP.
We respectfully disagree with Planning Director's dismissal of four of our recommendations, as follows.
These are followed with special mention of an amendment proposed by a community -based group:
1) Bill 194 proposes to weaken implementing language throughout the PCDP. We continue to
favor restoration of action words, such as "initiate," "establish," "amend," etc, whereas County
Council's Bill 194 would reduce these words to conditional syntax by insertion of "propose,"
"consider," etc. Planning Director points out to us that she does not have authority to rezone
land and property. However, we fail to understand her withdrawal from obligations to advocate
and implement components of this management plan that do not require zoning changes. For
example, the conditional words, "propose amendments to ..." are inserted in place of,
"Amend..." in Section 2.1.3 [e], so this action would be rendered "...Propose amendments to
the County Building code to add standards for structures utilizing traditional Hawaiian
building design and construction methods. Another example is found in section 2.3.3. [f],
where original syntax reads: "...require all black wastewater disposal systems to be contained..."
but Council would insert these words: "...propose amendments to the applicable laws,
ordinances and regulations that require all black wastewater disposal systems..." The Action
Committee believes subtle changes like these weaken the implementing authority of the
Planning Director, and we wonder who will cause the action to happen, if it is not her.
1
We do not care to quibble over what might seem to be minor differences of syntax in an
otherwise progressive plan, but we do worry that if such watered -down language is allowed to
prevail, numerous actions that are raised in the PCDP will be written off or deferred because
they need to be acted on by other departments, or might be buried in a mass of procedure.
It is possible this issue reveals some confusion over the separate functions of Planning Director
(Executive) and County Council (Legislative.) We hope we are correct in understanding that it is
the purpose of Planning Director to guide and implement community plans, and that it is the
purpose of County Council to enable such action through enactment of laws and allocation of
funds. We prefer to see the Planning Director assume authority as advocate and chief
implementing officer of community development plans. We understand our purpose, as Action
Committee, to support her, and as well to express to her our interpretation of community
desires that pertain to development. These desires are clearly expressed in the PCDP as
adopted by Ordinance, and we don't think it is appropriate for Bill 194 to make subtle changes
in syntax and therefore weaken the intent of the PCDP to be implemented.
2) Bill 194 would diminish the area in the greater Puna aquifer designated for water quality
protection. The PCDP designates only a 2 -mile wide section that forms a corridor between Wao
Kele o Puna Forest Reserve and the sea, between Pahoa and Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision.
Bill 194 proposes to remove the section of this corridor that lies between Hwy 130 and the
ocean. The Planning Director concurs with this, citing the potential for economic hardship upon
people living in existing and future DHHL developments in this corridor. The potential
settlement total area consists of approximately 2,108 acres of combined properties, in an area
of approximately 5,000 acres (8 square miles.) We agree this is a valid concern. However, we
think it is very important to acknowledge the potential for degradation of the entire aquifer as
settlement of the Puna lowlands increases, and to promote long term conservation of this
significant resource. We don't think this is merely an issue about quality of drinking water, but it
is about protection of a highly valuable natural resource, and about the impact degraded water
might have on other natural resources, particularly on near -shore sea life. Rather than focus on
the quality of drinking water, and advocating a strategy of providing domestic water from wells
at the higher sections of the lowlands as an alternative to aquifer protection, the Action
Committee would prefer to see the Planning Director acknowledge the larger issue of the need
for long term water quality protection.
We don't believe it is relevant, or helpful, to cite data drawn from a well site in NE Hilo (Gilbert
Carvalho Park)as being comparable to any situation in the Puna lowlands. We believe it would
be more productive to conduct credible aquifer studies in this area to determine what the
capacity the watershed has for absorbing human and industrial waste and, therefore, what level
of settlement density might trigger the need for central waste water treatment. In dismissing
Action Committee's recommendation to protect water quality in the entire aquifer between
Kea'au and Pahoa, we would have preferred to see Planning Director's agreement that
eventually this issue must be addressed. Indeed, water quality studies from the Kapoho Beach
Lots and Vacationland subdivisions already indicate levels of contamination of anchialine ponds
and near -shore sea water that are likely the result of insufficient waste disposal. How far behind
will be other settled areas of lower Puna?
3) Bill 194 would eliminate original PCDP language and formulae that attempt to curtail the
incessant subdividing of agricultural land or converting agricultural land to residential, urban,
and industrial uses. The Planning Director concurs with the Tess restrictive view proposed by Bill
2
194. Action Committee would only advise the Planning Director that community sentiment is
overwhelmingly favorable to maintaining the rural and open landscape that prevails in Puna
District. However constrained the Planning Director might be in affecting changes in land zone
designations, we remain supportive of all meaningful actions she may take to diminish the
fragmentation of open and agricultural lands into smaller and smaller units.
We are ever mindful of the complete inadequacy of infrastructure in all of our rural subdivisions,
and how lack of community- driven planning in the past has created inappropriate settlement
patterns and renders public services to be very inefficient. We believe the differences between
the original PCDP and Bill 194 wording and formulae that set standards for agricultural zone
designations are essentially minor. Realistically, neither will go far enough in correcting the
plethora of land use problems that have arisen as a result of the failure to plan properly when
Puna District was Tess subdivided than it is now. Nevertheless, the Action Committee would
prefer to see adoption of the more restrictive language and formulae that is in the original
PCDP. This includes restrictions on further subdividing of large -sized agricultural properties.
4) The Action Committee remains concerned over Bill 194 consistent deletions of certain flexible
land planning concepts that might facilitate sensible design as village and town centers develop.
We fail to understand County Council's rationale for writing off "Floating Zone," and "Transfer of
Development Rights," as ideas that might be valid in some instances. Though these concepts
are not formalized within current County code and rules, we don't believe they should be
summarily stricken from the PCDP. Perhaps they could be noted as potential concepts, to be
applied at a later time if /when rules for village and town center development are changed.
The Action Committee would welcome any encouragement that there are provisions for greater
flexibility in village and town center development, especially provisions that might enable
gradual approaches, where land zoning and ownership conflicts can be resolved, and where
inappropriate land uses might be avoided in a non - rigid, agreeable manner. We notice
references to a "form -based code" concept, and would be pleased to know how this might be
applied to the PCDP.
5) The Action Committee encourages greater community participation in implementing the details
of the PCDP. We especially favor an amendment proposed by Friends of Puna's Future, a
community -based advocacy group. This amendment would formally designate community
steering committees to help with the planning for town and village centers . We accept the
Planning Director's decision to reject this proposal, because of the difficulty of setting up the
administrative framework for such committees, and because of logistical and expense issues.
However, we see no reason why such committees should not be formed where communities
want them and are willing to organize and support them, and where County will not be obliged
to provide administrative and financial support for them. Indeed, this kind of arrangement is
fitting with the mission and purpose of the Action Committee and is fully within the spirit of the
PCDP.
The Action Committee agrees with and supports all other comments in Planning Director's letter of May
11, 2010, to Chairman Woodward.
3