HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0276.001 1998-2000 Bonnie Goodell Plannlnp for Sustainabllity
P.O. Box 6, Volcano HI 98785-0008 (808) 967-7775 (fax 8295) cmaplan~interpac.net
- r RECEJVED
DATE: May 24, 1999 lfine_.-_-~-- . ey..----------..
TO: Members of the Planning Committee, Hawaii County Council Dare-_- ~ f
j ~ _
SUBJECT: Couoy Councihir. ~
1. Opposition to Bi1175, Comm. 276 to change District Classification from Open to
Residential and Agricultural at Puua, Puna, Hawaii, covered by TMK: 1-447:87.
Applicant: Nanawale Estates Co.
2. Opposition to Bill 76, Comm. 277 to change District Classification from Open to
Residential and Agricultural at Puua, Puna, Hawaii, covered by TMK: 1-4-59:77
Applicant: Nanawale Estates Co.
3. Opposition to Bi1177, Comm. 276 to change District Classification from Open to
Residential and Agricultural at Puua, Puna, Hawaii, covered by TMK: 1-4-47:87.
Applicant: Nanawale Estates Co.
I have prepared some handouts to show how these proposals conflict with the most basic
principles of planning and logic.
• Zoning Allocation page from Puna Community Development Plan.
The County of Hawaii's procedures for preparing Community Development Plans
requires the creation of something called a Land Zoning Bank, to project how many new
acres of each type of zoning will be needed to create awell-planned community. The
version of that created for the Puna Community Development Plan, passed by the
Planning Commission in October, 1995, is attached. When looking at the chart on the
bottom, please note that we only considered lots under one acre in size as residential. If
we had counted, Leilani and Hawaiian Paradise Park as residential lots, which is how
they are used, we would have had enough residential parcels for several decades. If we
had counted all the 30,000 or so parcels of two and three acres, which are also mostly
used for homes, not farms, we would have been well stocked with residential land for the
next century or so. But right now we are very short of economic land uses, such as
commercial, light industrial, offices...
• The other major land use we are short of is civic, mostly schools and parks. On the
attached page entitled Land Use Allocation Model for Nanawale Estates, I have broken ~ 7.~ . 0 0/
Comm. No.
File No. ~ ~ P
Ref. Toprese~ed PC
Ref. Date 6 - 3 - 9 9
Bonnie Goodell, Testimony Against Nanawale Rezoning May 26, 1999 p?
out the number of acres needed for parks, schools and other civic uses. This model of
land use proportions is based on a combination of standards and studies. This model is
the one used to create the three development scenarios compared to produce the Puna
CDP. This model was approved by the Planning Department for use in Puna. I have
applied it to Nanawale. As you can see the number of acres expected to be needed for
parks, schools, police and fire, etc., is over 150 acres. In this I used the National
standazd for parks, five acres per 1000 people. At the bottom of this chart, not the
comparison between pazks provided for Hilo and for Puna. Puna is not only already short
of parks, but 4/5 of Puna's house lots are still unoccupied.
• Pages 39-41 from the State Dept. of Health Primary Care Needs Assessment Data
Book. As a land use planner, if I were to predict the result of land uses so out of balance
and so lacking in economic land uses and schools and parks, I would predict a
disadvantaged community, lacking in sufficient opportunities for it's people. It is no
wonder that Puna is the most socioeconomically at-risk community in the state, with the
highest number of people receiving public subsidies. It is that way by design.
• How does land use planning relate to the tax base. It is amenities such as pazks that
improve property values. The set aside of parks would improve the value of rest of the
lots faz beyond the loss of value from a few lots. That is the relationship between tax
base and planning. Tax Increment financing is based on this principle. Good planning
improves the tax base. Not the reverse. If we were to follow this reverse logic, 800 acres
of park in Hilo should immediately be converted to house lots.
• Why does the County have it in for these communities? Why promote bad planning?
