HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 DRAFT Hamakua CDP Policy Rationale for Community Review-March 2016
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE
FUTURE ADDENDUM TO
APPENDIX
Draft CDP Rationale, January 2016
Note: This is the CDP draft rationale document, or background information for the
Hāmākua CDP. This draft includes revisions recommended by the Hāmākua CDP
Steering Committee. It is presented as a draft for review by community members and
other stakeholders. None of the CDP strategies are set in stone.
After the public review process, the Steering Committee will consider public input and
make final recommendations. All Steering Committee meetings are open to the
public, and public comment is always welcome.
Only after the Steering Committee is satisfied that the CDP truly reflects community
preferences will it recommend that the CDP be adopted by the County Council.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 1
Community Review Draft 2016
SECTION 1: TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Section 1: Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Section 2: Introduction to the CDP Rationale ............................................................................................... 9
Hāmākua CDP Community Objectives .................................................................................................... 10
Section 3: Policy Rationale – Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use .................................................. 11
3.1 Settlement Patterns & Land Use ....................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Land Use Policy .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.1.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.7 LUPAG Maps Recommended Changes and Rationale ............................................................... 29
Section 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources ............................................................... 68
4.1 Expand the Local System of Preserves .............................................................................................. 68
4.1.2 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 68
4.1.3 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 69
4.2 Protect Coastal Resources ................................................................................................................ 70
4.2.3 Land Use Policy .......................................................................................................................... 70
4.2.4 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 71
4.2.5 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 75
4.2.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 76
4.3 Protect Agricultural Lands & Open Space ......................................................................................... 76
4.3.3 Land Use Policy .......................................................................................................................... 76
4.3.4 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 80
4.3.5 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 83
4.3.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 84
4.4 Protect Mauka Forests ...................................................................................................................... 84
4.4.3 Land Use Policy .......................................................................................................................... 84
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 2
Community Review Draft 2016
4.5 Preserve Scenic Areas and Viewsheds .............................................................................................. 85
4.5.3 Land Use Policy .......................................................................................................................... 85
4.5.4 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 87
4.5.5 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 89
4.5.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 90
4.6 Protect and Enhance Ecosystems and Watersheds .......................................................................... 90
4.6.3 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 90
4.6.5 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 93
4.6.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 96
4.7 Protect and Enhance Cultural Assets ................................................................................................ 96
4.7.4 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 96
4.7.5 Kōkua Action .............................................................................................................................. 97
4.7.6 Community Action ..................................................................................................................... 97
4.8 Establish and Manage Public Access and Trails ................................................................................ 97
4.8.4 County Action ............................................................................................................................. 97
4.8.5 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 103
4.8.6 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 103
4.9 Preserving Sacred Places: Waipiʻo Valley and Mauna Kea............................................................. 104
4.9.2 Waipiʻo Valley as a Wahi Pana ................................................................................................. 104
4.9.3 Waipiʻo Valley: County Action .................................................................................................. 104
4.9.4 Waipiʻo Valley: Kōkua Actions .................................................................................................. 108
4.9.5 Waipiʻo Valley: Community Action .......................................................................................... 109
4.9.6 Mauna Kea as a Wahi Pana ...................................................................................................... 110
4.9.8 Mauna Kea: Kōkua Action ........................................................................................................ 110
4.9.9 Mauna Kea: Community Action ............................................................................................... 114
Section 5: Policy Rationale – Strengthen Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ..................................... 115
5.1 Coordinate Infrastructure, Facility, and Service Improvements ..................................................... 115
5.1.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 115
5.1.4 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 116
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 3
Community Review Draft 2016
5.2 Expand Affordable Housing Options ............................................................................................... 117
5.2.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 117
5.2.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 117
5.2.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 117
5.3 Improve the Roadway Network ...................................................................................................... 118
5.3.3 Land Use Policy ........................................................................................................................ 118
5.3.4 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 118
5.3.5 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 120
5.3.6 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 121
5.4 Formalize Alternative Routes .......................................................................................................... 122
5.4.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 122
5.5 Develop Place-Appropriate Road Standards ................................................................................... 122
5.5.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 122
5.6 Expand Mass Transit Facilities and Services ................................................................................... 123
5.6.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 123
5.6.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 124
5.7 Improve Water Infrastructure......................................................................................................... 125
5.7.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 125
5.8 Improve Environmental Management Facilities ............................................................................. 126
5.8.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 126
5.8.5 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 127
5.9 Improve Emergency Preparedness & Hazard Mitigation................................................................ 128
5.9.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 128
5.9.3 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 131
5.9.4 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 131
5.10 Improving Protective Services ...................................................................................................... 132
5.10.2 County Action ......................................................................................................................... 132
5.10.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................. 132
5.11 Expand Healthcare & Social Services ............................................................................................ 133
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 4
Community Review Draft 2016
5.11.2 County Action ......................................................................................................................... 133
5.11.3 Kōkua Action .......................................................................................................................... 133
5.12 Strengthen & Expand Education Facilities and Services ............................................................... 134
5.12.2 County Action ......................................................................................................................... 134
5.12.3 Kōkua Action .......................................................................................................................... 134
5.12.4 Community Action ................................................................................................................. 135
5.13 Expand Parks & Recreation Facilities ............................................................................................ 135
5.13.2 County Action ......................................................................................................................... 135
5.13.3 Kōkua Action .......................................................................................................................... 137
5.13.4 Community Action ................................................................................................................. 138
5.14 Enhance Telecommunications & Energy Infrastructure ............................................................... 138
5.14.3 Land Use Policy ...................................................................................................................... 138
5.14.4 County Action ......................................................................................................................... 138
5.14.5 Kōkua Action .......................................................................................................................... 139
5.14.6 Community Action ................................................................................................................. 139
Section 6: Build a Sustainable, Local Economy ......................................................................................... 140
6.1 Coordinate Regional Economic Development ................................................................................ 140
6.1.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 140
6.1.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 142
6.1.5 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 142
6.2 Strengthening Local Agriculture...................................................................................................... 142
6.2.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 142
6.2.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 144
6.2.5 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 146
6.3 Expand Health and Wellness Industry ............................................................................................ 146
6.3.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 146
6.3.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 146
6.4 Promote the Creative, Education, & Research Sector .................................................................... 147
6.4.2 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 147
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 5
Community Review Draft 2016
6.4.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 147
6.4.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 147
6.5 Develop a Place-Based Visitor Industry .......................................................................................... 147
6.5.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 147
6.5.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 149
6.5.5 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 150
6.6 Revitalize Local Retail & Hāmākua’s Town Centers ........................................................................ 150
6.6.3 County Actions ......................................................................................................................... 150
6.6.3 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 150
6.7 Encourage Green Industries ............................................................................................................ 151
6.7.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 151
6.7.4 Kōkua Action ............................................................................................................................ 151
6.7.5 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 152
6.8 Preserve Informal Economies and Living off the Land .................................................................... 152
6.8.3 County Action ........................................................................................................................... 152
6.8.4 Community Action ................................................................................................................... 153
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 6
Community Review Draft 2016
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Wainaku/Kaiwiki 2005 LUPAG Map ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 2: Wainaku/Kaiwiki 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ............................................................................. 44
Figure 3: Paukaʻa 2005 LUPAG Map ........................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4: Paukaʻa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 5: Pāpaʻikou 2005 LUPAG Map ........................................................................................................ 47
Figure 6: Pāpaʻikou 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ........................................................................................ 48
Figure 7: Pepeʻekeo 2005 LUPAG Map ....................................................................................................... 49
Figure 8: Pepeʻekeo 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ....................................................................................... 50
Figure 9: Honomū 2005 LUPAG Map .......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 10: Honomū 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ........................................................................................ 52
Figure 11: Hakalau/Wailea 2005 LUPAG Map ............................................................................................ 53
Figure 12: Hakalau/Wailea 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ............................................................................ 54
Figure 13: Nīnole 2005 LUPAG Map ............................................................................................................ 55
Figure 14: Nīnole 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 15: Laupāhoehoe/Pāpaʻaloa 2005 LUPAG Map ............................................................................... 57
Figure 16: Laupāhoehoe/Pāpaʻaloa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map .............................................................. 58
Figure 17: Oʻōkala 2005 LUPAG Map .......................................................................................................... 59
Figure 18: Oʻōkala 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map .......................................................................................... 60
Figure 19: Paʻauilo 2005 LUPAG Map ......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 20: Paʻauilo 2015 Proposed LUPAG ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 21: Honokaʻa 2005 LUPAG Map ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 22: Honokaʻa/Haina 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map ............................................................................ 64
Figure 23: Kukuihaele 2005 LUPAG Map .................................................................................................... 65
Figure 24: Kukuihaele 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map .................................................................................... 66
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 7
Community Review Draft 2016
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 1: Table of Contents 8
Community Review Draft 2016
‘O ka mea kūpono ‘āina ka mea kūpono kanaka.
What is good for the land is good for the people.
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE CDP RATIONALE
Each CDP policy was developed systematically, using the best available information about Hāmākua and
the range of strategies available to achieve the Community Objectives.
This Addendum summarizes the rationale behind the policies so that the systematic process of policy
development is transparent. The rationale for each CDP policy is based on a Strategy Identification
Matrix based on information in the CDP Draft Appendices V4A, V4B, and V4C from 2013-2014. The
Rationale Addendum to the CDP contains the policy rationale for County policies and Kōkua Actions. For
rationale pertaining to Community Actions, please see a separate document - the Community Action
Guide. In this document, all references to the General Plan refer to the County of Hawaiʻi General Plan,
February 2005 (As Amended) – unless otherwise noted. In the case of conflicts between a CDP and the
General Plan, the General Plan prevails.
Note: the CDP Rationale is an abridged document intended to be used as a supplementary document for
further information on the proposed policies and kōkua actions within the draft plan. Therefore, this
document does not include the complete Introduction to the CDP, or other various sections and headers
included within the Hāmākua Community Development Plan Draft. Some rationale headers will skip in
sequence for CDP material not included in this document, so please refer to the Draft Plan document to
see the plan in its entirety, available at www.hamakuacdp.info.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 2: Introduction to the
CDP Rationale
9
Community Review Draft 2016
Hāmākua CDP Community Objectives
Adopted by the Steering Committee on 2.5.13
‘ĀINA [Natural Resources & Ag as related to conservation of natural resources, Public Access]
1. Protect, restore, and enhance watershed ecosystems, sweeping views, and open spaces from mauka
forests to makai shorelines, while assuring responsible public access for recreational, spiritual, cultural,
and sustenance practices.
2. Protect and restore viable agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhance viewscapes and open
spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character.
3. Encourage community-based collaborative management plans to assure that human activities are in
harmony with the quality of Hāmākua’s unique natural and cultural landscape.
COMMUNITY [Culture, Town Planning, Infrastructure, Public Facilities, Services, Transportation]
4. Protect and nurture Hāmākua’s social and cultural diversity and heritage assets, including sacred places,
historic sites and buildings, and distinctive plantation towns.
5. Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s historic and
cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-use town centers while
limiting rural sprawl.
6. Develop and improve critical community infrastructure, including utilities, healthcare, emergency
services, affordable housing, educational opportunities and recreational facilities to keep our ʻohana
safe, strong, and healthy.
7. Establish a rural transportation network that includes improving roadway alternatives to Highway 19,
expanding and improving the existing transit system, and encouraging multiple transportation options.
ECONOMY [Employment, Industry, Business Development, Small Town Revitalization, Agriculture, Tourism]
8. Promote, preserve and enhance a diverse, sustainable, local economy.
9. Encourage the increase and diversity of employment and living options for residents, including living
wage jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities that allow residents to work and shop close to home and
that complement Hāmākua’s ecology, rural character, and cultural heritage.
10. Revitalize retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers that complement the community’s rural
character and culture.
11. Enhance and promote local and sustainable agriculture, farming, ranching, renewable energy, and
related economic support systems.
12. Preserve traditional subsistence practices and encourage a reciprocity (e.g. bartering) economy as a
sustainable complement to Hāmākua’s resource-based economy.
