HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 Puna CDP$7.50
Community
Development
Plan
prepared by
Community Management Associates, Inc.
for
The County of Hawaii
Planning Department
October 1995
Introduction
Present and future growth in Puna communities can create opportunity or crisis,
depending on our ability to articulate a shared vision. Achieving that vision calls
for a variety of planning models and legal and financial tools. The vision that we
share and carry out emerges out of appreciation for the unique character and strengths
Lof Puna.
• Puna is the home of a family of Hawaiian deities, the base of an important
part of Hawaiian culture. That cultural tradition fell into political disrepute and
repression two hundred years ago, at the hands of European colonizers and the de-
scendents of Kamehameha I. That cultural tradition is now in the piocess of rebirth.
The celebration of, and renewed respect for, the family of Pele and her associates in
Puna, provides a framework of place names, traditions and sites for further cultural
recognition and a heightened "sense of place" for Puna.
• The Hawaiian tradition is matched by strengthened scientific knowledge of
and respect for the same forces -of nature that made Puna so important to Hawaiian
culture: the active volcano, the remarkable forests, and the bountiful pure water, the
Iultimate
combination of earth, fire and water, that the Hawaiians knew and honored.
A United Nations -designated International Biosphere Preserve, centered at Kilauea,
recognizes Puna's environmental value and significance.
• The newcomers to Puna, together with the "old time" locals and native Hawai-
ians are a varied mix of people, with a wide range of skills and a commitment to
creating opportunities for themselves and their neighbors. Their grassroots commu-
nity -building history and patterns bodes well for finding solutions to Puna's planning
problems. Like the union -organizing struggles of the plantation immigrants, the
desire for a quality life for themselves, their children and their elders, has drawn
together many diverse personalities and groups.
n�
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
i
I
li
• Although Puna lost its major agricultural base, sugar, in 1984, and al-
though the income level of its residents is among the lowest in Hawaii, Puna's pros-
pects are good for developing a strong economic tripod. J
Strong local communities, many skilled workers, a low cost of living, and the
beauty of the physical environment are among the chief criteria for locating
decentralized, information -intensive businesses. Fortunately, the Keaau area
has ample reserves of land suitable for expansion of quality workplaces, conve-
niently located between Puna's residential communities and Hilo's ports.
Puna is already developing in the fastest growing tourism niche in the Pacific
basin--ecotourism--and possesses the unspoiled natural and cultural environ-
ment, small-business entrepreneurs and commitment to sustainability to lead
the state in this area.
Development'of diversified agriculture is proceeding rapidly in Puna, thanks to
abundant rainfall, affordable land, proximity to Hilo's ports and the enterprising
spirit of Puna farmers.
The current problems of Puna arise from rapid in -migration into subdivisions
which lack adequate infrastructure, community facilities and supporting land uses for
current and future residents. These problems are compounded by fact that the
location of a large number of those subdivision lots --over 35%--are located in areas
of high hazard for flooding, lava flow, coastal subsidence, or tsunami inundation.
The challenge of planning in Puna is to retain Puna's rural character, her natural
beauty, affordability and diversity while improving her livability and future pros-
pects.
Puna Communiry Development Plan
F11
C"
r PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 1-1
1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 1-3
1.2 PLANNING PROCESS 1-4
1.3 VISION STATEMENT 1-5
1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PUNA COMMUNITY 1-5
1.5 VISION LANDSCAPES:
NOW, CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RURAL VISION 1-6
1.6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR PUNA 1-10
1.6.1 Recent Trends
1.6.2 Components of Growth Rate
1.6.3 Factors Affecting Population Growth Rate
1.6.4 Short-term Population Projections: for the year 2005
1.6.5 Planning Forecast: Puna Will Build Out
SECTION 2 2-1
2.1 LAND USE
2-3
2.1.2. Agriculture
2-6
2.1.3. Commercial
2-6
2.1.4. Industrial
2-7
2.1.5. Multiple Family Residential
2-7
2.1.6. Single Family Residential
2-7
2.1.7. Resort
2-8
2.1.8. Open Space
2-8
2.1.9. Public Lands
2-8
2.1.10. Zoning Allocation Needs
2-9
2.2 TRANSPORTATION
2-11
2.3. ECONOMIC
2-14
2.3.2. Agriculture
2-15
2.3.3. Tourism
2-16
2.3.4. Fishing
2-17
2.3.5. Industry
2-17
2.3.6. Geothermal Energy
2-18
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan
iii
61
Table of Contents continued
2.4. NATURAL HAZARDS
2-20
2.4.1. Subsidence
2-20
2.4.2. Lava Flow
2-21
2.4.3. Flooding
2-22
,
2.4.4. Fire
2-23
2.5. HOUSING
2-25
2.6. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2-26
2.6.2. Education
2-26
2.6.3. Protective Services
2-28
2.6.4. Government Operations
2-29
2.6.5. Health and Sanitation
2-30
2.7. PUBLIC UTILITIES
2-31
2.7.2. Water
2-31
2.7.3. Electricity
2-32
2.7.4. Telephone
2-32
2.7.5. Sewer
2-33
2.8. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Recreation
2-34
2.9. ENERGY
2-37
2.10. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
2-38
2.10.3. Lava Tube Caves
2-39
2.11. HISTORIC SITES & NATURAL BEAUTY
2-40
2.11.3. Names, Sites, and Corridors
2-41
2.11.3.1. Hawaiian Cultural Sites
2-41�
2.11.3.2. Hawaiian Historic Sites
2-42
2.11.3.3. Ancient Trails
2-42
2.11.3.4. Historic Sites
2-43
2.11.3.5. Railroad Rights -of -Way
2-43
2.11.3.6. Historic/Scenic Roads
2-43
�.
tv Puna Community Development Plan
61
6
Table of Contents continued
SECTION 3 1. 3-1
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING 3-3
3.1.1 LAND USE
3-3
3.1.1.1 Equity
3-3
3.1.1.1.1 Consistency and Conformity
3-3
3.1.1.2 New Tools
3-3
3.1.1.2.1 Hazard Designations
3-3
3.1.1.2.2 Rural Town District
3-4
3.1.1.2.2 A Rural Town District Model
3-6
3.1.1.2.2 B Rural Town District Process Example
3-7
3.1.1.2.3 Transfer of Development Rights
3-8
3.1.1.3 Timing
3-8
3.1.2 CAPITAL PROJECTS
3-8
3.1.2.1 Fiscal Equity
3-9
3.1.2.1.1. Parks, Police and Fire
3-9
3.1.2.1.2 Secondary Arterial Corridors and Water Mains
3-9
3.1.2.1.3 Collector and Frontage Roads
3-10
3.1.2.2 Tools
3-10
3.1.2.2.1 Land Banking
3-10
3.1.2.2.2 Public/Private Partnerships
3-10
3.1.2.2.3 Concurrency
3-10
3.1.2.2.4 Project District Incentives within a Rural Town District
3-11
3.1.2.2.5 Redevelopment Districts
3-11
3.1.2.2.6. Land Readjustment
3-11
3.1.2.3. Capital Improvements Timing
3-11
3.1.2.3.1 Land Acquisition
3-11
3.1.2.3.2 Parks
3-11
3.1.2.3.3 Police and Fire
3-12
3.1.2.3.4 Transportation
3-12
3.1.2.3.5 Water
3-12
3.1.2.3.6 Schools
3-12
3.1.3 POLICIES 3-12
3.1.3.1 Equity Issues 3-12
3.1:3.2. Tools 3-13
3.1.3.2.1 Roadway Standards 3-13
3.1.3.2.2 Level of Service (LOS) Standards 3-13
3.1.3.2.3 Water Pricing 3-13
3.1.3.2.4 Partnership Programs 3-13
3.1.3.2.5 Drainage Planning for South Kulani Flooding 3-13
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
v
Table of Contents continued 0
3.1.3.3 Timing 3-14
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS 3-15
3.2.1 Introduction to This Section 3-15 Li
3.2.1.1 Need for a Positive Vision 3-15
3.2.1.2 "Window of Opportunity 3-15;
3.2.1.3 Being Prepared to Take Advantage of Unforeseen Opportunities 3-15
3.2.2 Issues of Interrrelated Planning Elements 3-16
3.2.2.1 Affordable Housing 3-16
3.2.2.2 Variety of Housing and Lifestyle Options 3-16
3.2.2.3 Timing and Predictability 3-17�
3.2.3 Deficiencies in Infrastructure, Public Facilities, and Supporting Land Uses 3-17
3.2.3.1 Catchment water
3-17
3.2.3.2 Sewage treatment
3-18
3.2.3.3 Utility grids
3-18
3.2.3.4 Neighborhood school sites
3-18
3.2.3.5 Elder- and child-care
3.2.3.6 Hospitals and community health care sites
3-18
3-18+
3.2.3.7 Cemetery sites
3-18
3.2.3.8 Police and fire stations
3.2.3.9 Solid Waste Recycling and Disposal
3-19
3-19
3.2.3.10 Regional, district, community, and
neighborhood parks and community centers
3-19
3.2.3.11 Roadways
3-19
3.2.3.12 Public Arterial Transportation Corridors
3-19
3.2.3.13 Variety in housing
3-19
3.2.3.14 General industrial
3-19
;
3.2.3.15 Light industry
3-20
3.2.3.16 Commercial
3-20
3.2.3.17 Resort
3-21
3.2.3.18 Open space
3-21
3.2.4 New Towns
3-21
3.2.4.1 Location
3.2.4.2 Planning horizon
3-21
3-21
3.2.4.3 Sizing of new towns
3-21
3.2.3.4 Clustering versus increasing overall density
3-22
3.2.3.5 Growth management
3-22
3.2.3.6 Green Belt
3-22
to
vi Puna Communiry Development Plan 10
go
Table of Contents continued
3.3 Land Use Charts and Maps
3-23
3.3.1 Proposed Land Use Changes Chart
3-23
3.3.2 State Land Use District Changes Map
3-24
3.3.3 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Changes Map
3-26
3.3.4 Zone Guide Map
3-28
3.3.5 Transportation Proposals Map
3-30
3.3.6 Public Facilities and Utilities Map
3-32
3.3.7 Map Notes
3-34
3.3.8 Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan
3-35
Resource List 3-37
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
vii
t
SECTION 1
ORGANIZATION OF PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
VISION STATEMENT
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
LANDSCAPE SKETCHES FOR
CURRENT, CONVENTIONAL AND PREFERRED
DEVELOPMENT
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
7
if
1-1
Puna Community Development Plan
r
U-
111
q
f
r
1-2 Puna Community Development Plan
r �
L
1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
LThe Puna Community Development Plan (Puna CDP) is organized to reflect its relationship to the
County of Hawaii General Plan and to the requirements of the County of Hawaii General Plan
Revisions, 1980.
j The Technical Reference Report of the Puna Community Development Plan (January, 1992) ,
} a separate document but an integral part of this community development plan, details the social,
economic and environmental data for the Puna district, including significant changes that have
occurred in Puna since the drafting of the General Plan.
Section is Introductory. It starts with a description of the process used to arrive at the Plan rec-
ommendations and how the special planning strengths and problems of Puna were approached.
Following that is the Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives, and illustrations of the planning
landscape envisioned for the future.
�7
Section 1 also includes the population projections and population planning forecast for Puna.
Section 2,'Specific Concerns and Courses of Action, is organized to cover the planning elements
from the General Plan, and includes Courses of Action from the General Plan as well as new CDP
recommendations. Zoning Allocation Needs are enumerated at the end of the Land Use Section.
Section contains chapters on Implementation and Financing, and The Non-ConformingSubdi-
visions as well as land use and Zone Guide maps and chart, Transportation Map and Facilities
and Utilities Map.
The chapter on Implementation and Financing makes general recommendations for carrying out the
proposals contained in Section 2. It is divided into three parts: Land Use, Capital Projects, and
Policies. Each of these sections contains subsections on Equity, Tools, and Timing. The Land Use
chapter also contains a conceptual plan and a process diagram for the designation of a Rural Town
District that is central to the land use vision of this plan.
The chapter on Non -Conforming Subdivisions includes recommended long-term approaches to
bringing all subdivisions into conformance with "kinds of environments," described in the General
Plan. Following are a chart and three maps detailing the land use recommendations, and two maps
illustrating the recommendations for transportation, public facilities and utilities.
At the end is a Selected Resource List for the both the subject matter and the community -based
process described in the plan.
Puna Community Development Plan
1-3
1.2 PLANNING PROCESS
1.2.1 A Unique Planning Environment 1.2.2 A Community -Centered Process
The Puna Community Development Plan (Puna
CDP) was accomplished in an untraditonal
manner. There are five process elements which
distinguish this plan:
I. The planners live in, and are part of, the Puna
community. At County request, community -
based planning and community initiatives were
the basis for the plan's contents and its recom-
mendations for future action, in recognition of
the unique and active community participation
level in Puna. This plan's recommendations
reflect the dedication, capability and creativity of
individuals and groups in Puna, who volunteered
to meet head-on and solve the problems of
Puna's non -conforming subdivisions.
U. As a part of the Puna Community Develop-
ment Plan, a comprehensive Technical Refer-
ence Report was published (January, 1992) to
serve the community, businesses and officials in
the public process for the next decade.
III. The planning team carried out extensive
research into non -conforming subdivisions in the
United States and in other countries, for informa-
tion on planning strategies and tools to transform
lot -sale subdivisions, like those in Puna, into
functional communities. A number of those tools
are recommended in this plan.
IV. While Puna has large landowners who may
be seeking development approvals —the more
normal planning situation in Hawaii —most of
the property in Puna for which planning is
needed is made up of small lots, with develop-
ment rights that are as yet largely unused. This
"throws off' the usual planning process. In
Puna, the future growth is already permitted, but
the infrastructure, public facilities and support-
ing land uses are not in place, or even planned.
V. The Puna CDP planning process began
concurrent with the destruction of nearly 200
homes by lava flows in Kalapana. The issues of
hazard mitigation, for lava flow, earthquake,
subsidence and tsunami, directed the focus of
research to the policies developed to lower the
risk in hazard areas elsewhere. The scientists at
the Hawaii Volcano Observatory and their
United States Geological Survey colleagues in
California generously shared their research and
planning documents.
During Phase I of the planning process, the
planning team made dozens of presentations to
community groups, to provide information about
the County's planning procedures and policies, to
identify issues, and to provide information to
increase community options and effectiveness.
Community interaction also included interviews
with key informants, surveys, "brainstorming"
sessions, task groups with a mixture of residents,
government representatives and substantive
experts, and facilitation of a parallel, indepen-
dent planning process by a community -based
Puna Development Plan Committee.
During the second phase of the planning process,
with the help of subconsultant Peter Young, an
appraiser, a series of three detailed future sce-
narios were produced —Suburban, Urban, and
Rural —these were presented to the public at four
meetings on consecutive days in four different
communities: Kea'au, Pahoa, Volcano, and
Mountain View.
Participants expressed preference or disaproval
on a wide variety of policies, including costs, for
each scenario. As the meetings concluded,
participants were asked to choose their preferred
scenario.
This "straw poll" heavily favored the Rural
scenario, based on the replication, in new subdi-
vision centers, of the existing rural towns of
Puna, with land use patterns arranged around
future transit corridors, and a "downtown" at
Waikahekahe, which is the geographical center
of the central subdivisions. The most strongly
supported planning elements included trail
systems, compact small town neighborhoods,
preservation of the integrity of agricultural lands,
and a variety of community -based planning and
infrastructure financing tools to accomplish these
ends.
Community responses as well as the infrastruc-
ture needs and cost projections generated for the
scenarios are the source of many of the Specific
Concerns and Courses of Action in Section II.
Subconsultant Alan Okamoto, an attorney
specializing in infrastructure financing, assisted
in developing suggested courses of action
regarding infrastructure financing strategies and
tools.
13
171
I
Cr
_7111
11
A
Is
I
11
11
1-4 Puna Communiry Development Plan
I
1.3 VISION STATEMENT
r
L J
0
C
C
U
L
LJ
Ll
i�
Puna will become a thriving rural district, with small, pedestrian, -entrepre-
neurial towns, connected by public transportation, each surrounded by
protected farms, rural residential settlements and open spaces, where
planning and development is initiated and implemented by community
members, property owners and businesses, in cooperation with public and
private agencies. Each community will provide a range of housing, em-
ployment and service opportunities for residents having diverse incomes,
needs and mobility. Development will be appropriate to the natural haz-
ards of the Puna District, with sensitivity and respect for the Hawaiian
cultural heritage.
1.4 Goals and Objectives for Puna Community Development
• Rural character
• Small town atmosphere.
• Agricultural lands and agricultural oppor-
tunities for large and small farmers.
• Areas for people who want to "get away
from it all."
• Lifestyle
• Prevention of "fatal impact" developments
that may price low-income lifestyles out of
the area.
• Conveniently located services and work-
places.
• More pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods.
• Pluralism: all kinds of people welcome in
every neighborhood.
• Environment
• Identified and preserved historic sites,
especially Hawaiian cultural sites.
• Pristine native forests.
• Native flora and fauna habitats co -existing
in and alongside developed areas.
• Low environmental -impact land use and
transportation patterns.
Puna Community Development Plan
• Opportunity
• Regulatory environment of opportunity for
entrepreneurs.
• Quality neighborhood jobs with family-. .
enhancing features like childcare and
eldercare.
• Alternative tourism development make
assets of environment and owner -operations.
• Opportunities for large -landowner develop-
ment, without prohibitive regulatory costs.
• Security
• Land use patterns and building regulations
that minimize risk from natural hazards.
• Escape routes.
• Better roads.
• Water supplies.
• Improved fire and police protection.
• Flood prevention and improved drainage.
• Local health-, child- and elder -care.
• Infrastructure, but without excessive costs
that would eliminate affordable housing.
• Planning
• Proactive rather than reactive planning.
• Vision of build -out.
1-S
1-6 Puna Community Development Plan
.,c,. I A '� if c `
t'
t�"t`! � �'E � � • 6t � t � 1
fr�•Q � tt � f f�`,t �d ' �
r ( �
f;¢t
jl r
E
F
Puna Community Development Plan 1 "7
w
•, r J
rled
lb NR legs
Ova
as
s
Isr
fir
W 'i � ♦ 'i4 f� � �
Q , ,
o�
e
I IN
1hIL
4 oit`�c e
r
` c
Puna Community Development Plan
c
r �r
lIts< , ,
►''all
tug Ig(
ti v �of�
lop
t. ,
4 0'
W , r Pool
� xf' 9 • t` c a� e t a fi0 rt
L> it �'it :f ` c c + '
-01
41,11,
0,00.1
fL � c O e t�t�htl
s , use" ` cc
4 A( 'cq
Rif
1 r PC
Cc
I� `
t •t
�,.
t fr
f TO
t
Puna Community Development Plan 1-9
r
1.6 Population Projections for Puna
11
1.6.1 Recent Trends
Puna's population has increased very rapidly since 1970, as a result of in -migration to the subdivi-
sions, and, since the early 1980s, as a result of a high birth rate. In the 1970s most of the in -migrants
were from the mainland and tended to be older. Since 1985, the trend has been toward younger
families from elsewhere in Hawaii. Since Puna does not have a rapidly expanding economic base
and since most residents own their own homes (while the majority of incomes are under $20,000 per
year), it appears low-cost home sites are a primary attraction.
The records of representative subdivisions —Hawaiian Acres, Eden Roc, Ohia Estates and Mauna
Loa Estates —indicate that house counts have grown from 50% to 80% in the five years since 1990.
County records of permitted dwelling units reveal 5,167 dwelling unit permits issued for Puna in the
five years since the1990 Census, compared to 3,974 from 1980 to 1989. Unfortunately, data is
insufficient to make reliable assessments or to reliably project into the future. However, it is clear
that Puna's population is growing rapidly.
1.6.2 Components of Growth Rate
Mortality or death rate is a result of a number of factors, such as general health care and sanitation
(which especially affect infant and child mortality), and the age of the population. In Puna, the
mortality rate is somewhat lower than the rest of Hawaii because the age of the population is lower...
However, factors such as a large number of teenage pregnancies may affect infant and child health.
Fertility or birth rate is the number of births as a proportion of the total population. The fertility
level of Puna appears to be rising, largely as a result of in -migration of young Hawaiian and part -
Hawaiian families, which have a higher birthrate than other groups. In Puna, at the end of 1989,
there were 3.44 births for every death, whereas the rate for the state as a whole was 2.89.
In-migiation to the area is the chief cause of Puna's rapid growth. The rate of in -migration fluctuated
during the 1980s, becoming quite low in 1982-84. As indicated by building permits for new dwell-
ings, the rate began increasing rapidly about 1986. In the early 1990s, dwelling permit numbers
were very high then dropped off in anticipation of, then response to, more expensive building regula-
tions.
1.6.3 Factors Affecting Population Growth Rate
WITHIN PUNA
High birth rate(+)
Young families (+)
Improved Highways (+)
Water supplies to subdivisions (+)
Improved highways (+)
Drought/fire (-)
Impact Fees (-)
Social service availability(-)
Lack of Home insurance (-)
Volcanic activity (+/-)
Geothermal electricity (+/-)
Improvement Districts (+/-)
Mortgage availability/land cost (+/-)
1-10
OUTSIDE OF PUNA
High cost of housing elsewhere in Hawaii (+)
Development elsewhere
on the Big Island (+)
Economic Boom (+)
Increasing land costs elsewhere (+)
Development elsewhere on Big Island (+)
Infrastructure funds from
Fed, state, or County (+)
Recession (-)
("+ "indicates a factor that tends to increase population
growth, " -" tends to decrease, and "+/-" indicates
an unpredictable relationship)
Puna Community Development Plan
11
1J
G
[1
t�
11
1J
D
1
C
fil
The growth rate of Puna is remarkably susceptible to factors beyond local control:
• Puna's growth rate appears to reflect the high cost of housing in other places in Hawaii more
than it reflects job development in Puna. (Normally, job development is among the leading
indicator for population growth.)
• Water development for homes, businesses and/or agriculture could increase Puna's population
growth rate, by increasing the availability and affordability of home insurance and mortgages.
6 4 Short-term PoQulation Projections: for the year 2005
MediumLOW i�
` Puna CDP 34,326 50,943 65,694
County General Plan 39,790 49,910 59,340
Assumptions for the Puna CDP projections:
Low projection: This projection shows population growing arithmetically, by the same annual
numbers as the 1980s average. This figure, which is similar to State Department of Business,
`l Economic Development and Tourism projections, is unlikely unless current trends are reversed.
However, a severe drought with associated fires and water shortages, a destructive lava flow
! through populated areas, or a severe recession are. some of the conditions that could markedly slow
Puna's in -migration rate.
Medium 1rojec6on: This projection, considered the "most likely," allows for a growth rate that is
comparable to what happened in the 1980s, a 77% increase in a ten year period. This projection
assumes that the current rate of in -migration will level off or fluctuate through the Nineties.
High Rrojection: This projection is an extrapolation new dwelling permit figures from 1990 to 1995.
r-, This continuing "boom" would severely stress the capacity of existing infrastructure and public
facilities.
1 6 5 Planning Forecast: Puna Will Build Out
�J The chief factor limitinggrowth elsewhere in Hawaii is the shortage, and therefore high cost, of
n residential land. This has not been a limiting factor in Puna. The availability of affordable housing
is such a powerful draw that it has overcome a number of strong disincentives to in -migration: lack
of jobs, lack of infrastructure and community facilities, high rainfall, natural hazards, and limited
availability of insurance and mortgages.
�J
Continued shortfall of Puna's infrastructure, community facilities, and supporting land uses could
slow growth, while the inventory of undeveloped house lots would remain high. For slowing
growth, such a "no development" strategy for the non -conforming subdivisions would undoubtedly
work; however this does not equate with good planning. The planning aims of the Puna Commu-
nity Development Plan are to provide a positive vision of build -out, so that planning can serve its
function of providing a sequential scheme, in space and time, for the most efficient relationship
r possible between cost and quality, to bring non -conforming areas into compliance with the Goals,
Policies, and Standards of the County of Hawaii General Plan.