Why set out to make us fail? Imagine if this developer were proposing to subdivide
Liliuokalani Park, Moheau and Richardsons, all prime potential tax base. Why is there a
double standard? Why are we constantly sabotaged in every effort to improve
ourselves? As an equity planner, just like in investigating a murder, 1 look at "Who
benefits?". If we become successful communities, with opportunities for low-cost homes
and booming small businesses, a fabulous opportunity for the economy of Hawaii, who
Bonnie Goodell, Testimony Aga~~~st Nanawale Rezoning May 26, 1999 p.3
would lose power and money? Who benefits from screwing all these small owners?
That's pretty easy. It's the large landowners, the same ones that used to produce sugar
and now produce subdivisions. Their profits for those subdivisions depend on two
things:
1. Government spending on their behalf for parks, schools, water, roads, police and fire
stations, to make their planned 40,000 lots in new subdivisions more desirable.
2. Making sure that none of these small-owner subdivisions get any of that same
public support, so that we don't compete.
I have been analyzing plans and government spending, and listening to officials tie
themselves into logical knots for ten years now. What is going on is depressingly clear.
Discrimination increases their dividends, just like it increased their dividends when they
prevented the children of immigrant laborers from being able to attend school in the
1920s. And it is just as ugly. From the large landowners point of view it is your job as
public officials to publicly rationalize discrimination, support bogus planning documents,
and to apply the double standard. I have supplied the map of Puna that is being used to
justify channeling all public benefits to the future subdivisions of large landowners, and
to deny all public support to existing-small owners, and a map of Puna as it actually is. I
have also included a list of all-purpose public rationalizations for discrimination, as good
now as they were in the 1920s, and a guide to the mechanics of using planning to
discriminate. You must choose whether to continue to use them.
2.1.10 JAND USE: Zoning Alloy __cion Needs
2.1.10.1 Zoning Allocation Needs
' The Zoning Allocation Needs inventory estimates needed land uses for development which is
expected to occur within the planning period (minus the land uses already available to meet those
' needs). The number of acres within each land use category is like a fund from which rezonings may
be drawn to meet the current deficiencies or projected needs.
' The model used here to determine zoning needs is drawn from actual zoned acres per thousand
population in the County of Hawaii. It is difficult to gauge the accuracy of this model. It is prob-
able that these figures include lands zoned but not developed. At the same time, many commercial
' and light industrial uses take place on agricultural or residential lots, especially in Puna. Since they
are often without permits, they represent use needs not reflected in zoned acres.
This rural style of mixed uses is valued by many Puna residents. However, some non-residen-
tial home businesses which involve noise, smell, inventory in the yard, or traffic, are drawing neigh-
bors' complaints. This conflict will probably increase as subdivisions fill in, and neighbors aze
' brought closer together. The inadequate supply of land properly zoned for these uses may also
discourage start-up or expansion of businesses which could supply needed local jobs and services.
Planning to make local supporting land uses compatible with the valued rural style may require
' new definitions of mixed use and home businesses. It is for this reason that the Rural Town District
Code is proposed. Under the model for the Rural Town District, the actual needs for zoned acres for
commercial, resort, and light industrial would be much less, for two reasons: 1) new defmitions
' allowing compact mixed uses and a wider range of home occupations would replace these uses in
less space, and 2) land requirements for pazking would be reduced by as much as 50%, thereby
decreasing the acreage required for these uses by as much as 35%.
' The Zoning Allocation Needs Table below shows the number of acres in the "fund" for rezon-
ing, based on the actual zoned acres model, projected to the yeaz 2005, based on a projection of
I approximately 40,000 population, which is a conservative estimate from the County General Plan.
See Population Projections chapter in Section 1.
' Note in the table shown below the acreage shown for SF residential: when non-conforming
subdivision Lots of less than one acre are included it adds 16,2101ots on 5, 396 acres. These figures
do not reflect Ohana dwelling densities.
