HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.036 2008-2010 09- 17- 10;09:03AM; land use research ;5360132 ; 1/ 2
Pl Pc
._._s
}
belle
,'
LAND Use RESEARCH
FOUNDATION OF HAWAII
700 Bishop Street, 3926
T- id�a0lulty Hawaii 96868 3
Phone 521 -4717 �.
Fax 336 -0132
Via E-mail: counciltcstimony(Thco.hawaii.hi,us &
Fax: (8o8) 961 -8912
September 20, 2010
The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair
The Honorable Guy Enriques, Vice Chair
Committee on Planning
Hawaii County Council
€ County of Hawaii
2S Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Support of Bill 194, Draft 2 (Communication 664.7)
An Ordinance Amending the Puna Community Development
Plan, as Adopted by Ordinance No. o$ -116.
Meeting Date: Monday, September 20, 2010 at 2 :00 p.m.
Committee on Planning at Sheraton Keauhou, Kailua, Kona
Dear Chair Donald Ikeda, Vice Chair Guy Enriques and Members of the Committee on
Planning,
I am Dave Arakawa, the Executive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of
Hawaii (LURF), a private, non-profit research and trade association whose ?members
include major Hawaii landowners, developers and a utility company. One of LURF's
missions is to advocate for reasonable, rational and equitable land use pla = ; ig,
legislation and regulations that encourage well - planned economic growth aid:
development, while safeguarding Hawaii's significant natural and cultural resources and
public health and safety.
LURF appreciates the opportunity to provide continents in support of the
Planning Director's favorable recommendation to amend the Puma.
Comxnulnity Development Plan ( "Puna CDP ") and respectfully requests that
the Hawaii Council Committee on Planning approve the Puna CI: . 2
contained in Bill 194, Draft 2 as they are consistent with the goals, bjectives
and policies of the Hawaii County General Plan and general plait.- si_n`;
principles.
Come No. •.(
Ref. Tot
Ree. Date . . 2 0 Mil
09- 17- 10;09;03AM;land use research ;5380'32 # 2/ 2
The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair
The Honorable Guy Enriques, Vice Chair
Committee on Planning
County of Hawaii
September2o, 2010
LURF's Comments and Recommendations. Our comments and recommendations
include the following:
i. Delete the references to "floating zone" (various references within the
Puna CDP). The concept of "floating zone" has not been adopted by the County.
2. Change references from "Regional village centers" to "Regional town
centers" (various references within the Puna CDP). These changes are
consistent with the Puna CDP definitions.
3. Delete the Puna CDP objective which refers to the State and County
purchase of productive private agricultural lands and the government
issuance of long term farm leases for community use (Comment 15,
page 3 -9, §3.2.2 ). While LURE' does not necessarily object to the concept of
government and private land owners mutually agreeing to the purchase of private
agricultural lands, we strongly object to the provisions in the Puna CDP which
could result in the government taking of productive private agricultural lands for
community use. Also, in these tough economic times, it is questionable whether
the State or County has the funding to purchase private lands and to establish,
supervise and operate such an agricultural leasing program.
4. Eliminate downsizing of all Agricultural (A) Zoned Parcels (Continent
16, pages 3 -9 to 3-10, Section 3.2.3.b.). The recommended language in
Subsection 3,2.3(b) is favorable because the review of the rezoning of Agricultural
zoned parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna will assist in identifying
agricultural lands to be consistent the Puna CDP.
5. Delete unworkable restrictions on commercial space within
commercial areas (Comment 38, pages 5 -8, §5.2.3 Table 5 -1; General
Use and Design Criteria by Village /Town Center Type). Please support
the deletion of restrictions on the commercial floor area, design character, and
typical uses within Tape 5 -1: General Use and Design Criteria by Village/Town
Center Type, based on the following:
o The current provisions create unnecessary and arbitrary limitations on
commercial uses and redeces flexibility for future development;
o Market forces, not government, are best qualified to determine the size of
commercial development within a regional town center. Instead of
creating arbitrary restrictions, create incentives to encourage developers
to consider commercial developments, which will then lead to community
stability, job opportunitie:5 and growth in overall community involvement.
o The restrictions on the size of the commercial development make the
costs of infrastructure pr Cxibitive. Restrictions on size arici configuration
of stores and f )otprint e `t take into account that the costs of
infrastructure which the County generally requires developers to
construct, such as water, Dower, curbs, lightening and access roads. The
restrictions might be financially feasible if g„ , ,e, >znent provided all of the
supporting infrastructure for community development, however,
unfortunately, government relies on developers to fund ce
infrastructure.
We appreciate the opportunity to prese e _ our comments reE,arding this matte_:.