L
The planning forecast must be that Puna will eventually build out. Puna's population projections,
L then, are a timing device that affect the pace but not the sequence or ultimate pattern of planned
development.
Puna Community Development Plan 1-11
I
t
I
l
I
L
w
w
SECTION 2
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
COURSES OF ACTION
0
I
MOR
1,
t.
2.2 Puna Community Development Plan 11
2.1 LAND USE
2.1.1.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• Lack of appropriate proportions and mix of convenient
land uses for the current and future population.
• Limited availability of community services and
employment centers with adequate public utilities and
services.
• Community support for home businesses and mixed
uses in a rural land use pattern for some areas.
• Concern about incompatible mixing of farming and
residential uses in some areas.
• Lack of predictability for investors in all types of land
uses because of absence of long-term plan for the
maximum permitted population.
r] • Support for pedestrian core land use patterns which
Lcluster uses without increasing overall population .
• Too high a risk for public and private loss from some
Ll already permitted residential uses in areas of flood, lava
flow and subsidence hazard.
Ll
• Conflicting expectations and financial means of
neighboring landowners, especially in the subdivisions.
�• Significant discrepancy between actual land uses in Puna and land use designations and zoning, especially in
the non -conforming subdivisions.
U• Insufficient infrastructure and public services in Puna to
support widespread ohana dwellings.
L. • The agricultural tax policy discourages retention of
valuable forest, even if desired by owner, and does not
recognize the growing time needed for orchards and
agroforestry.
} • One -acre subdivisions, granted in farming areas, tend
to raise agricultural land prices out of reach for farmers
and bring in neighbors who complain about farming
smells, sounds and chemicals.
'* • High residential densities and uses on land with agricul-
tural zoning contribute to distrust of planning and zoning.
• Car dependence is caused in art b shortage of
C P part, Y g
convenient commercial and light industrial uses, services
and compact housing and/or alternative transportation in
subdivisions.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
Strateeic Considerations for Land Use
The retention of affordable housing oppor-
tunities, hazard mitigation, the public cost for
infrastructure and public facilities in large -lot
subdivisions, and the need for an economic base
are among the major public interest issues in
Puna.
Rural Town District: ThisPlansproposed
solution to that problem centers around promul-
gation of a new Rural Town District designation,
to enable and encourage existing and new towns
to develop in a more low-cost and compact
pattern than allowed by the current zoning code.
This can be accomplished by consolidating and
mixing uses to provide pedestrian amenities and
lifestyle options that serve the needs of the eld-
erly, small shopkeepers, the disabled, young
adults and others for whom auto -dependence
may be a hardship.
By this strategy, Puna may develop in such
a way as to retain its rural character, provide
access to essential safety and health amenities,
andprovideformore equity in opportunitiesand
services for its diverse population. This pro-
posal is based on a community -based planning
strategy for local masterplanning of each rural
community. (See CDP Courses of Action for
Land Use.)
Existing Land Uses: There is a need to
recognize existing land uses through appropri-
ate zoning and to plan for anticipated future land
use needs. Approximately 16,000 lots with agri-
cultural zoning are less than one acre in size.
Another 17,000 are one acre in size with a
permitted density of two dwellings per acre.
Zoning and land use designations different from
permitted uses may hamper local efforts to mas-
ter plan individual communities.
As more subdivisionsfll in, there will be
more conflict and public cost and less flexibility
in carrying out the land use patterns and facili-
ties prescribed in the General Plan.
In areas of high hazard for lavaflow, low, cen-
tralized industrial, commercial, or resort activi-
ties, and development that follow topographical
flow patterns increase potential losses.
2-3
2.1 LAND USE
New Land Uses: In addition to centralization of commer-
cial activity in Pahoa and Kea'au, a new commercial center
should be planned at Waikahekahe. This area, located near
Orchid Land, Hawaiian Acres and Ainaloa includes the
junction of the central subdivision corridor and the pro-
posed "Nine and a Half Road" secondary arterial which
would connect to Komohana Street Extension in Hilo. A
future commercial center at Waikahekahe would provide
the central subdivision community of 30,000 lots with con-
venient placement of public safetyand other civic amenities
to create a much needed sense of place— a"there."
Waikahekahe has several large lots so that commercial and
public amenities could be planned. It would provide many
Puna residents with access to their major needs without
lengthy travel on a primary arterial, cutting trip distance,
and lessening the need to add extra lanes to primary
arterials.
An additional future industrial area is proposed for
Waipalani, mauk4 and makai of the current location of the
Keaau SolidWaste Transfer Station. This location would
not only provide convenience and low cost, but it is also
located on a slight ridge between two drainage areas that
could become natural buffers, and easily accessible directly
from the network of secondary roads.
Eco-tourism and the Environment: There is a grow-
ing economic niche, especially in the Pacific Basin, for eco-
tourism. Puna's eco-tourism industry is growing rapidly.
Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park is the number one natural
area destination in the state. It is also at the center of the
Puna and Kau International Biosphere Preserve and
World Heritage Site, designated by the United Nations.
Convenient and small-scale craft shops, commercial
amenities, restaurants and accommodations, designed to
conform to rural and local character, and located within
hiking distance along trails, support eco-tourism. Local
market gardens of diverse and exotic crops, flowers, or-
ganic farming, agroforestry and sustainable use of native
forest are agricultural uses which have a symbiotic rela-
tionship with eco-tourism. Low -impact visitoraccommoda-
tions such as bed and breakfast establishments and lodges
can contribute to the district's economy without negative
effects upon the environment or lifestyle.
Open space, coastal preservation and hazard mitiga-
tion objectives must be weighed against private property
rights and investment -backed expectations.
- Commercial development, especially its
appearance, should reflect the lifestyle and
character of the surrounding community.
- There is an undersupply of commercial land in
Puna to meet service, entrepreneurial and
employment needs.
- Some residents wish to protect their single
family residential/commuter lifestyle while
others are more concerned about the congestion
and lengthy commutes caused by distant,
inconvenient services. In addition, many are
concerned about the rising costs of car owner-
ship and home insurance that are caused by
their isolation and distance from services.
- Inconvenience of having to go all the way to
Kea`au or Hilo for hardware, building supplies,
car repairs, etc.
- Lack of industrial lands means repairers,
fabricators, tradespeople and crafters have no
convenient, affordable place to go if their
neighbors complain or they want to hire em-
ployees or otherwise expand.
- Resort development, including golf courses,
that increases land values beyond the preferred
life style of local residents is generally not
desired.
- Resort development should support preserva-
tion of the coastline and other critical environ-
mental areas.
- Resort development should support the
comunity-centered lifestyle and community -
based economic development.
- Subdivisions need public use open space and
natural corridors.
- There is strong support for preservation of
coastal open space.
- Access to public lands is desired.
- There is concern for preserving the integrity of
the native rain forest.
2-4
Puna Community Development Plan
2.1 LAND USE
? 1.1.2 CDP Courses of Action for Land Use in Puna
• New planning and development tools should be considered and enabled in a timely manner to
provide the maximum opportunity for public benefit and savings. They should include Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR), land readjustment, community land banking, lease partnerships, rede-
velopment districts and concurrency. These tools could be used in combination with public funding,
improvement districts, Tax Increment Financing and Community Facilities Districts to expand the
V solution choices for Puna's non -conforming subdivisions. These tools are defined in Section 3.1.2.2.
Lr-)
• Promulgate a new Rural Town District (RTD) zoning designation that provides for preservation of
the traditional character of existing rural towns and provides for the development of new towns with
similar traditional character and pedestrian scale. The Rural Town District is further described in
LSection 3.1.2.2.
• Provide incentives, in the form of financial and technical assistance, to existing and new subdivi-
Ll sions and towns, to carry out community -based master -planning.
• Encourage the adoption of Rural Town District ordinance for use of the Rural Town District
L
designation, and/or the creation of Village Commercial (CV) and related zoning categories.
• Remove the Urban Expansion Area designation shown on the County of Hawaii General Plan from
the area around Pahoa, because of the Lava Flow Hazard Zone 2 designation of that area.
• Encourage creation of a community -based planning process for Pahoa, Kea`au, Mountain View
Lland Volcano, to plan preservation, restoration and redevelopment as an RTD, but in such a way that
no new development fronts on Highway 11 or Highway 130.
• Encourage development of village design guidelines for Pahoa, Kea`au, Mountain View and
Volcano in cooperation with village residents.
LJ•Encourage W.H. Shipman, Ltd., to participate in an RTD process with Kurtistown, Happy Homes,
_ Iwasaki Camp and Nine and a Half Mile Camp to plan an RTD to include a master planned develop-
J ment that a new town of Olaa is formed, well off Highway 11, which maintains and enhances the
traditional character of the area.
Encourage the development of a comprehensively planned Project District for the King's Landing
L and Kea`au coastal areas, including the Kings Landing Urban Expansion Area, which brings to-
gether Hawaiian cultural preservation, environmental protection including nene habitat, and eco-
tourism development.
• Encourage landowners and developers to work with the Puna community to plan a new civic and
commercial center for Puna at Waikahekahe, which is the geographical center of the Central Subdi-
visions. Based on such a plan support State Land Use Boundary amendments, General Plan LUPAG
Map changes and rezoning.
• Bring State Land Use designations more into conformity with lot sizes and actual uses in Puna.
(See State Land Use and County General Plan Changes maps and chart in Section 3.3.)
-� Puna Commmunity Development Plan 2-5
r'
2.1.2 LAND USE: Agriculture
2 1 2 l Courses of Action for Agricultural Land Use
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Assist in the provision of water in agricultural areas.
• Assist in the further development of diversified agriculture in the district.
CDP Recommendations:
• Collaborate with community groups to develop ways to separate and buffer agricultural and resi-
dential uses within existing subdivisions. For example, use transfer of development rights to in-
crease residential density and decrease agricultural density; encourage organic farming to buffer (�J
residential and general agriculture, light industry or mixed uses.
• Consider amendment to the County Zoning code to establish a minimum three -acre lot size for
agricultural subdivisions, where a change of zone is required, with the exception of subdivisions to
five lots or less.
• Encourage collaboration between agricultural and other economic interests to master -plan interre-
lated land uses, such as the integration of trail corridors, bed and breakfasts, small restaurants, and
farmer's markets into agricultural communities, but so that these small-scale, village -type uses are
clustered in planned areas rather than allowed as "spot" uses in agriculturally zoned areas.
• Support local food production and competitive marketing for local consumption.
2.1.3 LAND USE: Commercial
2.1.3.1 Courses of Action for Commercial Development
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Centralization of commercial activities in Pahoa shall be encouraged.
• Expanded commercial services to meet the needs of population growth in the Puna district shall be
encouraged in the area of Kea`au.
• Rehabilitation of existing commercial development in appropriate locations shall be encouraged.
• Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the need arises.
CDP Recommendations:
• Collaborate with community and landowners to make a long rqange master plan for a new commer-
cial and public service center at Waikahekahe, with up to half for civic, recreation, and education,
instead of encouraging expansion and centralization of commercial services in Lava Flow Hazard
Zone 1 or 2.
• Collaborate with Mainstreet Pahoa to develop old Pahoa as a service area for Pahoa residents and
as a historic district, including alternative access via traditional trails and railroad rights -of -way.
• In the Kilauea east rift area, encourage the distribution of community activities in a manner which
minimizes risk and discourages commercial development.
• Encourage well -planned residential and proportionate neighborhood commercial development as
part of a Rural Town District, with all supporting public facilities and services, in theW.H. Shipman,
Ltd., property mauka of Shipman Park.
2-6 Puna Community Development Plan 11
10
2.1.4 LAND USE: Industrial
In
2.1.4.1 Courses of Action for Industrial Development
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- The County shall identify sites suitable for future industrial activities.
JU
CDP Recommendations:
- Consider designation of light industrial areas to meet the needs of the east rift area in the State
lands between Pahoa and the central subdivisions, along a connector arterial from Pahoa to "Nine
(� and a Half Road."
- Neighborhood light industrial uses should be distributed to minimize risk in the east rift area.
- The only regional industrial uses that should be allowed in the east rift area are those associated
with geothermal development. They should be distributed in very low densities along the rift to
minimize investment losses from single lava flow events.
- Collaborate with subdivisions to plan neighborhood light industrial centers which provide conve-
nient and pedestrian uses.
4� - Consider -zoning approximately 1,000 acres for a new light industial park at Waipalani, in the
general area stretching mauka and makai of the Kea`au Solid Waste Transfer Station. Set -aside
should include sufficient buffer area as agriculture and/or open zoning to create a park like industrial
environment, and to avoid conflicts between industrial uses and eco-tourism corridors which start at
J Hilo airport.
- Encourage development of research and educational institutions in conjunction with industrial
areas.
2.1.5 LAND USE: Multiple Family Residential
2.1.5.1 Courses of Action for Multiple Family Residential
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the need for multiple family residential develop-
ment increases.
CDP Recommendations:
- Support the development of alternative housing ownership strategies which provide options for
' low-cost and more accessible home ownership.
- Collaborate with subdivisions to plan neighborhood centers which incorporate appropriate multi-
family residential opportunities.
2.1.6 LAND USE: Single Family Residential
j 2.1.6.1 Courses of Action for Single -Family Residential
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- The County shall work with community groups to explore possible avenues for financing
infrastructural improvements within the nonconforming subdivisions.
i - Encourage and aid the agricultural industry in continuing to provide employee housing.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 2-7
I�
2.1.6 LAND USE: Single Family Residential
- Improve and develop roadways, water and sewerage systems, and other basic facilities necessary
to encourage development of lands suitable for residential use.
CDP Recommendations:
- Consider rezoning subdivisions with lots under one acre to Residential and initiating State Land
Use District boundary amendments to Rural or Urban unless steps are taken to lower densities.
- Collaborate with subdivision community associations to differentiate land uses according to the
principles of the General Plan.
2.1.7 LAND USE: Resort
2.1.7.1 Courses of Action for Resort
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development in the district shall
complement the character of the area and be consistent with the General Plan.
- Consider the development of small family or 'bed and breakfast' type visitor accommodations and
small-scale retreat resort development.
CDP Recommendations:
- Develop a master plan for a system of trails and associated natural area corridors, starting at Hilo
airport, to support eco-tourism development in Puna, while showcasing its natural resources.
- Support the development of low -impact, home -based eco-tourism facilities, e.g., bed and breakfast
establishments and lodges, at appropriate locations throughout the district, instead of resort zoning.
- Encourage the development of small-scale, trail accessible, lodges along the Puna coastal trail, but
with the shoreline left undisturbed, except by access. Suggested locations are Papa`i, Ha`ena,
Kahuwai, Pohoiki, Kehena.
2.1.8 LAND USE: Open Space
2.1.8.1 CDP Courses of Action for Onen SQace
- Collaborate with subdivision associations and property owners to find means to compensate land-
owners if open space dedications are desired which "take" the use of whole parcels or significantly
lower value and use for which there are investment -backed expectations.
2.1.9 LAND USE: Public Lands
2.1.9.1 CDP Courses of Action for Public Lands
- Collaborate with the National Park Service, the State and private landowners to develop a master
plan for preservation and restoration of the forest which integrates the land use patterns and
economy of the settled areas with the health of the forest.
2-8 Puna Community Development Plan
a
1
J
2.1.10 LAND USE: Zoning Allocation Needs
2.1,10.1 Zoning Allocation Need
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 are
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 definitions
allowing compact mixed uses and a wider range of home occupations would replace these uses in. _
less space, and 2) land requirements for parking 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 year 2005, based on a projection of
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 16,210 lots on 5, 396 acres. These figures
do not reflect Ohana dwelling densities.
TABLE 2.1.10.2 ZONING ALLOCATION ACRES
Zone
Island
Actual Use
Model
AcJ1000
Puna Now: 30,000 people
Zoned Acres AcJ1000
Zoning Allocation Needs
Deficit (Excess)
Now Year 2005
30,000 pop. 40,000 pop.
SF Residential 154
Including.Non-conforming Subdivision
2,684
r 8,080
89
269
1,936
(3,460)
3,476
(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./Ag
11
625
21
(295)
(185)
Agricultural
8,773 1
198,796
6,627
64,394
152,124
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan
2-9
U
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
1
n
2-1 D Puna Community Development Plan 10
` 2.2 TRANSPORTATION
` 2.2.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Comm
• Congestion relief of rush-hour traffic between Pahoa and
LJHilo, especially focused on the Kea`au bottleneck.
L]
• Support for major design of transportation corridors and
surrounding land use patterns for public transit
convenience.
L • Support for use of old road and rail rights of ways for
dedicated bike/pedestrian use.
II • The desire to preserve the character of the Coastal Road
and the Pohoiki (Mango) Road.
Ll • Liability issues surrounding public use of privately
owned subdivision collector roads.
C • Width deficiencies for private subdivision roads to meet
County standards, and cost of current standards.
Llr, • Need for additional boat ramp to relieve congestion and
conflict at Pohoiki.
L2.2.2 Courses of Action for Transportation
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Primary arterial rights -of -way providing access to the
district should be increased as necessary where they pass
through relatively undeveloped lands.
■ The present Puna Coast Road, eventually to connect
with the Chain of Craters Road, should be developed as a
scenic parkway along the coast. Alignment should basi-
cally follow the existing road from the Kalapana end of
the Chain of Craters Road to the proposed extension of the
1 Saddle Road to the vicinity of the Hilo Airport.
r • A new road alignment to connect the junction of the
Kapoho-Pohoiki Roads with the Pohoild area should be
constructed. This alignment will eliminate a series of
curves in the present road.
`J Consider, in conjunction with community associations
and the property owners, the use of a variety of mecha-
nisms to provide intrastructure in the non -conforming
t subdivisions.
Planning for Funding
Transportation planning is being
transformed by the requirements of the
federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The purpose of
ISTEA is " to develop a National Intermodal
Transportation system that is economically
efficient, environmentally sound, provides
the foundation for the Nation to compete in
the global economy and will move people
and goods in an energy efficient manner."
ISTEA aims to provide a more equitably
accessible transportation system by design-
ing relationships between land use and
transportation so that they are more "mode
neutral." This has led to examination of land
use and transportation policies which favor
automobile -centered development and auto
use. ISTEA also has set -asides for "enhance-
ment activities" such as dedicated bike and
pedestrian uses, park -and -ride, and rails -to -
trails.
States and counties which have
aggressively responded, with community -
based transportation and land use planning
designed for trip elimination and accessibil-
ity for non -auto modes, have been able to
make the greatest use of ISTEAfunding.
In order to take advantage of this
federal resource for much -needed transpor-
tation funds, the Puna Community Develop-
ment Plan should plan for development
projects which satisfy ISTEA requirements.
These and other funds come packaged for
particular types of projects and those
packages cannot be completely anticipated,
so it is important to be prepared with a
variety of projects and to maintain flexible
priorities, so that opportunities will not be
missed for lack of planning. (See Section
3.1)
Land Use Solutions to .onece_tion
Puna has near -critical congestion prob-
lems on Highway 130 between Pahoa and
Keaau as a result of "bedroom community"
development in the non -conforming subdivi-
sions with residents who must commute long
distances to work, school, services and recre-
ation. It is perhaps a truism of modern plan-
ning that more pavement cannot solve conges-
tion. Traff c congestion is solved in the end by
reducing trips and trip distance, and by changes
in land use so that there is a balance of jobs,
housing and services at the Census -tract level.
This means "balanced land uses" within popu-
lation areas of 5,000 to 10,000 people.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-11
2.2 TRANSPORTATION
New lateral transportation
corridors will be needed as subdivisions
further develop toward build -out. The
subdivisions are now approximately
20% occupied so, without changes of
land use pattern, tremendous roadway
capacity increases would need to be
anticipated. However, studies show that
land use improvements can cut trip
generation and distance by50%or more.
A regional Puna roadway master plan
together with community -based master
plans for subdivisions would help to
identify future transportation corridors
and improvements needed to
accommodate the anticipated
population.
Central Subdivision Corridor
There is a tendency for strip
development along Highway 11 to
provide services to the developing central
subdivisions. Alternatively, to preserve
Highway 11 as a primaryarterial and to
decrease trips and trip distance, the
secondary rural arterial planned for the
center of the central subdivisions should
be developed as a spine along which to
locate rural town cores to provide
locations for employment, services and
education for subdivision residents
without having to commute on aprimary
aterial.
_P.co-tourism Facilitated
Research into light rail systems in-
dicates that they are most economically
successful when integrated with visitor
uses. Comparison with other Pacific
tourist destinations shows that conve-
nient public transit withintermodal con-
nections to trails, and conveniently lo-
cated small-scale accommodations and
amenities, wouldimprovePuna'sattrac-
tions for eco-tourists.
Coastal hazards and historic, rec-
reation, and aesthetic value make the
Puna coast road inappropriate for de-
velopment as a primary or secondary
throughway, but make it well suited to
preservation as a multi -modal and sce-
nic by -way.
2-12
Major collector roads should run from:
Opihikao to the Puna Road. .
Volcano Road to the coast parkway along the Puna -South
Hilo boundary.
Volcano Road to the Saddle Road above Hilo along the
existing Kulani Road.
Upper portion of the National Park to a point approximately
2 miles west of Kalapana.
- Provide for general aviation and small boat harbor facilities
as the need arises.
CDP Recommendations:
- Encourage County funding of a Puna Roadway Master Plan
that establishes a regional roadway network, identifies road-
way improvements and new roadway corridors, and recom-
mends roads for County dedication.
- Study the feasibility of widening Highway 130 to a four -lane
arterial between the Pahoa Bypass and the planned Keaau By-
pass, and of eliminating frontage access.
- Upgrade of subdivisions' entrance roads—Kuauli, South
Kulani, South Kopua, South Glenwood, and 22.5 Mile Road
— on an incremental basis, in conjunction with upgrading of
subdivision collector roads.
- Encourage the State to plan and implement development of a
rural arterial corridor extending from the upper end of Kahakai
Boulevard to the bottom of Hawaiian Acres, or another limited
access route in the same general area, and then through Hawai-
ian Acres at "Nine and a Half Road" (between Nine and Ten
Roads) to Kuauli, then through the upper part of Kurtistown
and below Happy Homes, to connect with Komohana Street
Extension in Hilo.
- Plan for and seek design funding for implementation of the
Central Subdivision Corridor as shown in the General Plan,
seeking State and federal assistance, as a limited access route,
based on appropriate engineering studies and seeking to
protect the underground lava tubes in the vicinity.
- Plan for and seek design funding for a mid -level parkway
below Highway 130 from Hawaiian Beaches to Hilo, at the
level of 14th or 15th Street through Hawaiian Paradise Park,
instead of along the coast.
Puna Community Development Plan
2.2 TRANSPORTATION
' CDP Recommendations (continued):
• Design upper ("Nine and a Half Road") and lower (14th or 15th Streets) laterals and Central
Subdivision Corridor to preserve options for later conversion to street car or light rail, and to other-
wise comply with ISTEA requirements for rural arterials.
• Study the feasibility of extending Pikake Road in Orchid Land east to cross Highway 130 and to
intersect with the lower parkway, as the transportation spine of a future light industrial/technical
park at Waipalani.
` • Work with the County Department of Public Works, the State Department of Land and Natural
Resources Na Ala Hele Program, and community interest groups to dedicate Railroad Avenue,
Volcano Trail, Puna Trail and other suitable routes for bicycle and/or pedestrian routes, with empha-
sis on community -managed operation and maintenance.
• Promulgate new standards for rural roads comparable to the standards in effect before the 1967
County Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Begin a cooperative program to bring candidate Puna
subdivision roadways up to standard for dedication to the County.
` • Collaborate with the subdivisions for gradual County acceptance of apprpriate subdivision collec-
tor streets.
