The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-10-11 PCDP AC Minutes County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer BJ Leithead Todd Director Margaret Masunaga Deputy Director William P. Kenoi Mayor Tuesday, October 11, 2011 Meeting Minutes CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Jeffrey Krepps called the Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) Action Committee (AC) meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. in the Pāhoa Community Center, with the following persons present: Action Committee: Barbara Bell, Greg Braun, Madie Greene, Jeffrey Krepps, Tim Tunison, Frank Commendador (Arrived 3:04 p.m.) Excused: Wesley Owens and Dan Taylor. Unexcused: Keikialoha Kekipi. Staff: Larry Brown (Planning Department, Project Manager), Elizabeth “Liz” Hultman-Salfen (Planning Department, Community Planning Assistant) (Arrived 3:04 p.m.), Audra Ghiotto (Planning Department, Recorder). Members of the public: 4 ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Madie is leaving early to attend another meeting. Madie left meeting at 5:05 p.m. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1. Susan Rishell referred to the PCDP Chap 2, Section 2.3.3F, she wanted to know if Kapoho waste water treatment was still considered a priority for the action committee. Barbara Bell said that this is not prioritized specifically, but as a subject, the way it is written now is to “Investigate how to upgrade wastewater in Kapoho as our priority.” This is still down the road a little bit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barbara moved to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2011 AC meeting. Madie seconded. The motion passed unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 2 NEW BUSINESS 1. Kapoho Wastewater Treatment Project: Guest Speaker, Joy Gannon of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to talk about the Kapoho wastewater treatment plan. RCAC has a partnership with the USDA. Additional information can be found online at www.rcap.org. a. Joy was asked by Barbara Bell in February 2011 to do a presentation for the Kapoho Road Association. At that meeting the road association authorized the community to form a task force to come back to the road association with additional steps on how to move forward with our wastewater issues. The model that was used was the EPA’s Basic Elements of Strategic Planning to get everyone ready and on the same page. i. Feasibility Study: This was done and included the Kapoho beach lots, vacation land, and farm lots. If you google Kapoho wastewater “the county has put their final version of the feasibility study online.” ii. Defining the area of service: Since we were working under the Kapoho road association only the Kapoho beach lots were included in this study. iii. Assessment iv. Identifying options v. Analyzing and assessing options vi. Implementation action plan vii. Evaluation Right now the status is at steps iv.-Identifying options and v. –Analyzing and assessing options. b. The Kapoho Wastewater Feasibility Study (KWFS) reported that Kapoho Beach Lots and Vacationland Estates total about 406 lots (Kapoho Farm Lots are not included in this statistic), with an estimated 220 homes. We now believe there are about 240 homes. At that time about 54% of the lots were developed and the Department of Health said the risk based standards at this point and time were being met. However, we do not know if this is going to continue to be true at 100% build out. c. There is a combination of septic, cesspool, and ATU’s (Aerobic Treatment Units). The EPA’s website states that “Cesspools are more widely used in Hawai‘i than any other state in the country” d. The KWFS estimates that there are 4 ATU’s, 39 cesspools and 59 septic tanks. These numbers have changed from when the feasibility study was done. An ATU is required if located within 50 feet of a pond or ocean or if elevation is between 12-15 feet. e. After the feasibility study came out Vacationland went their own way and rewrote their water association bylaws. If there is a change in property ownership or a new water meter request, the wastewater system is required to be upgraded to current government standards to obtain a water meter. This went into effect in January 2011 and they have had 8 upgrades so far. f. At this time there is no mandate to ban existing cesspools except for the large capacity cesspools. If for some reason a cesspool does not fall under the definition of large capacity 3 cesspool it could also fall under the regulation of underground injection control. If the flow of a cesspool is greater than 1000 gallons per day state rules and regulations will have to be followed, which raises the question of who will enforce this rule? g. The long term recommendations of the KWFS are: i. Install a centralized wastewater