Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.030 2008-2010 07/29/2010 14:04 8089668522 WH SHIPMAN PAGE 01/04 PIPQ r W.11 Shipman UMW ?.010 JUL 2J Prl 2 117 July 28, 2010 J Yoshimoto, Chair Donald Ikeda, Chair and Members of time Hawaii County Council and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL 25 Aupuni Street 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: LETTER OF SUPPORT - AMENDMENTS TO PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ( "BILL 194 ") Dear Chair Yoshimoto, Councilmembers, Chair Ikeda and Members of the Committee on Planning: 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 th,e Planning Director's May 11, 2010 favorable recommendation to amend the Puna CDP. Frank Comamendador, Vice Chair of the Action Committee (AC) transmitted several. concerns of the Action Committee in his letter to the Planning Director on April 16, 2010. Following are additional considerations in light of Mr. Commendador's letter: 1. Diminish the substance of action items. The AC is concerned. that if the actions called for are changed from demands to recommendations somehow the PCDP will be diminished. To the contrary, the change in wording rightly places on the AC the responsibility to effectively convince the County Council and the community of the continuing efficacy of the actions called for in the CDP. Were this not the case, there would have been no need for Action Committees. Many of the concepts called for in the PCDP (Le. Floating Zones) need to be finitely defined and presented in a manner that can then be inserted into various County Codes. This i,s the continuing work of the AC as envisioned by the e al ii ,y legislation. Wording changes in Bill 194 recognize w d encourage sach work. 2. Deleting establishment of the Historical preservation commission. Difficult economic times reinforce our need as a community to ensure that overlaps in functions are minimized.. This is the context of the amendment to the CDP. The County of Hawaii cannot provide a fix to all problems. These functions need to be shared with. other organizations both governmental and non -gove •„ r .,.:al. The amendment recognizes this. -- - 16-523 Keaau- PahoaRoad Kv:,au, Tie 967.19 /_r_/ L Z ke],: 808.966.9325 • fax; 803,966,8 °22 Corn kvu. 1(�KJ'[ www.wiishipmai.com Ref. To: Ref. Date_ AU 0 2 2010 07/29/2010 14:04 8089668522 WH SHIPMAN PAGE 02/04 W.H. Shipm umItect 3. Failure to protect the aquifer. The PCDP shows an appropriate concern for the quality of potable water coming from the aquifer. However, it is not responsible to suggest that one cornm.unity — the Hawaiian Community eligible to construct Domes on DHHL lands — should bear the brunt of that concern and then with no scientific evidence to support the proposed action. Ili fact discussions with environmental scientists indicate that it is very unlikely that the ban called for in the CDP would have a measurable impact on water quality and that the cost well exceeds the benefit. In this context this is not a burden that should be passed. on to a community that has waited for homelands literally for generations. 4. Remove references to Transfer Development Rights and Floating Zones, at least until such zoning_tool,s become part of the County zorain.g code. Inclusion of these items when they are not part of the County Code diminishes the effectiveness of the document as a whole. Of particular interest, the Action Committee omits reference to section 5.2.1 which states: "The following approaches will be used for the zoning of village /town centers ...All commercial, light industrial, residential and quasi public uses within village centers shall be authorized under the "floating zone" method. (Emphasis added). Further statements leave a strong impression that some form of Transfer Development Rights are to be used. The amendments remove requirements and inferred requirements that tools that do not now exist must be used. Leaving the non- existent tools in the CDP weakens the document. Note that this does not preclude the Action Committee (or any other community group) from defining new zoning categories and tools (i.e floating zones, transfer development rights) and convincing the Council. to enable them. In fact, removing them here may act to encourage such groups to do the work of finitely defining these and other tools for that purpose. 5. Change proposed agricultural zoning classifications. The Planning Director notes, as did the initiator of the amendment (Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) that the proposal in the Pura. CDP would be too restrictive on property owners. For example, the owner of a 49 -acre property would be limited to creating one additional lot and the owner of a parcel of less than five acres could not subdivide at ail. This would make it impossible in many cases for subdivisions to allow conveyances to family members, which :ray he the hope and expectation of many property owners. 