13. Promote appropriate rural tourism that welcomes guests for an alternative visitor experience. Promote
Hawaiʻi’s host culture and Hāmākua’s heritage, including historic roads and plantation towns, and
festivals that celebrate our rich multi-cultural music, art, and agriculture.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 2: Introduction to the
CDP Rationale
10
Community Review Draft 2016
SECTION 3: POLICY RATIONALE – PREFERRED SETTLEMENT
PATTERNS & LAND USE
3.1 Settlement Patterns & Land Use
This section of the CDP guides future land use development and permitting to be consistent with CDP
objectives and policies. Specifically, to reduce rural sprawl and infrastructure costs, it focuses future
residential development in existing villages and towns and seeks to preserve large productive
agricultural lands for agriculture by accommodating rural-residential development close to these urban
centers. It directs new residential development away from coastal areas and encourages the clustering
of developments to leave natural buffer areas. It plans urban areas with appropriately-scaled densities
that complement the rural character of the area.
It provides guidance to the Planning Department on change of zone and variance priorities, and
stipulates the types of areas and regulatory processes that are appropriate for industrial development.
It also directs the County to engage communities interested in town-level planning.
3.1.4 Land Use Policy
Policy 1
With the adoption of the Hāmākua CDP, Figures 2-13 1 are adopted as the official Land Use Policy
Map for the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area.
The land use category definitions are identical to those used in the General Plan LUPAG map. Future
land use decisions in the Hāmākua CDP planning area shall be consistent with the Land Use Policy
Map boundaries, definitions, and policies herein.
See Policy 6 for guidance on changes of zone in the LUPAG LDU designation.
See Policy 12 for how this Land Use Policy Map will be incorporated into the General Plan.
Rationale: The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map in the 2005 County General Plan is a
broad, flexible design intended to guide the direction and quality of future developments in a
coordinated and rational manner. It indicates the general preferred location of various land uses in
relation to each other.
State land use boundary amendments, changes in zone, project districts, subdivisions, planned unit
developments, use permits, variances, and plan approval must be consistent with the General Plan
and the LUPAG map. Projects or applications that are not consistent with the LUPAG map require
1 Policy 1 refers to Figures 2-13 as shown in the CDP Draft – this rationale document contains both an existing
LUPAG map and its corresponding proposed LUPAG map for each community. Within this document the LUPAG
maps are Figures 1-24.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
11
Community Review Draft 2016
an amendment to the General Plan, which requires an Environmental Assessment and approval of
the County Council.
The land use categories used in the CDP Land Use Policy Map correspond with those used in the
General Plan LUPAG map. However, the CDP land use policies that support the preferred future
settlement pattern for Hāmākua and related Community Objectives differ in some ways from the
land use pattern designated in the current 2005 General Plan LUPAG map. Therefore, in order to
fully implement the Hāmākua CDP, the LUPAG map requires some amendments. Also, due to
advanced mapping technologies, it is now easier to develop more parcel-specific growth boundaries
around towns and correct numerous mapping inconsistencies between State and County land use
designations.
Note the following LUPAG terms referenced in the Hāmākua CDP:
LUPAG Industrial: this category include uses such as manufacturing and processing,
wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial-
commercial uses.
LUPAG LDU, or Low Density Urban: this category is defined as “Residential, with ancillary
community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses;
overall residential density may be up to six units per acre.” The urban zones in the County
Code that correspond to the LDU designation allow for parks, community uses, residences,
boarding and group living facilities, home occupations, small scale commercial or personal
services, convenience stores, medical clinics, and restaurants.
LUPAG MDU, or Medium Density Urban: this category is characterized as village and
neighborhood commercial, allowing for single family and multiple family residential and
related functions (multiple family residential -- up to 35 units per acre).
LUPAGE HDU, or High Density Urban: this category is general commercial and multiple
family residential – up to 87 units per acre. NOTE: this category is not used within the
Hāmākua Planning Area but it is referenced here for comparison purposes.
LUPAG UE, or Urban Expansion Area: this category 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. See the O’ōkala LUPAG rationale for more on
proposed changes relating to this category.
LUPAG R, or Rural: this category includes existing subdivisions in the State Land Agricultural
and Rural districts that have a significant residential component. Lot sizes can vary from
9,000-square feet to five acres, but new designations of Rural have either corresponding
County zoning densities of either 1 unit per ½ acre (within the RA, or Residential and
Agricultural District), or 1 unit per 1 acre (within the Family Agricultural District). Allowable
uses within these areas, with appropriate zoning, may include commercial facilities that
serve the residential and agricultural uses in the area, and community and public facilities.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
12
Community Review Draft 2016
The Rural designation does not necessarily mean that these areas should be further
subdivided to smaller lots as most lack the infrastructure necessary to allow further
subdivision. The community of Nīnole is the good example of LUPAG Rural within the
Planning Area.
Strategies used in proposing LUPAG changes:
1. Factor 1: Minimize new coastal development. This first factor used in evaluating LUPAG
designations is based on Community Objective #1, which states:
“Protect, restore, and enhance watershed ecosystems, sweeping views, and open spaces
from mauka forests to makai shorelines, while assuring responsible public access for
recreational, spiritual, cultural, and sustenance practices.”
To further this objective in guiding development, a review of the current land uses and
designations in coastal areas was performed and changes are being recommended in areas
not yet developed but have LUPAG designations that guide future development to this
coastal area. Recommendations are made in these undeveloped coastal areas to protect
the shoreline as open space and priority viewsheds whenever possible. Examples of this can
be seen in the proposed changes to Pāpaʻikou, Pepeʻekeo, and Oʻōkala. See also Policy 2.
2. Factor 2: Minimize encroachment onto core agricultural lands. This second factor used in
evaluating LUPAG designations is based on Community Objective #2 which states:
“Protect and restore viable agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhance
viewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character.”
To further this objective in guiding development, a review of the current land uses and
designations on agricultural lands near urban areas was performed and changes are being
recommended in areas where the current LUPAG guidance allows for urban encroachment
on productive agricultural lands. Recommendations for the urban-to-agriculture interface
are intended to keep larger and potentially productive agricultural lands for agricultural uses
and to guide residential or rural-residential mixes within or adjacent to urban areas. This
strategy results in smaller LUPAG LDU areas in most towns.
Another strategy being employed in the new LUPAG recommendations is to accommodate
rural development (generally 1-5 acre parcels) in areas where there are currently non-
conforming smaller agricultural parcels located adjacent to urban centers. The intent is to
accommodate rural development close to towns and leave larger agricultural parcels for
productive agricultural use. Note, this strategy of allowing rural development near towns is
not recommended in towns adjacent to large agricultural lots – in those cases, it is
recommended that the urban area retain a ‘hard edge’ between the urban and agricultural
area so as not to create new, unnecessary split designations on parcels, or encourage rural
sprawl onto productive large-lot agricultural areas.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
13
Community Review Draft 2016
3. Factor 3: Align with State Land Use District Boundary. The third factor in developing
LUPAG recommendations is based on the Community’s Objective #5, which states:
“Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s
historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-
use town centers while limiting rural sprawl.”
This objective is important in that the three levels of Land Use regulation in Hawaiʻi (State
Land use, County Zoning, and County LUPAG) are not necessarily consistent with each other,
and this can lead to regulatory ambiguity. Now that current mapping technology allows us
to provide more parcel-specific guidance, it is important to reevaluate the State Land Use
districts and County designations (zoning and LUPAG). Note: County zoning determines
permitted uses; however LUPAG designations convey preferred future land uses but
generally require further action. For example, a State Land Use boundary amendment
and/or a County change of zone may be needed for the owner to use the land according to
its LUPAG designation.
In instances where the State Land Use districts and County zoning displayed significant
inconsistencies, it was determined that these were likely remnants of outdated mapping
technologies. These instances were adjusted in Pepeʻekeo, Honomū, Pāpaʻaloa, and Haina
(related primarily to the locations identified as LUPAG Medium Density Urban (see Factor 8
for more on LUPAG MDU)).
In evaluating the State and County designations, a common determination was that the
urban growth boundary established by the County LUPAG for many of the towns should be
condensed to be more consistent with the current interface between the State Land Use
District Urban and Agricultural District boundaries. See also Factor 5.
In some instances however, the recommended changes do extend the LUPAG Low Density
Urban areas beyond the State Land Use Urban district (generally onto the SLU Agriculture
district), particularly when a LUPAG LDU area was shifted away from a coastal location, and
when population growth in a particular urban area is desirable and supported by adequate
infrastructure. According to the General Plan:
“Certain areas that could have been classified as Important Agricultural lands have been
placed within urban land use categories. Generally, these are adjacent to existing urban
areas. This represents a decision that the orderly development of those urban areas justified
the eventual conversion of those lands to urban use.” (General Plan page 14-8)
Examples of when the LUPAG LDU overlaps to the SLU Agriculture District can be seen with
the proposed changes to Wainaku/Kaiwiki, Paukaʻa, and Honokaʻa.
While the CDP land use designation recommendations generally are parcel-specific, there
are times when split-designations on larger-lot agricultural lands that border urban areas
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
14
Community Review Draft 2016
could not be avoided in situations where the State Land Use boundaries dissect a parcel. An
example of this can be seen in Oʻōkala.
4. Factor 4: Align with County zoning. The fourth factor in developing LUPAG
recommendations is based on the Community’s Objective #5, which states:
“Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s
historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-
use town centers while limiting rural sprawl.”
This objective is important in that the three levels of Land Use regulation in Hawaiʻi (State
Land use, County Zoning, and County LUPAG) are not necessarily consistent with each other,
and this can lead to regulatory ambiguity. Now that current mapping technology allows us
to provide more parcel-specific guidance, it is important to reevaluate the State Land Use
districts and County designations (zoning and LUPAG). Note: County zoning determines
permitted uses; however LUPAG designations convey preferred future land uses but
generally require further action. For example, a State Land Use boundary amendment
and/or a County change of zone may be needed for the owner to use the land according to
its LUPAG designation. The CDP land use policy map only affects LUPAG designations; it
does not change current zoning or their current permitted uses.
There are circumstances when the LUPAG recommendations differ from current County
zoning, for example, in order to accommodate flexibility in residential development, a
recommendation for some areas is to extend the LUPAG Urban/Rural areas beyond current
residential zoning (the rationale for this is similar to Factor 3 in why LUPAG
recommendations sometimes differ from their State Land Use District). Another
circumstance is when zoning designations appear to be obsolete and would be problematic
if development occurred according to their currently zoned permitted uses – as in the case
of former industrially zoned land along the shoreline. An example of this is Pāpaʻaloa, which
has 3 parcels with industrial zoning along the shoreline & near a stream, and no current
industrial uses on these parcels. The CDP is recommending in these types of cases that the
LUPAG reflect a future scenario where these parcels are consistent with the zoning of their
neighboring parcels (in the Pāpaʻaloa case, it is recommended to be LUPAG LDU). See also
Factor 10 for more on Industrial zoning recommendations.
5. Factor 5: Accommodate projected population growth. The fifth factor in developing LUPAG
recommendations is based on the Community’s Objective #5, which states:
“Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s
historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-
use town centers while limiting rural sprawl.”
This objective directing that new developments be located in existing town centers is
dependent on careful planning for the appropriate level of projected growth. During the
CDP analysis phase, population data was collected from U.S. Census data and DBEDT. As
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
15
Community Review Draft 2016
noted in the Appendix V4B, Community Building Analysis, “According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, the Planning Area’s population grew by 13% between 1990 and 2010” (pg. 175).
With those trends in mind (which included the recent construction boom), an evaluation of
the existing LUPAG designations resulted in the determination that the current General Plan
(2005, As Amended) contains excessive areas designated as LDU (Low Density Urban). This
determination supports the recommendation to shrink the urban designations in most of
the Planning Area’s towns to accommodate an appropriate level of growth and flexibility.
6. Factor 6: Align with infrastructure -Potable Water. The sixth factor in developing LUPAG
recommendations is based on the Community Objective #6, which states:
“Develop and improve critical community infrastructure, including utilities […] to keep our
‘ohana safe, strong, and healthy.”
Objective #5, which directs new developments to existing town centers, is dependent on
these town centers having adequate infrastructure to serve their existing inhabitants and
accommodate projected growth. However, the review of County water service capacity in
Appendix V4B demonstrated that many towns in the Planning Area lack sufficient water
service. Additionally, it is common to use catchment water throughout the Planning Area,
so the lack of municipal water availability has not proven to be a significant deterrent to
growth (particularly on agricultural lands). Therefore, the CDP LUPAG recommendations are
based to some degree on where water currently is available, but will also be used as
rationale to justify where water service should be developed or improved in urban areas as
part of an infrastructure priority area.