` • Collaborate with community groups to designate the coastal road and Pohoiki (Mango) Road as -
historic and scenic roads, as defined by the federal guidelines , to "protect and enhance the scenic,
historic, cultural, natural and archeological integrity and visitor appreciation of an existing highway
and adjacent area." Consider making the Mango Road one-way, and developing an additional
corridor on the Kapoho side, to preserve its character.
6 • Design transportation routes to integrate with regional and local bicycle/pedestrian networks.
• Support community initiatives to plan for Rural Town Districts, and/or other community -based
` master planning.
• Consider other land use patterns, with land uses which provide for less auto -dependence and more
transportation choices for residents.
I
• Maintain but do not widen road between Kapoho and Honolulu Landing, except as needed for
emergency access.
• Urge the State Department of Transportation to develop a new boat ramp facility at Kapoho Bay
on lava accretion land, and to consider a small boat harbor at Makuu.
1
• Expedite Keaau bypass road.
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan
2-13
2.3 ECONOMIC
County General Plan:
Economic
GOALS
- Provide residents with opportunities
to improve their quality of life.
- Economic development and improve-
ment shall be in balance with the physi-
cal and social environments of the is-
land of Hawaii.
- The County of Hawaii shall strive for
diversity and stability in its economic
system.
• The County shall provide an eco-
nomic environment which allows new,
expanded, or impgoved economic op-
porunities that are compatible with the
County's natural and social environ-
ment.
Puna's Polzylation andEconomy:
Puna's present population of approxi-
mately 30,000 provides 12,000 work-
ers, increasing by up to 800 per year.
Puna's build -out population (without
ohana, approximately 167,000; at
40% in the labor force) would have
the potential to provide approxi-
mately 67,000 people in the labor
force.
Since the vast majority of those
residents will be in the nonconform-
ing subdivisions, the development of
the economy of Puna hinges in part
upon correcting the deficiencies in
infrastructure in those subdivisions
which prevent the development of con-
venient employment and services pre-
scribed by the County General Plan.
Puna is well placed to develop
three economic bases to support her
potential population: diversified ag-
riculture, eco-tourism and specialty
industries. Careful placement in the
physical landscape, based on a long-
term vision, will allow these bases to
develop in support of each other and
in keeping with the rural pattern val-
ued by Puna residents.
2 3 1 Community Concerns for Economic Development of Pttria
- Development of economic opportunities in Puna should be
appropriate to the current and future population of Puna, so that
Puna may become economically self-sufficient rural communi-
ties, rather than merely a commuter suburb of Hilo.
- The economic environment should be one which encourages
entrepreneurs, self-employment and small business, so that it is
possible to start a business with a minimum of capital.
- Home businesses and diversified agriculture are highly desir-
able to Puna residents as a way to maintain the rural character of
their communities and a rural lifestyle.
- The development of the economy should respect traditional
Hawaiian culture and the native environment of Puna, including
the forests, the coastline, cultural and burial sites, and the reli-
gious and cultural significance of Puna as the home of the god-
dess Pele and other Hawaiian dieties.
- Development of industries in technical and information fields,
and small-scale, specialized manufacturing, should give Puna
residents and their children a wide range of economic choices
and opportunities.
2-14
Puna Community Development Plan
in
I�
u
2.3.2 ECONOMIC: Agriculture
2.3.2 Courses of Action for Agriculture
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- The County shall assist the further development of the
agricultural industry by providing support services, such
as cooperation with other agencies in developing man-
power training programs, protecting important agricul-
tural lands, and requesting and providing necessary
capital improvements.
- The overseas capacity at Hilo's General Lyman Field is
extremely important to the development of Puna's export
crops. The County shall continue to encourage the
further development of this facility.
CDP Recommendations:
- The County Department of Research and Development
should encourage collaborative efforts by commodity
and other agricultural groups, and state and federal
agricultural agencies, to form a regional agricultural task
force to coordinate agricultural resource management,
infrastructure, research and other institutional support in
a manner that maintains confidentiality for farmers and
commodity groups.
- Encourage the designation of agricultural buffers,
based on State ALISH designations, to serve as green
belt areas, within which subdivisions of agricultural
lands for residential purposes is prohibited.
- Support the expansion of the freight facility/marshal-
ling yard/storage facility in Hilo to serve expanding
industry.
` - Support state funding for development of agricultural
water systems designed to meet the needs of Puna
farmers.
- Encourage the amendment of the County tax code
relating to forestry, pasture, and agro-forestry, to provide
greater incentives for sustainability, flood control,
protection of native species in keeping with the goals of
the General Plan.
- Encourage the prohibition of subdivision of agricultur-
ally zoned land in Puna into lots smaller than three acres,
except for subdivision into five lots or less.
- Support efforts to legislate regulations for the certifica-
tion and labeling of organic produce in Hawaii.
The numberof farm operators and products
is increasing rapidly in Puna. The Federal Soil
Conservation Service has over 400 cooperators
in Puna and conservatively estimates over 900
operators. Diversified agriculture is rapidly
changing and growing. Development is so fast
in some commodities that individuals, associa-
tions and corporations are hesistant to expose
the investments and details of their operations.
Yet change is fast in residential and commercial
uses also. Agriculture needs a strong represen-
tation in land use and infrastructure planning to
assure its continued development.
Puna has many small-scale, developing,
entrepreneurial, experimental and independent
growers and gardeners. These innovators can
provide leadership toward locally and interAa-
tionally competitive new crops, products, and
markets. In addition, they are not generally
dependent upon subsidies and protection whose
loss may threaten some segments of Hawaii
agriculture. This is a long-term strength of Puna
agriculture. At the same time this diversification
of agriculture among many new crops and op-
erators complicates regional resource manage-
ment, record -keeping and planning for institu-
tional support.
Puna has enough developable water to sup-
ply all her forseeable agricultural, domestic,
and industrial needs. Current trends, both in
Hawai `i and globally, point to higher costs and
competition for agricultural water. Puna's
agricultural competiveness and sustainability
can be enhanced by careful husbanding of this
precious resource.
The major infrastructure barrier to devel-
opment of agriculture in Puna is the cost of
water development and transmission lines. Be-
cause of Puna's high rainfall, supply needs can
generally be met by economical catchment re-
serves, except during drought. This problem
applies equally to agricultural areas served by
County systems developed to provide domestic
needs, which do not have the capacity to provide
farmers during dry periods.
Puna has a large and growing market for its
products in its own rural communities. Market-
ing assistance could help Puna farmers to ex-
pand their markets to other parts of the state and
beyond.
The existing and emerging specialties of
Puna's small farmers —flowers, native plants
and flowers, exotic tropical fruits, organic pro-
duce, and gourmet and ethnic products --are
especially compatible with eco-tourism.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-IS
2.3.3 ECONOMIC: Tourism
The Potential for F.cotourism in Puna
The rebirth of native Hawaiian culture and a
new reverence for nature's unique creations have
created great potential for the development of
ecotourism. Eco-tourism is described as:
- travel to visit and appreciate the traditional
cultural sites and natural environment of the desti-
nation area.
- protection of the native ecosystems of an area
and of the traditional culture of the people within
those ecosystems.
- activities to generate income by providing
community -based services to visitors of natual and
cultural sites in a way that protects and nurtures the
natural and cultural systems, and in a manner that
is economically sustainable.
Puna has already established herself as
Hawai'i's premier naturallcultural attraction. Bed
and breakfast and retreat accommodation units
have grown to over200 establishments since 1985,
and occupancy rates have steadily increased.
Puna is in a unique position to market its eco-
tourism destinations because of its pristine areas.
Puna is part of the UnitedNations-designatedlnter-
national Biosphere Preserve, of which Hawaii Vol-
canoes National Park is the core. Puna's coastal
areas are among the most unspoiled in Hawaii and
have one of the highest continuous concentrations
of significant Hawaiian cultural sites.
Traditional trail systems are largely unspoiled,
are still identifiable, and are largely publiclyowned.
The Puna trail starts at the Hilo airport.
The only land zoned for resort development, in
Kalapana, was covered by lava in 1990. Small-
scale, decentralized, low -investment tourism is
appropriate: lodges, bed and breakfast establish-
ments, and small-scale visitor attractions.
2.3.3 Courses of Action for Tourism
from the GENERAL PLAN:
- There is potential for limited visitor facilities in the
form of small accommodations and support facilities,
such as natural areas, botanical gardens, and limited
commercial facilities. Resort growth should enhance
and be in keeping with this area's rural character.
CDP Recommendations:
- Collaborate with the Department of Land and Natu-
ral Resources and community support groups to
implement a district -wide system of trails, historic
roads and railroad rights -of -way, starting at Hilo
airport, integrated with other transportation corridors
and local community trail systems. (Also see Envi-
ronment and Recreation sections, Zone Guide Map,
and trail system map in map section.)
- In overall land use planning, insure the integrity of
continuous corridors compatible with eco-tourism,
such as the combination of trail corridors within open
space reserves, naturalized drainways, and connection
with services and accommodations in town centers
and more remote areas, as well as the National Park.
- Support community initiatives to plan for and
implement special regulations and designations to
accommodate and integrate eco-tourism development
into local community land use planning.
2-16
Puna Community Development Plan
in
2.3.4 ECONOMIC: Fishing
2.3.4 Courses of Action for Fishing
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• The fishing industry in Puna should be assisted
by the County through a cooperative effort with
State and Federal agencies.
CDP Recommendations:
• Encourage the State to construct an access road
and boat ramp on the lava accretion land next to
Kapoho Bay.
• Ask the State Department of Transporation to
consider the possibility of constructing a ramp or a
small boat harbor at Maku`u.
2.3.5 ECONOMIC: Industry
2.3 5 CDP Courses of Action for Tndustry
• Designate for gradual rezoning suitable indus-
trial lands around Kea`au, including ample area
for buffers and retention of natural areas to
maintain a park -like environment.
• Consider promulgating new zoning classifica-
tions for industrial uses which create the special-
ized environments attractive to desirable indus-
tries, such as communication and "back office"
` industries, which would provide quality employ-
ment for Puna residents.
• Consider development of free trade zones in
future Puna industrial areas.
• Include an option for small parks for special-
ized industry in a new Rural Town District zone
designation.
r
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
r
Puna's Fishino Industry: Offshore Puna is'one of
Hawaii's most productive fishing grounds, but launch-
ing from Puna's coast has always been one of the most
difficult and dangerous in Hawaii.
Fishing boats in Puna are inadequately served by
a single boat ramp at Pohoiki. Launching at Pohoiki
is incompatible with the intensive recreational uses of
the area, which does not have adequate sanitaryfacili-
ties for either the fishing boats or the park users.
Because there are so few places to get in the water
on Puna's coast, for boats or people, intense competi-
tion needs to be anticipated and mediated in advance to
insure the separation needed for safety.
Puna's Industrial Uses: Puna has an ample reserve
area for industrial expansion well placed between the
subdivisions and the ports of Hilo. Shipman Industrial
Park, 488 acres, started in the mid-1980s, is now 25%
used.
Puna has a number of the characteristics attrac-
tive to "back office" or other specialty industries:
- labor force with a low cost of living,
- a beautiful and clean environment, and
- local communities with a high level of initiative
and local control.
A number of characteristics needs improvement if
Puna is to attract industry:
- quality neighborhood schools.
health and safety infrastructure, community
facilities and services, and
- supporting land uses at the neighborhood level.
County zoning does not now differentiate between
types of general industrial uses. Many of the most
desirable industries may be reluctant to locate where
they might be have a polluting or otherwise offensive
neighbor.
2-17
a
2.3.6 ECONOMIC: Geothermal Energy
2.3.6.1 ommunity Concerns for Geothermal Energy
11
Puna's Geothermal Development
Geothermal development began in lower
Puna in the 1960s with the drilling of
several shallow exploratory geothermal
wells without much success. The first
producing geothermal well, called Ha-
waii Geothermal Project -Abbot well (or
HGP-A) was drilled in 1976 just east of
the intersection of Leilani Avenue and
Pohoiki Road. This well, one of the
hottest in the world, not only became the
true start of Hawai'i's geothermal indus-
try but also initiated the anti -geothermal
movement, largely as a result of its poor
management and operation. The well
and attendant power plant (which started
producing power in 1982) were intended
to be a demonstration of electrical gen-
eration using geothermal energy for a
two-year period, but instead operated for
seven years, amply demonstrating the
lack of foresight in land use planning.
The anti -geothermal movement con-
tinues to strongly oppose the industry to
this day. Geothermal and residential
development have been shown to be in-
compatible in this region.
Transfer of residential development
rights (TDRs) to potential direct -use in-
dustries could ameliorate the polariza-
tion caused by the existing conflicting
land uses.
Studies and data support the renew-
ability of the resource on the east rift zone
of Kilaue'a. However, Hawaii Electric
Light Company (HELCO) is not inter-
ested in negotiating any more 'firm
power" contracts, since Puna Geother-
mal VenturealreadyproducesnearlySOTo
of the island's baseload. This could
change dramatically with the develop-
ment of some form of energy storage or
significant usage of electrical vehicles.
Because of the hazards associated
with the east rift of Kilauea, there is a
high risk of 1 oss of a significant portion of
the island's electrical supply.
2-18
- Geothermal development has resulted, for some residents, ih
a lack of confidence in government to protect or respond to the
community.
- Some nearby residents believe their health has been, and
continues to be, negatively affected by geothermal well -drilling
and the operation of the power plants.
- After incidents of uncontrolled venting, community members
are anxious for testing and refinement of emergency response.
- After many years of delay, Geothermal Asset Fund money,
set aside by the developer and government to compensate for
losses suffered by nearby residents, is now being made avail-
able. However, the amount of compensation and the adminis-
tration of the fund are in dispute by area residents.
- Use of geothermal power will not reduce the amount of fossil
fuel imported into the state, although it will reduce the amount
of heavier grades of refined products that must be transported
from Oahu to the Big Island.
2.3.6.2 Courses of Action for Geothermal
From. the General Plan:
- The County shall support the development and utilization of
geothermal resources and by-products consistent with environ-
mental, social, economic and other goals expressed elsewhere
in the General Plan.
- Assist the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii
in acquiring land adjacent to geothermal exploration sites to
expand research programs or uses of geothermal by-products.
CDP Recommendations:
- Conduct and implement pro -active land use planning for
geothermal designation for the rift zone areas of Puna.
- Study the use of Transfers of Development Rights (TDRs) to
reduce density in the rift zone and to transform some residen-
tial rights to direct -use, e.g., waste heat industries, if appropri-
ate.
- Support the development of an incentive program, within an
operative overall energy management program for the County,
that would increase the use of electric vehicles, thereby storing
energy and allowing increased use of geothermal energy in off-
peak hours.
Puna Communiry Development Plan
r]
p
I
r
LK
J1
F17
U
0
2.3.6 ECONOMIC: Geothermal Energy
CDP Recommendations (continued):
• Geothermal development and transmission corridors should be dispersed along the east rift and the
Geothermal Subzones so that sources are limited to 20% or less of the island base load in any one -
mile section.
i
a
6J Puna Commmunity Development Plan 2-19
2.4.1 NATURAL HAZARDS: Subsidence
U
Puna's Coastal Subsidence: There is general island -
wide subsidence of approximately 114" per year. In
addition, the south flank of Kilauea is subject to cata-
strophic subsidence offive or more feet in a single event.
This catastrophic subsidence has occurred three times in
the last 130 years, resulting in loss of life and property,
and coastlines moving inland as much asseveral hundred
feet at a time, with a concurrent tsunami.
Coastal property ownership changes status when
inundated. What was previously private property maybe
reclassified as navigable waters, under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or public shoreline,
under State jurisdiction.
When shoreline moves inland, coastal protection
policies may become ineffective. For instance, the width
of the coastal Conservation District and the Special
Management Area may become narrower.
2.4.1.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
- Risk for loss of life and property from subsid-
ence along the coastal areas of the south flank of
Kilauea.
2.4.1.2 C_DP Courses of Action for Subsidence
- Study the use of Transfer of Development
Rights (TDRs) to reduce residential densities in
the area of subsidence and environmental pollu-
tion in Kapoho.
- Consider increasing the State Conservation
District and County Special Management Area
boundaries in areas subject to subsidence.
I
0
C
U
p
Ir
U
11
n
10
10
2-20
Puna Community Development Plan
10
2.4.2 NATURAL HAZARDS: Lava Flow
2.4.2.1 SUecific Concerns of Puna Community
�� • Leilani Estates and Lanipuna Gardens (2,400
lots) are concentrated in Lava Flow Hazard Zone
j (LFHZ) 1, where lava intrusion may make roads
L impassible within forty-eight hours of an erup-
tion.
• In LFHZ 2, which may have a somewhat longer
warning period, there are 13,450 houselots;
approximately 2,500 have been covered or made
inaccessible by lava flow since 1983.
n
• 10,000 lots in LFHZ 2 are under one acre and
are candidates for future requirements for central
sewage treatment.
2.4.2.2 CDP Courses of Action for Lava Flow
• Encourage the funding of a risk analysis study
of LFHZs 1 and 2, as a basis for land use, build-
ing code and infrastructure policies and remedies
appropriate to the risk. Consider the option of
low-cost, low -risk housing, such as traditional
Hawaiian "thatched roof' housing.
• Study the use of Transfer of Development
] Rights (TDRs) to reduce residential densities in
R LFHZ 1 and 2.
• Seek means to direct Pahoa development later-
ally rather than downslope, to lower potential
7 property damage from lava flows.
• Encourage provision of two or more escape
^j routes from every residential area and regular
emergency response tests.
• Support National Park acquisition of recent flow
areas adjacent to park boundaries.
J • Work with the USGS in any reevaluation and/
I or refinement of Lava Flow Hazard Zone 2
designation for Hawaiian Beaches, Parks, and
Shores.
Puna's lava Flow Hazard Areas: The east rift area of
Kilauea is designated by the USGS as Lava Flow
Hazard Zone 1, and the rest of the south flank and the
area north including Pahoa and Hawaiian Beaches as
Lava Flow Hazard Zone 2.
Federal Housing and Urban Development policies
have prohibited use of HUD funds in those areas since
1990.
The State of Hawaii Administrative Plan for Haz-
ard Mitigation states: "Federal, State and Countyagen-
cies will not promote or encourage higher densities than
presently exists in the Lava Flow Hazard Zones 1 and 2
of the east rift zone of Kilauea..."
In addition, recent USGS studies have designated
some areas of the south flank, such as the Pohoiki!
Leilani Estates area as having a 65% chance of lava
coverage in the next 50 years. Thirty-five percent of the
area of east rift LFHZs 1 and 2 has been covered by lava
since 1953.
Among hazards, lava flows are unique. Lava flows
resemble landslides, since infrastructure is destroyed
and land may be covered or unusable for many years.
County government has no existing land use goals,
policies, or standards for lava flow hazards. Lava flow
hazard is not mentioned in the County General Plan.
Lava flows downhill to the coast, unless affected by
obstructions, pooling, etc. Development that follows a
similar pattern is at greater risk than development
spread laterally across the slope.
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan
2 -21
2.4.3 NATURAL HAZARDS: Flooding
Puna's Drainage Issues: Devel-
opment anticipated under existing
rights in Puna can be expected to
significantly increase surface wa-
ter flow. The amount of rainfall in
Puna is very high. The porosity of
the lava surface in most places
allows this water to be absorbed.
Development may lower absorp-
tion by as much as 20 to 60 percent.
In addition, the location of
drainage channels in Puna cannot
be reliably predicted because of
the geologically young topogra-
phy. Lot clearing, a driveway or
even a hapu`u falling in the forest,
may divert runoff water signifi-
cantly.
Because of the lack of clearly
defined drainageways, the identifi-
cation and creation of dedicated
drainage channelsmaybe required
and may require costly acquisi-
tions or condemnations in areas
where subdivision has already oc-
curred and residential development
is proceeding.
Studies by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in the last de-
cade have indicated a too -low
cost:benefit ratio to qualifyforfed-
eral programs, but as development
progresses, increasi ng f looding and
increasing the development in the
way of thefloods. the benefit, ironi-
cally, will increase.
In addition, stringent control
of non point source pollution of
surface water may significantly in-
crease the cost of channeling sur-
face waters to the coast at the same
time that public funds to pay for
mitigation are rapidly shrinking
while the responsibility is being
transferred to the private sector.
Recent state law has assigned
responsiblityfor existing drainage
improvements to the landowner.
2.4.3.1 St)ecific Concerns of Puna Community
- The subdivisions in Glenwood on the Mauna Loa side of Hwy. 11
(Orchid Isle, Aloha, Glenwood, and Pacific Paradise Mountain
View Manor) are particularly subject to flooding because of high
rainfall and ash clay soil. Roads have washed out repeatedly. The
cost for drainage improvements to mitigate flooding for permitted
development is expected to be prohibitive.
- Runoff quality will continue to degrade with development. Non -
point source pollution of surface waters can be expected to increase
from agricultural chemicals, suburban wastes and landscape
chemicals, automobile and roadway toxins, and runoff from
industrial development.
2.4.3.2 Courses of Action for Flooding
from the GENERAL PLAN
- As urbanization increases within the district, the drainage sys-
tems designed for the existing village areas shall be implemented.
These systems are designed to collect and transport surface runoff
through the communities.
- Provide improvements as shown by the County of Hawaii
"Drainage Master Plan" and the "Mountain View Drainage Study."
- Support development of the Glenwood/Mtn. View Watershed
project.
- Encourage diversified agricultural farmers to participate in Soil
and Water Conservation District Programs.
CDP Recommendations:
- Study the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to
reduce residential densities in areas subject to severe flooding in
upper Puna.
- The Department of Public Works should collaborate with subdi-
visions, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to inform lot owners and
developers of drainage problems, the effect of development on
drainage, and recommended practices to minimize and prevent
increase in run-off in all developing areas.
L�
J
2-22
Puna Community Development Plan
2.4. 3 NATURAL HAZARDS: Flooding
Mi
I
■
■
- Seek State and federal funding for a compre-
hensive flood control and drainage study of the
upper Puna drainage area including Hawaiian
Acres and Orchid Land.
- The County should consider initiating a task
group, including all stakeholders in the two
associated drainage patterns of Kurtistown/
Kea`au and Hawaiian Acres/Orchid Land
flooding, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The task group should, if possible,
choose one drainage channel of the two to
accept the flood waters and to focus on educa-
tion, better flood plain management and land
use planning to most effectively prevent future
flood damage.
2.4.4. NATURAL HAZARDS:
Fire
2.4.4.1 Specific Concerns of the Puna Com-
munity
- Wildland fires occur in and near subdivision
areas regularly during droughts.
2.4.4.2 Courses of Action for Fires
- Encourage clearing of land and construction
standards which conform to fire codes.
- Consider dedicating water tanks to fire
protection in susceptible areas far from public
water systems.
The South KulaniDiversion Wall: A series of water diver-
sion walls, totaling overone- halfmile in length and varying
from six to twelve feet in height, channels water into
Hawaiian Acres, starting at the South Kulani Bridge. This
channel also receives overflow waters from the Mountain
View Drainage Improvements developed by the County in
the early 1980s. Water along and below the wall, in
Hawaiian Acres and Orchid Land, can reach five feet or
more in heavy rains.
According to the recollections of residents, the walls
were built by Olaa Sugar Company (Amfac) starting in
1938, to divertfloodwaters awayfrom canefields along the
Mauna Loa/Kilauea boundary into what was then called
"wasteland," owned by W. H. Shipman.
According to records of the Hawaiian Acres Commu-
nity Association (HACA), the original subdivision devel-
oper was involved in litigation with Amfac over the walls at
or shortly after the time of subdivision. Amfac purchased
the lots under and around the walls in the early 1960s, but
has sold all but one to different individuals in the last few
years.
