HomeMy WebLinkAboutAC-PD 2015-4.2 Keaau GP amend
William P. Kenoi Duane Kanuha
MayorDirector
Bobby Command
Deputy Director
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
February 10, 2015
Duane Kanuha
Planning Director
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
Aloha Director Kanuha,
RE: The Director initiated proposed amendment to Map 14 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG) Map of the County of Hawaiʻi General Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 05-
025, amended by Ordinance Nos. 06-153 and 14-087) by changing the land use designation for
portions of Keaʻau Village and immediately surrounding areas
The Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) Action Committee (AC) appreciates the opportunity
to review the above referenced request. The PCDP favors the planned expansion of commercial and
industrial development within designated Regional Town Centers and Village Centers that address
“community-serving and public uses, such as schools and parks…” and “to promote a more ‘walkable’
community, with access to mass transit as well as to provide a wider range of housing opportunity.”
One of the principle tenets of the PCDP document is the village center concept through which
appropriate and proper expansion of commercial and industrial areas with the development of
community services and infrastructure is achieved.
For the reasons stated below, the PCDP Action Committee cannot support this proposal as presented at
this time.
In reviewing the proposed amendment, the fact that the entire area to be changed is being labeled
“Urban Expansion” opens it to the widest possible range of urban type uses and densities as defined in
the Hawaiʻi County General Plan – Proposed Land Use Pattern definitions. “Urban Expansion Area:
allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, industrial-commercial and/or
open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement
pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined.” Granted that further “discretionary land use
actions” would be required, the potential opportunity the designation of Urban Expansion provides for
industrial uses is of major concern.
Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
The PCDP Action Committee believes that a more thoughtful application of LUPAG designations
would be more appropriate for the Keaʻau Village area that will ensure growth patterns more
conducive to a livable and walkable community based on the principles of Smart Growth. For
example, the land next to and around the schools might be more appropriately designated for low and
medium density urban uses rather than major commercial or industrial uses. Additionally, the PCDP
states “rezoning for residential development at higher densities, along with zoning for associated
neighborhood-oriented services, may occur within the LUPAG ‘alternate urban expansion areas,’
provided that such zoning proceeds in phases outward from the designated regional town center. We
believe that a comprehensive review of the LUPAG designations for the entire Keaʻau area should be
considered as part of any effort to define the Keaʻau Regional Town Center area, including the vast
area mauka of Highway 11 currently designated Urban Expansion.
Lastly, the PCDP clearly calls for the creation of town center master plans prepared through a
community based process to guide future residential, commercial and industrial development in Puna.
It states “the regional town center plan should be prepared through an inclusive community based
process that involves major stakeholders, including landowners, community representatives, and public
agencies.” As far as the PCDP AC is aware, there has been no inclusive community effort to create a
town center master plan for Keaʻau. Additionally, it appears that there was no public community input
prior to Resolution 464-14 being presented to the Hawaiʻi County Council. The AC is concerned that
valuable community input and concerns have not been properly heard or considered.
The Action Committee would like to see more refinement to this plan. This broad brush approach
leaves too great an area vulnerable to undesirable development. Greater specificity will help to direct
the development and help to preserve the character of Keaʻau.
Again, we thank you for allowing the AC the opportunity to respond to the LUPAG Amendment and
appreciate your consideration of our concerns. We request that the PCDP AC be kept informed of the
progress of this proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
Patti Pinto
Chair, PCDP Action Committee