7. Factor 7: Align with infrastructure - Roadway Network. The seventh factor in developing
LUPAG recommendations is based on Community Objectives #7 and #5, which state:
“Establish a rural transportation network that includes improving roadway alternatives to
Highway 19, expanding and improving the existing transit system, and encouraging
multiple transportation options.”
“Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s
historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable, mixed-
use town centers while limiting rural sprawl.”
The roadway network should provide adequate connections and reflect a priority for
compact neighborhoods. A review of the roadway network throughout the urban areas of
the Planning Area confirmed that it is adequate and would often support the projected
growth. This review also justifies curbing rural sprawl due to the prevalence of sub-standard
roads-in-limbo in the rural and predominately mauka areas.
8. Factor 8: Align with infrastructure - Wastewater. The eighth factor in developing LUPAG
recommendations is based on the Community Objective #6, which states:
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
16
Community Review Draft 2016
“Develop and improve critical community infrastructure, including utilities […] to keep our
‘ohana safe, strong, and healthy.”
The earlier objective directing that new developments be located in existing town centers is
dependent on these town centers having adequate infrastructure to serve their existing
inhabitants and accommodate projected growth. However, the review of County
infrastructure has demonstrated that many towns in the Planning Area lack sufficient
wastewater service. Additionally, while it is common practice to develop individual
wastewater systems (generally septic systems or cesspools), this adds to the costs and can
affect affordable housing development, raises environmental and regulatory concerns for
densely populated communities, and increases the ambiguous nature of future
infrastructure improvements (e.g., will developments later be compelled to hook up to
municipal sewer systems as they become available?). Therefore, the CDP LUPAG
recommendations are based to some degree on where wastewater systems are available,
but will also be used as rationale to justify where service should be developed or improved
in urban areas as part of an infrastructure priority area.
9. Factor 9: Ensure that commercial designations are appropriate – (MDU). The ninth factor
in developing LUPAG recommendations is based on the Community Objective #5, which
states:
“Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and connected. Honor Hāmākua’s
historic and cultural assets by concentrating new development in existing, walkable,
mixed-use town centers while limiting rural sprawl.”
While there are several economic development objectives in the CDP, in determining
appropriate levels of commercial and higher density residential development, it has become
clear that the LUPAG MDU category should be reserved for urban areas with an adequate
population to support this level of residential and commercial density. The LUPAG MDU
category is characterized as village and neighborhood commercial, allowing for single family
and multiple family residential and related functions (‘multiple family’ residential is
described as up to 35 units per acre). For most areas of the Planning Area, this is a
dramatically higher density than currently developed or that is desired by their respective
communities. Therefore, in several areas the MDU node was either condensed to a smaller
area, or completely removed. For the smaller towns with no MDU areas designated, there
are several zoning categories available under LUPAG LDU that can accommodate small-scale
commercial services. Examples of condensed MDU areas can be seen in Pāpaʻikou, Paʻauilo,
Laupāhoehoe, and Honomū; examples of where MDU areas were removed can be seen in
Hakalau, and Haina. See also Policy 3.
10. Factor 10: Ensure that industrial designations are appropriate and consistent. This tenth
factor used in evaluating LUPAG designations is based on Community Objectives #1, #2, and
#9, which state:
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
17
Community Review Draft 2016
“Protect, restore, and enhance watershed ecosystems, sweeping views, and open spaces
from mauka forests to makai shorelines, while assuring responsible public access for
recreational, spiritual, cultural, and sustenance practices.”
“Protect and restore viable agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhance
viewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character.”
“Encourage the increase and diversity of employment and living options for residents,
including living wage jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities that allow residents to work
and shop close to home and that complement Hāmākua’s ecology, rural character, and
cultural heritage.”
Many industrial sites have historically been sited on coastal properties and/or near streams.
This is generally no longer essential to the functionality of a modern industrial project, and
the environmental controls in place at the State and Federal level can create regulatory
challenges in redeveloping sites for heavy industrial uses. Also, the current LUPAG Industrial
designation covers a broad range of industrial uses ranging from light industrial (e.g.,
bakeries) to heavy industrial (e.g., pulp mills), so the LUPAG designation needs to be applied
carefully. There are also many inconsistencies with sites formerly used for industrial
purposes in the Planning Area that were not in the corresponding State Land Use Urban
District or zoned by the County as industrial. It is important to note that in those cases, if
the area no longer has industrial uses, that property is not ‘grandfathered’ to be used or
redeveloped for industrial uses. In those cases where a former industrial site was not in the
State Land Use Urban district and it does not have County industrial zoning, the CDP
strategy was to reevaluate the site and determine if it is still appropriate to designate it
LUPAG Industrial. In many cases, due to environmental factors such as coastal locations,
recommendations are made to designate these areas consistent with their underlying State
Land Use District.
LUPAG Industrial changes are proposed, including consolidations or additions, in Pāpaʻikou,
Pepeʻekeo, Hakalau, O’ōkala, Paʻauilo, Haina, and Pā’auhau.
For an in-depth analysis of CDP recommendations for each area, please refer to:
http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/hamakua-cdp/20160223IndustrialLUPAGTable.pdf .
See also Policy 6 for guidance regarding other areas for industrial uses in the Planning Area.
See 3.1.7 LUPAG Maps Recommended Changes and Rationale to see maps and rationale for proposed
LUPAG changes.
Policy 2
New urban development shall be located away from coastal areas and the Special Management
Area. This is reflected in the location of “Low Density Urban” (LDU) areas on the official Land Use
Policy Map.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
18
Community Review Draft 2016
Rationale: To further Community Objectives #1 and #2 in guiding development, a review of the
current land uses and designations in coastal areas was performed and changes are recommended
in areas not yet developed but have LUPAG designations that guide future development to this
coastal area. Recommendations are made in these undeveloped coastal areas to protect the
shoreline as open space and priority viewsheds whenever possible.
The exceptions to this are when coastal areas are already designated within the State Land Use
Urban District and/or are already County-zoned for residential or commercial uses. See Factor 1
from Policy 1, above.
This policy is consistent with existing General Plan Policy 8.3 (d), “Protect the shoreline from the
encroachment of man-made improvements and structures” and (HRS 205A-2(c)(3(D)), “Encourage
those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas.”
Examples of this can be seen in the proposed changes to Pāpaʻikou and O’ōkala.
Policy 3
Focus higher density residential (greater than 6 units/acre) and commercial areas in communities
that can sustain a higher intensity of uses and where these residential and commercial uses are
consistent with the existing town character. This is reflected in the location of “Medium Density
Urban” (MDU) areas on the official Land Use Policy Map
Smaller villages and towns are encouraged to develop neighborhood-scale commercial uses
allowed within the Low Density Urban category.
See 3.1.6 LUPAG Maps, Figures 2-13 for the LUPAG maps, and refer to the rationale document for
specifics on how the LUPAG MDU category changes are being implemented for each area.
Rationale: In the General Plan, the LUPAG MDU, or Medium Density Urban category is characterized
as village and neighborhood commercial, allowing for single family and multiple family residential
and related functions (multiple family residential -- up to 35 units per acre). Small towns in the
Hāmākua Planning Area often do not meet the necessary population or visitor threshold to sustain
this type of residential density or commercial uses. Towns that do not meet this minimum threshold
are encouraged to develop appropriately-scaled commercial uses according to the commercial
zoning designations allowed within the LDU category. See also Factor 9, from Policy 1.
See LUPAG Industrial: this category include uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling,
large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial-commercial uses.
LUPAG LDU for information on what commercial uses are allowed in the LDU category.
This CDP policy is based on Community Objective 5, 6, 9, and 10 and focuses primarily on preserving
small-town character while allowing flexibility for mixed-use neighborhood businesses.
Note: the already identified MDU category is more general and less parcel-specific to allow for
flexibility for any parcel that contains both LDU and MDU designations. There are many commercial
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
19
Community Review Draft 2016
uses that currently are only allowed under the Medium-Density Urban LUPAG category and yet, if
the MDU were further expanded, it would allow for uncharacteristically high residential density in
areas where such density may not be appropriate. It should be noted that Change of Zone requests
within the LUPAG LDU category for commercial uses that are only allowed within the LUPAG MDU
should be given careful consideration as to the community benefits, potential impacts, and for
consistency with other Hāmākua CDP policies and Objectives.
Policy 4
In order to preserve larger lot agricultural lands for productive agricultural use, allow rural
development on lands near urban areas where an intermediate land use between residential and
productive agricultural areas is consistent with the surrounding uses and rural character. This is
reflected in the location of “Rural” (R) areas on the official Land Use Policy Map, which is intended
to facilitate changes of zone to “Residential and Agricultural District” (RA) or the “Family
Agricultural District” (FA). The maximum density for the Rural designation in the Planning Area
shall be 1 unit per 1 acre.
Rationale: The recent growth within the Hāmākua Planning Area has primarily occurred on mauka
agricultural lands and in the homestead areas. Particularly in the homestead areas, the parcels are
often already smaller sizes than their underlying zoning designation; for example, there are many
homestead areas with agricultural lots sized less than twenty acres despite their Ag-20 zoning.
These preexisting lots have created a challenging land use scenario because in practice, the majority
of these areas are “de facto” rural subdivisions within a State and County land use system that
historically underutilized the State Land Use Rural District and Rural LUPAG designations.
This policy is intended to set appropriate criteria for when this Rural designation can be used. Note
the General Plan’s LUPAG description for Rural describes the category as including existing
subdivisions in the State Land Agricultural and Rural districts that have a significant residential
component. While rural lot sizes can vary from 9,000-square feet to five acres, new recommended
Rural designations in the Hāmākua CDP have corresponding County zoning densities of a maximum
of 1 unit per 1 acre. As noted in the General Plan, the allowable uses within these areas (with
appropriate zoning) may include commercial facilities that serve the residential and agricultural uses
in the area, and community and public facilities. The Rural designation does not necessarily mean
that these areas should be further subdivided to smaller lots as most lack the infrastructure
necessary to allow further subdivision.
The General Plan describes rural development this way:
“Rural-style residential-agricultural developments may include either new small-scale rural
communities or extensions of existing rural communities. Such development provides
opportunities for a mix of residential and small-scale agricultural activities. However, the
primary intent of these developments would be to provide an added range to housing
opportunities. Along with this housing, the large lots of these rural areas will provide
opportunities for part-time agriculture, gardening activities and the raising of livestock on a
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
20
Community Review Draft 2016
small scale. By providing opportunities to satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal
agricultural land, the pressures to develop important agricultural land for these purposes would
be decreased.” (General Plan 14.2.1)
This General Plan description of rural-style residential-agriculture developments presents some
ambiguity, particularly about what constitutes “marginal agricultural lands” that are appropriate for
this style of rural residential development. For the purposes of the Hāmākua CDP, the intent of
recommending LUPAG Rural designations in some areas is to accommodate existing land uses, to
create a transition area of small farm/residential land uses between the urban LDU and the larger
lot agricultural (often Ag-20) areas, and to accommodate a flexibility in housing options to provide
an incentive to develop rural parcels closer to residential communities with adequate infrastructure
instead of developing rural- residential uses on large, potentially productive agricultural lands. See
also Factor 3, from Policy 1.
The community of Nīnole is a good example of a community with existing LUPAG Rural based on its
underlying State Land Use Rural District and its predominance of the corresponding County zoning
of Residential-Agriculture (RA).
For more information on homestead and rural settlements, see pages 174-176 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 5
In the official Land Use Policy Map, the urban growth boundary between developed areas
(designated “Low/Medium Density Urban”) and lands designated as agricultural or rural
(designated “Important Agriculture Land” or “Extensive Agriculture” or “Rural”) is intended to be
parcel-specific in the Hāmākua CDP planning area. Areas that are clearly beyond the designated
urban growth boundaries shall be preserved as rural or agricultural lands to maintain open space,
scenic view planes, and natural beauty areas.
Note: See Policy 6 for more information on Industrial areas.