In 1979, debris blocked the flow under South Kulani
Bridge, diverting floodwaters away from the wall to what
may have been the original drainage channel. The two
patterns are approximately two miles apart where they
cross Highway 130. The unpredictability surrounding the
two drainways, arising from policy failures as well as
geographic features, increase the risk of planning and
development for everyoneinvolved.
The cemented stone wall, which crosses five lots in
Hawaiian Acres, is overgrown with strawberry guava and
other plants. HACA is concerned that the wall may begin
to break apart because of the tree roots and lack of mainte-
nance. Should this occur, it is feared that the course of
already serious flooding will become even more unpredict-
able.
0
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
G
U
U
f
I
f
f
u
U
p
R!"_1
1]
U
I' -,I
2-24 Puna Community Development Plan in
2.5 HOUSING
2. S 1 ,Snecific Concerns of Puna Community
• Lack of infrastructure and public services in existing areas
with already permitted residential development; lack of fully
served buildable homesites but a great surplus of buildable
homesites, with no orderly infrastructure planned.
More residential development rights than are appropriate in
some areas, especially hazard zones.
- Lack of housing opportunities for elderly and others who
cannot drive, or do not drive.
- Low-income owner -builders, often with non -permitted dwell-
ings, for whom the one-time costs of electrical and plumbing,
or the complexities of building permits, are a barrier.
2. S 2 Courses of Action for Housing
from the GENERAL PLAN:
Aid and encourage the development of a wide variety housing
choices for this area.
- Since the sugar company has lands zoned for residential use
within existing urban areas, they should be encouraged to make
these lands available on the private market.
- Consider and encourage the use of a variety of mechanisms
to provide the necessary infrastructure in the nonconforming
subdivisions.
- Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing
housing stock to maintain the viability of existing communities.
CDP Recommendations:
- Plan, design and build a corridor of secondary public road-
ways and water mains into the central corridor of the central
subdivisions,.as shown in the General Plan, as a starting point
for clustering of service and pedestrian areas.
- Encourage planning for future multi -family residential areas
near future commercial centers in the existing subdivisions, in
collaboration with these communities, in collaboration with
these communities, to provide transportation and housing
options for residents who cannot or do not wish to be auto -
dependent.
County GeneralPlan: Housing
GOALS
- Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing
for the residents of the County ofHawaii.
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic
housing mix throughout the different parts
of the County.
- Maintain a housing supply which allows
a variety of choice.
- Develop better places to live in Hawaii
County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living
environments for our people.
• Improve and maintain the quality and
affordability of theexisting housing stock
• Seek sufficient production of new af-
fordable rental and fee simple housing in
the County in a variety of sizes to satisfac-
torily accommodate the needs and desires
of families and individuals.
• Ensure that housing is available to all
persons regardless of age, sex, marital
status, ethnic background, and income.
- The cornerstone of the County's hous-
ing programs and activities shall continue
to be the encouragement and expansion of
appropriate home ownership opportuni-
ties for our residents.
Puna's Housing Dilemma: The
non -conforming subdivisions of Puna
have a long way to go toward meeting
the Housing Goals of the General Plan.
The comprehensive installation ofinfra-
structure is financially infeasible. Even
if it were feasible, many of Puna's
homeownerswould be pricedout of their
homes, by increases in taxes or other
fees, such as improvement district pay-
ments. However, some of the most criti-
cal infrastructure, such as water fill
stations and water supplies for fire pro-
tection within a mile of dwellings, could
be provided with little cost to
homeowners. See Section 3.12.
The pressure to comply with build-
ing regulations is increasing assubdivi-
sions fill in. This may create conflict
among neighbors and a threat to low-
income owner -builders who fear losing
their homes.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-25
2.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES
I
County General Plan: Public Facilities
POLICIES
• The County shall continue to seek ways of improving
public service through the coordination of service and by
maximizing the use of personnel and facilities.
• The County shall coordinate with appropriate State
agencies for the provision of public facilities to serve the
needs of the community.
• The County shall develop short and long-range capital
improvement programs and operating budgets forpublic
facilities and services.
• The County's Capital Improvement and Operating
budgets shall reflect the goals and policies of the County
General Plan.
• The County shall require a six -year, long-term capital
improvements budget by County Departments and agen-
cies which shall be reviewed for consistency with the
County's General Plan.
Sites for Future. Public Facilities: Sites have not yet
been reserved for public facilities in most subdivisions.
Finding sites is becoming difficult as more lots are
developed. Land acquisition and consolidationl
resubdivision would be required for most of Puna s non-
conforming subdivisions to create lots large enough for
public and community facilities and for commercial
centers.
Quality neighborhood schools are one of the chief char-
acteristics sought by new residents as well as businesses
when choosing locations for new branches or decen-
tralization. Neighborhood schools are also one of the
chief determinants of parental involvement and ulti-
mately ofstudent success. The lack ofschools in the non-
conforming subdivisions may therefore limit opportuni-
ties for residents in several ways.
2.6.1.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community_
• There is a need for more equitable proportional
appropriation of the County capital improvement
budget over time to create the public facilities
needed in Puna to service the residential develop-
ment already permitted by the County of Hawaii,
• Neighborhood locations of public facilities and
multi -use of such facilities, such as schools, parks
and community centers, are needed to preserve the
sense of community that is highly valued by Puna
communities.
2.6.1.2 CDP Courses of Action for Public
Facilities
See proposals for New Towns in Subdivision
section in Appendix.
2.6.2 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Edu-
cation
r fi ' i @ a 4 1 IFILKI
• There are insufficient neighborhood school
locations and facilities in subdivisions and some
towns.
• Many desire availability of school facilities for
community use.
• Many desire community involvement in
schools.
- There is a need for educational choices, includ-
ing sites for small alternative schools.
1
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Improve existing school complexes to meet the
standards established by the Department of
Education.
• School facilities shall be made available to the
community for recreation and other compatible
uses during and after school hours.
U
0
J
L11
11
. � U
r
0
J
a
11
iri
2-26
Puna Community Development Plan
11
2.6.2 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Education
General Plan Recommendations continued:
• Encourage the implementation for relocation and develop-
ment of a new elementary complex in Pahoa.
• Encourage improvements to pedestrian access between the
�J village of Pahoa and the school and library facilities.
• Encourage expansion or development of community -school
' library complexes at Pahoa and Mtn. View.
CDP Recommendations:
• In the east rift area: Instead of increasing the school facili-
ties in Pahoa, consider developing smaller community el-
ementary schools near centers of population in the subdivi-
sions. The United States Geological Survey should be con-
sulted so that schools can be placed with minimum of risk,
+ i.e., schools may be located laterally rather than directly
mauka or makai of population centers, and in smaller than
normal modules.
• Encourage the State to cooperate with subdivisions in early
selection of sufficient neighborhood school sites to accom-
71 modate the future build -out of the subdivisions, in order to
avoid later condemnations.
• Schools sites should be reserved at the following general
�J locations over the next fifteen years, in collaboration with the
Department of Education, with development to proceed as
needed:
Elementarv/Libr=:
Royal Hawaiian /Ohia Estates 22.5 mile
Eden Roc/Fern Acres Waikahekahe
Ola'a Hawaiian Paradise Park
Nanawale
Intermediate Schools & High School:
22.5 mile Waikahekahe
~ ` Hawaiian Paradise Park
1
Acreage needed (DOE standards):
Elementary with playground: 12 acres
Intermediate School: 18 acres
High School complex: 50 acres
• Subdivisions should be encouraged to collaborate with the
DOE to do long-term planning for additional school facility
locations that may ultimately be needed for permitted devel-
opment.
County General Plan: Education
POLICIES
• The County shall encourage continuous
joint pre -planning of schools with the De-
partment of Education and the University
of Hawai'i to ensure coordination with
roads, water, and other support facilities
andconsiderationssuchas uafficandsafery,
and access for vehicles, bicycles, and pe-
destrians. Encourage master planning of
present and proposed public and private
institutions.
• The County shall encourage the joining of
school yards with county parks and the
availability of school facilities for after
school use by the community for recre-
ad onal, cultural, and other compatible toes.
• The County shall encourage joint commu-
nity -school library facilities, where a sepa-
rate community library may not be fea-
sible, in proximity to other community
facilities, affording both pedestrian -and
vehicular access.
STANDARDS
• In proposed communities, sufficient acre-
age shall be reserved for school facilities.
Sites shall be free from flooding and drain-
age problems, and excessive slope and
shall incorporate appropriate street and
driveway design and location to minimize
traffic interference, pedestrian hazard, and
to enable safe and easy access for vehicles,
bicycles and pedestrians.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-27
2.6.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Protective Services
County General Plan:
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
STANDARDS
• Development of police and fire
facilities should entail joint use
structures whenever feasible.
• The establishment of a fire/police
facility shall consider site size
and locations which permit quick
and efficient vehicular access.
• Police headquarters shall be near
the geographic center of the ser-
vice area and near concentrations
of commercial and industrial use.
• Stations in outlying districts shall
be based on the population to be
served and response time rather
than on geographic district.
• Addidonalrehabilitadonandcoun-
seling centers shall be established
as needed
2.6.3.1 Soecific Concerns of Puna Community
• There is a shortage of conveniently located water supplies for fire-
fighting, especially during drought.
• There are insufficient sites and facilities for fire/police stations
needed to serve permitted development.
• There are lengthy response times for some emergency calls.
2.6.3.2 Courses of Action for Protective Services
from the GENERAL PLAN:
A review of the possibility of 24-hour fire service for the entire
district should be conducted and expansion of public office facilities
should be considered in accord with district needs.
• Police services and facilities should be expanded to meet the needs
of the district.
CDP Recommendations:
• Cooperate with master planning in subdivisions to reserve sites for
fire/police centers in planned rural town centers.
• Collaborate with subdivisions to locate and reserve future fire
facility sites to meet safety standards for response times for future
build -out of permitted development. At those sites, build dedicated
water tanks for fire protection.
• Support new volunteer fire stations in Nanawale, Hawaiian
Beaches, and Orchid Land, located at the sites of future county fire/
police stations.
• Plan for new fire/police stations at Waikahekahe, or other central
location to serve the new population centers in the subdivisions.
• Carefully limit future County expenditures in new police/fire
station facilities in Pahoa and elsewhere in Lava Flow Hazard Zones
1 and 2, except for necessary repairs and maintenance. (See Natural
Hazards section.)
f
I
tj
11
u
1�
u
11
a
11
2-28
Puna Community Development Plan
2.6.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Government Operations
2.6.4.1 Suecific Concerns of Pima Community
• Government services are not commensurate with current population, and services for permitted
population are not yet planned.
• There is insufficient opportunity for government employment located in Puna.
M 2.6.4.2 Courses of Action for Government Onerations
1
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Expand and improve facilities as necessary.
CDP Recommendations:
A new, full -service civic center should be planned for the future at Waikahekahe, to be developed
first as a center for social service outreach and processing.
M • Collaborate with subdivision associations to locate future government service center sites in con-
junction with community master planning. These may be developed gradually in conjunction with
fire, police and community services.
1
• Encourage the State and County to consider locating "back office" services in Puna, and to support
neighborhood technology work centers for public and private use.
f
1
t
N
I
0
I
I
I
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 2-29
I
2.6.5 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Health and Sanitation
Puna's Health Services: Distance to Hilo
Hospital makes physicians reluctant to
locate in Puna. In addition, because of the
low income of Puna residents and lack of
medical coverage of Puna residents, pro-
viders may be reluctant to locate in Puna.
The new State Health Program, Quest,
may help ease that situation.
Puna's Solid Waste Disposal: Increas-
ingly strict trequirements for solid waste
disposal are rapidly increasing the costs
of new landfill sites for permanent place-
ment. The result is that recycling and
resource recoveryare becoming relatively
more economical. Rapidly advancing
technology in composting, alcohol pro-
duction and biomass indicate that future
waste disposal sites should be sufficient in
size and location to accommodate a sym-
biotic combination of waste disposal, re-
source recovery, and energy generation in
changing configurations.
2.6.5.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
- Puna has a high proportion of children in low-income
households and a high rate of teenage pregnancy; the groups
most likely to lack adequate medical care.
- There are elderly and disabled persons in Puna who need
frequent medical services and often have no transportation.
- There are insufficient health services for the current popula-
tion and there is no integrated planning of services for the
permitted population.
- There is insufficient provision of solid waste handling and
convenient recycling sites for current or permitted population.
- There are hundreds of abandoned vehicles at Railroad
Avenue, Sand Hill, and on sites in and near towns and
subdivisions.
2.6.5.2 Courses of Action for Health and Sanitation
from the General Plan:
- Maintenance of cemetery sites shall be improved.
CDP Recommendations:
- A future hospital should be sought for Waikahekahe, to be
developed fast as an out -patient clinic, medical offices, and
social service provider center.
The State should cooperate with the subdivisions to reserve
future health service center sites.
- The County and State should collaborate with subdivisions
to locate and reserve future sites for recycling, waste disposal,
resource recovery and energy production options.
- The County and State should collaborate to develop legisla-
tion which provides disposal fees for vehicles at the time of
purchase and business opportunity for removal and recycling
of abandoned vehicles.
2 -30
Puna Community Development Plan
2.7 PUBLIC UTILITIES
t 2 7.1 CDP Courses of Action for Public Utilities
7
7
• A main utility corridor should be located along the
Central Subdivision Corridor, as shown on the County
General Plan Facilities Map.
• The County should collaborate with subdivisions to
locate Rural Town Districts to reduce the cost of provid-
ing utilities.
2.7.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES: Water
2.7.2.1. Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• In many areas there are no provisions for water for use
in drought or fire.
- Water from catchment tanks can be unsafe for drinking.
• There is a need for additional agricultural water systems
and adequate agricultural capacity in existing systems.
2.7.2.2 Courses of Action for Water
from the GENERAL, PLAN:
• Improve inadequate water systems.
• Water source investigation and exploration should be
continued in order to provide service for anticipated
needs.
CDP Recommendations:
• Develop new sources and a new major water main
delivery system along Central Subdivision Corridor.
Along it, place fill stations and dedicated tanks for fire
fighting.
• Consider instituting graduated water rates which reflect
the cost of energy for pumping uphill.
• Collaborate with the State Department of Agriculture to
develop agricultural water systems suitable to meet the
needs of Puna's diversified agriculture industry. Encour-
age the State to explore the possibility of assisting agri-
cultural water cooperatives using aboveground delivery
Pitna's Public Utility Services Because of the
lack of planned centers f or the orderly and
gradual expansion of utilities, development in
the non -conforming subdivisions has been widely
dispersed, making delivery of phone and elec-
tricity very expensive per service. The high cost
of providing service in this pattern raises the
cost of services for all users. This has been a
recurrent complaint of public utility companies.
This hidden subsidy of dispersed development
needs to be addressed.
Clustering of public utilities nodes near
centers of permitted development will minimize
public and private costs and allow developers,
investors and homeowners to locate according
to their need and ability to pay for amenities.
Puna's Water Services: Lack of agricultural
water may be holding back development of di-
versified agriculture in Puna. Even farmers tied
to County water cannot use the water during
droughts when they most need it.
In addition, the lack of water prevents
planned and orderly development of businesses
and commercial areas sorely needed in Puna
subdivisions to provide an economic base and
convenient services and publicfacilitiesforsub-
division residents.
Placement of catchment tanks on individual
lots is critical to fire fighting. However, during
drought, when fire risk is greatest, water tanks
are likely to be empty. The distance, especially
uphill, for water deliveryfromftll stations is the
major time and expense factor for delivery of
water to catchment tanks.
Although the legislation creating the De-
partment of Water Supply directs water rates
tied to the delivery costs. DWS policy is to
charge a uniform rate. This policy discourages
the development of water systems in mauka
areas because the extra energy costs must be
spread to all customers.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-31
2.7.3 PUBLIC UTILITIES: Water (continued)
systems in agricultural areas.
Puna's Transmission Systems
Independent sourcesfor gen-
eration and conservation technol-
ogy are advancing rapidly. How-
ever, for safety and security, what-
ever the power source, a network
of transmission corridors is more
secure than one or two corridors
that may be subject to disaster.
• Standards for water tanks should be adopted by the State Depart:
ment of Health as well as the County. .
• Collaborate with local community associations in Rural Town
District planning to designate "dispersed infrastructure areas" and
other alternative utility districts to preserve lifestyle choices.
2.7.3 PUBLIC UTILITIES: Electricity
2.7.3.1. Snecific Concerns of Puna Community
• Lack of electricity in some areas where residents want service and
pressure to connect for others who don't.
• Unsightly and/or unsafe transmission lines.
• Power interruptions and black -outs.
• The desire of some communities to be designated as "dispersed
infrastructure communities," or "off -the -grid' communities.
7.3.2 CDP Courses of Action for Electr
• Collaborate with subdivisions to set aside "dispersed infrastruc-
ture" or "off -the -grid" areas for alternative and experimental energy
systems.
• Consider a study of the relative costs and risks of one or two
transmission corridors and centralized sources versus multiple small
ones for long-term reliability of energy grid in Puna's natural
hazard areas.
2.7.4 PUBLIC UTILITIES: Telephone
2.7.4.1 SUedric Concerns of Puna Community
• Lack of telephones for emergencies in some areas.
• Poor telephone service hampering business development.
2.7.4.2 CDP Courses of Action for Tele hR one
• Collaborate with local communities in designating certain areas as
"dispersed infrastructure communities," based on agreement among
landowners.
• Encourage development of reliable and economical cellular tele-
phone service.
2 -32
Puna Community Development Plan
2.7.5 PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sewer
2.7.5.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• Coastal pollution, especially that caused by inadequate sanitation
at coastal parks and residences.
- Cesspool may desecrate burial and historic sites and disturb
unique ecosystems in lava tubes.
2 Courses of Action for Sewer
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• The use of cesspools shall be discontinued in coastal areas where
cesspools do not function satisfactorily to meet water quality stan-
dards. Individual household aerobic treatment units approved by
the State Health Department and the County of Hawaii could be
utilized in these areas. Future sewerage systems for the Puna area
would then naturally commence with service to the lower coastal
areas.
CDP Recommendations:
• Encourage the State Department of Health to inform builders at
the time of building permit of the long-term prospects for central
sewers for the dwelling being constructed so that the dwelling may
be placed on the lot to facilitate connection if and when it is re-
quired.
�onservation
Collaborate with the subdivisions and the Big Island Resource
and Development Council to evaluate potential for
alternative low -flow treatment systems for small communities as
opposed to large central systems.
• Encourage the State Department of Health to anticipate and miti-
gate the long-term problems of transition from present septic re-
quirements to compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.
- Locate and reserve sites for future sewage treatment plants where
they will be needed.
- As much as possible, install adequate toilets and treatment systems
at coastal recreation areas.
County General Plan:
SEWER
POLICIES
• The County shall take immediate
steps to designate treatment plant
sites, seweragepump stations, sites,
and sewer easements according to
the facility plans to facilitate their
acquisition.
Federal Clean WaterAct: In order
to comply with the federal Clean
Water Act, the future need for
central sewers must be anticipated
for all subdi visions with lots smaller
than one acre and for one -acre lots
if second dwelling approvals
continue.
Where anticipated densities
are over one acre per dwelling
septic systems must be anticipated.
State Department of Health
requirementsfor individual waste-
water systems may complicate the
transition to future compliance.
Homeowners in subdivisionswhieh
will eventually need sewers are
now required to install expensive
septic systems, while areas where
cesspools are now allowed are an-
ticipated to need septic tanks in the
future.
If Puna homebuilders are in-
formed of the prospect of being
required to connect to central sewer
in the future, they may reduce con-
nection costs by siting their struc-
tures to anticipate connection.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2 -33
2.8 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Recreation
County General Plan: Recreation
POLICIES
• The County shall coordinate recreation pro-
grams and facilities with governmental and
private agencies and organizations. Innova-
tive ideas for improving recreational facili-
ties and opportunities shall be considered.
• The County shall develop local citizen lead-
ership and participation in recreation plan-
ning, maintenance, and programming.
• The County of Hawaii shall adopt an on-
going program of identification, designation,
and acquisition of areas with recreational
resources, such as land with sandy beaches
and other prime areas for shoreline recre-
ation.
• Public access to the shoreline shall be pro-
vided in accordance with an adopted pro-
gram of the County of Hawai'i.
• The County shall establish a system of
pedestrian access trails to places of scenic
historic, natural, or recreational values.
• The County, in coordination with appropriate
State agencies shall establish a program to
inventory ancient trails, cart roads and old
government roads on the island.
• The County shall develop facilities and safe
pathway systems for walking, jogging and
biking activities.
Puna's Parks: Puna has a high propor-
tion of Hawaiians; the Hawaiian culture is
ocean -oriented, using the coastal waters
and shoreline for fishing, swimming,
surfing and the gathering of marine
resources. There are few [beaches]
places in Puna where children can safely
play in the ocean and the few there are
may not be accessible. Many of the
Hawaiians in Puna have relocated from
Oahu. Some are frustrated by the lack of
beaches, and the lack of easy access to the
one beach in Puna at Kea'au (Ha'ena),
and the coastline in general. However, the
opening up of coastal accesses for contem-
porary users who are not from traditional
Puna families may adversely impact the
traditional uses and malama (care for)
traditional cultural sites and coastal
resources by the Puna families who have
maintained their stewardship of those
areas. Traditionally, the authority over
use of these areas by outsiders has been
the kuleana of these families.
Many of the traditional trails in Puna
are well -recorded. There are also a
number of unused public roadways.
Puna has several communities which
ioperate county parks at considerable public
savings, in joint public/private partnerships.
2.8.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• Lack of future park space for potential population in
subdivisions.
• Lack of sufficient coastal park space for current and future
needs.
• The community has expressed strong support for trail
systems and bikeways. (See proposals for trail development
under Transportation Section.)
• Kalapana and Kaimu recreation sites lost to lava should be
replaced.
• There is strong community need and support for coastal
access and support facilities.
• Conflict between desires of in -migrants for shoreline
access and traditional stewardship and protection of those
areas by Puna families.
2.8.2 Courses of Action for Regional and District Parks
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• A swimming pool should be provided in Pahoa in coop-
eration with the Department of Education.
CDP Recommendations:
• Plan a future regional park at Upper Maku`u.
• Set aside areas for district parks adjacent to future high
school sites.
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• As population increases and need arises, neighborhood
parks in large subdivisions between Kea'au and Pahoa
should be provided and improved.
CDP Recommendations:
• Collaborate with subdivisions to set aside community park
sites to serve areas with 5,000 to 10,000 permitted popula-
tion as part of master planning, in conjunction with plan-
ning for elementary schools.
• Collaborate with community groups to set aside and
develop neighborhood parks, pocket parks and neighbor-
hood trail and nature corridors.
Puna Community Development Plan
2.8 PUBLIC FACILITIES: Recreation
2 $ 4 Courses of Action for General Use Parks
from the GENERAL PLAN:
• Implement the County of Hawaii Park Development Plan for the Kalapana-Kaimu area.
^] • Recommend that the State develop the ancient canoe landing site area as a recreation site.
j • Recommend establishing a wilderness camp and park reserve on State-owned land east of Kaimu.
• Recommend the establishment of beach reserves at Kehena Beach and Opihikao (west of Opihikao
junction).
• Recommend that the State expand the MacKenzie State Recreation Area.
• Develop and expand the Isaac Hale Beach Park recreation area. Provide trail access to Keahialaka
Springs and Pond and Mahinaakaka Heiau.
r • Develop the Kapoho Tidepools as a marine park.
• Establish a small scenic park overlooking Kapoho and provide minimum facilities.
Develop recreational areas along the coast between Hilo and Kapoho, including areas at Papai, Ha`ena
(Kea`au), Kaloli Point, Keonepoko Nui, Honolulu Landing, and Nanawale.
Establish small scenic viewpoints along the Puna Road to overlook the rift zone and Kauileau, Ke`eke`e
and the 1955 lava flows.