' TA6LE 2.1.10.2 ZONING ALLOCATION ACRES
Island Zoning Allocation Needs
Actual Use Deficit (Excess)
Model ['una Now: 30,000 people Now Year 2005
Zone AcJ1000 Zoned Acres AcJ1000 30,000 0 40,000 0 .
SF Residcnual 154 2,684 89 1,936 3,476
lncludin Non-con ormin .Subdivision 8,080 269 (3,460) (1,920)
MF Residential 22 4 0 656 876
Resort 11 1 0 329 439
Commercial 11 59 2 271 381
' Industrial 44 479 16 841 1,281
Resid./AS 11 625 21 ('_95) (185)
Agricultural 8,773 198,796 6,627 64,394 152,124
Pttna Commmunity Development Plan 2-9
Land Use Allocation Model for Nanawale Estates,
Based on Actual Use Zoned Acreage, County of Hawaii, 1989
Standards Applied From County General Plan, County Code,
State Department of Education and State Dept. of Health
Standard Nanawale
Acres for Approx.
5,000 pop. 12,500 pop
Residential (2-5 houses/acre) 770 1925
Multi-family (10+/acre) 110 275
Commercial: Office and Retail 55 137.5 Good Planning -
Industrial o Balanced Land Uses,
Heavy 100 250 convenientl arran ed
Light 120 300 Pro er Pro or[
ons and Mix of
Resort (not include. B&B) 55 137.5 Horner (Residen[ial)
Economle Uses Total 275 687.5 Civic and Social Uses
Parks (5 aeres/1000)" 25 62.5 Economic Land Uses
Elementary Schools 10 25 (Commercial, Industrial, etc.)
Basic Economic Infrastructure
IntMigh Schools 12 30
Eldercare 6 15
Day care 6 15
civic/social services 2 5 Economic, Socia(
Fire police 2 2 and Educational
Civic uses Total 63 154.5
Opportunities
Note: for civic and economic uses, configuration must be considered.
for instance, a playing field cannot be put in a one-acre park.
Hilo/Puna Level of Service for County Parks Desirable
from Glenn Miyao, 5/24/99 COmtTluriitleS
total developed
acres/1000 acres/1000
HILO (45,000 people) Increased
Total acres: 825 18.3 Property Values
Developed acres: 590 13.1
PUNA (30,000 people)
Total acres: 127 4.2 III1pCOVed
Developed acres: 42 1.4
Tax Base
Approximately 20% of Puna's 56,000 houselots are now occupied. At full
occupancy, the expected population would be 150,000
At five acres per thousand, the national standard, Puna would be expected
to need 750 acres of parks
At the Hilo standard of t3 developed acres per 1000 people, Puna
would be expected to need 1,950 acres of county park.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \r Y Y Z 7 ~
r r r r r r r r r r v~ 3 T a o
\ \ . w rt
~ \ ~ . \'\i'~ 3 ,O~o o YYZ~~ C: Vi
rrrrr rrrrr °'o„ a~f] ~ oocd y
\ \ \ \ . \ . ~ ~ qo 6 0
r rrrrr rrrrr ~w~~d (7 C. ~Y ti~~m (y = 7
R o ~ o a
rte. r r r r r r r r r B"~ L. O
..rrrrr rrrrr R o ~m qq
\ \ . ? . \ \ \ U ~ w U n ~ S n 7 b
rrrrr,rrrr„ ~ g~~~~~ ~ ~>>a
. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l \ ~ 6