This policy clarifies that the urban growth boundary established with the Hāmākua CDP Land Use
Policy Map establishes parcel-specific UGBs whenever practical at the intersection between Urban
and Rural/Agricultural land uses. The CDP strategy of designating parcel-specific Urban designations
adds clarity and specificity, increases transparency into the land use designation process, and more
accurately reflects the County’s and the Community’s land use goals and intentions.
Rationale: The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) identifies areas where growth will be encouraged and
areas that are to be protected for agriculture. UGBs are intended to accommodate anticipated
growth and to separate areas appropriate for future residential development from areas intended
for agricultural use. This is sometimes referred to as “Town and Country” zoning, which requires
that development occur only in towns and villages, with the surrounding rural areas remaining
undeveloped and available for farming, forestry, natural area preservation, and recreation. The
LUPAG map includes land use categories that effectively establish an UGB between the agricultural
categories (Orchard, Extensive Agriculture, and Important Agriculture), the rural category, and the
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
21
Community Review Draft 2016
urban categories (Low, Medium, and High Density Urban, Industrial, Urban Expansion, and Resort).
This policy clarifies that the UGB established with the Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map establishes
parcel specific UGBs whenever practical.
This strategy of moving toward parcel-specific mapping for the Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map
reflects a shift from the 2005 General Plan’s LUPAG direction of being generalized guidance. (See
the rationale for Policy 1 for a further discussion of the General Plan LUPAG.) As noted, the LUPAG
maps were originally broad, flexible tools intended to guide the direction and types of desirable
growth for each area of the County. This general approach to guiding land use and growth allowed
for interpretive flexibility and was based, at least in part, on the challenges of creating detailed maps
specific enough to demonstrate land use designations at a parcel level.
However, by allowing general, ‘blob’ style LUPAG maps, parcels were often split into various LUPAG
designations in ways that were more arbitrary than they were intentional. This, at times, led to
property owners desiring clearer direction about their land use designations and future
development options and led some property owners to seek further Planning Department
interpretations of their property in relation to the general LUPAG designations.
Now that the CDPs have the opportunity and the technology to easily and efficiently create parcel-
specific LUPAG maps, it is a more proactive planning strategy to clearly articulate LUPAG
designations in the Hāmākua CDP at a parcel level and decrease the prevalence of splitting LUPAG
designations arbitrarily.
A compelling reason for an exception to this approach would be when part of a parcel is in an Open
LUPAG designation (such as when part of a parcel is within the State Land Use Conservation district
– e.g., along the coastline or in mauka forests). Any part of a parcel that is designated as LUPAG
Open would remain Open for that specific area of the parcel. Other exceptions to this parcel-
specific strategy would be when the parcel is large and may need to reflect two (or more) different
types of LUPAG designations. For example, when the parcel borders a town where part of it would
be within the urban growth boundary, and yet the large parcel stretches farther into agricultural
areas where an Agricultural designation is appropriate.
The CDP strategy of making parcel-specific LUPAG designations adds clarity, specificity, and
increases transparency into the land use designation process and more accurately reflects the
County’s and the Community’s land use goals and intentions.
Policy 6
Until the General Plan identifies appropriate areas for Industrial development to occur in the
Hāmākua Planning Area, industrial uses may be permitted outside LUPAG Industrial designated
areas through the following regulatory review processes:
Change of Zone: If the subject property is located in State Land Use Urban district, a change of
zone request to the appropriate industrial zoning should be considered; process would be the
appropriate review mechanism to evaluate the specific parameters of the proposal;
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
22
Community Review Draft 2016
Special Use: If the subject property is located in the State Land Use Agricultural or Rural
District, and the project type is consistent with a permitted use of either limited-industrial
(ML) or commercial-industrial zoning (MCX), the special use permit process would be the
appropriate review mechanism to evaluate the specific parameters of the proposal and set
any mitigating conditions.
Any requests for Industrial uses shall be carefully evaluated for potential impacts and consistency
with the General Plan and Hāmākua CDP Policies and Objectives. Of particular note is the existing
General Plan policy 14.4.3 (e): Industrial development shall be located in areas adequately served
by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure.
Rationale: This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 14.4.3(e) and is in line with Community
Objective 5. It is an affirmation of General Plan policies 14.4.5.2.2 (b) (South Hilo), 14.4.5.3.2 (a)
(North Hilo), and 14.4.5.4.2 (a) (Hāmākua), “Identify sites suitable for future industrial activities as
the need arises.”
As noted Factor 10 from Policy 1, the majority of the currently zoned Industrial areas in the Planning
Area are no longer seen as suitable for heavy industry since these types of uses are generally
considered to be offensive or have some element of danger. Many of the industrial properties are
legacy zoning remnants from the sugar plantations and are sited in environmentally sensitive
locations (see also Policy 2). This policy demonstrates flexibility on a case-by-case basis in
considering future Industrial uses in appropriate areas until the General Plan identifies locations for
Industrial uses.
There is an identified lack of land zoned Industrial or designated as Industrial in the LUPAG maps,
and there is a growing need in the Planning Area for industrial applications - primarily light-industrial
and commercial-industrial. This policy differentiates between two types of regulatory mechanisms
and clarifies which process should be pursued. The policy strategy of allowing some types of lighter
(less noxious) industrial uses in the State Land Use Agricultural District through the special permit
process is seen as advantageous over a property being rezoned for the following reasons: 1) a
change of zone is a permanent change of use to the property, and (2) the industrial zoning
categories allow for a spectrum of uses that can vary widely in their potential noxious impacts. On
the other hand, the special permit process involves a project specific review with a similar regulatory
and public review period as change of zone requests, it can set conditions to mitigate potential
impacts, it can be revoked for compliance issues or if the use authorized by the use permit has been
abandoned for a continuous period of two years (HCC §25-2-67).
Until the General Plan Update completes in-depth analysis of the Hāmākua Planning Area and
identifies appropriate places for Industrial LUPAG designations, this flexibility in considering
industrial change of zone and industrial special permit applications is an effective strategy to deal
with the Planning Area’s lack of Industrial land options.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
23
Community Review Draft 2016
Policy 7
In the Official Land Use Policy Map for the Hāmākua Planning Area in the “Low Density Urban”
(LDU) category, in those cases where provisions of the zoning and subdivision code are
inconsistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, variances or PUDs that maintain
consistent villages/town character shall be encouraged.
Rationale: Pursuant to HCC sections 23-15 and 25-2-51, a variance from the provisions of the zoning
or subdivision codes may be granted by the Planning Director if there are special or unusual
circumstances applying to the subject real property which exist to a degree which obviously
interferes with the best use or manner of development of that property. The variance must be
consistent with the general purpose of the district, the intent and purpose of the County Code and
the General Plan, and not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or cause substantial,
adverse impact to an area’s character or to adjoining properties. Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs) are essentially packages of variances for a minimum land area of two acres. Pursuant to HCC
section 25-6-1, the purpose of PUDs is to encourage comprehensive site planning that adapts the
design of development to the land by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses,
buildings, structures, open spaces, setbacks, building heights, and lot sizes. According to Section 25-
6-10, some of the criteria for a PUD are as follows:
(b) The proposed development substantially conforms to the general plan, any adopted
community development plan, other adopted master plan, and if applicable, any adopted design
guidelines and/or standards affecting the project area.
(c) Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding
area, that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise specified for the
district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high as that otherwise
specified for the district in which the development occurs.
(d) Any commercial development shall not create traffic congestion which exceeds that which
would have been produced under conventional development patterns, practices and standards
in the district or interfere with any projected public improvements, shall provide for proper
entrances and exits along with proper provisions for internal traffic and parking, and be an
attractive center which does not adversely impact upon adjacent and surrounding existing or
prospective developments.
(e) Any industrial development shall be in conformity with desirable performance standards and
shall constitute an efficient and well organized development with adequate provisions for
freight service and necessary storage, and shall not adversely impact upon adjacent and
surrounding existing or prospective development.
(f) The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to the
normal requirements of this chapter, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it
desirable to apply regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
24
Community Review Draft 2016
the district regulations The proposed development substantially conforms to the general plan
and any applicable community development plan.
The intent of this policy is to encourage the use of these planning tools to support development and
construction that reflect community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness (refer to
Community Objective #4 in relation to “heritage assets” and “distinctive plantation towns”).
Policy 8
In new, previously zoned Residential subdivisions in coastal areas, subdivisions shall be
encouraged to develop as Cluster Plan Developments (C.P.D.) pursuant HCC Section 25-6-20, or
Clustered Rural Subdivisions. (See Corresponding Policy 13 and Policy 14 relating to coastal buffer
areas)
Rationale: The intent of this policy is to encourage and incentivize clustering development to leave a
buffer of natural area along the shoreline. Cluster Development is a site planning approach that is
an alternative to conventional subdivision development. It groups residential properties in a
proposed subdivision closer together in order to utilize the rest of the land for open space,
recreation, or agriculture. The County zoning code allows for Cluster Plan Developments (C.P.D.) in
order to provide exceptions to the density requirements of the single-family residential (RS) district
so that permitted density of dwelling units contemplated by the minimum building site
requirements is maintained on an overall basis and desirable open space, tree cover, recreational
areas, or scenic vistas are preserved.
The County Planning Department should develop incentives for Cluster Plan Developments and
Clustered Rural Subdivisions (Policy 14) in coastal areas that leave natural, open space buffer areas
along the shoreline (incentives could include expedited planning review, density bonuses, etc.).
Policy 9
The Director of Planning shall offer a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commissions,
subject to appropriate conditions, only for those proposed zoning code amendments that would
further the intent and ensure consistency with the objectives and policies of the Hāmākua CDP.
Rationale: It is important that future rezones in the Hāmākua Planning Area be consistent with the
objectives and policies of the CDP. Pursuant to HCC 25-2-42(c)(1), when considering a proposed
amendment to the zoning code, the Planning Director, “shall recommend either the approval or
denial of the proposed amendment to the commission subject to conditions which would further
the intent of this chapter and the general plan and other related ordinances” (e.g., Community
Development Plans). Though it appears that “other related ordinances” would naturally include
CDPs, this policy seeks to ensure that the Planning Director’s recommendations on future rezones
will be consistent with the Hāmākua CDP.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
25
Community Review Draft 2016
Policy 10
Variances from the zoning or subdivision codes (including PUDs) shall be carefully considered
relative to Hāmākua CDP objectives and policies, and, when approved, shall be conditioned to
ensure consistency with the CDP.
Rationale: The Planning Director can approve variances from provisions of the zoning and
subdivision codes to accommodate special circumstances, where no alternatives exist, and if they
are consistent with the General Plan and are not detrimental to the public welfare or cause
substantial adverse impact to the area’s character or adjoining properties. The Director may also
impose conditions on variances. This policy simply requires that the Director consider and approve
variances in a manner consistent with the Hāmākua CDP. See related Policy 6.
This policy is to meet the community’s objectives (#2 and #5) with the specific intention of ensuring
that variances for zoning and subdivision codes are consistent with the goals of preserving town
character, agricultural land, open space, and limiting rural sprawl. The lack of infrastructure has not
been an adequate impediment to rural residential growth due to the ease of applicants receiving
variances to subdivision codes (road and water variances on Agricultural land are the leading
variances sought for the Hāmākua Planning Area). This policy is based on: HCC 23-6, 23-15(c), 23-
18, 25-2-51(c), 25-2-54(b), and 25-6-6(a). See also Appendix V4, pages 177-259 for more
information on growth patterns within the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Policy 11
When considering waivers to the requirements of the zoning and subdivision chapters of the
County Code for consolidation and resubdivision actions of the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area, the
Planning Director shall carefully consider how to best further the public welfare relative to the
objectives and policies of the Hāmākua CDP. Specifically, the Director, 1) should confer with all
appropriate agencies, 2) shall, if the new subdivision will include lots smaller than otherwise
permitted in the subject zone, endeavor to locate those smaller lots in LDU, MDU, or Industrial
areas and near existing towns/villages and thoroughfares, and 3) shall require necessary
improvements. (HCC 23-6, 23-7, and 25-2-11).