CDP Recommendations:
Collaborate with community groups, and especially with traditional Puna Hawaiian communities,
to produce a long term master plan for coastal park facilities and access to accommodate the build -
out population in a manner which, as much as possible, protects sensitive areas from public access,
and provides for traditional Puna Hawaiian community stewardship of limited access areas.
• Complete development of the County's Puala'a recreation area in lower Puna.
• Collaborate with community groups and the State on the restoration or provision of basic recre-
ational support amenities wherever there is heavy recreational use of the coastline. If the area is
unsafe, provide facilities at the nearest practical safe shoreline access point.
• In collaboration with the State's Na Ala Hele program and community groups, develop inventory
1 and master plan for a Puna trail and bikeway system. (See list under Names, Sites and Corridors.)
(See also Transportation Section.)
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 2-35
I
I
D
I
I.
M
r
!p
L
2-36 Puna Community Development Plan 11
2.9 ENERGY
p
w
■
a
2.9.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• Many Puna residents live independently of the
energy grid. and are actively involved in
promotion and development of alternative
energy for domestic and transportation use. At
the same time many residents who are currently
"off the grid" would probably desire to tap into
the grid if it is made available at reasonable
hook-up cost. Sometimes residents with similar
sentiments are grouped together, sometimes not.
CDP Courses of Action for Energy
• Collaborate with subdivisions to create viable
town centers aligned along future public transit
routes central to potential population. Imple-
ment land use patterns which cluster uses in
pedestrian -scale town centers.
- Support efforts of subdivisions to establish
and recognize "off -the -grid" or "dispersed
infrastructure" areas.
• Collaborate with community initiatives to
develop model "non -emission" or other experi-
mental and alternative transportation routes.
- Locate future sewage treatment, green waste/
biomass and energy production sites for coop-
erative processes and convenience, e.g., at
Glenwood, Kea`au, Waipahoehoe, and Maku`u.
County General Plan: Energy
GOALS
- Strive towards energy self-sufficiency for Hawaii County.
- Establish the Big Island as a demonstration community for
the development and use of natural energy resources.
Puna's Energy Issues: Energy demand in Puna is rising
rapidly with new residential development. Puna's non-
conforming subdivisions are auto -centered, with great dis-
tances to services, schools, services, employment centers,
supplies and recreation. Their residential development is
therefore significantly more energy intensive than develop-
ment in better -planned areas, and therefore a dispropor-
tionate burden on the many low-income residents. _
The cost of installing and maintaining the electrical
grid is very high in Puna because of weather, vegetation,
and the relatively great distances from house to house.
One of the major impending energy usesfor Puna is for
pumping water. While it may be some time before a large
number of homes connect to a water supply, eventual
connection should be strategically considered.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-37
2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Puna'sNatural E.nvironmen t: The
lower Puna forest and the Ola'a
forest are among the finest and most
well preserved of their types in the
state. In addition, the Office of
State Planning and the National
Biological Survey, in a joint project
with TheNature Conservancy, have
identified areas of Puna, now zoned
for agriculture, which have signifi-
cant remnants of the Ola'a forest.
Coastal areas, especially on
the south flank of Kilauea, have
subdivisions where there is a his-
tory of subsidence. As a result,
some house sites and their waste-
water systems are under water at
high tide.
2.10.1 Snecific Concerns of Puna Community
- Cave environments beneath a number of subdivision lots are
critical environments for unique cave ecosystems. These may be
threatened by the seepage of raw sewage from residential cesspools
and by increased human disturbance.
- Fear that information on the location and distribution of lava
tubes will become too available, and subsequently, sites and burials
will be vandalized or intentionally destroyed.
- Fear that lack of information about the location of lava tubes will
threaten the safety of bulldozer operators, property owners and the
integrity of the caves themselves.
- The Puna shoreline, though relatively unspoiled, has areas of
sewage pollution associated with residential and recreational uses.
- Several forested subdivisions serve as critical environments for a
number of native species including birds, plants and insects.
- Continuous forest environment in small -lot subdivisions is
particularly threatened by individual water and wastewater systems
(water catchment tanks and septic systems) which require clearing
lots beyond housepads, so that there may be no room to retain
forest fragments. In addition, the clearing tends to expand the
introduction of noxious weeds.
- Coastal environmental quality should be protected by encourag-
ing placement of new development inland.
- Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to
reduce residential densities in areas of subsidence and coastal
pollution.
- Consider the use of TDRs to protect important forest lands in
upper Puna.
- Participate with the National Park Service, State and private
landowners in regional forest protection and restoration.
- Collaborate with subdivisions containing lots smaller than one
acre to educate owners about and plan for the future requirement of
central sewers.
- Support local communities in the preparation of community
master plans which provide for retention of continuous natural
corridors and reserve areas large enough to maintain ecosystem
integrity.
- Availability of information on lava tube locations should be
restricted or controlled to minimize potential vandalism and intru-
sion into burial sites.
Z-38
Puna Community Development Plan
2.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Lava Tube Caves
2,10.3.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
• Danger of loss of human life due to potential cave-in
from bulldozing over caves.
• Pollution of caves and water resources, and desecra-
tion of sacred sites by location of cesspools in or near
` caves and diversion of polluted surface floodwaters into
caves.
Ll• Unavailability of information for bulldozer operators
and surface property owners.
• Lack of guidance and/or support for appropriate
treatment of caves by surface property owners.
4J
2,10.3.2 CDP Courses of Action for Lava Caves
• Support creation of an interagency committee includ-
ing the following:
State of Hawai'i:
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
■ Department of Health (DOH)
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1 (DLNR) and subagencies, including
Historic Preservation Division
Burial Council
County of Hawaii:
■ Department of Public Works
Planning
Civil Defense
4 Federal:
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Park Service
Community:
Hawaii Speleological Survey
National Speleological Society
Subdivision Associations
Puna's Hawaiian Kupuna
to propose short-term policy, education and permitting
procedures for cave conservation and public safety.
• Consider requirement of cave safety approval as part
of County Department of Public Works grading permits
and DOH individual wastewater system approvals.
• Support development of a cave management plan.
Puna's Lava Caves
"The Keaau and adjoining ahupua'a of
Puna District are the world's leading area for the
scientific study of lava tubes, their features and
environments. Some of these caves also have
considerable utilitarian and cultural importance.
"In recent years, the Hawaii Speleological Sur-
vey has given priority to systematic inventory,
mapping, and study of the caves of north Puna, in
cooperation with the lava hazard studies of the
U.S. Geological Survey. In the course of these
studies, numerous short caves have been con-
nected into lava tube systems of various lengths,
with mapping of more than 40 miles of lava tube
caves ... Others have paced or mapped more than
ten miles in another cave or caves..No other
volcanic area of the world comes even close to
such a concentration of lava tube caves."
-William R. Halliday, February 1995.
Resources. Values and Manacement of
Pima Caves, Hawaii Speleological Sur-
vey of the National Speleological Soci-
ety
The lava tube cavesofPuna are an emerging
critical issue, because of their common presence
beneath the lots and roadways of nonconform-
ing subdivisions. This makes for inevitable in-
creasing human interactions with those caves,
intended and unintended. The result is a greater
potential for negative consequences for the hu-
mans, for the caves 'special environments, and
for water resources.
The locations of the caves are not all known.
There may be some liability issues for the County
in not reviewing building and grading permitsfor
known cave locations if injury or loss of life or
property results.
At the same time, the caves of Puna are a
valuable resource for biological, archeological
and geological studies. Like it or not, they are
also a tourist attraction.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2 -39
2.11 HISTORIC SITES & NATURAL BEAUTY
2.11.1 Specific Concerns of Puna Community
Puna's Historic Heritagg
Puna's coastal areas has rela-
tively dense concentrations of his-
torical (sites originating before and
after contact-1780) cultural and
burial sites. There are also a num-
ber of sites located atformer inland
settlements and agricultural
areas.While few resident descen-
dants remain of the the people who
lived and are buried in these sites,
those descendantsstill malama (care
for) those sites. The rapid influx of
newcomers, including Hawaiians
who do not have these ties or tradi-
tions, threaten to overwhelm this
heritage.
Historical sites are not uncom-
mon on subdivision lots, especially
in coastal areas. Under subdivi-
sion lots are lava tubes, many of
which also have significant sites
and burials.
The presence of protected his-
toric sites in communities and the
cultural integrity of the community
increases its potential for
ecotourism that can help support
cultural appreciation and under-
standing, if managed carefully by
the cultural practitioners them-
selves.
Sites of natural beauty, and
other sites which may not be con-
sidered "beautiful" or historic may
be culturally significant sites for
Hawaiian Religious tradition. It is
impossible to separate the diedes
who make their home in Puna from
the natural beauty itself. Ola'a, for
instance, is both the forest of Laka
and a manifestation of Laka.
Many of the ancient and tradi-
tional trails of Puna connected ar-
eas whose natural beauty has cul-
tural significance. Many of these
are still protected as public land or
with traditional access rights.
The presence of unspoiled vis-
tas and traditional sites of natural
beauty, accessible by trail, is an
important asset for the development
of eco-tourism.
- Owners of small lots with significant sites need support and
assistance if saving significant sites renders their lots unusable.
- The cost of archeological data recovery from privately owned
sites that need to be studied before they are destroyed.
- Dense vegetation often disguises historic sites until they have
already been destroyed by bulldozing. Sites in lava tubes are
threatened by the raw sewage of cesspools.
- Many historic/burial sites have already been destroyed.
- Place names with traditional or cultural importance have been
replaced, especially in Kea`au and Ola'a.
- The traditional town centers of Volcano, Mountain View, Kea'au
and Pahoa have distinct architectural styles that should be retained.
- Long views across expansive view planes are found from many
locations in Puna. Location of electrical transmission corridors
may degrade these views.
- The almost totally unspoiled natural vistas along the whole Puna
coast are highly valued.
- Support efforts by the Historic Preservation Division to preserve
and interpret several large landscapes with ruins of houses, fields,
paths, and religious structure, at Kahuwai Village and a land
section in Keauohana, and other sites, working with landowners,
the National Park Service, and with the Puna Hawaiian community,
to result in a number of linked interpreted historic sites for limited
access.
- Support efforts by the Historic Preservation Division to identify,
with the Puna Hawaiian community, sites that are of traditional
cultural significance -- burials, gathering places, and extremely
sacred areas -- to protect from public access and interpretation.
- Support and collaborate with the State Department of Land and
Naural Resources, Historic Preservation Division to conduct
comprehensive field surveys and continue to improve the inventory
of historic sites in Puna that identify the distribution of known
historic sites and help predict the relative likelihood of historic sites
in the different parts of Puna.
- Collaborate with subdivision associations to institute volunteer
community historical survey boards to facilitate identification and
protection of sites within subdivisions and to devise acceptable
means to assist owners in protection of sites.
- Restore traditional and historical place names. Kurdstown's
historic name is Ola'a. Ihope road was Ola'a Back Road. Other
F11
11
11
0
111
A
240
Puna Community Development Plan
2.11.3 NAMES, SITES AND CORRIDORS
p
p
n
instances of replacement of Hawaiian place names should be corrected.
• New town centers created in the subdivisions should be given Hawaiian names associated with
that particular part of Puna.
• Support public education, protection and access to traditional trails and unused public rights of
way, based on a management plan to avoid impacts to traditional Hawaiian places and environmen-
tally sensitive areas along the trail or right of way.
• In Keaau, encourage research and documentation, and, if appropriate, application for historic
district designation.
• In Keaau, Pahoa, and Volcano, encourage traditional design district guidelines for rehabilitation of
existing structures and "infill" that matches the existing historic patterns, with special attention to
parking and setback requirements.
• Where designated, historic districts should be recognized with signs at entrances to the area.
• Encourage research and documentation, and where appropriate, historic designation of additional
sites, including those along trails and old rights of way.
I
2.11.3.1 HAWAIIAN CULTURAL SITES
This list represents only a small percentage of known sites in Puna. There are
additional sites that have not yet been identified.
Place Name
Feature Tax Map Key
Pu'u Laimana Kapoho
1960 lava flow
14-02:1
Kuki'i, Pumu Kukae, Kapoho
Cinder cones
14-02:2
1
Kapoho Cone
Cinder cone
14-02:16,31
Halekamahina, Kapoho
Cinder cone
14-02:32
Honua'ula Cone, Kapoho
Cinder cone
14-01:19
1.�
Pu'ulena, Kahuwai
Craters
1-3-45:36,37
'I'ilewa Cone, Kamaili
1955 lava flow
1-2-10:1
Holei Pali Fault, Kalapana
Fault
1-1-01
1
Coastal areas of striking contrasts:
Kahau Le'a (above cliffs)
Tidal ponds, fishing area
1-1-01:17
Ka Lae Ahole, Kalapana
Viewpoint
1-2-03:12
Kehena Beach
Black sand beach
1-2-09:21
Ke'eke'e viewpoint
Viewpoint
1-2-09:22
Opihikao shoreline
Scenic shoreline
1-3-04:71
Pohoiki warm springs
Warm springs
1-3-08:5
Pohoiki shoreline
Scenic shoreline
1-2-08:5
Keahia Laka Spring
Spring and ponds
1-3-08:15
Keahia Laka shoreline
Scenic shoreline
1-3-08:15
`
Kapela Bay, Kahuwai
Black sand Beach
14-03:13
Kahuwai shoreline (Hilo)
Scenic shoreline
1-4-03:13
Kahuwai shoreline (Puna)
Scenic shoreline
14-03:13
1
Kahuwai Viewpoint
Makaukiu Point
14-03:13
Honolulu Landing
Waiakahuila shoreline
14-03:19
f
Waiakahuila shoreline
Scenic shoreline
1-5-63:1-4
M
Kea'au Cove
Cove with stone beach
1-6-140:4,5
Kaua`ea
Kauaea
1-3-03:5
Malama Ki
MacKenzie Park
1-3-07:26
Ahalanui Pond, Kapoho
Mauna Kea Pond
14-02:5
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
1
2-41
2.11.3
NAMES, SITES AND CORRIDORS
2.11.3.2 HAWAIIAN HISTORIC SITES
This list represents only a small percentage of known sites in Puna. There
are additional sites that have not yet been
identified.
Name
Location/Destination
Site #
Tax Map Key
Enclosure
Lava Bubble Enclosure
Kea'au Ranch
Kea'au Ranch
1845
1846
1-6-118:37
1-6-118:37
Honolulu Landing
Habitation Complex
Honolulu Landing
4221
1-4-03:19
Maku'u Petroglyphs
Maku'u
4222
1-5-10:11,15,16
Kuki'i Heiau
Kapoho
2500
1-4-02:2
Ahalanui
Kapoho
2503
1-4-01:49,73
Ahalanui Complex 2
Kapoho
2505
1-4-02:7
Laepao'o Enclosure
Kapoho
2506
1-4-02:7
Pohoiki North Complex
Pohoiki
2507
1-3-8:16
Pohoiki Enclosure
Pohoiki
2512
1-3-08:4
Hale Park Complex
Pohoiki
2515
1-3-08:4
Complex
Malama
2524
1-3-08:1
MacKenzie Petroglyphs
Malama
2529
1-3-07 and 08
King's Pillars -
Kapoho
4250
1-4-02:1
Kumukahi Grave Site
Kapoho
4251
1-4-02:1
House Sites
Kapoho
4254
14-27:24
House Sites/Complex
Pu'ala'a Village, Makai
Kapoho
Kapoho
4255
4294
1-4-27:14
1-4-02:4,15,16
Pu'ala'a Village, Mauka
Kapoho
4295
1-4-02:37
Keokea Petroglyphs
Kehena
2544
1-2-07:1
2.11.3.3 ANCIENT TRAILS
This list represents only a small percentage of known sites in
Puna. There are additional sites that have not yet been
identified.
Name Location/Destination
Site # Tax Map Key
Kehena Beach Trail Kehena
2540 1-2-19:22
Hawaiian Coastal Trail Kehena to Hilo
7386
Makuu Trail Railroad Ave to Maku'u
Volcano Trail Kea'au Beach to Volcano
Trails of Kea'au, various* Mauka/Makai, Maku'u to
Hilo
Glenwood/Makaopuhi Glenwood to Makaopuhi
Ka'ohe/ Puna Forest Trail Pahoa to MountainView
r_ l
* Located on maps in Department of Public Works archives, surveyed by Chief Engineer E.L. Wung in 1932
242 Puna Community Development Plan 11
I
1�
r,
i�
f
2.11.3 NAMES, SITES AND CORRIDORS
2.11.3.4 HISTORIC/CULTURAL SITES
This list represents only a small percentage of known sites in Puna. There are additional sites that have not yet been
identified.
Name
Location/
State
Tax Map Key
Destination
Site #
Opihikao Congregational Church
Opihikao
7383
1-3-04:4
Kahaloa House
Opihikao
7394
1-3-04:18
Old Kudo Camp
Kaueleau
7385
1-3-05:12,13,19
Coffee Mill
Pohoiki
7386
1-3-08:4
Hale House
Pohoiki
1-3-08:4
Lyman Marker
Kapoho
7492
1-4-02:16
Pu'ula Congregational Church
Nanawale
7387
1-4-51:115
PAHOA TOWN
Pahoa
7388
1-5-7,11,13,14
Sacred Heart Catholic Church
Pahoa
in 7388
1-5-06:1
Pahoa YBA Hall
Pahoa
in 7388
1-5-02:9
Tao House
Pahoa
in 7388
1-5-114:24
Kamahele House
Maku'u
7476
1-5-10:9
Holy Rosary Catholic Church
Kea'au
in 7389
1-6-06:1
KEA'AU TOWN
Kea'au
7389
1-6-2,3,143
Puna Hongwanji Temple
Kea'au
in 7389
1-6-02:28
Manager's House
Kea'au
in 7389
1-6-03:10
Kamauloa Oka Malamamalama
Hoomana Naauao 0 Hawaii
Kurtistown
7375
1-7-06:12
First Hawaiian Church
Kurtistown
7376
1-7-07:24
Kurtistown Jodo Mission
Kurtistown
7378
1-7-17:60
Iwasaki Camp
Kutistown
7379
1-7-17:15
Yamashita House
Kurtistown
7377
1-7-16:33
MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE
Mtn. View
7374
1-8-01:01
Nichiren Shoshu Church
Mtn. View
1-8-02:10
Kunio Takaku House
Glenwood
7373
1-8-08:1
GLENWOOD
Glenwood
7453
1-8-09,10
VOLCANO VILLAGE
Volcano
1-9-03:4,5
Hale Ohia Log Cabin
Volcano
1-1-05:29
Dillingham Retreat
Volcano
1-1-05:14
Morse House
Volcano
1-9-03:10
Old YMCA (Kilauea Lodge)
Volcano
1-9-04:55
2.11.3.5 RAILROAD RIGHTS —OF —WAY
Railroad Avenue
Hilo Bay to Kapoho
Pahoa/Kaohe Branch
Keonepoko to Pahoo/Kaohe
Opihikao Branch
Kapoho to Opihikao
Waipahoehoe Branch
Waipahoehoe to Orchid Land
Glenwood Line
Keaau to Glenwood
2.1.3.6 HISTORIC/SCENIC ROADS
Pohoiki (Mango) Road Leilani to Pohoiki
Coast (Red) Road Kehena to Hawaiian Beaches
Opihikao Road Kamaili to Opihikao
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
2-43
9
r
I
■
r
■
■
SECTION 3
IMPLEMENTATION & FINANCING
THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
CHART OF LAND USE CHANGES
MAPS
RESOURCE LIST
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
3-1
U
I
L
I
V
L.
i
I
I
10
U
I
L
3-2 Puna Community Development Plan V
SECTION 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
This section recommends ways to carry out the proposals contained in Section 2. It is divided into
three parts:
• Land Use
• Capital Projects
• Policies
Each of these sections contains subsections on Equity, Tools, and Timing, as well as other topics that
are specific to that element.
3.1.1 LAND USE
A number of land use changes are proposed in Section 2. Most of them are intended to move the
planning and zoning of the State and the County into conformance with the actual permitted uses.
Some of the land use changes address Puna's natural hazards that impose health, safety, and other
costs on the County and its taxpayers. In addition, there is a proposal for a major new section in the
County's Zoning Code to enable both old and new towns to develop as compact, pedestrian -oriented
Rural Town Districts.
3.1.1.1 Equity.
The primary equity issues for land use are consistency and conformity of planning and zoning
designations for the non -conforming subdivisions.
3.1.1.1.1 Consistency and Conformity. In order for zoning and land use designations to provide
t� the protection of health and safety that justifies land use regulation, land designations and zoning
should be in conformance with permitted use. Since there are different standards for health and
safety and for services for different zoning designations, equity requires this consistency if all resi-
dents are to have their health and safety needs equitably met. It is recommended that the County
initiate State Land Use boundary amendments from Agricultural to Rural or Urban where the lots are
one acre or smaller. This involves a number of subdivisions in Puna which are now non -conforming
and where the residents now find themselves in violation of State requirements for farm -related
dwellings in Agricultural Districts.
3.1.1.2 New Tools.
New planning and zoning tools are proposed: H zoning suffix for volcanic hazard areas, a Rural
Town District code, as well as consideration of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to solve
some of the land use problems of Puna, as well as elsewhere on the island.
3.1.1.2.1 Hazard Designation. Where there is a high risk of loss of public investment and private
investment which, if lost, would require public aid and mitigation, and/or potential for injury or loss
of life, the County, as the regulator of land use, has a duty to all taxpayers to try to prevent such
losses by wise planning. Therefore, disclosure of the risks of development in the areas of high lava
flow hazard is recommended. Disclosure would take the form of a new zoning suffix: H for volcanic
hazard areas. The Hazard zone suffix should be defined in the Zoning Code and then attached to all
zoning designations for the defined areas. For instance, RS-H-15 would mean Single Family Resi-
dential, Hazard Zone, 15,000 square feet minimum lot size, similar to how the Safety Zone designa-
tion is currently used for tsunami inundation areas.
The H suffix, in Puna and elsewhere on the island, should be attached to the zoning designations of
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3-3
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
all lots in Lava Flow Hazard Zones 1 and 2 as designated by the United States Geological Survey..
U
The County Planning Department would need to work closely with the USGS and other agencies
such as the Office of State Planning to translate and superimpose the broad -scale lava flow hazard
maps onto the County tax maps. In addition, the County should consider requiring full disclosure of
U
the presence of a Hazard Zone, by way of a signed disclosure statement, at the time of plan approval,
building permit and/or subdivision application. The County should also consider prohibiting further
subdivision of any parcel with the Hazard Zone designation unless it results in no net increase in
buildable homesites in the designated Hazard zone.
3.1.1.2.2 Rural Town District. The community -based planning process for the Puna Community ,
Development Plan was designed to elicit values, fears, and needs from residents. The results
showed the most support for preservation of the existing character of the rural towns of Puna and for
re -planning the existing subdivisions so that they develop to be more like those traditional rural
towns. The most often expressed fear of development was of the traffic -congested lifestyle associ-
ated with the current suburban -sprawl pattern.
The current Zoning Code lacks a mechanism that would encourage the preservation of traditional -
style rural towns, or the development of new towns in the traditional style, except as individually
formed special districts, e.g., the Downtown Hilo District. Traditional towns are characterized by
compactness, convenient pedestrian -accessible services, diversity of income and employment, a
balance of jobs and housing, mixed uses, and clear boundaries between town and surrounding open .. ,
space or agricultural land. It is recommended that a Rural Town District (RTD) code be added to the
zoning and subdivision codes by the County. The RTD should be available for communities to use,
subject to community initiation and a master plan adopted by the area to be served. It would be
applicable to Puna and elsewhere on the island.
The RTD code should be considered for incorporation in the County Zoning Code, similar to (or as
U
a subsection of) the Project District section of the current draft Zoning Code Update. However, the
Rural Town District would have an essential difference: its function would be to guide and facilitate
a community -based planning process in which the applicant would not be a"developer" in the tradi-
U
tional sense, but rather, the owners and residents of an existing community. To fulfill this function,
both the planning proces and development requirements need to involve County and State regulatory
agencies and the applicants in a partnership, rather than strictly a permitter/permittee relationship.
