HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.013 2008-2010 Gt�M�. 664 PI PC
DAVID W. FUKUMOTO, president
to wo-
FUKU- BONSAI INC.
i t. � Pioneering True Indoor Bonsai'' since 1962!
2j3 7 53 17-856 Olaa Road (PO Box 6000), Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760
Phone (808) 982 -9880 • FAX (808) 982 -9883
• WWW.FUKUBONSALCOM E -mail: david.Rdfukubonsai.com
July 26, 2010
J Yoshimoto, Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council
Donald Ikeda, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720
RE: A LETTER IN FORMAL TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THE PUNA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN; INCLUDING PROPOSALS OF
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS; BUT ALSO IN SUPPORT OF
AMENDMENTS TO PCDP ( "BILL 194 ")
Aloha! I write this with a very heavy heart as I had high hopes and
initial optimistic enthusiasm in beginning participation in the Puna Community
Development Plan. But I was brutally abused and am now be in total opposition
to the entire plan, the process, and the individuals involved.
apologize for this strident opening tone, but hope you'll dissect my
arguments and take them as a heartfelt belief of a citizen who truly loves Puna
and sees extraordinary potential in spite of the many disadvantages that Puna
has inherited from its past. It's my hope that elements may be introduced in other
forms in the future if they do not qualify to be considered in amending the PCDP.
Puna is special and has extraordinary potential. Fifty years ago at a
time that shysters were subdividing worthless swamp land in Florida, worthless
dessert in Arizona and Nevada, their cousins were successful in subdividing
"worthless lava land" in Puna. This is now the blessing and the curse of Puna,
the fastest growing district in the State of Hawaii!
It's the most affordable land in the State of Hawaii that includes the
right to build a home. All who want to live in Hawaii and who crave home
ownership are drawn to Puna and we have no effective tool to stop them. I
began participation with the hope we would create a strong master plan to
effectively facilitate and manage the accelerating growth to come rather than
attempt to choke growth by creating a Community Development Plan that
withholds infrastructure and prevents the creation of jobs. Unfortunately PCDP
was allowed to be put together by anti - development forces to prevent growth.
RECOMMENDATION TO KILL PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The two major Puna problems are transportation and economic
development. PCDP does nothing to address these two issues and instead the
proposed solutions directly place major obstacles that prevent solutions! There
are so many negatives in transportation, economic development and throughout
the entire plan that I do not believe it is possible to sufficiently amend the plan. �
Ccm% No, " (,t . ► J
Ref. To: ti
Ref. Date AUG 0 2 209
From the very beginning the flaws were glaringly obvious. But a
vocal minority insisted upon "Pass now - -- amend later!" All efforts to amend
have not developed a consensus. No plan is better than this poor plan that is
proving difficult or impossible to amend to properly address all issues!
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT THE PCDP PMAR ALIGHNMENT
The Transportation's Committee process was unethical and illegal
and this is apparent if the following facts are checked:
• Prior to PCDP, the previous study was the Puna Regional Circulation
Plan that ended with a recommendation that Puna Makai Alternate Road (PMAR)
that originates in Hilo enters Puna and while it aims for Hawaiian Paradise Park,
bends to intersect Keaau -Pahoa Road (Hwy 130), travels up Orchidland and
exits in Kurtistown. It did not taverse the length of Hawaiian Paradise Park.
• Entering Hawaiian Paradise Park is unwise as it will establish a
precedent for Hawaii County using public funds to take over and maintain what
should be private roads. The problem is the congestion of Hwy 130 and County
should not establish an alternative to Hwy 130 within HPP as it would be
extremely costly as lots are only one acre with a high percentage of developed
lots. With such constraints, it will not be possible to obtain sufficient easement
width to qualify as an alternative road to Hwy 130 and another alternative road
will be needed later.
• If the County accepts PCDP as determining the alignment for the
primary Hwy 130 Alternate Road, PCDP should be amended to specify that the
alignment is in fact to evolve into a major highway and that there be a minimum
250' wide easement established through the entire Hawaiian Paradise Park and
beyond. The State Department of Transportation recommends that for new rural
highways, that 250' wide easements be obtained. This is clearly justified when
the growth of Puna is projected. The same individuals who propose this
alignment are fighting to limit Hwy 130 to 100' wide easement width and if they
succeed, it will be necessary to build PMAR to large capacity sooner. It is very
unlikely that HPP residents will endorse a 250' easement and a major highway
bisecting their community. But to claim this is just an emergency road borders on
fraud and misrepresentation.