Rationale: This policy instructs the Planning Director to use the authority in HCC sections 23-6, 23-7,
and 25-2-11 to achieve Community Objectives, which specify that the public welfare will be
advanced by protecting forest and shoreline ecosystems, assuring public access, preserving
agricultural land, enhancing viewscapes, concentrating new development in town/village centers,
and protecting historic buildings and archeological and historic sites. The Planning Director should
confer with the Director of Public Works, the Manager of the Department of Water Supply, and
he/she may confer with other agencies. In addition, the Planning Director may require
improvements to further public welfare and safety.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
26
Community Review Draft 2016
3.1.5 County Action
Policy 12
Amend the General Plan to reflect the following changes:
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide to conform to the official Hāmākua CDP Land Use
Policy Map. (See “Necessary LUPAG Map Amendments” Section of Chapter IV.A: Land Use
Policy Manual.) [Chapter IV will be completed upon adoption of the CDP]
Amend General Plan Table 14-5 to reflect the LUPAG map amendments. (Pāpaʻikou,
Laupāhoehoe-Pāpaʻaloa and Paʻauilo should no longer be identified as LUPAG Industrial
areas).
Rationale: This policy seeks to bring the General Plan’s LUPAG designations in line with current and
desired future land use. Taking the step of officially amending the General Plan’s LUPAG maps to
align with the official Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map is critical because the General Plan is the
‘parent’ document that has legal authority over community development plans. If the General Plan
LUPAG maps are not amended, the General Plan’s current LUPAG guidance could trump the
Hāmākua CDP Official Land Use Map’ recommendations. See Policy 1 for a discussion of the various
Hāmākua CDP LUPAG recommended changes.
Policy 13
Amend Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code and Chapter 23 of the Subdivision Code to establish
Clustered Rural Subdivision Unit Developments.
Rationale: The intent of Clustered Rural Subdivision Unit Developments is to minimize grading,
preserve the natural appearance of the land to the maximum extent possible, ensure agriculture use
in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and create a rural setting for residences. The adoption of
the new program will encourage clustering of development on agricultural lands in exchange for the
perpetual protection of contiguous blocks of lands for crop production. The program will also
provide an opportunity to create affordable housing in rural areas. Towards this end, the guidelines
could specify:
Specific areas, or types of areas, appropriate for Clustered Rural Subdivisions;
Minimum lot sizes;
Natural and cultural resources meriting protection and associated buffer areas, as applicable;
Minimum standards for roads and wastewater disposal;
Legal tools for permanent protection, maintenance of open space, and/or agricultural lands;
Connections to the open spaces of surrounding areas;
Connections to adjacent or nearest urban areas.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
27
Community Review Draft 2016
Clustered Rural Subdivision Planned Unit Developments could base some criteria on applicable
sections of Attachment C, CLUSTERED RURAL SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES from Mapping Kona’s
Future, Kona CDP, Vol. 1, September 2008 (http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/north-and-south-
kona-cdp/cdp-final-drafts/Final%20KCDP_Sept%202008_text.pdf/view )
Policy 14
Develop incentives for Cluster Plan Developments and Clustered Rural Subdivisions in coastal
areas that leave natural, open space buffer areas along the shoreline. (See corresponding Policy 13
and Policy 8)
Rationale: The intent of this policy is to explore possible incentives for Cluster Plan Developments
and Clustered Rural Subdivisions in coastal areas that leave natural, open space buffer areas along
the shoreline (incentives could include expedited planning review, density bonuses, etc.) See Policy
13 for more information.
Policy 15
To ensure the preservation of historic and cultural village character, provide technical support to
develop Town Revitalization Plans.
Rationale: This policy is an acknowledgement that more collaborative work is needed from both the
community and the Planning Department in order to realize the goals and objectives of revitalized
towns in the Hāmākua Planning Area. This policy directs the County to provide the necessary
technical support to communities interested in developing their own town revitalization plans,
which may include assistance in forming associations for Business Improvement Districts to seek
grant funding, etc. For more information, see pages 102-113 of Appendix V4C. See also Community
Action 46.
3.1.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this
section.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
28
Community Review Draft 2016
3.1.7 LUPAG Maps Recommended Changes and Rationale
Note: All references to the 2005 General Plan refer to the County of Hawaiʻi General Plan February 2005
(As Amended).
Figure 2: Wainaku/Kaiwiki 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: The Wainaku/Kaiwiki community is considered a ‘bedroom extension’ of Hilo due to its
proximity and lack of urban core. The proposed Land Use Policy Map directs future Low Density
Urban growth within the existing urban neighborhoods along Wainaku Street and up an intermittent
corridor up Kaiwiki Road until approximately the gym area. Along the lower section of Kaiwiki Road,
it remains as consistent as possible with the current LUPAG LDU designation except that it is more
parcel-specific at its southern edge (it eliminates splitting designations within parcels). The
proposed change also designates LUPAG Rural for several larger parcels just mauka of Maikalani
Street. In the area south of Kulana Kea Drive, the proposed change is to designate a few of these
parcels as LUPAG Rural in order to keep this area consistent with its current land use as a large lot
rural subdivision, to accommodate rural development, and preserve the larger agricultural parcels
mauka for productive agriculture.
In summary, the proposed changes for Wainaku result in an overall shrinking of the LUPAG LDU
area and add the LUPAG Rural Designation in some larger lots off Kaiwiki and some mauka of
Haʻaheo School. The advantages to these proposed changes will be that growth at the Low Density
Urban densities will be guided closer to Wainaku Street, while some areas mauka of the LDU areas
will be Rural parcels to accommodate the desire for small family/subsistence farms and to preserve
larger agricultural lands (mauka the gym) to remain intact for productive agricultural use. See the
rationale for policies: Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information, refer to pages 178-184 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 4: Paukaʻa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Paukaʻa is considered a ‘bedroom extension’ of Hilo due to its proximity to Hilo and its
lack of commercial core. The current LUPAG Low Density Urban designation makai of the Highway
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
29
Community Review Draft 2016
19 stretches from Honoliʻi all the way to Pāpaʻikou in a relatively solid block, while the mauka LDU
extends into agricultural lands adjacent to the Honoliʻi Stream/gulch area. The proposed Land Use
Policy Map designates the LDU area makai of the Highway 19 extending north to the Hikini Place
neighborhood to be consistent with the existing State Land Use Urban District. Mauka of Highway
19, a proposed LUPAG Rural designation extends into the smaller agricultural lots mauka of Kulana
Street (the lower areas adjacent to Woa Road and Kono Road, and mauka of Kahoa Street) in order
to accommodate rural development and preserve the larger agricultural parcels mauka for
productive agriculture.
In summary, the proposed changes for Pauka’a result in an overall shrinking of the LDU area and
add the Rural Designation in the larger lots mauka of Kulana Street. The advantages to these
proposed changes will be that growth at the LDU density will be kept closer to already developed
areas, while allowing larger-lot rural parcels to develop mauka of the LDU neighborhoods to
accommodate the desire for small family/subsistence farms and to preserve the large acreage
agricultural lands to remain intact for productive agricultural use. See the rationale for policies
Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information, refer to pages 178-184 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 6: Pāpaʻikou 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Pāpaʻikou is a rural plantation town with remnants of a historic urban core located
primarily on the mauka side of the Belt Highway. The town is surrounded by working agricultural
and homestead lands. The current LUPAG LDU extends makai of the Highway 19 from Paukaʻa in a
solid block north to Kalaoa Stream and to the Onomea Bay area. The current LUPAG LDU extends
mauka along the lower sections of Kaʻieʻie Road, Kalaoa Road, and Pāpaʻikou Road, and
encompasses loosely (but not completely) the area of Puʻuʻeo Paku. The proposed LUPAG
amendments adjust the makai coastal agricultural areas between Mill Road and makai of
Kalanianaʻole School to LUPAG Agricultural to be consistent with their current County zoning and
the State Land Use Agricultural District. The objective here is to protect productive agricultural
lands and their associated open space assets within the coastal and SMA lands makai of the Highway
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
30
Community Review Draft 2016
19 (see Policy 2) , and to shift the potential urban growth of Pāpaʻikou to the lands adjacent to
existing neighborhoods mauka of the Highway 19.
The proposed LUPAG amendments also remove the MDU designation from the mauka side of the
Old Māmalahoa Highway at approximately the community center/gym area, and leave the existing
MDU area on the mauka side of Highway 19 at Government Road (originally, the LUPAG showed two
separate medium-density-urban nodes within Pāpaʻikou mauka of the Highway 19).
The proposed LUPAG changes remove the LUPAG Industrial designation for the area makai of Mill
Road at the old Mill site for the following reasons: 1) to be consistent with its State Land Use
designation of Agricultural District; 2) in order to convey the preferred land use for that area (due to
the site’s proximity to the ocean, this property is no longer seen as suitable for heavy industry and
therefore the preferred land use would be for it to be consistent with its State Land Use designation,
which is Agricultural); and 3) to more accurately reflect the current land use for this property (this
former industrial area is currently zoned Ag-3 and developed for agriculture-residential use). See
the rationale for Policy 6.
In summary, the proposed changes for Pāpaʻikou effectively shrinks the LDU areas, guides
residential and commercial growth away from the coastline and keeps it primarily mauka of the
Highway 19, and eliminates an obsolete LUPAG Industrial designation. No LUPAG Rural areas are
proposed in Pāpaʻikou due to the prevalence of the surrounding existing rural-style parcels in the
homestead areas (e.g., Kaʻieʻie Road and Kalaoa Road). These homestead areas contain previous lots
of record that were created prior to statehood, and they accommodate an excess of rural
development into the agricultural mauka areas along the homestead roads. See the rationale for
policies: Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 5, and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information, refer to pages 185-188 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 8: Pepeʻekeo 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Pepeʻekeo is the second largest town in the Planning Area and is unique in that it was
designed as a planned subdivision to consolidate nearby plantation camp housing. The town is split
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
31
Community Review Draft 2016
by Highway 19 and has a separate urban node at Pepeʻekeo Point. The surrounding land outside the
town is productive agricultural and homestead areas.
The proposed change to the LUPAG Industrial designation near the coast at Pepeʻekeo Point
consolidates the Industrial designation to the appropriate parcels that are potentially being
developed as a power plant – but limits that designation from extending further into adjacent
parcels that are either best suited for agricultural purposes or are currently being used as
residential/agricultural lands. While the CDP recommends consolidating or removing portions of the
Industrial designation, this parcel still maintains their underlying State Land Use District and their
County zoning. The CDP also recommends adding a LUPAG Industrial area to the site (TMK: 2-8-
008:103) formerly used as a scrap metal base yard due to it being zoned as Industrial. See LUPAG
for a discussion of LUPAG Industrial significance.
The proposed LUPAG LDU area in Pepeʻekeo is more parcel-specific and compact, and the added
Rural designations along the southern boundary of town (near Waiʻaʻama Stream) are intended to
reflect the rural nature of these larger residential/agricultural parcels (these parcels are currently
zoned Ag-1.). By designating these lands as LUPAG Rural (as opposed to LUPAG LDU), it effectively
limits their future capacity to subdivide and thereby provides a buffer between the more densely
compacted urban neighborhoods of Pepeʻekeo and the rural areas near Waiʻaʻama Stream. See
Policy 4.
The proposed LUPAG MDU is consolidated from being two separate nodes into one single node
around Kaʻakepa and Kumula Street (mauka of Highway 19) to Andrade Road because the existing
second designation of LUPAG MDU close to Waiʻaʻama Stream likely was likely a mapping
discrepancy. See Policy 3.
In summary, the proposed changes for Pepeʻekeo effectively shrink the LUPAG LDU away from
larger lot agricultural areas and clearly define the town’s urban border. The changes designate
Industrial land uses to specific parcels either in current industrial uses or proposed for industrial
redevelopment, and they add Rural designations in a limited area in order to provide a buffer of
larger-lot rural development between residential neighborhoods and Waiʻaʻama Stream. See the
rationale for policies: Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 5, and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information, refer to pages 189-196 of Appendix V4B.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
32
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 10: Honomū 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Honomū is a rural plantation town mauka of the Highway 19 surrounded by agricultural
lands. It has a strong town center with historic buildings, a traditional main street structure, and the
community maintains a strong sense of place. It serves as a gateway community to nearby ʻAkaka
Falls State Park.