Such a divergence from the usual zoning and subdivision approval process needs to be simple and
user-friendly as well as comprehensive. The RTD code should be a ready-made blueprint of the
characteristics of successful traditional town features to guide the community planners, developers
and organizers. Development of the code itself should be the result of a community -based process,
with the assistance of County planners and perhaps planning consultants and would require several
communities island -wide to act as test cases to work on the details of an RTD zoning ordinance.
The following, therefore, are intended more as guidelines than as a formula for the actual code.
U
- The RTD, including its service area of farms, if any, should serve, at community maturity, a popu-
lation of 4,000 to 7,000 people. Research indicates that this is an ideal size for civic and economic
self-sufficiency, and provides approximately 400-500 children for a community elementary
U
school —which would generally be the central focus of the community.
0
3-4 Puna Community Development Plan 11
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
r__?
• The RTD code should provide a mix of very small but varied zoning districts, mixed uses, small
} and medium-sized lots and a range of densities for a balance of jobs, housing, and services for a
wide diversity of incomes and age levels.
`J • The RTD code should provide for a compact commercial/civic core including a "town square" with
narrow "mixed mode" streets, with reduced parking requirements, parking in the rear or side of
lots, medium -density apartments and offices over stores, passive open spaces interspersed between
buildings, pedestrian -oriented blocks, and civic services such as post office, fire and police, and
social services.
• The commercial uses should be defined as discrete mini -zones with user-friendly names. For
example, a "shopping district" (even if only one block long) could be described in words and
illustrations as follows:
A shopping street is a 70-foot wide right-of-way with parking and twelve -foot covered
sidewalks on both sides. Retail sales (including restaurants) are the sole use. Restaurants .
may have some chairs and tables on the sidewalk. All frontages will line up with the side-
walk. There must be a new display window and entrance in storefronts at least every 25 feet.
Upstairs will be professional services, real estate offices, travel agencies, and location -neutral
businesses such as catalog sales.
A "repair district," a "financial district" and an "entertainment district" would receive similar treat-
ment. These distinctions are patterns that are found in successful downtowns, no matter how
small, and are easier for community planners to envision.
• Mixed uses for non -nuisance businesses, residences, preschool and elementary schools, elderly
housing, lodges and boarding houses, and "less than twenty unit" garden apartment developments,
should be within a five-minute walking distance of the central square.
• Growth boundaries are needed to clearly define the "edge of town" to separate it from agricultural
and/or open spaces and provide protection for agricultural uses, especially where these may be the
major land uses within the RTD planning district.
• An optional provision could be made for up to 200 acres on the edge of town for non -nuisance
industries, technical centers, educational institutions and/or office buildings.
• The RTD code could be designed to be published on poster paper combining text and illustrations
for ease of use by community planners in a workshop or charrette process.
• A workbook could be developed, including a checklist of activities, for creating individualized
design guidelines to meet the unique characteristics or requirements of each town.
• Narrow streets, short blocks, lower parking requirements and shared parking, and other cost
savings for developers should be encouraged to provide cost -incentives for pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, open spaces and community facility sites.
• The RTD should provide the opportunity for delineating special districts, such as "off -the -grid"
communities and for establishing TDR sending and receiving areas to help cluster density.
• The Community, -Based Master Planning Process need not require the use of the RTD code. A
conventional subdivision plan, using current zoning and subdivision codes may also be the product.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3-5
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
y
Un
vi .; q L yj e4 C O .h .
'n0 o o '$¢ c
y S �° 034 aiL.��a
k � o'�
°•�a&uoacE°
a°o 0 u .0.9 cuC
a� �a ocuC3
:a°G7�.E.-v�� ,o[73 =$cCJO3 •'a '� �0arc°swo
a .or'� E S �oo
QE�
oc � 3 `0 ~'s
Scc" �E"
5au
G ~�U.0 V0 �J .Hya�
`99=
�
MW
W
III
MII
MWI
MM
MI/
W
�3.qd=
IIIIIIIIIIIIILIN
MIM
IMIM_ AM
MIM
MIA
MM
MIM
INed:
€
1 - -M
f t1M
WN
M�
Mal
M,W
MM
//m
M11
MM
mm
WIM
\mom
��
,t��
=
IAMM
�
��
W/M
R
MM
ILv
�
Main
WAM
Mm
r 1=14*
Mom
MIS
11�a{���aOo�Oo�ocoac
mm
mm{i*ice
ia�
M►
't�JL�l�7i
;]ulG]uLd�utrHH
i
mm
Mm
Mcm
�i�9�aS!
lZTO7C
��I�OGO�I
lLl44
12UNIM
=gal
mm
M
'{c`4wj40
UOIQOOO>
mm
��{Wiss
�-
_
a��u
=i
��aOOOa�•::���:
_�]-
loocOoi
MM
M�{ii�t'
aogoauyYW':r:aOOGOOI
i
Mm
mom,+
4�_
_
;uy{�uuuuSiuuu�i%uui
A
_—
_IWi
-(w
mom
\
"]OouoOooLaaooLUJI
MWA
IMM
M
{
Mti
E
®
• �.
�\
— mm
_ �m
mm
• mm
mm
• ��
• - scam
rI
M
MIM{
l"
go
mm
UMEM
IVAIIIIIIIIIIIII
mm
MM[W-MG��9s
��
mm
MM{i
%
MM
Mm
m,wmiW
M
MM
mm
MM
mm
WN91
WMI
Wmm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
m
�
wN
YY Y
� H
w{W-;%i---mmmmmmmmmm WWI
YYYY�
i
--
__
-_
_-
m9w.4
Col.
is
Mom■
MM
M
MWI&NIic
mm
mm
mm
mm
=W1j4,010-e`
mm
mm
M
mm
mm
MM
mm
MM
MM
WINE
SOW{Wid+.
mm
MW
�nom-
i`
=RY'{E`
M
3- 6 Puna Community Development Plan
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
3.1.1.2.2 B
• The Community -Based Master Planning COMMUNITY -BASED
process should be simple and cooperative. MASTER PLAN
It should include the following elements:
PROCESS EXAMPLE
• A clear beginning and ending to a
process that can be completed in less
than a year.
• One staff member each from Depart-
ments of Water Supply, Public Works,
Finance, Parks and Recreation, and
Initiation of Community -Based Master
1 Planning, by community group,
landowner(s), developer, County Council or
Planning Director.
Planning, as well as at least one vounteer
Planning Commissioner and volunteer
Council Member, as participants with the 2
community in the planning process.
A wide variety of ways for residents and
owners.in the planning area to participate
or provide input to the process.
A requirement that, at least twice in the
process, all property owners in the
planning district are invited to participate
and given the opportunity to protest, so
that if more than 50% protest, or if more
than half the votes received are negative,
the community -based master plan cannot
be adopted.
Qualification by Planning Director:
• Appropriateness of location in relation to
transportation/transit network and central
location in service area for public facilities.
• Survey of property owners by community
association to qualify or adjust location,
based on no more than 50% protest.
If approved at proposed or amended boundaries
Community Master Plan Task Force
Participants: property owners, service
area/community residents, planners, Planning
3 Commissioner, Council Member and staff
from Planning, Water Supply, Public Works,
Finance, Police, Fire and Parks.
• A preliminary Planning Commission
Design Charrette Process
Including Background and Training Sessions
recommendation of approval would be
4 & Visioning Process Facilitators
required to delineate the boundaries of
(e.g., Family Community Leadership
the planning district at the beginning of
Program)
■ the process. The community master plan
to produce a community -based Master Plan.
would be reviewed by the Planning
Commision and adopted (or rejected) by
" the county Council by ordinance.
5 Master Plan, subject to approval by same
survey requirements as in Step 2
• Upon approval, the County Planning
"
If approved. If not approved, may
Director may apply for a State Land Use
y PP y
go back to /
(SLU) boundary amendment to Urban
amendment process.
for the Rural Town center of 12-40
" acres, or conventional subdivision master
SLU Boundary and General Plan Map
plan, and may initiate appropriate
6 amendments
initiated by Planning Director
amendments to the County General Plan
Financing Tools and Projects
LUPAG Ma and Land Use District
P
introduced by Council Member
boundaries
RTD zoning designation initiated by Planning
Director or Council member
■
Puna Commmunity Development Plan
3-7
■
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING L
3.1.1.2.3 Transfer of Development Rights, or TDRs, as they are commonly known; are a tool for
moving development rights from one area to another. It is accomplished through enabling legisla-
tion by the County, and the subsequent designation of Sending Areas from which building rights
may be sold, and Receiving Areas where property owners may increase density by buying develop-
ment rights from the Sending Area. Specific sending and receiving areas would have to be adopted
by County ordinance.
In the Puna area, TDRs have two potential uses. One would be to move existing development rights
from subdivided lots in high hazard areas into areas more appropriate for increased density. Another
would be to provide for more differentiation of uses and orderly development of infrastructure
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
within existing subdivisions. This is accomplished by allowing the transfer of building rights into
rural town centers from peripheral areas that are then designated for less density and/or protection of
agricultural or open spaces. The intent of this use is to allow clustering of density in a core service
area, to lower infrastructure needs and costs, and to protect agricultural uses and affordability in the
surrounding area, with little or no increase in overall density. This Community Development Plan
recommends the funding and initiation of an island -wide study of TDRs, its applicability to solve
certain land use problems such as hazard area development, and the designation of sending and
receiving areas, if any.
3.1.1.3 Timing.
The implementation of the land use changes for Puna must begin as soon as possible. The current
deficiencies in health, safety, equity and efficiency in the development of Puna have costs which will -
rapidly escalate as development continues to progress in disorder. In addition, failure to provide for
disclosure of the presence of land use hazards may increase liability for the County in the event of
natural disaster.
Infilling of the non -conforming subdivisions is rapidly increasing traffic congestion as well as the
number of residents who lack basic amenities, public facilities and services. Many subdivision
residents have indicated that their highest priorities are rural character, affordability and economic
opportunity, along with reducing traffic congestion. The Rural Town District is a planning tool
which can be used to help meet all of these priorities. Several of the subdivisions have already
initiated community -based planning processes aimed at development of rural town centers. The
residents of existing towns have also expressed their concern about their ability to develop in a way ■-�
which preserves their rural, small town character. Mainstreet Pahoa has adopted a strategic plan '
while the Volcano community is debating design issues for maintaining the traditional character of
Volcano Village. Kea`au Town is the focus of a legal dispute in part over the retention of older
buildings and the rural plantation character of the area. A Rural Town District Code containing
design standards and development guidelines could be used by existing and new communities to
address these concerns if it can be developed in a timely manner. f
3.1.2 CAPITAL PROJECTS
The funding of capital projects is a crucial and controversial issue for Puna. Disagreement about U
who should pay for a large and increasing shortfall in basic services has raised issues of fiscal equity
due to the history of neglect of the non -conforming subdivisions. Nevertheless, further delay of a
concerted effort to begin major improvements of public facilities and services to meet the needs of U
the growing Puna population will only increase the ultimate cost and increase the shortfall. This
section will articulate *some principles of fiscal equity in apportioning these costs as well as sugges-
tions for lowering the costs overall, and priorities for scheduling selected major projects.
3-8 Puna Community Development Plan
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
3.1.2.1 Fiscal Equity.
The following are proposed principles for equitable implementation of capital improvement projects
in the Puna district.
3.1.2.1.1. Parks, Police and Fire. The basic services of the County —parks, police and fire sta-
tions —should be provided to the non -conforming subdivisions and to all existing villages in Puna
from the County General Fund. Fiscal history indicates that these subdivisions made substantial,
partially -retuned contributions to the General Fund which provided such services to existing commu-
nities elsewhere. There are also indications that the non -conforming subdivisions of Puna were
created, in part, for this purpose.
The fiscal equity principle, however, does not preclude the development of these services by innova-
tive public/private partnerships and volunteer organizations working with the County. Puna commu-
nities have shown great initiative and innovation in developing such programs, from park facilities to
volunteer fire stations, with substantial government savings. However, these programs cannot
flourish if there is a perceived double standard. To succeed, fiscal equity programs should be insti-
tuted island -wide, for operations as well as for capital improvements.
3.1.2.1.2 Secondary Arterial Corridors and Water Mains. The basic public linear infrastructure
of secondary arterial roads and of the water mains that run beneath them, along with the water
capacity infrastructure to fill those mains should be developed under the same principle that has
applied in the past to existing communities, but utilizing combinations of new and old financing
tools. These new proposed corridors, as shown on the Transportation and Utility Maps as the Cen-
tral Subdivision Corridor and the two roadway corridors at about 15th Street in Hawaiian Paradise
Park and "Nine and a Half Road" in Hawaiian Acres, are comparable to Komohana Street or
Waianuenue Avenue in Hilo.
These projects will require complex packages of funding sources that cannot easily be prescribed in
advance. However, the following is an example of how the Central Subdivision corridor could be
implemented:
The corridor is approximately twenty miles long, from Hawaiian Paradise Park to Volcano
Highway at the 25-mile marker. The cost of the roadway itself, apart from land acquisition
where needed, can be expected to be about $2 million per mile, or $40 million dollars total. As
a rural arterial connecting rural town centers, it could qualify for 80% federal funding under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The County or State share
would be $8 million. The water main underneath the road and the wells, pumps and water
tanks located along the road can be expected to cost approximately $1 million per mile, or $20
million. It is probable that part or all of the water project would qualify for grants and/or loans
under the federal Rural Economic and Community Development section of the United States
Department of Agriculture (the same program that funded 50% of the sewer improvements in
Papaikou).
This project would provide substantial opportunity for higher uses and community facilities
in rural town centers located near it. In addition, because of the availability of those facilities
and emergency services, insurance and mortgage benefits and agricultural security for lots
would accrue within a wide zone all along the corridor. Because this improvement can be
expected to provide a substantial tax increment, this project may lend itself well to Tax Incre-
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3-9
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
ment Financing. The Central Subdivisions' present tax contribution, or base, is more than $5
million. Over a 30-year payment period, an annual payment for two-thirds the cost, or $14
million, would require a tax increment of under $1 million per year.
In addition, property owners in the area might agree to a modest Community Facilities pay-
ment. If the Community Facilities payment were one-third of the cost of the water project, or
$7 million, spread over 30,000 parcels that would benefit, it would amount to only $250 per lot
in current dollars. This sort of financing is complex, and would require a lot of "packaging" to
bring it about. But this one project would make everything else possible, and would lay the
foundation for health, safety, services and economic opportunity in the Puna District.
3.1.2.1.3 Collector and Frontage Roads. For collector roads and access or frontage roads, the
principles of "who pays" apply differently. For collector roads, which provide public access to
public destinations and emergency services, County funding is appropriate. Moreover, the distances
of these collector roads, in general, are comparable to per capita distances of existing County road-
ways. However, private road fees, Improvement Districts, Tax Increment Financing or Community
Facilities Districts should be the financing choice for frontage roads and water distribution lines.
3.1.2.2 Tools.
A substantial number of new tools have become available for financing in Hawaii County in the last
few years, including Tax Increment Financing and Community Facilities Districts, demonstrating
County interest in tackling deficits in infrastructure and facilities island -wide. Additional planning
and financing tools that would also be helpful for the County to consider are described below.
3.1.2.2.1 Land Banking. Most of the existing subdivisions in Puna do not have land set aside for
parks, schools, fire stations, police stations, secondary roadway corridors, or water capacity facili-
ties. If these lands are not set aside in the near future, the cost and barriers to later lot acquisition
and assembly will become much higher, because more vacant lots will have been built on. In order
to keep costs as low as possible, a public fund should be set aside to acquire lands for these purposes
on the open market as soon as possible. In this way, lands in the right location or comparable lots
for trading can be "banked" at the lowest possible public cost for new roads and other major public
facilities. Also, if unexpected sources of infrastructure improvement funds such as federal grants
become available, they need not be missed by not having the land ready and available.
3.1.2.2.2 Public/Private Partnerships. Public/private partnerships cover a wide range of arrange-
ments. One example is lease partnerships, where local government, under a redevelopment program,
buys and provides infrastructure to land, then leases it for development on a percentage basis,
thereby being reimbursed for the public investment. A version already in use in Puna, at Cooper
Center in Volcano and at Puala'a Park is a partnership arrangement between the County Department
of Parks and Recreation and community management organizations. The County's volunteer fire
stations are operated under similar programs. These types of programs show great potentiallor
substantially lowering the costs of basic facilities and services and should continue to be expanded,
in Puna and throughout the island.
3.1.2.2.3 Concurrency. Concurrency is a basic requirement of planning and zoning that is being
adopted in an increasing number of jurisdictions, starting in Florida in 1985. It requires that the
principle in the Land Zoning Bank section of the County General Plan be adhered to, by limiting
upzoning and subdivision to concurrent needs. It also limits approvals of developments to those for
3- 10 Puna Community Development Plan
I
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
which the public facilities and infrastructure, or the means to provide them, are in place. As a corollary, a
Level of Service standard for facilities and infrastructure must be in place, with deficiencies made up in an
orderly and equitable manner.
3.1.2.2.4 Project District Incentives within a Rural Town District. An RTD can provide substantial
~' savings for developers, by allowing narrower streets, lowered parking requirements, smaller lot sizes, etc.
As part of the package, therefore, dedications may also be required, such as for open space set -asides,
within or near the RTD itself, or provision of space for child-care or elder -care. Incentives could also be
provided for rehabilitation of existing structure, and for "infill' in existing towns to match existing historic
areas. A flexible point system is one way to allow communities to put together a package of incentives
and exactions in master planning their communities to suit their specific needs.
3.1.2.2.5 Redevelopment Districts. Creating a redevelopment district provides a broadened range of
powers in solving the problems of lack of planning that blights the non -conforming subdivisions of Puna.
Another defining feature of "blight" is, however, not found in the non -conforming subdivisions: lack of -
sufficient tax base to pay for needed improvements. Since the subdivisions, with their many vacant lots,
_ produce more taxes than are currently used in those subdivisions, it may be hard to justify redevelopment
districts. However, it is suggested that this option be explored, since it may provide access to additional
funding sources. A county ordinance to establish the district would be required.
3.1.2.2.6. Land Readjustment. Land readjustment, a form of lot consolidation and resubdivision
among a group of individual owners, provides an effective means to privately assemble and rede=
velop lots. It may be useful for implementing the plans of Rural Town Districts, and may provide a
format for providing public spaces and a source of infrastructure funding. Incentives, such as pro-
viding a revolving loan fund for the readjustment process and some matching funds for infrastruc-
7 ture have been very succesfully used by government to support land readjustment in other locales.
State and County enabling legislation would be required.
3.1.2.3. Capital improvements Timing
Timing of capital improvements is affected by a great many eventualities that can speed them up,
slow them down, or re -order priorities: politics, community activism, unexpected funding sources or
shortages, and changing rules for outside funding. Therefore, this Plan does not present a list or
J specific timing of capital improvements or overall priorities for government action. Instead, this
section discusses important capital improvements on a general level, along with suggestions on how
to begin building up Puna's level of public services.
3.1.2.3.1 Land Acquisition. The timing of land acquisition is perhaps the chief determinant of the
public cost toward solving the lack of planning and the infrastructure and public service deficiencies
in Puna. This plan as well as subsequent comunity-based master plans that identify infrastructure
improvements and community needs will of themselves begin attracting residential development and
indirectly raising prices in the very areas that will be needed for public lands. A million dollars
spent on selected land acquisition in Puna in the next five years could translate into savings of up to
hundreds of millions of dollars to future taxpayers.
r
3.1.2.3.2 Parks. Park development should be based on level of service standards set by the County,
but initiated by the communities, starting with land banking upon request from the communities. In
order to keep costs down, all new park development in Puna should be considered for the partnership
program, in addition to island -wide expansion of the program.
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan 3-11
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
3.1.2.3.3 Police and Fire. A new centralized police/fire station should be built at Waikahekahe as
one of the first priorities. Within the ten-year planning period of this plan, a new police and fire
station should be planned for the the Volcano area, to lower the response time for upper Puna.
3.1.2.3.4 Transportation. Timing and planning together are critical issues for transportation
because the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, requires that all
projects appear in adopted community -based plans in order to qualify for ISTEA funds. ISTEA
funds and other transportation funds may become available unexpectedly for those with projects "on
the shelf' ready for development. For this reason, it is strongly recommended that all proposed
secondary roads and trails, the projects most likely to qualify for ISTEA funds, be planned for
completely. In this way, the maximum use can be made of non -local funding opportunities.
Of the major projects proposed, the priority should be for the Komohana Street Extension to Pahoa
via "Nine and a Half Road" first, with the Central Subdivision Corridor as second priority. How-
ever, this order of priority should be flexible, depending on timing and fund sources. At the same
:ime, funding should be sought immediately for land acquisition for a 15th Street corridor through
Hawaiian Paradise Park, since so many lots must be acquired to eventually convert this corridor into
a thoroughfare with the "frontage" eliminated.
The trail projects —Railroad Avenue, Puna Coast Trail, and Volcano Trail— should all be planned
and engineered, then pursued according to funding opportunities and community initiative.
3.1.2.3.5 Water. The critical water infrastructure for Puna is the development of the base of a
major new system centered along the Central Subdivision Corridor. Here, timing will be critical,
because the cost of the main extensions will be much lower if installed at the time of the roadway
improvements. At the same time, it can be expected that use of the water capacity that should be
provided to such a system will only be gradually subscribed, as homeowners hook up one by one. In
other words, the system will be "oversized" for awhile. Pricing policy changes for that interim
period are suggested in Section 3.3. Land acquisition for pump and water tank locations should be
made as soon as possible.
3.1.2.3.6 Schools. Decentralization of school development responsibilities should be encouraged.
More direct participation and "voice" by Puna communities in planning and developing future
school facilities in and for the non -conforming subdivisions and existing villages is needed. Com-
munity initiative for park development can also be extended to school development if there is local
control of development and use of school facilities, providing better and cheaper neighborhood
services and more community use of school facilities.
3.1.3 POLICIES
3.1.3.1 Equity -Issues.
There are a number of policy changes which could lower barriers and costs for basic infrastructure
and services in Puna. A number of these changes would also improve equity. Among these are
more realistic roadway standards for Puna's rural roads, as well as rural roads islandwide, to meet
the needs of all non -conforming areas, from the homestead areas to the more recent non -conforming
subdivisions. County and State level of service standards for facilities and operating funds and more
equitable water pricing are also needed.
3- 12 Puna Community Development Plan
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
1� 3.1.3.2. Tools,
J 3.1.3.2.1 Roadway Standards. Puna's non -conforming subdivisions which maintain their own
` roads are caught in a double -bind of maintaining huge local networks of private roadways that
funnel individually onto public highways, while being unable to dedicate any of the roadways to the
County due to their substandard condition. This problem could be solved by the implementation of
equity -based policies. The first of these would be County acceptance of the collector roads, along
which are or will be located public services and facilities. Second is the adoption of a rural road
standard, comparable to the standard that was in place when the subdivisions were approved, so that
access roads may be dedicated, if subdivisions desire it, at a more realistic cost.
J 3.1.3.2.2 Level of Service (LOS) Standards. Up -front, quantified standards should be articulated
{ for County services and infrastructure, so that capital improvement funding and the tradeoffs and
difficult decisions can be more clearly understood and debated. Puna residents as well as the rest of
the island would benefit. LOS standards and inventories of deficiencies would inspire greater public
I trust in the budgeting and planning process. These standards should be clearly tied to population
levels to facilitate planning for orderly and efficient development. The draft Impact Fee Study
carried out by the Planning Department in 1990 would be one place to start.