r r r r r r r r r r p y C N< p = ~
? \ \ . \ . ? ? . . \ ? i 9 f4 ry ~ jc?~p
rrrrrrrrrrrrr Y~vm o2. ~Ftie~ L3 ~p O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
• ......rrrrr • .e ~ m 25 c n " O
rrrrrrrrrrrrr ~,o ~ n O ^p m
rrrrrrrrrrrrr B
\ \ . \ \ \ \ ~ . 7
..rrrrr .rrrrr ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ S ~ C
\ \ . \ . \ \ \ \ o
7y ~ ~ ~ o
E- ~ "s~ ~ °o~~^
~ 3
e
~r m ~ ~ p "'0
r
~~g ao
g ~ ~ € a ~ 3 ~ zero
714 a^~ ~ az~~z ~~3R~~~ '°o A
ga ep g ~3~<w ~ ooc
8 1~1~1~1 iiiiiif ~p,="F' ~ ~.~s°~ d~°B~~,S ."A'"'~o
e T~}~ m.4°-~ o E ^ cam. ~ < r~1"i O ~ p ~w
w 1~1~1~1 iEiii~i ~ E ° 7 ~ ~ ~ 4° ~ m ~ Z ~ ~ C A
R ~ ~ ~ Eq iii pc E ~ R B ~n S'!„ p
~7a ti RR f ~5~~+ ~$~3 ~ w~U~~w rn Ab ~
~ ~ a iii r ~i m~ ~ ii iiii ~ S ~ ?a ~ ~ ~ ~ A o. q °'3 }~D
~ rt
~ ~
_2
R
w. 1%
e ~ Y7
n C D
x ~ ~
r[s F r
!pS O 8
G~ ~i y
m
3~
8~
^ w
e
Y _ -
> ~
~
>
s > > n
E
>
>
> >
s A
W _ - _ _ _
> ~
U1
a >
a
39
i
Table 8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC RISK INDICATORS, 1991-1996
Population Population Civilian Adults without Financial Foad
Service Area < 200% Aga 65 Unemployment High School Aid Stamp
of Poverty and Over Rate Oiplama Cases Cases ;
11989) (1990) (19961' (19901 (31971" (31971" '
STATE 22.7 112 6.4% 10.1% 6.6% 15.7°~ ~
Honolulu 212 10.9 5.3% 9.6% 5.9% 13.9%
East Hono/u/u 17.1 17.1 4.0 % 8.5 % 2.7 % 8.2
West Honolulu 29.7 12.5 5.7 % 11.9 % 6.9 % 19.9
Ewa 16.2 6.4 5.5°/ 8.9 % 6.0 % 12.2
Wahiawa 38.5 6.0 9.7% 8.7 % 6.6 % 15.8
Waianae 38.8 6.9 11.9 % 19.5 % 30.8 % 57.8
Waialua 26.1 11.8 6.6°h 9.8 % 9.1 % 22.4
Koolauloa 32.7 7.5 7.1 % 10.5 % 10.0 % 21.3
Koo/aupoko 15.2 9.0 4.2% 8.4 % 5.3 % 11.0
Hawaii 34.2 12.5 9.9% 12.7% 11.5% 28.4%
Hilo 32.7 15.1 9.6 % 12.9 % 10.1 % 25.5
Puna 49.8 10.9 15.5 % 15.5 % 24.7 % 56.4
Kau 40.9 14.5 14.4% 15.6% 16.7% 48.0%
South Kona 33.3 11.3 12.8 % 8.4 % 7.2 % 22.5
North Kona 26.1 11.5 6.3 % 10.8 % 9.4 % 23.4
South Kohala 24.5 7.0 6.3 % 8.5 % 3.5°/ 7.4
North Kohala 32.1 14.1 8.5 % 14.9 % 6.2 % 18.3
Hamakua 348 14.8 10.2% 19.1% 8.3% 21.8%
Maui 21.2 11.3 7.3% 10.8% 5.7% 13.1%
Hana 40.8 11.7 3.9% 12.2% 6.2°/ 18.8%
Makawao 21.7 9.0 7.7% 8.7% 5.3°/ 12.2%
Wailuku 17.8 12.9 7.7% 10.9% 6.D% 13.2
Lahaina 17.3 9.7 3.6% 10.3% 2.5% 6.7%
Lanai 19.0 20.2 5.8 % 13.0% 2.5 % 6.3
Mo/okai 45.4 10.6 16.1 % 20.0 % 14.9°/ 33.6
Kauai 22,3 13.1 12.1% 10.6% 6.6% 18.6%
Hana/ei 19.5 11.0 9.1 % 8.3 % 6.4 % 25.8
Kapaa 22.4 9.9 16.4% 11.2% 8.2% 204°
Lihue 20.1 15.6 117% 10.2% 5.3%° 15-6%
Koloa 20.8 142 73% 10.6°/ 5.8°/ 147%
Waimea 26.9 16.1 121% 12.1°/ 6.4°/ 19.4%
Niihau 66 3 0 50.0% 18.4 % 19.4°/ 69.4
Sources'. Annual Rutc Cor 1996 Murch 7, 1997 Quvrterly Keport.