The proposed LUPAG MDU area is moved to the correct “downtown area” to overlap with County
zoning and current land uses. The current LUPAG MDU designation is a mapping discrepancy that
inadvertently overlaps residential neighborhoods such as Kalani Loop and the County Park instead of
the commercial area.
The proposed LUPAG LDU changes are to be more consistent with the State Land Use Urban District
and to be more parcel-specific (whenever feasible). The existing LDU in Honomū does not currently
encompass the State Land Use (SLU) Urban District, which is likely a mapping discrepancy - and so
the CDP recommendations expanding the LUPAG LDU to include the entire SLU Urban District. The
proposed LUPAG LDU is also expanded slightly in the parcels across from the park on the makai side
of the road, and the one existing parcel where the CDP recommends LUPAG split designations is
TMK 2-8-013:036 due to its long length running mauka-makai adjacent to the urban area. The makai
area of this parcel is recommended to remain in the LUPAG Agriculture designation. The LUPAG
LDU is also expanded in a few parcels along Stable Camp Road and ʻAkaka Falls Road mauka of the
park to encompass the existing LUPAG LDU designated parcels without recommending additional
split-designated parcels.
In summary, the proposed changes for Honomū effectively shrink the LUPAG LDU away from larger
lot agricultural areas and clearly define the town’s urban border. See the rationale for policies:
Policy 2, Policy 3, and Policy 5, and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information, refer to pages 197-200 of Appendix V4B.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
33
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 12: Hakalau/Wailea 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: The Hakalau and Wailea communities are inexorably linked together in identity but
geographically divided by Highway 19. Both are traditional plantation towns surrounded by working
agriculture with historic buildings on both sides of Highway 19.
For Hakalau, the proposed LUPAG Industrial designation is consolidated onto one parcel in order to
convey the preferred land use for that area, and to more accurately reflect current land uses.
Currently the LUPAG Industrial designation stretches across multiple parcels, including a County-
owned parcel and several residential parcels. There are three shoreline parcels with County
Industrial zoning, one of which is owned by the County (TMK 2-9-002:080) and contains the steep
gulch and Hakalau beach park area, and the other two (TMK 2-9-002:079 and 2-9-002081) are
privately owned and slated for redevelopment. Note: while the CDP recommends restricting the
LUPAG Industrial designation from one parcel, the land maintains its underlying Industrial zoning
(note: the CDP does not have authority to change zoning). However, it is also noted that due to the
site’s proximity to the ocean, this parcel is no longer seen as suitable for heavy industry and
therefore the preferred land use would be for it to be consistent with its neighboring land uses,
which are designated as residential. The proposed LUPAG designation conveys that the County
Planning Department would likely support a zoning change. See the guiding principles for LUPAG
changes under the rationale for Policy 1.
The proposed LUPAG LDU designation is made more parcel-specific in Wailea/Hakalau to better
align with the State Land Use Urban District and to move the LUPAG urban designations away from
the agricultural lands along Highway 19. Considering the infill potential with current land use
designations, there is adequate development potential in the Wailea/Hakalau area to accommodate
the anticipated growth without further encroachment into working agricultural lands.
The proposed change to the LUPAG MDU area in Hakalau is to remove the designation entirely and
designate that area as LUPAG LDU. Since there are existing nodes of commercially zoned parcels in
Hakalau and Wailea, it is not necessary to maintain LUPAG designations for the types of density or
uses that LUPAG MDU would allow. Again, while the CDP does not change the underlying State
Land Use District or County Zoning, it is the County’s preferred land use for these towns to be
revitalized at an appropriate scale to their surroundings, and the LUPAG MDU designation is now
seen as an excessive approach to small town development goals. For more information on what
commercial/neighborhood uses the LUPAG LDU designation allows, see LUPAG and Policy 3.
In summary, the proposed changes for Hakalau effectively shrink the LUPAG LDU away from the
Highway 19 and the larger lot agricultural areas, and clearly define the town’s urban border; they
consolidate the LUPAG Industrial designation to the appropriate parcel, and they remove the MDU
designations to ensure that commercial development is at the appropriate scale for the character
and population of the town. See the rationale for policies: Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 5,
and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j). For more information on this, see pages 201-204 of
Appendix V4B.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
34
Community Review Draft 2016
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
Figure 14: Nīnole 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Nīnole is a small plantation village in close proximity to the coastline along Highway 19 in
North Hilo District. It is surrounded by productive agricultural lands. Nīnole has no LUPAG MDU,
commercial zoning, or Industrial zoning. Nīnole is one of the few areas in the Planning Area that
contains existing LUPAG Rural designations, is within the State Land Use Rural District, and has
County Rural zoning.
The proposed LUPAG changes to Nīnole are to change some of the LUPAG Low Density Urban
designations that currently exist in the mauka areas of the village to be LUPAG Rural. Instead of
adding the level of density that LUPAG LDU would allow (6 units per acre; minimum building lot can
be 7,500 sq. ft.), it is more consistent with the current and desired land uses to keep Nīnole a rural
community without dramatically increasing density in the near future. Considering that Nīnole does
not currently have any urban zoned neighborhoods and is not in close proximity to basic services
such as a grocery store, if the CDP were to support the mauka area of the village as LUPAG Low
Density Urban, it could encourage a dramatically altered character and growth pattern for this rural
village. The current recommendations do allow for a few split LUPAG designations between LUPAG
Rural and LUPAG Agriculture due to their existing split-designations of their underlying State Land
Use District (the split is between SLU Rural and SLU Agriculture in a few of the large mauka parcels).
In summary, the proposed changes for Nīnole provide parcel-specific guidance for growth
consistent with the rural character of Nīnole. See the rationale for policies: Policy 4 and Policy 5,
and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
35
Community Review Draft 2016
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information on this, see pages 205-208 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 16: Laupāhoehoe/Pāpaʻaloa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: The coastal communities of Laupāhoehoe, Pāpaʻaloa, and Kapehu camp are inexorably
linked with each other; each community is a former plantation village surrounded by open pastures
and working agriculture in close proximity to each other. Laupāhoehoe is the largest town in the
North Hilo District and contains a strip of commercial lands along the Old Māmalahoa Highway just
mauka of Highway 19. Pāpaʻaloa has a parcel with commercial zoning located makai of the Highway
19 and three parcels with Industrial zoning in close proximity to the shoreline. Kapehu is a small
coastal subdivision with no commercial components but does have its own independent wastewater
system.
The proposed LUPAG changes to Kapehu are to shrink the LUPAG LDU to be more parcel specific
(this area is designated State Land Use Urban District). This subdivision is a built-out neighborhood
surrounded by agricultural lands in close proximity to the shoreline; therefore, further expansion of
the residential uses into the surrounding agricultural lands or toward the shoreline are not preferred
growth scenarios.
The proposed LUPAG changes to Pāpaʻaloa are to make the LUPAG Low Density Urban designations
mauka of the Highway 19 more parcel-specific and consistent with the State Land Use Urban
District. It is proposed to remove the LUPAG Medium Density Urban designation since the necessary
services and commercial uses could be accommodated under the LUAPG LDU designation and the
increased density that the LUPAG MDU allows for is not appropriate in this small coastal community
(see Policy 2 and Policy 3). The makai parcels of Pāpaʻaloa with County Industrial zoning are
recommended to be designated as LUPAG LDU, or for the County-owned site, LUPAG Open since
this would be consistent with the neighboring park parcel and since Industrial uses are no longer
desirable in such close proximity to the shoreline. See the Note below for more information on
LUPAG and County Zoning.
The proposed LUPAG changes to Laupāhoehoe are to lengthen the MDU area along the Old
Māmalahoa Highway to allow for increased flexibility in revitalizing the commercial core of the town
and in response to recent development trends in that area, and to align the makai and mauka LDU
boundaries to be more consistent with the State Land Use Urban district (while accounting for
topography issues such as gulches). In a few areas, the LDU is expanded beyond the State Land Use
Urban district to allow for infill growth along the lower portion of Kihalani Homestead Road.
In summary, the proposed changes to the LDU areas add consistency between the State and the
County designations, they lead to an overall reduced LDU area that is less arbitrary and more parcel-
specific, they remove the MDU area from Pāpaʻaloa to ensure that commercial development is
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
36
Community Review Draft 2016
consistent with the rural character of the area, and they remove obsolete Industrial designations on
coastal parcels. No LUPAG Rural areas are proposed for these areas due to the prevalence of the
surrounding existing rural-style parcels in the homestead areas (e.g., Manowaiʻopae Homestead
Road, Hokumahoe Road, and Kihalani Homestead Road). These homestead areas contain previous
lots of record that were created prior to statehood, and they accommodate an excess of rural
development in the agricultural mauka areas along the homestead roads. See the rationale for
policies: Policy 2, Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information on this, see pages 209-216 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 18: Oʻōkala 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Oʻōkala is a small plantation village located makai of Highway 19 in close proximity to the
coast. It has a few parcels zoned commercial but no current services are functioning (beyond the
U.S. Post Office). Oʻōkala is surrounded by open pasture and working agriculture. It contains near-
shore legacy Industrial zoning from the plantation era.
The proposed LUPAG changes for Oʻōkala involve changing the shoreline parcel makai of the mill
site from LUPAG Industrial to LUPAG Agricultural to convey the preferred land use for that area, and
to more accurately reflect the current land uses. Note: while the CDP recommends removing the
LUPAG Industrial designation, the land maintains its underlying Industrial zoning (the CDP does not
have authority to change zoning). However, it is noted that due to the site’s proximity to the ocean,
this property is no longer desirable for heavy industry and therefore the preferred land use would
be for it to be consistent with other surrounding State Land Use designations of Agricultural. The
proposed LUPAG designation conveys that the County Planning Department would likely support a
zoning change.
The existing LUPAG map shows a LUPAG Urban Expansion Area on the southern side of the
Industrial land along the coast makai of the Kukui Village Road and Nui Village Road. The CDP
proposes eliminating this LUPAG Urban Expansion Area due to the fact that the LUPAG Urban
Expansion Area is the most broadly flexible designation possible among the LUPAG categories. The
Urban Expansion Area designation is flexible enough to allow for a mix of uses including heavy
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
37
Community Review Draft 2016
industrial and high density urban (HDU), neither which are compatible or desirable in this coastal
location. This is the only area in the Planning Area that is designated as a LUPAG Urban Expansion
Area, and it likely was designated as such in a drastically different economic and environmental
climate. The CDP proposes this area be consistent with its underlying State Land Use District of
Agricultural.
The proposed LUPAG changes for the LDU designation are to condense this area to be more parcel-
specific and consistent with the current State Land Use Urban District and current County zoning.
There is adequate infill potential within these current designations to accommodate reasonable
anticipated growth for the Oʻōkala community, especially considering that Oʻōkala currently has no
commercial/basic services such as a grocery store and is not in close proximity to employment
centers.
In summary, the proposed changes for Oʻōkala result in a condensed and parcel-specific LDU area
that is more consistent with State Land Use designations, and they remove obsolete Urban
Expansion and Industrial designations on coastal parcels. See the rationale for policies: Policy 2,
Policy 4 and Policy 5, and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j). For more information on this,
see pages 218-220 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 20: Paʻauilo 2015 Proposed LUPAG
Rationale: Paʻauilo is a small plantation village straddling Highway 19 surrounded by ranchland and
other agriculture. There is some legacy Industrial land makai of town nearer the coast and there are
two separate former plantation camp communities south of Paʻauilo along the Highway 19 with
urban zoning.
The proposed change in Paʻauilo to the LUPAG Industrial designation is to LUPAG Agricultural to be
consistent with its underlying State Land Use District (Agricultural) and its current County Zoning
(which is A-40). The proposed change to the LUPAG LDU is to generally follow the State Land Use
District Urban District on the makai side of town (with the exception of including two smaller parcels
into LDU along the north side of Paʻauilo Makai road). For the mauka side of town, the proposed
change is to generally retain the current LUPAG LDU line while making it more parcel-specific. There
is adequate infill potential within Paʻauilo to accommodate for reasonable growth without further
encroaching onto productive agricultural lands.
The proposed change to the LUPAG MDU area in Paʻauilo is to consolidate it to a smaller area
mauka of Highway 19 (currently it straddles the highway) because this MDU area is larger than the
population of Paʻauilo can sustain, and also, communities that allow higher densities of residential
and commercial to straddle a Highway inevitably deal with traffic and safety concerns from
pedestrians and vehicles crossings. See Policy 3 for more on the MDU designation changes.