I
3.1.3.2.3 Water Pricing. The current pricing system for water creates a strong disincentive for the
Department of Water Supply to extend the mains and capacity needed in Puna. Because of the need
I to oversize the system for an unknown interim period of slow expansion of service connections, and
the current DWS policy for a single rate, the inequity would lie in other ratepayers subsidizing such
a system. It is therefore suggested that the water supply pricing system be individualized for a local
I system to be self-supporting, as was the case in the past. This is a complicated issue and process, but
since water is the most basic infrastructure of economic life and since its absence is the chief barrier
to the economic development and provision of public services in the non -conforming subdivisions,
resolution must be found.
3.1.3.2.4 Partnership Programs. The rural areas of Puna have pioneered partnership programs
1 with the County to develop and operate local facilities for parks and fire stations. These programs
�j should be expanded island -wide, in concert with Level of Service Standards for facilities.
3.1.3.2.5 Hawaiian Acres/Orchid Land Flooding Plan. At issue is a solution to the disposition of
the water flow below the elevation of the South Kulani Bridge where water was evidently diverted,
y by way of a substantial wall, into what is now Hawaiian Acres and Orchid Land. Because of the
geography of Puna, both the natural drainway (down the Kea`au/Olga boundary through the outskirts
of Kea`au town) and the wall -diverted drainway through Hawaiian Acres and Orchid Land, are
subject to change from grading, grubbing, construction, and other landscape activities that have not
been sufficiently monitored by the existing system of permitting. It is recommended that lot owners
and other stakeholders in both forks of the drainway be brought together with advisors from the
Department of Public Works, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U. S. Army Corps
i
of Engineers to weigh the alternatives and plan for long term channeling of waters to a predictable
course.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3- 13
SECTION 3.1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
3.1.3.3 Timing.
All of the tools proposed above would provide economic benefits, andwould contribute to the
perception of a level playing field for Puna and for other rural districts of the Big Island. However,
the policies for Puna's community development are political issues and will require public examina-
tion and discussion. A number of draft ordinances containing portions of the proposals presented
here have already been submitted. These examinations should continue.
3- 14 Puna Community Development Plan
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
Housing, Public Facilities & Utilities, Recreation, Transportation, Land Use
A primary function of this Community Development Plan is to begin the process of fully integrating
the non -conforming subdivisions of Puna into the fabric of the County of Hawaii. The problems of
these subdivisions, and their solutions, do not divide neatly into separable planning elements, nor do
-� they lend themselves to a ten-year planning horizon. This section provides an analysis and proposal
for a comprehensive approach to the integration process, based on the need to consider build -out in
order to achieve efficiency and order in providing for equity of health, safety and opportunity for all.
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS SECTION
Non -conforming subdivisions in Puna, of which many were created shortly before and after statehood,
have almost every problem that could have been prevented by land use planning: private substandard
roads laid out without consideration for a district -wide roadway network or emergency access needs;
absence of public water supply systems in many areas; absence of central sewer systems; absence of
electricity and telephone service in the more remote areas of some subdivisions; lack of sufficient parks,
including land set aside for parks, particularly neighborhood parks; and distant community and public
services, including police, fire protection, emergency medical, schools and libraries. The above notwith-
standing and in part because of the lack of facilities and services, Puna offers an extremely large stock of
affordable, fee simple homesites, in relatively close proximity to the City of Hilo —a unique and valuable
resource for many of Hawai`i's young families, as well as newcomers.
3.2.1.1 Need for a Positive Vision: The land use and development history in Puna in the last 40 years
indicate the serious consequences that face the district and County government if Puna's vacant lots
continue to fill out in an unchecked manner. The planning challenge is to produce a workable commu-
nity plan that maintains Puna's homeownership while expanding agricultural, and other economic oppor-
tunities, in a rural environment, while directing development away from less appropriate areas, and
encouraging community involvement in planning and in the provision of public improvements and
community facilities.
3.2.1.2 "Window of Opportunity:" Puna's subdivisions are filling rapidly. By the year 2000, several
more subdivisions may approach or exceed 25% of build -out. Because the vast majority of lots are
currently vacant, it is still possible to plan for and locate sites for infrastructure, community facilities and
supporting land uses. Key parcels for important facilities and community services need to be identified
and purchased in the next five to ten years before the opportunity is lost Community groups should begin
organizing their efforts now in cooperation with government agencies. Education and dialogue will help
existing and future residents to anticipate these improvements and changes as sources of opportunity
instead of conflict and dislocation. Aware and pro -active subdivision communities, and geographic
advantages, give the County and Puna residents a chance to "retrofit" their communities.
3.2.1.3 Being.Prepared to Take Advantage of Unforeseen Opportunities: There are two major
advantages of planning over crisis management. The first and most obvious is that planned solutions, by
being considered in a comprehensive context, can lower overall costs while providing better solutions.
Solutions can be made to serve many issues, i.e., water extensions can serve multiple planned uses, from
education and recreation to economic opportunity, at a compact location, rather than multiple extensions
with a low return. Order can also save money: for instance, a the road and water line extension imple-
mented together rather than digging up the road twice.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3- IS
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
Second, funding cannot always be anticipated but unanticipated funding can always be missed, or —as is
commonly the case with federal funds and private grants —can go to another county or state if we are not
ready with planned projects. For example, Federal funds under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) are available for planning, engineering, construction and land acquisition,
with 20% matching state or county funds.
3.2.2 ISSUES of INTERRELATED PLANNING ELEMENTS'
3.2.2.1 Affordable Housing
Many have moved to Puna because of the availability of inexpensive buildable lots and Puna's proximity
to the City of Hilo. The low prices reflect the absence of supporting infrastructure, facilities and land uses
normally associated with residential areas. Many residents with limited financial means have purchased
lots and have built or intend to build homes on them.
A market also exists in the Puna district for buildable lots which have infrastructure at urban standards.
Kea`au Agricultural Lots, with infrastructure comparable to Hilo, have market values comparable to Hilo
lots. For instance, lots in Hawaiian Paradise Park which have good road maintenance, water, and are
connected to the electrical grid, have significantly higher market value than lots in nearby subdivisions
which lack such features. Where infrastructure is upgraded in the pre-1967 subdivisions, lot prices can be
expected to rise, raising cost barriers. However, at the same time, this would have the effect of increasing_
competition with existing and new fully served subdivisions, contributing to lower overall market prices
for comparably served lots.
Since it is likely that the bulk of the frontage infrastructure costs must be financed through methods which
will ultimately require repayment by the owners of the affected lots, the cost of owning lots in existing
pre-1967 subdivisions will also increase significantly once improvements are made. Even financing
vehicles such as tax increment financing will have that effect, since financing is predicated on lot owners
paying more taxes each year as lot values increase. For some low-income Puna residents, this situation
might ultimately force relocation. While these owners may benefit from the equity represented by the
increase in the value of their lots, planning should help to insure sufficient reserve areas of greater density,
less infrastructure or other features that preserve a variety of low-income housing and farming options.
3.2.2.2 Variety of Housing and Lifestyle O tR ions
Lots in Puna's unimproved subdivisions have been sold, over the years, to owners with diverse expecta-
tions. Those who wanted to invest in vacant land may not welcome the expenses of improvements to
facilities and infrastructure. Those who come to the subdivisions to live in voluntary simplicity and low
cost find themselves in conflict with neighbors who want services, security, convenience and business
opportunity, and are willing to pay the price, in anticipation of reaping benefits of increased property
value and income. There is a range in between, of people who want some but not all amenities, or whose
needs and expectations are changing, as they have children or become disabled or frail. They are all
stakeholders, with an equal right to their expectations. Many have said that they value Puna's diversity of
community lifestyles, but are anxious about, or are already experiencing, the conflicts of mutually exclu-
sive expectations.
3-16 Puna Community Development Plan IF
L SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDNISIONS
I 3.2.2.3 Timing and Predictability
To become fully functional, the unimproved subdivisions will ultimately require infrastructure, public
facilities, and supporting land uses. Advance planning to locate and cluster these amenities in core loca-
tions along a central corridor contributes to community stability and a "sense of place" and avoids uncer-
tainty, waste, and lost opportunity.
• The more the subdivisions fill in without a planning and implementation program for infrastructure,
community facilities and supporting land uses, the greater the short- and long-term cost to subdivi-
sion residents and to the County.
• Some homesteaders in Puna have invested labor and life savings in independent water, sewer, and
communications systems. They need to know if their investment will decline in value or whether
they will need to expend more money upgrading their systems. By the same token, some residents
anticipate convenient amenities and are ready to invest in them. Investors need to know where
�J future town centers can be located.
7 • Infrattructure financing vehicles require comprehensive planning. The County's Improvement
District and Community Facilities District ordinances both require that the infrastructure to be
financed must be sized to expected uses. Community facilities and supporting land uses for Puna's
future population must be located In addition, any financing package would be enhanced by the
r increased value of a functional and predictable community layout.
7 • As more homes are built before supporting infrastructure, land uses, and community facilities are
planned, there will be less flexibility and greater potential for hardship and duplication in the plan-
ning and implementation process. The longer the wait, the more likely the consequences of wide-
spread real property condemnation, dislocation, and personal hardship for those affected
• There is potential for public and private waste from failure to anticipate impending infrastructure
i requirements. A current example is the State Department of Health requirement for septic tanks in
areas that may eventually need to upgrade to central sewage treatment, and the allowing of cess-
pools in areas that will ultimately need septic systems. The County Department of Water Supply is
' similarly concerned about private investment in inefficient and redundant "spaghetti" water lines in
areas that will eventually need water distribution systems.
3 2.3 Deficiencies in Tnfrastructure. Public Facilities. and Supporting Land Uses
The intent of this inventory is to look at underlying health and safety, equity, and efficiency issues.
3.2.3.1 Catchment water, the only water source in most Puna subdivisions, has several problems:
• Potential for dangerous impurities, such as lead and microbial parasites;
• Shortage of water for sanitation during drought;
• Lack of water for fire protection, especially during drought, when fire danger is greatest; and
• A barrier to community facilities and supporting land uses.
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3- 17
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
3.2.3.2 Sewage treatment, while meeting current Department of Health Standards for Individual Waste-
water Systems, may soon be out of compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, as homes are built. To
meet the Clean Water Act, national engineering standards indicate central sewers where density is greater
than one house per acre. If density is lower than one house per acre (where cesspools are now allowed),
septic tanks will be required. Further complicating this problem are several unique characteristics of
Puna's geographic and regulatory environments:
- Numerous lava tubes, many of them large and many miles long, were used by the Hawaiians for shelter,
worship, and burial sites. In addition, a number of unique plant and animal species have been identified
by scientists. These caves and species may be threatened by raw sewage from cesspools.
• The porosity of layers of lava underlying Puna and its high rainfall allow rapid water movement
downward and to the coast. This may dilute pollution, and, because of the elevation of most Puna homes
above the sea -level water table, may provide complete natural treatment, even with cesspools. However,
wastewater near the coast or near lava tubes may cause rapid flow and concentration of untreated sewage
or treated effluent at unexpected locations either on land or along the coast.
- Ohana dwelling approvals may eventually promote densities requiring central sewers in some subdivi-
sions where single family densities on one -acre lots would require only septic tanks. These subdivisions
are Leilani Estates, Hawaiian Paradise Park, and Eden Roc.
3.2.3.3 Utility gilds are being extended into the subdivisions, but they are expensive to maintain because
of Puna's distances, weather, and rapid tree growth. There is a need for reliable power sources for resi-
dential uses, economic enterprises and public safety.
There are a number of Puna residents who have expressed a desire for "off -the -grid" or "dispersed infra-
structure" neighborhoods within which they may pursue alternative and independent lifestyles. A proce-
dure for residents to petition for recognition of such a designation in appropriate low -density areas, would
help to preserve lifestyles while encouraging the County of Hawaii and Hawaii Electric Light Company
to plan around such areas. Time is of the essence if this lifestyle choice is to be accommodated_
3.2.3.4 Neighborhood school sites are provided in only a few subdivisions, yet schools require ten acres
per elementary site and 40 acres for an intermediate/high school complex. As subdivisions fill, it be-
comes increasingly difficult to find sites without displacing residents. For the currently permitted popula-
tion, excluding ohana dwellings, up to 40 additional sites will be needed in the future for elementary,
intermediate, and high schools.
3.2.3.5 Elder- and child-care are essentials of secure community life for which no space has been set
aside in Puna, but for which a number of non -regulated services are currently being provided. The
acreage needed in the futuremay be several hundred acres, depending on the styles of these uses pemut-
ted by regulation.
3.2.3.6 Hospitals and community health care sites are not provided for at all in Puna's subdivisions,
although there is a need for one or more future hospital sites as well as neighborhood services.
3.2.3.7 Cemetery sites are not provided at all in the subdivisions, and sites outside are inadequate or
inconveniently located.
3- 1 g Puna Community Development Plan I
ID SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
3.2.3.8 Police and fire stations. Upwards of ten new fire station sites in Puna will be needed to pro-
vide adequate protection and insurability for future permitted population. Some of these are already
(� volunteer fire stations, but the issue of insurance qualification for these areas remains unresolved.
3.2.3.9 Solid Waste Recycling and Disposal is an issue of increasing concern over the entire Big Island. It
is especially acute on the east side because the high rainfall makes it very difficult to meet federal Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency standards for landfills. The increase in volume that can be predicted from
Puna's increasing population will probably need a variety of solid waste handling facilities —beyond
Q landfill sites —that are difficult to place, but for which convenience is essential for success. These in-
clude:
• composting sites for green and yard -waste;
• toxic waste collection centers;
• recycling collection and processing centers;
• storage and exchange centers for reusable items; and
• collection stations for limited landfill waste.
3 2 3 10 Regional district community, and neighborhood parks and community centers are not provided
for in most Puna subdivisions. Based on the County standards of five acres of park per thousand popula-
tion (eliminating some uses, such as beach parks, and discounting the potential for ohana permits which
could increase population), over 800 ages of park sites would still be needed within Puna subdivisions to
meet the future needs of the currently permitted population.
3.2.3.11 Roadways within most subdivisions fail to meet County standards for width, sight distance and
surface. The lack of sight distance is becoming increasingly hazardous as traffic increases on collector
roads. Issues of width and surface are less clearly related to health and safety issues. While resurrection
of agricultural road standards, met by public/private cooperation, may provide appropriate and affordable
solutions in many cases, collector roads should nevertheless be eventually adopted as County roads.
3.2.3.12 Public Arterial Transportation Corridors are virtually non-existent in the subdivisions. The
private collector roads create a liability barrier to placement of facilities and supporting land uses within
subdivisions, and are incompatibly located and aligned to provide efficient and orderly extension of water
services and facilities to connected cores. The result, pressure for strip development along public roads,
threatens the safety and efficiency of existing major arterials. The absence of public roads in subdivisions
also preclude opportunities for developer participation in the provision of infrastructure and facilities
needed within subdivisions. If not corrected in a timely manner, the lack of public arterials may raise the
share of costs that must be bome by residents and/or taxpayers, both from inefficiency and from lost
opportunities to participate in federal transportation funding.
3.2.3.13 Variety in housing is a requirement of the General Plan as well as a specific mandate for Puna.
While the current low cost of housing in Puna has made multi -family housing needs less pressing, the
automobile -dependent layout of the subdivisions creates disadvantage and isolation for children, the frail
elderly, people with disabilities, and anyone who cannot operate or afford a car.
3.2.3.14 General industrial land uses are not appropriate directly adjacent to residential areas, but must be
located for easy access from the homes of workers and the sources of supply —sea- and airports —in order
to provide for development of the economic base that will be required for a potential population as large
Puna Commmuniry Development Plan 3-19
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
as Puna's. Approximately 20 acres per thousand population is the island -wide proportion for planning
this land use category, but this may include some regional, large-scale uses, such as ports. At the same
time, many existing industrial uses, such as quarries and agricultural processing factories, are on sites not
zoned for industrial use, e.g., obtained special permits but retained Agricultural land designation.
- Shipman Industrial Park provides 488 acres of industrial land. Ultimately, given the limiting factors for
appropriately locating this land use, the long-range planning for approximately 3,000 acres for future
industrial use would be needed, ideally located between Puna's subdivisions and Hilo's ports, near
Kea'au. The need for adequate buffers, transportation corridors; and related facilities (Le. university,
technical and research) and the rapidity of innovation, indicate the future need for a large total area.
- Stewardship of Puna's greatest resources —her abundant, pure groundwater and clean, productive
shoreline and fisheries —require protection from industrial waste and toxins. Policies should address
industries which require the use of toxic materials, enforce stringent regulations, and place industries
below critical recharge areas, but away from the shore.
- Office and technical parks are a category for which zoning is not currently provided The General Plan
directs that such a category be considered In other locations, this category provides opportunities for
"back office," technical service alnd assembly industries. These are less likely to locate where they will be
mixed with general industry, are more compatible with residential use, and are likely employers of Puna
workers, who are skilled but need not demand the higher wages of workers in areas with prohibitive
housing costs.
3.2.3.15 Light industry_ is needed inclose proximity to residential areas to provide services to residents,
and space for crafts and tradespeople. Some of these services are already supplied in Puna subdivisions,
largely without permits and regulations. As density increases, some of these mixed uses will remain
appropriate, but some which generate noise or other nuisance, will become inappropriate. The require-
ments for this category of land use are particularly hard to estimate since so much light industry on the
Big Island, and especially in Puna, occurs on agricultural or residentially -zoned land The proposed
proportion for light industrial use is twenty-four acres per thousand population, but some of these uses
may continue to be best served by mixed use zoning or special permit.
3.2.3.16 Commercial land, with 59 acres now zoned in Puna, is proposed at a proportion of eleven acres
per thousand population. At this standard, Puna currently has a shortage of over 250 acres. Highway
congestion between Puna and Hilo is testimony to this shortage. Commercial needs may be divided
between neighborhood and regional uses. Some neighborhood commercial uses are appropriate for
mixed -use and should include residences, home businesses, and light industry in the proposed Rural
Town Districts toprovide pedestrian convenience and minimize vehicle use.
Regional uses for commercial land include shopping centers and may require coordinated planning with
other elements of community centers and towns. Comprehensive considerations for placement of re-
gional commercial facilities in Puna include:
- integration with, and financial support for, basic health and safety infrastructure in subdivisions, to
ameliorate current deficiencies; and
- proximity to population centers in the subdivisions, and alignment with efficient public transportation
corridors to reduce public and private transportation costs.
3- 20 Puna Community Development Plan
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
3.2.3.17 Resort land in Puna is entirely lacking except where it is located under lava in Kalapana. The
County currently has approximately eleven acres per thousand population, but the direction of the County
General Plan for alternative and retreat resort development in Puna cart perhaps best be met by low -
impact, home -based eco-tourism facilities, integrated throughout the district, instead of resort zoning.
3.2.3.18 Open space requirements are particularly important to Puna subdivisions, which have significant
concentrations of important and sensitive habitats for native species and significant cultural sites. There is
a high level of community concern and value for preservation of these sites. The requirement for con-
nected networks of natural areas of sustainable size can best be met by early community agreements on
set -asides and on incentive strategies for preservation set -asides as part of the proposed Rural Town
Zoning Districts.
3.2.4 New Towns
Using as a model the traditional small towns of Puna —Volcano, Mountain View, Kurtistown, Kea'au,
Pahoa and Kalapana— and the proposed Rural Town District, a necklace of new towns should be located
in existing subdivisions. These new towns should fulfill the following criteria:
3.2.4.1 Location
• Towns should be located along potential future public transportation corridors which, in the most cost-
effective alignment, link new and existing towns with Hilo.
• Town centers should be placed to provide the greatest possible service at the least cost. They should be
physically located as centrally as possible in relation to the potential population they are intended to serve.
JFor the central subdivisions, the alignment that best fulfills the above two criteria is the Central Subdivi-
sion Corridor, the secondary road alignment shown on the County General Plan Facilities Map.
• Location of towns within subdivisions: Approximate locations in the Zone Guide Map and the pro-
posed Rural Town District concept can direct developers and local planners to appropriate areas that
would interconnect with regional systems. Within each planning area it will be important to place infra-
structure so that the areas where infrastructure improvements are not planned will still be within a reason-
able radius containing basic safety amenities, such as water fill stations and/or dedicated fire tanks, and
fire and police stations.
3.2.4.2 Planning horizon: This Community Development Plan discusses short-term solutions that are
needed in the ten-year planning period of the Plan. It also addresses long-term solutions and planning
strategies. Although build -out will take many decades to materialize, long-range planning principles
dictate the designation of tentative future sites for major public facilities and major roadway alignments in
Puna to prepare for their eventual demand and development.
3.2.4.3 Sizing of new towns: The suggested land use model provided as part of this proposal uses as a
unit a town or neighborhood of 5,000 people. This size was chosen because it represents the population to
support one elementary school of 400-500 pupils, and it is the approximate build -out population (without
ohana dwellings) of a number of subdivisions with 1,500 to 2,000 lots. A range of town sizes is desir-
able. Community confidence, lowest infrastructure cost, and planning goals are best served by clear
Puna Commmunity Development Plan 3- 21
SECTION 3.2: THE NON -CONFORMING SUBDIVISIONS
articulation of the boundaries of the town center service area and the anticipated population within these
boundaries.
3.2.3.4 Clustering versus increasing overall density: A number of communities and individual lot owners
have expressed concern about the loss of Puna's rural atmosphere due to the increasing density and
population they fear will result from the development of new towns within their subdivisions. In addition,
a number of owners of multiple lots have expressed anxiety about their ability to support the increased
taxes on a lot or lots which they want to maintain in a natural state or without a house.
Several land use tools are designed to solve these problems, including transfers of development rights
from lots in outlying service areas to town centers, dedications, land readjustment, minimum lot size, land
banking, and the purchase or dedication of greenbelt easements. (See Section 3.1.2.2.) There is a trade-
off that must be weighed in using these tools. Developers, whether of homes or commercial sites, have a
certain amount to invest. If they are asked to purchase increased density, they may have less remaining
for other needed exactions, such as dedication of public facilities sites or contribution to regional infra-
structure. However, the proposed Rural Town Zoning Districts provide balancing incentives, such as
lowered parking requirements, narrower street widths, mixed uses and higher densities in a traditional
town package. These features have been shown to be desirable and to provide a good return to investors
in other jurisdictions. This is the reason for the package nature of the proposed Rural Town Districts,
with the suggested use of Community Facilities Districts as the vehicle for obtaining cooperation from a
variety of landowners working together to meet the requirements of the District and thus reap the benefits.
3.2.3.5 Growth management for towns should include clear and not -easily -moved boundaries between the
rural town center and surrounding rural service areas, as well as between residential and agricultural uses
and further lifestyle uses, as needed, such as off -the -grid areas and organic farming districts. A plan for
such boundaries must be developed with community initiation and direct participation. Such areas should
match the lifestyles and financial abilities of current and anticipated residents in the whole service area of
the town center.
3.2.3.6 Green Belt designations can be used to:
• designate and preserve agricultural areas by clarifying intent and limiting infrastructure development
to agricultural rather than to residential standards;
• define and reserve drainage areas;
• reserve and surround railways;
• provide recreation areas; and
• separate uses, where appropriate.
3- 22 Puna Community Development Plan 0
C
t
i
i
n
Puna Community Development Plan Draft 2
3.3.1 Proposed Puna Land Use Changes
Approx.
Total
LUPAG
LU District
Zoning
Subdivision or Place Name
Tax Map Keys
# Lots
Lot size
Acres
From
To
Froml
To
From
To
Reasons
State-Kahaualea
1-1-01:1, 20
2
24,019
Part Ex Ag
Conservation
A-20
Open
Conform to Use and Hazard
Royal Hawaiian Estates
1-1-13-19,43-53,56
1,640
.25-.5 ac.
630
Int. Ag
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Fern Acres [Crescent]
1-1-35 to 42
2,021
2 ac.
4,000
Int. Ag
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Eden Rock Estates
1-1-72 to 98
1,809
1 ac.