treatment facility which would cost around $2.8 million. ii. Construct a collection system at an estimated cost of $7.8 million iii. Total cost in 2009 was about $10.7 million for both the treatment and collection facilities. iv. The total cost for each of 406 lots would be $26,000.00 according to the study. h. Develop a strategic plan by establishing priorities on what we can accomplish in the future, organize the community around a common goal and develop a work plan for implementation. i. One more meeting is scheduled to be followed by the development of a plan put together for the “Kapoho Beach Lots Road Association” j. For more information you can go to www.rcac.org, Joy Gannon 1135 Makawao Ave. #252 Makawao, HI 96768, call 808-345-1246 or email to Jgannon@rcac.org. 2. Kapoho Waste Water Sub Committee Report: a. Community Education: Demonstrating the rapid and direct connection between cesspools in the subdivisions using a dye or cleaning a paint brush. b. When some people have changed over and they look into the old cesspool there is nothing there. It actually smells like the ocean indicating the waste has traveled to the ocean. 3. Proposed Non-Substantive Amendments to the Puna CDP: a. At the County Council Planning Committee meeting earlier this month some Council Members questioned the non-substantive nature of some of the proposed amendments. The Committee postponed any action on this until they have heard back from the AC as to whether or not they still approve the amendments being proposed as is or if they want to make any changes. Barbara moved that Larry Brown composes a letter to be sent to the County Council that the AC still supports Bill 101 as is and believe it is non-substantive. Frank seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Communication No. 2011-14 Action Priorities: a. Public Testimony i. Stephanie Bath recommended to prioritizing the identification and acquisition lots for staggered connectivity points between subdivisions. The vacant land is available now, with the passing of time options will disappear. Look at multiple lot acquisition to create buffers, make sure these lots are staggered to avoid the corridor scenario, creating community friendly ways for people to bike or drive from adjacent subdivisions without having to drive to Hwy 11and overlap uses at these points. She cited various sections of the PCDP addressing these points and suggested the AC could make sure that the goals 4 are overlapping. ii. Hannah Hendrick expressed her support for connecting subdivisions. She suggested identifying obstacles inhibiting movement in the action. Community outreach is still the weakest link of the CDP. She suggested the AC should meet with major community groups that already exist in the subdivisions. Identify and address the Puna Community Development Plan issues that are relevant to each subdivision. b. Action Priorities i. AC members suggested three Action topics for the Committee to begin identifying specific tasks, constraints and resources necessary for implementation. Frank moved to vote on the following three ideas to see which one should be the priority for today. Barbara seconded. Five votes were cast as shown. Tim abstained. (a) Village Centers at Volcano and Pahoa. (1 Vote) (b) Road Connectivity. (3 Votes) (c) Wastewater disposal in lower Puna. (1 Vote) ii. Connectivity – 4.3.3a 5th bullet item. After some discussion, the AC decided to concentrate on connectivity between the Fern Forest and Eden Roc Subdivisions first. Highlights of the discussion focused on: (a) Connector roads between subdivisions should be low impact and staggered to avoid creating major thoroughfares used as a substitute for Hwys. 11 and 130. (b) Needed to allow for emergency routes. (c) Subdivision stakeholders need to take a leadership role in implementation and the AC should have some initial suggestions for how to begin addressing connectivity for each subdivision. (d) The AC meetings might serve as a neutral venue to initiate communications between subdivisions. Barbara moved to formally invite representatives from Fern Forest and Eden Roc to the November 8 AC meeting to begin a dialogue on connectivity for those two subdivisions. Greg seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Greg moved to allow Larry Brown to draft a letter that Dan will approve, inviting representatives from Fern Forest and Eden Roc to attend the next AC meeting and discuss connectivity as it relates to their subdivision. Frank seconded. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 1. Action Priorities will remain on agenda. 2. PMAR Support letter from Barbara Bell. 3. Connectivity discussion with Eden Roc & Fern Forest representatives. 5 ADJOURNMENT Jeff moved to adjourn the meeting; Greg seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Next meeting, Tuesday, November 8, 2011