For the two communities of Ka’ohe and Kūkaʻiau, the proposed LUPAG changes involve making the
urban growth line more parcel-specific and shrinking it to be consistent with the State Land Use
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
38
Community Review Draft 2016
Urban District. While Kūkaʻiau does contain some commercial zoning, both of these communities
are seen as bedroom communities, and population growth projections do not warrant expanding
their growth boundaries beyond the existing State Land Use Urban District and onto agricultural
lands.
In summary, the proposed changes for Paʻauilo result in a condensed and more parcel-specific LDU
area that is more consistent with State Land Use designations, they remove obsolete Industrial
designations, and they condense the MDU to a more compact area mauka of Highway 19. See the
rationale for policies: Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the existing General Plan Policy
14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information on this, see pages 221-226 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 22: Honokaʻa/Haina 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: Honokaʻa located primarily makai of Highway 19 and is the Planning Area’s largest town.
It has a strong plantation and paniolo heritage and vibrant commercial core, and serves as the
gateway to Waipiʻo Valley. Haina is a small plantation era town located closer to the coast, and it
contains Industrial zoning flanked by compact neighborhoods. Pā’auhau is another small plantation
era camp community south of Honokaʻa and it contains no commercial core or commercial zoning.
The proposed LUPAG changes in Haina involve shifting the LUPAG Industrial designation to be more
consistent with current County zoning and current land use (currently the LUPAG Industrial zoning in
Haina is split between 3 areas separated by residential neighborhoods – this is assumed to be a
mapping discrepancy or relate to an obsolete land use proposal). The proposed LUPAG Industrial
changes shift the industrial areas to the parcels zoned industrial and then beyond those parcels to
the east to encompass the parcel with the power generation plant. The LUPAG MDU for Haina is
also changed to LUPAG LDU since the higher density/uses that MDU allows is seen as unnecessary in
this small village (see Policy 3). The proposed LUPAG LDU is parcel-specific in the mauka section of
Haina while maintaining a distinct town ‘edge’ between Haina and Honokaʻa by retaining an area of
rural/agricultural lands between the two towns; the proposed LUPAG LDU is a split designation in
some parcels (split between LUPAG LDU and LUPAG Agriculture) in the makai part of Haina to be
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
39
Community Review Draft 2016
consistent with the existing split designations of the SLU Urban district and due to the fact that
these are large agricultural parcels.
The proposed LUPAG changes in Pāʻauhau involve changing the existing LUPAG Rural to LUPAG
Agricultural to be consistent with its underlying Agricultural State Land Use District and County
zoning (Agriculture-40). The justification is that the designation of LUPAG Rural does not provide
Pā’auhau any advantages because it is a fairly built-out, compact, camp-style subdivision with no
commercial core. Since the Community’s Objective #5 states: “direct new development in existing,
walkable, mixed-use town centers while limiting rural sprawl,” and because Pāʻauhau lacks the basic
services of a mixed-use town center but is built-out with little, it is not a good candidate for keeping
LUPAG Rural or designating it LUPAG LDU. The proposed change also removes the LUPAG Industrial
designation to be consistent with its underlying State Land Use District of Agriculture, and to be
consistent with its current land uses. Note: there is no corresponding County Industrial zoning for
any parcels in Pāʻauhau and the former industrial area in this community has been redeveloped for
residential/agricultural uses.
The proposed LUPAG changes for Honokaʻa generally shrink the LDU to be closer to the State Land
Use Urban District. The proposed changes are more parcel-specific on the mauka side, whenever
possible, in order to add clarity and avoid split designations in large agricultural parcels. The
proposed changes also add the LUPAG Rural designation in smaller agricultural parcels makai of
Honokaʻa’s neighborhoods near Lehua Street (thereby keeping a buffer of rural and agricultural land
between Honokaʻa and Haina), to a few parcels bordering Honokaʻa town along Honokaʻa-Waipiʻo
Road, and to the small agricultural lots adjacent to the mauka sections of Loke Street, Pikake Street,
and Kaʻao Road. This area mauka of Honokaʻa is already divided into smaller agricultural lots and
some are already rurally zoned (Residential Agriculture designated as RA-2a); therefore, it is seen as
an appropriate area to designate as LUPAG Rural to reflect the current land uses and to encourage
small farm development close to other services.
In summary, the proposed changes Honokaʻa and Haina result in a condensed and more parcel-
specific LDU area that is more consistent with State Land Use designations, they lead to a condensed
Industrial area, they remove unnecessary MDU designations in Haina, and they add Rural
designations at the edges of some parts of Honokaʻa where the agricultural lots were already small
and rural in nature. See the rationale for policies: Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the
existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
40
Community Review Draft 2016
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information on this, see pages 227-232 of Appendix V4B.
Figure 24: Kukuihaele 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
Rationale: The small plantation village of Kukuihaele is the closest community to Waipiʻo Valley. It is
comprised of a few commercially zoned historic buildings and is surrounded by open pasturelands.
Kukuihaele is the only place in the Planning Area with County Resort-Hotel zoning.
The proposed LUPAG changes in Kukuihaele involve moving the LUPAG LDU line on the makai side
to be more parcel-specific and consistent with State Land Use District lines. The LUPAG LDU line is
expanded along Honokaʻa-Waipiʻo Road in a more consistent pattern to allow for infill growth
(currently the State Land Use Urban District is interrupted by a parcel designated as part of the
Agricultural District) and to avoid the existing split designations of the current LUPAG map.
In summary, the proposed changes for Kukuihaele result in a condensed and more parcel-specific
LDU area that is more consistent with State Land Use designations, and they guide development
away from the coast and in a more compact pattern. See the rationale for policies: Policy 2, Policy 3,
Policy 4 and Policy 5 and the existing General Plan Policy 14.1.3 (j).
Note: LUPAG designations reflect the County’s preferred land use for specific areas, but LUPAG
designations do not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning. A property
owner may need to go through a SLU Boundary Amendment and/or County Rezoning process to
ultimately obtain a land use consistent with the LUPAG designation. However, due to water system
constraints in many Planning Area communities, County water system improvements may be
required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules (see Zoning Code, §25-2-46 (m)). In other
words, a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use, it merely conveys that
the County Planning Department would likely support this change of land use through a SLU
amendment or Change of Zone if all other requirements have been met.
For more information on this, see pages 233-236 of Appendix V4B.
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
41
Community Review Draft 2016
This page was left intentionally blank.
Page 42
Figure 1: Wainaku/Kaiwiki 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
43
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 2: Wainaku/Kaiwiki 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
44
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 3: Paukaʻa 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
45
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 4: Paukaʻa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
46
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 5: Pāpaʻikou 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
47
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 6: Pāpaʻikou 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
48
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 7: Pepeʻekeo 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
49
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 8: Pepeʻekeo 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
50
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 9: Honomū 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
51
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 10: Honomū 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
52
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 11: Hakalau/Wailea 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
53
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 12: Hakalau/Wailea 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
54
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 13: Nīnole 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
55
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 14: Nīnole 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
56
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 15: Laupāhoehoe/Pāpaʻaloa 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
57
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 16: Laupāhoehoe/Pāpaʻaloa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
58
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 17: Oʻōkala 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
59
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 18: Oʻōkala 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
60
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 19: Paʻauilo 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
61
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 20: Paʻauilo 2015 Proposed LUPAG
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
62
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 21: Honokaʻa 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
63
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 22: Honokaʻa/Haina 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
64
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 23: Kukuihaele 2005 LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
65
Community Review Draft 2016
Figure 24: Kukuihaele 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
66
Community Review Draft 2016
HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RATIONALE | Section 3: Policy Rationale –
Preferred Settlement Patterns & Land Use
67
Community Review Draft 2016
SECTION 4: PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES
4.1 Expand the Local System of Preserves
This section of the CDP guides the expansion of lands held in public trust, supports landowners establishing conservation
and agricultural easements and using agricultural and forestry land preservation programs, and encourages Natural Area
Reserves to pursue acquisition priorities.
4.1.2 County Action
Policy 16
Identify and secure in public trust (fee simple or by easement) priority lands that achieve one or more of
Hāmākua’s Objectives.
Seek to use conservation easement or acquisition opportunities through funding sources such as
PONC, etc., once critical habitat areas are identified as priorities to protect.
Seek to protect with easements or acquire suitable important coastal lands that would protect
viewsheds, provide the public with access to scenic viewing areas, or otherwise promote appropriate
coastal recreation and subsistence.
Support the efforts of landowners in establishing conservation and agricultural easements to preserve
important resources in perpetuity.
Rationale: Certain resources are valuable and vulnerable enough to secure in public trust (fee simple or by
easement), and a wide range of resources are available for easements and acquisition (see Appendix V4A). Nearly all
of Hāmākua’s sensitive mauka lands are protected as public lands, but few portions of Hāmākua’s shoreline are
protected by County, State, or Federal government ownership, and other areas remain vulnerable. Vulnerable
features to
consider are stream/watershed corridors, unique geological features, heritage resources, ecological resources,
mauka or makai access, trail corridors, park space, buffers, open space and viewscapes, and agricultural lands which
are prone to runoff or are threatened by nonagricultural development could be converted to affordable agriculture
parks. This strategy is considered a core, overarching strategy because it applies across various focus areas of the
CDP. This policy makes it explicit that priority lands that achieve one more of Hāmākua’s Community Objectives are
to be identified and secured through some type of acquisition or easement.
Resources for establishing reserves are limited, and Hāmākua must compete with other communities locally,
statewide, nationally, and globally, so it is important to establish priorities. Relative priorities should be established
using criteria similar to those used by the PONC:
Benefit to the general public
Level of community support
68 | Page
Identified management/maintenance partners
Urgency
Land or property entitlements are available for acquisition
Special opportunity for acquisition exists (e.g., special funding is available, landowner willing, etc.)
Resources can be leveraged through partnerships with other government, private, or nonprofit entities.
This policy makes it explicit that in order to further the preservation of important resources, the County should
support and/or partner with landowners in establishing conservation and agricultural easements in perpetuity.
Refer to the rationale for Policy 49 and Policy 50 for a list of specific accesses identified as high community priorities
in the Hāmākua Planning Area. Mill Road
Policy 17
Support the proposed Hakalau NWR Expansion Project.
Rationale: Hakalau Forest NWR contains some of the finest remaining stands of native montane rain forest in
Hawai‘i. It consists of 32,733-acres and supports a diversity of native birds and plants. Eight of the 14 native bird
species occurring at Hakalau are endangered. The Service is proposing to protect additional habitat for endangered
forest birds, water birds, plants, and other native species and special habitats by expanding the Refuge acquisition
boundary by up to 29,973 acres of land to the Hakalau Forest Unit and Kona Forest Unit. This policy supports that
expansion which would further conservation and protection of native habitats. See the Environmental Assessment
here:
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_1/Big_Island_Complex/Hakalau_Forest/PDFs/Hakalau%
20Forest%20NWR%20FInal%20LPP-EA.pdf
4.1.3 Kōkua Action
U.S. Congress
Kōkua Action 1:
Appropriate sufficient funding to Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to complete expansion of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 17.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kōkua Action 2:
Continue to pursue acquisition or cooperative managementof the six parcels identified in the Hakalau Forest
National Wildlife Refuge Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment.
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 17.
69 | Page
4.2 Protect Coastal Resources
This section of the CDP protects coastal resources with the CDP Land Use Policy Map, shoreline setbacks, the Special
Management Area, and encourages the State to strengthen protections and the community to engage in coastal land
use decisions.