• There is a very viable and desirable alternative for the Hwy 130
Alternate Road on the border or Orchidland and Hawaiian Acres. This routing is
preferable for four major reasons:
1. Lots in this area are 3 acres compared to the HPP 1 -acre lots.
Condemning 1 acre from each 3 -acre parcel still results in a usable
2 -acre lot. The resulting wider easement would be ideal for other
usage that could include recreation, utility corridor, green - belting, etc.
2. There is relatively little development of lots on either side of the
Orchidland and Hawaiian Acres boundaries and the land has a lower
value than Hawaiian Paradise Park. So acquisition costs for a wider
easement will be significantly lower.
3. The north -south roads in Orchidland and Hawaiian Acres do no align
and so the connections to this Hwy130 Alternate Road will be ideal a-
way intersections rather than the more dangerous HPP 4 -way
intersections.
4. A Hwy 130 Alternate Road would connect to a Kurtistown -Keaau
Road that would fit between the last remaining undeveloped corridor
between Keaau Heights Subdivision and Orchidland and this would
bring all the mauka subdivision traffic directly into the PMAR.
• A transportation plan incorporating the above was formally submitted
prior to the submittal deadline and is ATTACHMENT #1.
• If the PCDP Transportation Committee reports are carefully
examined, by the deadline for submittals, there was no submittal that comes
close to the final PCDP PMAR recommendation that came out of nowhere.
• Well after the deadline for submittal, the general planning consultant
hired a transportation consultant to evaluate and make recommendations. That
consultant submitted a report stating that only a single plan (Attachment #1) was
submitted. The consultant's final report was very similar to Attachment #1 and
did not go through Hawaiian Paradise Park.
• When the PCDP was published it included a vague PMAR alignment
that was never publicly documented. The PCDP and their Transportation
Committee should be required to explain and justify their actions and how they
were able to circumvent and substitute their solution. It cannot be considered a
Puna road master plan and ignores mauka Puna.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CREATING A VALID PMAR ALIGHNMENT
The alignment of PMAR should not have been within the latitude of
the PCDP as it is an alternate road for Volcano Highway specifically connecting
Hilo to an area near Keaau. Those associated with PCDP really have no
standing and the few major landowners who should have had major input were
not allowed to have influence. This is unfair. It is also valid that a major highway
connecting two districts be designed with the input of representatives of both
districts. Because there are so few large landowners no matter where the actual
alignment is drawn, each of the major landowners should be included. Some of
the land is under the control of various State departments so it is logical to
include the experts from the State Department of Transportation. It is likely that
some financing will come from the Federal government and a representative from
US Senator Inouye's office (or other congressional office) should be involved.
It's therefore logical to create a PMAR Task Force to work under either the Mayor
and /or County Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PCDP did very little to encourage economic development and
creating jobs. They completely ignored the unfair shortage and need for large
blocks of commercial — industrial zoned land in Puna to create business parks
and higher paying jobs. Instead they attempted to impose limits that will primarily
create strip malls or small retail villages that produce only a pitiful number of low
paying service jobs. The lack of jobs in Puna is directly responsible for the
growing traffic from Puna going to Hilo each morning and from Hilo returning to
Puna in the afternoon. As the price of commuting increases, it becomes a
greater burden for families and it is far more appropriate to encourage the
creation of jobs closer to where people live. It is unfortunate that those who
dominated PCDP were so anti - development that they refused to consider these
recommendations. This was addressed and submitted by my independent group
and is Attachment #2.
REALISTIC AND LESS CONTROVERSIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
I thank you if you've bothered to read this far. I recognize that time
has long passed to make substantive amendments. But my hope is that some of
the above can someday be incorporated into other legislation or actions. For
now the action at hand is to review proposed amendments. I have reviewed the
proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan ( "Puna CDP)"
that are included in Bill 194 initiated by the County Council on December 18,
2009 and concur with the Planning Director's May 11, 2010 favorable
recommendation to amend the Puna CDP. In particular, I strongly support the
proposed amendments to the Puna CDP contained in Bill 194 and concur with
the Planning Director's favorable recommendation to amend the Puna CDP, to
include without limitation the following:
• Eliminating restrictions on the commercial floor area, design
character, and typical uses within Table 5 -1: General Use and Design
Criteria by Village/Town Center Type as this creates an unnecessary
restriction on commercial uses and limits flexibility for future
development in the area;
• Allow market forces to determine the size of commercial
development within a regional town center;
• Under Section 3.2.3.b, eliminate downzoning of all Agricultural (A)
zoned parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna and instead
recommend reviewing the rezoning of these Agricultural zoned
parcels to a zoning that would be consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan and Puna CDP;
• Addition of the Makuu Community Village Center to establish a
village center to hold weekly farmers markets consistent with the
proposal by the Maku'u Farmer's Association to include a community
and cultural center, and a comprehensive health center;
• Eliminate references to "purchase or transfer of development rights"
and "floating zone" as those concepts have not been adopted by the
County;
• Under Section 5.2.1, eliminate reference to "floating zone method" for
the designation of future zoning designations within each village
center at Keaau, Pahoa, Hawaiian Paradise Park, and Makuu
Homesteads in order to be consistent with the LUPAG designations
of each area within the General Plan;
• Replacement of all references to "village /town" center with "regional
town" center to be consistent with the Puna CDP definitions;
• Addition of the remaining mauka portion of the already industrial
zoned area at tax map keys 1 -6- 003:078 and 090 and 1 -6- 151:001
through and including 022 within Figure 5 -1: Keaau Regional Town
Center, in order to be consistent with the current (MG -20) industrial
County zoning for the parcels;
• Addition of a proposed community health facility at TMK:1 -1- 004:032
within Figure 5- 4:Volcano Community Village Center.