2,000
Int. Ag
Rural
Ag
Rural
A-3
A-2
Conform to Use
Royal Gardens
1-1-66 to 71, 102 to 118
1,617
1 ac.
1,827
A-1
A-1 H
Conform to Hazard
East Rift and South Flank
1-2,3,4
all
various
_
various
H suffix
Conform to Hazard
Pahoa, Hawaiian Beaches area
1-5-1 to 14, 63 to 117
all
various
—
various
H suffix
Conform to Hazard
Kehena Beach Estates
1-2-30,31
199
.25-.3 ac.
52
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
A -1
A -1H
Conform to Use and Hazard
Puna Beach Palisades
1-2-33all
72
20,000 sf
36
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
A-1
A -lH
Conform to Use and Hazard
Kala ana Black Sand
1-2-19 to 27
918
7,750 sf
202
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
A -1
A -1H
Conform to Use and Hazard
Kala ana Seaview 10
1-2-34 to 41
693
<.25 ac.
1661
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
A-3
A -3H
Conform to Use and Hazard
Pahoa
1-5-02 to 14,112 to 117
Urban Ex.
Orchards
various
various H
Conform to Use and Hazard
Hawaiian Paradise Park
1-5-15 to 62
8,843
1 ac. +/-
9,469
Orchards
Rural
Ag
I Rural
Conform to Use
Tiki Gardens
1-6-part of 4
481
.2-.25 ac.
120
Orchards
Rural
Ag
I Rural
Conform to Use
Ainaloa
1-6-65 to 99
3,637
.2-.5 ac.
1,1601
Orchards
Rural
A
Rural
Conform to Use
Aloha Estates
1-8-36 to 63
1,846
.25-.3 ac.
593
Orchards
Rural
A
Rural
Conform to Use
Pacific Paradise Mt. View Manor (
1-8-78 to 85
606
.25-.3 ac.
145
Orchards
Rural
A
Rural
Conform to Use
Glenwood Subdivision
1-8-73 & 74
152
.25-.3 ac.
5 3
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Pacific Paradise Development
1-8-64, 65 & 66
209
.20 ac.
49
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Hawaii Island Paradise Acres
1-8-14 to 19
449
.20 ac.
100
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Pacific Paradise Gardens
1-8-69 to 72
423
.20 ac.
95
Or
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Cyribidium Acres
1-9-18; 19:1-13
180
.5-1.1 ac.
161
Orchards
Rural
Ag
Rural
Conform to Use
Rural Towns
to be determined by community masterplan process
Medium Densit
Urban
RTDC
Compact Rural Towns
Wai alani
1-6 portion of 01:15,16 & 03
up to 1,000 acres
_
Orchards
Urban Exp.
Ag
Urban
Ag
ML/Com.
Business/Technical
Waikahekahe
1-6-04:21,22,*23,35,57
5
100-200 ac.
600
Orchards
Urban Exp.
Ag
Urban
Ag
various
New civic/commercial*
*Dependent on arterial dev.
and community a roved
maste lannin (300 ac.
civic, park, schools
Puna Community Development Plan 3-23
A
I ....................
I Jand Use District -Changes
-De
Puna Communffy ,velopment Plan
"M . ....
fQ9JLTURE TO R G URAL
Ver Puna
,BAN UPON RURAL
I DISTRICT DESIGNATION
.f.
...........
...........
............. ..............
Eqb
. ...............
....................
r.
............
........
..... .
\ %
I! W
gf .. J 3v;- t 3 R?f t t 1 1 t J ! f3!#< { t Hf lr j _24
M
. ........... .4-K
R
.0-
ti
Jl
I•VM
r1l.. V
wk
-3: �fn
1t, is
gq — - A----
131* 1111; MM
..............
r
r
3-24
Puna Community Development Plan
: IL
11
V
u
u
TT
U
u
LI
lI
. . ... ........ ...
TO URBAN UPON.RURAL
TOWN DISTRI(;Tr DESIGN,
Development Plan
r Puna
Changes ................
..........
............
P=
................... .........
Puna Community Development Plan
3-25
J
. Puna
MM. -U
D Tuly evelop
ment Phan
U er
PP Puna
i General Plan LUPAG
Change Area,5D I" .......
iRural Town ...............................
(Medium Density, Agpprox. Locition,
Subject to Rural Town Di /E64
strict,designation)
441
LUPAG
to Rural
1 .
1. %
N... . ..........
...... .......
3-26
7
...........
LLIPAG
1 to Rural
Puna Community Development Plan
J
Jji
4sio
...... .......
.............. I.
k
"A.
LLUPAG to
Urb
ff
U
...
. ..
..... .... ........
u
U
LI
u
U
Puna Community Development Plan 3-27
t.
NEW RURALTOWN DISTRICT CODE
I/4 iiiij*Diarn;�rer: Civic Center with Public Plaza/Mwkel place at
C..:;pMMerdk1Am.lo engs.
.include upstairs a"
e;-&�UMixed Use. Cottage
11n2
:Iyr Diemeter. To BecomeMorc
by- Growth Boundary for Urban Use
l mile Diameter. TO Tanxin as is Ag or Residence. with Improvement
fo
r line extensions. May have Light industryAcchnic&I
I, to acres of area.
I Lds Dense, Existing Ag and/or Residential Use: Few Improvements.
j. Fkr low cost nual living and subsisteam
I 401bMemcnt OfAg Dwelling Requirements if in Ag Disj ict
4-
open
C.)
3-28
ZZ -one Gi'lide
I *1 .......... .. ge_ / ONE ChaniV \,,
incs. yp
Lj "ufacturi
sbown s'q=�l `zf t
ght n
PUns.Q.. unity Development Plan MG = 13i*h_ft5*l MmufWJ4
OPEN= Open Zone
er Puna PROJECT DISTRICT = Pje.
Distdct,Ama
H=HSufrL% New Ove#ay Zone for Hazard
* NO rezoning or subdivision to incirAtso-density. .., X / Z.._V
- Full disclosure at sali and /Cir.parigiting.
. .......... ... Existing zoning 10 remains .................. t ... ....
opeo
5.
i...... .................. .... .......
..........
t%
A
N
r
41
t
b
H4
—4.21W,
".4
.............
A
I f
jr f
j I
j•
_'I MMM
'11 MT•IMI'
.....
•PMNII lbI
;--.,:�' . T J ! f � i } �.�; i i i i � -,:��. } j j i } '• t t = j- �3;..
J 1
J
_41! /."1 11 1 1 11 11 jJ
j
;L
--- -- ----- -
4 1 Wit
I J 11 !.j
I I I NVAI 1AM PubliQupen
wil Masteftplin"
I , X"n
. . . J ;J . . . . . . . . . open
VX
..A
. .......... ............. It ........
: . .......... ..
Puna Community Development Plan
P
RAZ CAr
.1 a
_1Y
4 ...........1 1 1 WAIAM
POWIc"IMFt
W,Ma,*.*W
open
;I
� 8e,
A
NW4
Y
2 �
Zone Guide a 11 Puna Community
Development Phan
ZONE Changes -14
Shown as repeating lines of type.
Lower Puna %4
ML = Light Manufacturing
MG = General Manufacturing
OPEN = Open Zone t H H H H H H H JR H H 3f H H
PROJECT DISTRICT = Project District Area ............H .. . ..........
H R 41 ..... H H W H 1.31 ...... It. H H H Suffix New Overlay Zone for Hazard H H H
• No ...... Li
rezoning or subdivision to increase density. 40
•Full disclostin: at sale and/or Permitting. H It H H H H It H H H• R
Existing zoning tip zentoan
Q Wcu, 4
H H H H N H H H H H H W, It H -11-,
IL
C4 -
0
NEW RURALIOWN DISTRICT CODE
1/4 mile Diameter: Civic Center with Public Plaza/Marketpiace at
Cenler Commercial Area to include upstairs apartments.
112 mile Diameter: To Become More Dense, and Mixed Use. Cottage
Industry. Growth Boundary for Urban Use.
I mile Diameter. To remain as is. AS or Residence, with Improvement
Districts for water line extensions. May have Light industryAechnical
or office in 10 acres of area.
Less Dem, Existing AS and/or Residential Use: Few improvements.
For low cost rural living and subsistence.
Enforcement ofAg Dwelling Requirements if In Ag District
0 H H H H H H H H H H A H_
H it H
H H H H H H H H H H /H »1 H H
H H H It H H H H/ H H H H H H H H H
H H& It H H H H H H H H H H
- I
A
V
X
It') GA H H H H if H H H H, H H H �,H H H
-
H H H H H H H H H H H 14. 1,
...........
. . ............ . .......
.. n
H H H H H H H 41 H
H H H H I H H H H
0
H H
H H Ile H
H H
t Hi`.,H H
4H r it., a H H
H! H IN
A
H
H H
H
Q
H H H H if
kll H
H H H H. HY H H HI ki. H H H H
H 1 11 H H H
%
H ',H If H H HH H H H H H H H It'k H :A-
I '-'H H"Z 11 �H ',J1 )i \,,g
'
If -It AV \V H 'H IV \H-'
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 11-H H
H H H
%H__ ItH- H H H H H H H H IF *1 H H H
•
H H H H H ti 11 H H H H H H Vi H H H I H it H H I H t H
W H H H H It H H H' H H
M H H H H
...............
H H -K.— H H �'Jf'
�H� H
H
H � H
H H H".. H
A H
..
f ,, .—
H Hit
H
H H
:> :p0
1V
Puna Community Development Plan
3-29
TRANSPORTATION
Primary Arterial
to be widened \y
Second
�' Arterial
as show _ _ _ _ _ _. ' ``\•\\�
n in General Plan
Seconda
ry Arterial
new Proposed/modified
Collector Roads
to be adopted and/or
improved by County
Dedicated Bike/Ped 'trail
Scale
1 mile
f
r
IN WED
t a
.............
unity Development PlanV-Pf
a �\
Per Puna
I `"" !=i--�3lFF � ' j," \ �\ '`• � •1 ••L t t 1 �1 �' � vi0''°I��'
i14 i ♦ ft•+ ��Y fa �'`i+-�y.�.,, l !�-•.•... + !r !� f ��.<.. , ,
'tw1 Fltlg*I _ -C �y,4,241
l• `� ,.. `I ��`_ �. 1 _~ 7' 1
Pua
Sbdivisio
Central u `•; �,hut,,,,,r/
a
Corridor
I 3-30 Puna Community Development Plan
40
Mi
� + rr�-';? ..� • • ,. • • • ' i � Pun
f _,:. t Y~.,-- ,�' `.'• .:.... • . Lower a
1, �,.,-•�-^ '�"s] f J 1 j J♦ j J �...,_.-�• .,•__ • • .�� �.. } ..�.� _ •�• _—__ :�:..{ Parkway:
'• ; 1 i 1 >f 1 i °' l� ; t 1 \� w�ipsrisini — — • _ — �• • Moved inland
and reduced
Rost ;1 J - .�: f ►� because of
J 1 , �� J #
1 ; coastal hazards
I 1 t'r
1 1
and to protect
..........- JAL ! ti coastal
''' ' ; 1 a�J / ft J J I 1- ;`j �.L.� •,..� } environment
1 J, � i 8 !! 3` 1 ,t ! i ij a i l 1 1}} } t l' t u b f and aC oomic
a1 ', !1 !r !rJr'��.�i J J `.i fJi}}�}}la1l } 'l;l�j''•r•...f��,.
:` i �' J � , �� , 1 ,` � f t:R-� } } 1 l: j t } 1 � i ; • l } � � 1� resources.
. i ;�; 1 1oJ i x—,�i't};it}li:ti�l;tttts�1.�.1-�1-i(_:.
! i *T�� ; �t t{ j t 1 1! i 1 i 1 1 l 1} ,[ �!
�E tits t i� ��it�il i�i t� ?�:-•-
` ! !J 1 1 J` J}}�liiiIt}}•�lll
_4l.it`!i}}il};!}}��;F'
4 r J 1 — f i rr:} t li}}�} It r:ti
,.1 J- ii
jll}—`� ji
11 i
1 i ! 1 J ���'►T--�_.tii } iitii}} + lit lii l iiil ti,
t WAIIVAqA� f111 l } l t l i i t l t t i ; ;-� - : ; �" .• {--. ,- i-•i- j t;A
1' :. ,; }li} hill; ` ad
r ll l }
t jt}�! t!}ij}ltii�}l!$i.l.�•E}iIU....4....t
.....
,` Jl JI,iJ1J11JlrlJI1J�J 111 ``f Eif1s`�!f j �F'� .:.i.i.t IAJ.'t.t..,....k.>....�1... o 'i
•, �' • �''�j�'�'''f -1iJ'1 (:iiF��rt'"•.+J"' . v 'i. � • o
al
/ I
t •,: i 1. ~'`:• ... � ,'•�. /
N
L
L
L
L
................... %
TRANSPORTATION
Primary Arterial
to be widened
Central Subdivis
Corrio
Puna Community
Lowc
Secondary Arterial ...
as shown in General Plan
Secondary Arterial
new proposed/modified
Collector Roads
to be adopted and/or
improved by County
Dedicated Bike/Ped Trail
Scale
)n
z ... ..... IqAI*14A
or
11TIN
OW
Development Plan
rPuiia'*'*** ..................... . .......................
........... ..
...........
Pi
........ .................
rY.
°y
Puna Community Development Plan
3-31
Puna Community Development Plan...
Upper Puna
Facilities and Utilities
F-isting
EICC&Al Generation And CDnidDIS
10 year plan period
Long Range
Water Tanks/Pump Stations
Sewage Treatment Plants None
D TransferiRccycling Centers A-r
SmagelRecycling/Biornass/ Now
Electric Genctation Critter
IESL
4.461;
COMMUMTY
I?Arll.TTTR.Q
Existing
Elementary School end library ES L
10 year plan period
1
Long Range
ESL
IntamedialcMigh School M/Dpk
& District Park
VM/DPk
'ommunity)Ne4hborbood Puk Pk
Pk
Besch ParkAbomline Access Pk/A
PVA
Hospital or Medical Center MC
W
FacRoke FI?
Ffi?
volunteer Fire VF
VP
Boat Ramp )0.1-
�/
...................................
Puna Community Development Plan
.N
4f
L
t
IN
Lryl 'I'Mr.10
KxWtig
10 year plan period
Long Range
Electical Generation and Corridors -\
-0
-(D
WairrTanimmumap, Stations
13
Sewage Treatment Plants None
Transf-Accycling Centers
6
S—JkgcAecyclingABiornass/ None
Electric
Generation Center
COMMUNITY
FACILITIES
Existing
Elementary School and Unmy ES L
10 year plan period
gg
Long Range
ESL
IntertnediateMighSchool I/IIS/Dpk
&. District Park
ME/M
:ommunityffleighborhood Pak Pk
Pk
Beach ParWhomlineAccess PkIA
PWA
Hospital or Medical Center MC
ME
]FirejPolice PIP
F)p
Volunteer Fire VF
VP
Boat Ramp 11ge
)-ge
Facilities
X.
Development Plan
d Utilities ... ...........................................
...........
rf
. ... . ..... k,•
W
Pk/A MA
A
Puna Community Development Plan 3-33
I
1
1
3.3.7. Map Notes
State Land Use District Brnmdary Amendments
• Waikahekahe is shown hen; as proposed to be in the Urban District.. However, this should be subject to
long term master planning to develop a civic and commercial area in which up to half of the area is
reserved for parks and public civic uses.
• Rural District Designation for subdivisions is for State land use District change only, not zoning change.
• The Waipalani Urban Expansion Area is proposed to be a mixed use area of educational, technical,
office and light industry. It is not intended for additional residential or other urban uses.
• The Urban areas shown for RTDs is conceptual only, and subject to changes according to the Commu-
nity -Based Master Planning process. See the sample Hawaiian Paradise Park plan in the Appendix for an
example of a master plan based upon this concept
General Plan LUPAG Chances
• Waikahekahe is shown here as proposed Urban Expansion. However, this should be subject to long
term master planning to develop a civic and commercial area in which up to half of the area is reserved
for parks and public civic uses.
• A new proposed Rural Designation for subdivisions is for LUPAG change only, not zoning change.
• The Waipalani Urban Expansion Area is proposed to be a mixed use area of educational, technical,
office and light industry. It is not intended for additional residential or other urban uses.
• The Urban Expansion Area shown on the LUPAG Map for Pahoa is proposed to be removed because
of its location in Lava Flow Hazard Zone 2.
• The Medium Density areas shown for RTDs is conceptual only, and subject to changes according to
the Community -Based Master Planning process. See the sample Hawaiian Paradise Park plan in the
Appendix for an example of a master plan based upon this concept.
Zone Guide
• The Waipalani Light Manufacturing (MI..) Area is proposed to be a mixed use area of educational,
technical, office and light industry. It is suggested that additional zoning categories may be appropriate to
designate and protect these types of uses so that they will be attractive to desired industries and institu-
noes.
• The Project District Area shown for King's Landing and the coastal area of Keaau is proposed because
of the cultural, archeological, and environmental sensitivity of the area and because of the tsunami risk in
i this low-lying coastal area.
The locations shown for RTDs arc conceptual only, and subject to changes according to the Commu-
nity -Based Master Planning process. See the sample Hawaiian Paradise Park, plan in the Appendix for an
example of a'master plan based upon this concept.
• The Open Zoning for Kahaualea is to bring its current agricultural zoning into consistency with it
Conservation District status.
Transportation
• The corridors shown at 15th in Hawaiian Paradise Park, at 9 and 12 in Hawaiian Acres and the Central
Subdivision corridor are located approximately, subject to subsequent state engineering studies and
archives for more precise placement.
• This map does not show the Coastal Parkway. It is recommended that it be redesignated.
3-34 Puna Community Development Plan
Map Notes continued
Facilities and Utilities
• F/P locations for Fire and Police indicate either both facilities or just fire stations.
• School locations are conceptual. Locations should be determined in collaboration with Department of
Education.
• Utilities corridors are located approximately but should, in general, follow transportation corridors.
• Locations for public facilities, including water booster stations, beyond the needs of the ten-year plan-
ning period, are shown because of the large number of existing subdivision lots with no set -asides for
public facilities.
• The shoreline Park/Access locations are taken from the Hawaii Island Shoreline Access Plan of 1979.
10
10
10
10
10
to
130
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Master Plan Proposal
25
All bikeways and pedestrian
walkways have not been
designated, but they are in
integral part of the plan.
O
fight Industrial Area
W-0
0
Puna Community Development Plan
to Keaau
10 minute walk to Ccntct
5 minute walk to Center
Public/Community Use
Village Complex
ti
•� i
i
irder
phalt Paved Roads
nder or Gravel Roads
keway/Pedestrian Corridor
- — — Proposed Shuttle Service
3-35
Selected Resource List
(See also the Resource List in the Technical Reference Report for the Puna Community Development
Plan, January 1992. County of Hawaii, Planning Department.)
Hawaiian Heritage of Puna
Emerson, Nathaniel B.
-1915. Pele and Hiiaka. `Ai Pohaku Press (1993).
-1909. Unwritten Literature of Hawaii. Charles E. Tuttle Company (1974).
Manning, Anita, 1981. "Hawelu: Birdcatcher, Innkeeper, Farmer" The Hawaiian Journal of HistQU.
The Hawaiian Historical Society.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, 1983. `Olelo Noeau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Sayings. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu.
Westervelt, William T.
-1923. Hawaiian Historical Legends. Charles E. Tuttle Company (1977), Rutland, Vermont.
-1917. Hawaiian Legends of Volcanoes. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc. (1963).
Wung, E.L., Chief Engineer, County of Hawaii, 1931-32. various maps and correspondence:
"Trails -of Keaau." County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works.
Planning
Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, et al, 1977. A Pattern Language. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Arendt, Randall, 1994. Rural by Design. APA Planners Press, Chicago.
Beatley, Timothy, 1994. Ethical Land Use: Principles of Policy and Planning. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Krumholz, Norman and John Forester,1990. Making Equity Planning Work. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Landlines, newsletter. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Local Government Commission. Livable Places Update. newsletter. Sacramento, California.
Morgan, Arthur E.
-1942. The Small Community. Community Services, Inc. Yellow Springs, Ohio.
-1953. Industries for Small Communities. Community Services, Inc. Yellow Springs, Ohio.
ISnohomish County Transportation Authority.
-1989, December. Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. U.S. Department of
Transportation.
-December, 1993. A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation Volume II: Applying
the Concepts. The Snohomish County Transportation Authority, Everett, Washington.
I: -October, 1994. Creating Transportation Choices Through Zoning. The Snohomish
County Transportation Authority, Everett, Washington.
Steiner, Frederick, 1981. Ecological Planning for Farmland Preservation. American Planning
Association, Chicago.
Puna Community Development Plan p. 3-37
10
10
10
10
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10
PROPOSALS 10
is
Puna Community Development Plan 10
in
Puna CDP General Plan Amendments Pr000snls
IAdditions [Deletions]
LAND USE: RESORT STANDARDS
A lodge is a small hotel located as pan of an exisring community or as "lodgings" in an area of
interest It is different than other resort uses in that it is a place to stay rather than a "destination"
itself It shall have utilities appropriate to the area in which it is located. but must meet all
applicable standards of health and safety.
Maximum hotel and condominium -hotel units: up to 50
•l c•Il a ►• !I 1 11 -11 • ! 1 1t 1• �K • 1 ••A••er- •1 1 e• e
For example: in a medium densily a=a. de shall be what is allowed fpr
// • • .1 ,1 • '1 1 ' 1 • • •i • 1 • yl • t t .t l 11 1 1 •�• ' • l 11 •
Transportation, Courses of Action for Puna
• The present Puna Coast Road, eventually to connect with the Chain of Craters Road, should be
developed as a scenic [parkway] mad along the coast Alignment should basically follow the
existing road from the Kalapana end of the Chain of Craters Road to [the proposed extension of of
the Saddle Road to the vicinity of the Hilo Airport] Kwoho
• Major collector roads should run from:
[Opihikao to the Puna Road.]
[Volcano Road to the coast parkway along the Puna -South Hilo boundary.]
Volcano Road to the Saddle Road above Hilo along the existing Kulani Road_
[Upper portion of the National Park to a point approximately 2 miles west of Kalapana.]
10
Puna CDP General Plan Amendments Proposals
RECREATION General Use Parks Courses of Action for Puna
p.2
[• Implement the County of Hawaii Park Development Plan for Kalapana-Kaimu area.]
[• Recommend that the State develop the ancient canoe landing site as a recreation site.]
General Plan LUPAG Changes
• Add Waikahekahe Urban Expansion area, subject to long term master planning to develop a
civic and commercial area in which up to half of the area is reserved for parks and public civic
uses.
• Rural Designation for Cymbidium Acres, Royal Hawaiian Estates, Eden Roc, Fern Acres,
Aloha Estates, Glenwood Subdivision, Pacific Paradise Mountain View Manor, Pacific Paradise
Development, Hawaii Island Paradise Acres, Pacific Paradise Gardens, Tiki Gardens, Ainaloa
Estates, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Kalapana Black Sand, Kalapana Seaview, Puna Beach
Palisades, and Kehena Beach Estates.
• Add Waipalani Urban Expansion Area for mixed use area of educational, technical, office and
light industry. Show as Industrial if appropriate.
• Add Industrial area around Keaau sugar mill.
• Remove Urban Expansion Area shown on the LUPAG for Map for Pahoa and for King's
Landing.
• Add Urban areas according to future adopted Community Master Plans.
General Plan Transportation and Facilities Map
• Show corridors at 15th in Hawaiian Paradise Park, and at 9 and 1/2 in Hawaiian Acres.
• Redesignate the Coastal Parkway as a scenic road.
• Indicate subdivision collector roads for those subdivisions with master plans.
• Indicate additional facilities as designated on CDP Facilities map.
I
I
F,
J
n
I
I
I
1
I