40
Table 9 RANKING BASED ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCORES
Service Area Current Current Service Area Current Current
County-wide Risk Rank Risk Score State-wide Risk Rank Risk Score
Honolulu STATE
(highest) (highest/
Waianae 1 8.84 Puna 1 9.95
West Hona/u/u 2 -0.80 Waianae 2 8.84
Waia/ua 3 -1.12 Kau 3 7.57
Koa/auloa 4 -1.36 Molokai 4 7.55
Wahiawa 5 -1.96 Hamakua 5 3.88
East Honolulu 6 -3.72 Hi/o 6 2.46
Ewa 7 -5.52 Waimea 7 1.48
Koo/aupoko 8 -5.57 North Kohala 8 1.26
(/awest) Kapaa 9 0.54
South Kona 10 0.38
H a W 811 Hana 11 -0.45
Puna 1 9.95 Cihue 12 -0.45
Kau 2 7.57 West Honolulu 13 -0.80 •
Hamakua 3 3.88 North Kona 14 -0.98
Hilo 4 2.46 Waia/ua 15 -1.12
North Kohala 5 1.26 Lanai 16 -1.15
South Kona 6 0.38 Koolauloa 17 -1.36
North Kana 7 -0.98 Koloa 18 -1.76
South Kohala 8 -5.14 Wahiawa 19 -1.96
Hana/ei 20 -2.24
Maui Wailuku 21 -2.33 1
Molokai 1 7.55 East Honolulu 22 -3.72
Hona 2 -0.45 Makawao 23 -3.79
Lanai 3 -1.15 South Kohala 24 -5 14 1{
Wai/uku 4 -2.33 Ewa 25 -5.52
Maka woo 5 -3.79 Lahaina 26 -5.56
Lahaina 6 -5.56 Koo/aupoko 27 -5.57 l`
/lowest)
Kauai
Waimea 1 1.48 f
Kapaa 2 0.54
Lihue 3 -0.45
Koloa 4 -1.76
Hanalei 5 -2.24 N
- _ ~I
1
41
Table 10 RANKING BASED ON COMBINED RISK SCORES
Service Area Current Current Service Area Current Current i
County-wide Risk Rank Risk Score State-wide Risk Rank Risk Score
i
I
Honolulu STATE
(highestl (highest) j
Waianae 1 14.02 Puna 1 15.12 ~
West Honolu/u 2 -0.53 Kau 2 15.08
Koo/au/oa 3 -3.14 Waianae 3 14.02
Wahiawa 4 -3.30 Hamakua 4 10.77
Waia/ua S -4.10 Mo/okai 5 10.52
Ewa 6 -7.17 Hilo 6 5.33
East Hono/ulu 7 -7.58 Waimea 7 3.74
Koolaupoko 8 -8.79 Hana 8 2.06
(lowest) North Kohala 9 2.04
Kapaa 10 1.20
Hawaii Lanai 11 0.31
Puna 1 15.12 West Hono/u/u 12 -0.53
Kau 2 15.08 Lihue 13 -1.02
Hamakua 3 10.77 South Kona 14 -2.76
Hilo 4 5.33 Koo/au/oa 15 -3.14
North Koha/a 5 2.04 Wahiawa 16 -3.3D
South Kona 6 -2.76 North Kona 17 -3.33
North Kona 7 -3.33 Ko/oa 18 -3.55
South Kohala 8 -5.48 Wailuku 19 -4.03
Waialua 20 -4.10
Maui South Koha/a 21 5 48
Mo/okai 1 10.52 Hanalei 22 -6.20
Hana 2 2.06 Ewa 23 -7.17
Lanai 3 0.31 East Honolu/u 24 -7.58
Wailuku 4 -4,03 Maka woo 25 -8.44
Makawao 5 -8.44 Koo/aupoko 26 -8.79
Lahaina 6 -10.79 Lahaina 27 -10.79
(lowestl
Kauai
Waimea 1 3.74
Kapaa 2 1.20
Lihue 3 -1.02
Ko/oa 4 -3.55
Hanalei 5 -6.20 I
-~I
O _
_ ~ ,
\ _ .Lp~
_ r~. -
Z
~
i
a
s
O
`c
b
c
~ j
y
s
d
eu
~
~
.c ~ t !