16 -52? Keaa�:- thoa Road Keaau. Ill 96749 tc :. 308.966.9325 • fax! 805.966,8522 www.whshipman,com 07/29/2010 14:04 8089668522 WH SHIPMAN PAGE 03/04 W. H. Ship"' LIrnitect The CDP also suggests that the County should purchase and then lease out farm lands. Interestingly, this comment was made with no apparent discussions with those major landowners who now perform this function. Such discussions would have led to the conclusion that the flexibility required to create long lived sustainable farm businesses simply cannot be done by governments — and that there is really no need for government to become involved in this enterprise. The amendments remove this concept —which would have proved detrimental to Puna farm growth and susta'snabiiity. 6. Relocate the Kea'au and Pahoa Transfer Stations. While it may be possible to find. locations that better suit a community for such services as Transfer Stations, the PCDP provides neither compelling reason nor alternative locations for the current sites. The document does not provide similar comments for other Transfer Stations located throughout, Puna — several of which arguably are in locations that are not as convenient to the constituencies that they serve. As such the comments on these two stations are a non sequitur that should be taken out at least until the AC or another community group provides compelling reason and clearly better locations for these stations or other stations. (Disclosure: Shipman leases 20 acres for the Keaau Transfer Station to the County at a cost of $1. /year. Similar locations nearby are leased by Shipman for $400 /acre /month). 7. Pro posed amendments related prieriati3y to Tab le 5 -1. The amendments delete sections of Table 5 -1 that will inhibit Smart Growth and indeed in many cases growth in services altogether frore the District. The consultant's rejoinder to this concern was that the Government and not the Developer should pay for the cost, of infrastructure — something not done by governments for development in over 30 years. Building table 5 -1 on this premise and then holding communities accountable to it will greatly reduce building of retail and other services needed in Puna — resulting in Puna continuing to depend on. Hilo for commercial, restaurant and service needs. Indeed the AC comment on this is in line with Puna continuing to depend on Hilo (and even Kona) for substantial and important retail needs and jobs created by location such services in Puna. A 2010 marketing analysis cone ~ ::tied for our company concluded that today Puna has less than 1/3 of the State average of commercial, service and restaurant space per resident. The District is growing much. faster than Hilo (projected at 37% from 2005 through 2015 by the County vs. 5% for Hilo during that period). Hilo is essentially built out — particularly in the southern end where Prince Kuh.io Plaza and major shopping exists. Continuing dependence on Hilo to provide for Puna in this context results a high xy unbalanced East Hawaii. Further it continues the impoverishment of the Puna community starving it of needed jobs and value shopping opportunities. For these who are under little economic strain to state for the rest of the community that it is preferable to travel to Hilo (and Kona) for job and commercial needs is dif'wult to understand. The amendments, proposed in 2008 anti 3ushed off — not because of their content but because of a rush to "pass it nee, amend it later" — need to be passed intact if Puna is to grow in a controlled, responsible manner. These amendments will encourage responsible growth in "villa.ges" e nvisio°ned throug ieut the district. They remove from the government's ledger respon ib l ties be A eir left to others (i.e. buying and leasing out farm land, providing loans for ho ;e i teiprov4 reent, providing free wireless internee) while a.liowing a community destir,et in the n _ term to grow to 70,000 (CDH) or 80,000 6 -523 Keaau- P:loa Road Kcaau, HT 96749 - -- tei -:8 8,966.9325 • fax: 805.966.R522 www \;;; hshipman.com 07/29/2010 14:04 8089668522 WH SHIPMAN PAGE 04/04 • W.- Lihi Li nSted (HDOT) individuals to provide for itself while maintaining a rural and agricultural nature. Restrictions and regulations in the current PCDP will have the unintended consequence of keeping Puna an impoverished and corr.muer oriented annex to Hilo. This is neither sustainable for Hilo nor for Puna_ Accordingly,' urge you to pass Bill 194 intact. Sincerely, • Bill Walter President t 6 -52_i Keaau- Pa`;oa Road Ke u, 1-11 96749 — el.: 808.966.9325 • fm: 808.966.8522 www..\ hshipman.com