I concur with the Planning Director's favorable recommendations to
amend the Puna CDP and respectfully request the County Council approve the
proposed PCDP amendments in Bill 194 as they are consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
Sincerely,
David W. Fukumoto
President and founder, Fuku- Bonsai Inc.
Cc: BJ Leithead Todd, Director, Planning Department
,errs\
Hama
44 kua ua t*
II i
W. •
Hilo ' ospita � AVIst
,I 17 s a �!�'0 a � , �-
4 4 ! 1+'
0 .; ti 4 10 4_-.0 & ...
lar at_ lig; II_• • Ai
•
. li
"It E M1 %ILO.PUL
�, ' TERNAT 0 AD
, ' ! E11 al lil - .
ci . r�ll �,
011
il 1 iILOf
AI .caaama o
I H , Cnn�tor
{ • LCANO' AMA Roa a (addo j ' 1 Ke a& 8
4LTERNA E RO : I) . __ ,. �,
-5 K _ AU
MAJOR CONGESTION f,i G, V` ( �O �\
G� v, A' EA (See W. H. Shipman p► G` Ja
��'d Keaau Master Plan) Q a
i - 11 Q � � � a ` � b oa '
> > oe r
5 ' GOSH t Oe
d o
k" o a .(
(14 OS` � Q Q` � o�" �. ■
KURTISTOWN ,,�
lar \
-5,-A ,e
, 4 l -v 0
; , # s v ' 14
_../ l eklik . - .....A.A.\........ 4
``‘ 1 PCDP submittal February 2007 - additional details April 2008
111' ♦0 HILO -PUNA
MT. VIEW 13 'a�
ALTERNATE ROADS
■
0 Conceptual sketch by David W. Fukumoto (Kurtistown, Hawaii) i t
' �a Phone (808) 96676&8 davrd.f�fukubonsai.com
AI. - IL . 411■ osalweemomeemmumnsonswubm-a. .v
PCDP SUBMITTED FEBRARY 2007 (with later details added to consolidate two drawings into
one presentation). This presentation could be the basis for a Puna Master Plan. It is
unique of all plans presented in not entering any subdivision to allow the roads to stay pri-
vate. The exception is the Orchidland- Hawaiian Acres Parkway that is more appropriate for
eminent domain condemnation as it will produce a larger right -of -way will far less impact
and at far lower cost than going through Paradise Park. It is also the basis for ideal future
mauka -makai roads.
Attachment 1
Astarroir
PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP
(COUNTY OF HAWAII - GENERAL PLAN 2005)
Y .
R ECOMMENDATIONS: 2 '�
D esignate a large 1,000+ Y )
acre block for a second �'
I
Keaau Business and . > y /
a Industrial Park — `s -
Create a 500 -1,000 acre la : 4 s r
Pahoa Business and `- e
Industrial Park KI ain.■
Identify other parcels at A
appropriate locations for
commercial - industrial • 4 t
zoning and create more
i neighborhood villages i 1
.i4INgli r 1►wti�tn
PP' C(,T
i
COMMERCIAL-
IN DUSTRIAL
ZONING - 2005
H ILO - 3,271 acres
PUNA - 587 acres
For a sustainable Puna economic future i e� o� a _.
to shift jobs, services, and shopping, designate
urban expansion areas for commercial - industrial
zoning. This will help to reverse the daily Puna - Hilo t.z
commute and be a positive step towards resolving � '"°'"" °" ..""""
Puna's traffic problems! ..Y.... , Land*
nee
'.. y U:ev Ewsr,aa,
* Wa.....e.tturp a u..a., tOAfi•IHMMa 4%.441tww91-mow epy.,w✓w.sessy Meat G '9
Attachment 2