¢ cad ~ ~ ~ ~ o
i
..1 Q m ~
Q'`/ ~ 9 C
pQa GO ~ .y ti OCp
W~ o-. C C N ~ v i i
~ ~ ~ W 7 ~
W i-.~ ¢ 3 ~G~yy C G C ~
~ L7 ~ L S ~
~ N
~ ~ ~
~
N
1s
L
0
Q.
\ _
f
~ `i ~t
< L
~ ~ ~t
~ ~~/~~,/q
/ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ /
j ti. ~ ~ s~ . ;
k ~
~ ~ '7-~5 i
rl Y~ '~--Irn~~ ' 4' ~ ~ _ i~
~~ls ~ .
i ~ -
' I
~ r~,~ ~ -
1 ~ - _
~ c`"i c`~ ~ ~ ~-I--- ~ ~i
d
~,a ~.a° ~
~ a / '
D ~ ~
.p ' _ - -
on
N
_
~ ~ - ~ r _ - / jl
_ ~ ~ 'mac
a. ~ ~ _
i ~ ~
~ / i 1 I \ i1'
3 ~
~ ~
I ! ~ ~ ~
~I
~
Public Rationalizations, 1900 to 1950, to manipulate the public to support
discrimination against immigrant laborers:
• "They knew when they came what the deal was: '
• "They don't want schools, parks, water, etc. They all just want to send their kids to
Japanese School, to box, sumo wrestle, and fight chickens."
• "They don't need good water and sewers; this is what they are used to."
• "We have not given them access to education, sanitation, etc.; we can't afford to set a
precedent now."
• "We know this isn't fair. But we aren't ready to change. It would ruin the economy."
• "These people aze rude hooligans who don't know our local ways. If they would just
be polite and ask nicely, everything would be okay."
• "Well, look how they fight among themselves. First they must all agree."
Who Benefitted? "The Big Five" landowners/sugar factors.
Modern Planning Discrimination Tactics to benefit large landowners (now
"subdivision factors") by destroying small-owner competition.
• Do not acknowledge the existence of the small-owner communities in any plans;
thereby no plans are made for their services. "We can't provide services; there's no
plan."
• Call the places where they live agricultural land. Then in planning analyses, "land use
inventories" can justify supporting the new subdivisions of large landowners.
• Using phony land use maps and analysis, divert public spending for schools, pazks,
transportation, water source development, and economic land uses to "planned future
developments" of the large landowners, so none benefit the small-owner communities.
• Sabotage any of the land uses of economic opportunity in small-owner communities,
such as schools, commercial, light industrial, so there is no place to create jobs. (Then
blame them for their joblessness, poverty and social problems.)
• Sabotage home business entrepreneurs with rule changes and crackdowns; never let
them become legitimate enough to hire full-time employees or expand. Force them to
stay in the precarious gray economy. Make sure economic land is in such short supply
they can't afford it. Approve more house lots so the job/housing imbalance gets worse
and worse.