4.2.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 18
Development in the SMA, including subdivision, shall only be approved if it is first found that it will not have any
substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect (HRS 205A-22(3) & 205A-26(2)(A))
Pursuant to Planning Commission (PC) Rule 9-10(b)(5) & (11), and in order for the Planning Director to accurately
evaluate whether the proposed action will have a substantial adverse effect, pursuant to PC Rule 9-4(e)(4), the
Director shall require that SMA Use Permit Assessment and Use Permit applications include all of the information
necessary to assess the proposed activity’s impacts in the Special Management Area, including but not limited to:
A description of the environmental setting and natural resources in the area, including an assessment of
impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species or their habitat and on fresh and coastal water quality (PC
Rule 9-10(b)(5)(A) & (6) and 9-10(h)(7), (8), & (9));
A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area, including the extent to which traditional
and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area (PC Rule 9-10(b)(6) & (h)(1));
An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view planes, including those outlined
in the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, and other adopted plans, as well as the line of sight
toward the sea from the state highway nearest the coast and along the shoreline (HRS 205A-2(b)(3) (A), HRS
205A-2(c)(3)(B), HRS 205A-26(3)(E), and PC Rule 9-10(h)(1));
Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the shoreline to the specifications
required by Na Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (PC Rule 9-10(b)(10));
An assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal erosion and/or sea level rise
over the life of the development (PC Rule 9-10(h)(9));
A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and control of the affected
area, including the General Plan and Community Development Plan (PC Rule 9-10(b)(5)(B)).
Identify specific measures to mitigate risks associated with coastal hazards, protect sensitive coastal and
cultural resources, and ensure public access (HRS 205-A).
Any development permitted, including those determined to be exempt from the definition of development in
Planning Commission Rule 9 (pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9-10(e) & (g)), shall be subject to terms and
conditions to achieve CZM and CDP objectives and policies, including conditions that protect natural, cultural,
historic, and recreational resources; preserve agricultural land, open space, and view planes; ensure access;
mitigate impacts of coastal hazards; limit coastal development; and concentrate new development (particularly if it
is not coastal dependent) on vacant land in town/village centers (before converting agricultural land to residential
uses), and discouraging speculative residential development. Conditions could include but not be limited to
70 | Page
setbacks, restrictions on artificial light, lateral and mauka-makai access requirements, dedication of conservation
and trail corridor easements, cooperation with efforts to manage access and use of coastal resources, minimizing
the number of lots abutting or near the shoreline, and maximizing the use of land in the State Land Use Urban
district and/or urban LUPAG categories.
Rationale: This policy makes explicit the steps mandated in HRS 205A and Planning Commission Rule 9 that are
necessary to ensure that coastal resources in Hāmākua are appropriately protected. The goal is to implement a
number of CDP objectives and policies related to protecting the shoreline and cultural assets, limiting development
at the shoreline, assuring access, preserving open space and viewscapes, preserving agricultural land, concentrating
new development (particularly if it is not coastal dependent) on vacant land in town/village centers (before
converting agricultural land to residential uses), and discouraging speculative residential development. The Special
Management Area (SMA) permit is a management tool to assure that developments in the SMA are designed and
carried out in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) objectives, CZM policies, and SMA guidelines.
Generally, because the CZM objectives and policies are so comprehensive, the SMA is the most resource-protective
land use policy overlay. CZM policies address recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space
resources, coastal ecosystems, coastal hazards, management of development, beach protection, and marine
resources. Therefore, SMA review is one of the few opportunities to holistically consider coastal resources and their
interrelationships. Moreover, because CZM review requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of proposed
development in the SMA, SMA review is thorough, and SMA permits include conditions to protect coastal resources
and mitigate impacts.
Furthermore, the SMA permitting system regulates development within SMAs extending from the shoreline inland,
as designated on maps filed with the County Planning Commission. Because Hāmākua’s coastal resources are so
unique and so vulnerable to hazards (of particular concern is bluff stability), most uses or activities in the Special
Management Area could have a cumulative impact or a significant adverse environmental or ecological effect on
the SMA, as defined in Planning Commission Rule 9-10(h). However, the application forms currently used by the
Planning Department do not explicitly request information about the full range of potential impacts of
development. Therefore, this policy requires that all information necessary to assess impacts is provided by SMA
applicants. The bulleted points in the policy are those potential impacts that are not otherwise explicitly addressed
in the Planning Department’s SMA application forms. This policy also requires that development in the SMA be
subject to terms and conditions that achieve CZM and CDP objectives.
4.2.4 County Action
Policy 19
Amend Planning Department Rule 11 to establish shoreline setbacks for the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area at the
earliest stages of the land use planning and development process. The minimum shoreline setback from the top
of cliff shall be either:
a) No less than the height of the slope (cliff, or pali) (1:1 horizontal to vertical). In cases where the height of
the slope is less than 40 feet, a minimum 40-foot setback shall apply; or,
b) A minimum of 40 feet, plus a safety buffer determined by a coastal erosion study conducted by a licensed
engineer, including a cliff stability analysis and/or a geological analysis.
71 | Page
This shall only apply to properties that are located within the SMA, and abutting or within five hundred feet of the
shoreline. For lots created (final subdivision approval or a legal lot of record as determined by the Planning
Department) prior to the date of adoption of the Hāmākua CDP with an average lot depth of two hundred feet or
less, the shoreline setback line shall be 40 feet.
See also Policy 22 related to determining ‘top of slope’ and also Policy 23 and Kōkua Action #3.
Rationale: Shoreline setbacks have been established in Hawai‘i County during the land use permitting process and
historically have not been science-based. These standards have not consistently protected the shoreline or
structures and, in some cases, have led to the hardening of the shoreline with structures, such as seawalls.
Hardening of the shoreline can cause a loss of beach systems and loss of coastal access for the public.
Pursuant to HRS section 205A-43(a), the shoreline setback is not less than 20 feet and not more than 40 feet inland
from the shoreline, but the counties are given the option of establishing setbacks at distances greater than 40 feet
(HRS section 205A-45). Planning Department Rule 11-5 establishes the minimum shoreline setback at 40 feet for
most lots abutting the shoreline, but the County has no protocol for establishing shoreline setbacks. The 2011 report
“Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use in Hawai‘i: A Policy Tool Kit for State and Local Governments” from UH Sea
Grant’s Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy (ICAP) recommended, among other things, to plan for
hazards as early as possible in the development process, to use data and information to assess natural hazards, and
to site buildings early in the development process (i.e., in the community planning, zoning, and early subdivision
stages) when the owner’s investment-backed expectations are low. In July 2012, UH Sea Grant released the
“Adaptive Planning for Sea-level Rise in Maui and Hawai‘i Counties” report. The purpose of the report was to
provide a foundation for improving shoreline planning for coastal hazards, including sea level rise, at the local level.
The recommendations were developed by shoreline planners from the Counties of Maui and Hawai‘i and are
intentionally focused on issues that can be addressed within the context of the existing County regulatory
frameworks. Determining hazard buffers that are based on scientific data such as erosion rates early in the land use
planning process will result in the least economic impact to the landowner while avoiding dangerous hazard risks to
life and property through proper planning.” Specific recommended actions include:
An erosion zone should be determined considering an annual average erosion rate, the life expectancy of a
structure, buffers for storm erosion, safety design, errors and sea level rise.
A multi-hazard analysis is recommended that includes threats from erosion, wave inundation, and flooding,
whatever the cause, either working as a sole factor or in combination with other factors.
Guidance should be provided in the rules, or outside the rules in a policy statement or guidance document, on
how long the hazard assessment with shoreline setback determination is valid.
Examples of related policies and programs include:
A West Maui Community Plan policy: “Protect the shoreline and beaches by preserving waterfront land as open
space wherever possible. This protection should be based on a study and analysis of the rate of shoreline retreat
plus a coastal hazard buffer zone. Where new major waterfront structures or developments are to be approved,
preservation should be for 50-100 years by employing a shoreline setback based on the rate established by the
appropriate study.”
The requirement to do a hazard assessment and determine the setback at the earliest stages of development for
community planning changes, zoning amendments and subdivision approvals is required under the Kaua‘i
Shoreline Setback Rules.
72 | Page
The Planning Department is in the process of considering options for establishing a countywide shoreline setback
policy. Pursuant to HRS section 205A, the goals of the shoreline setback are to:
Restrict development in areas vulnerable to severe damage due to the impact of wave action and to protect
private property from flood hazards and wave damage
Ensure the preservation of sandy beaches and public access to and along the shoreline
Preserve and enhance views of scenic or prominent landscapes and coastal aesthetic values
Protect and effectively manage open space and the shoreline
Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures
Protect and conserve natural resources, including areas necessary for the protection and propagation of
specified endangered native wildlife and the conservation of natural ecosystems of endemic plants, fish
and wildlife.
This policy seeks to provide a conservative approach that has been used in other coastal jurisdictions, until the
scientific research can be done to support a countywide, science-based shoreline setback policy, or until a coastal
erosion study is conducted for the parcel. For example, the City of Port Orchard in Washington State used this
method in areas defined as geologically hazardous areas with slopes greater than 30 percent. According to the Atlas
of Natural Coastal Hazards, the majority of Hāmākua’s coastline consists of slopes greater than 45 percent.
For more information, see Appendix V4A, pages 134-170, 246, 249, 253-254.
Policy 20
Develop objective guidelines for determining and defining the “top of cliff” (HRS 205A-1, and HAR Section 13-222-
2, Planning Department Rule 11.)
Add references to “top of cliff” to Criteria for Shoreline Setback Variances in Planning Commission Rule 8.
The County of Hawaiʻi ’s current working definition of “top of cliff” is as follows: The “top of the pali” (top edge of
the sea cliff) is defined to be the highest elevation along the seaward boundary of a property where the relative
change in the slope of the terrain towards the sea is in excess of twice the general slope towards the sea of the
terrain along this highest elevation and that the terrain: (1) has a general slope seaward of not more than 10%; (2) is
reasonably safe for pedestrian access to and along its length; and (3) does not show evidence of being periodically
exposed to natural elements, including but not limited to, high surf, wind and rain, to the extent that the ground is
essentially devoid of naturally occurring vegetation.
Rationale: HRS section 205A-1 and HAR section 13-222-2 define the shoreline as “the upper reaches of the wash of
the waves, other than storm or seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash
of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by wash of
the waves.” However, this definition is not appropriate given the Hāmākua Planning Area’s unique shoreline mostly
comprised of high, rocky cliffs. During its review of SMA applications in the Planning Area, the Planning Department
has more often than not waived the need for a shoreline survey, in lieu of using the top of the cliff as the basis for
determining the shoreline setback line. However, the shoreline setback policy, administered through Planning
Department (PD) Rule 11, does not contain a definition for the “top of cliff”, and states in part, that all lots which
abut the shoreline shall have a minimum shoreline setback line of forty feet. In addition, the definition of “shoreline
setback line” provided in PD Rule 11, means that line established by the Planning Department running inland from
73 | Page
and parallel to the certified shoreline at a horizontal plane, again without any reference to a top of cliff. Because,
the “top of cliff” is not defined, it is open to interpretation, which can lead to disputes and challenges about the
Department’s use of the term. This policy seeks to formalize the Department practice by using objective guidelines
for determining the “top of cliff”.
The addition of “top of cliff” references in the shoreline setback variance criteria of Planning Commission Rule 8 is
needed because the current criteria is focused on sandy or rocky shorelines, but not sea cliffs or coastal bluffs.
Without the inclusion of criteria for cliff shorelines, there can be unnecessary ambiguity in determining, and
requiring mitigating conditions for shoreline setback variances in the Hāmākua Planning Area.
See also corresponding Kōkua Action #3.
Policy 21
Amend Planning Commission Rule 9 to require as a condition of a Special Management Area permit the
connection to a municipal wastewater system or the development of individual septic (or community
wastewater) systems for new subdivisions that qualify as “development” as currently defined in Rule 9.
Cesspools shall not be allowed for developments requiring SMA Minor or Major permits.
Rationale: A subdivision qualifies as development under Planning Commission Rule 9-4, when it is a division of a
parcel of land that “change[s] the density or intensity of use of land, including but limited to the division or
subdivision of land” (Rule 9, A-iii). Exceptions to subdivisions being considered development in the SMA are when
the subdivision will result in: “four or fewer parcels” (Rule 9, B-xiii), or “subdivisions of land into parcels greater than
twenty acres in size” (Rule 9, B-xi).
Connections to municipal wastewater systems or development of individual or community wastewater systems will
be required for subdivisions that qualify as development. The intent of this policy is to ensure that the shoreline is
protected from untreated wastewater from developments. Currently, the majority of the Planning Area that is
outside municipal sewer system service is allowed to install cesspool waste systems according to the Department of
Health’s critical wastewater disposal areas (CWDA) maps. This could be problematic in the SMA, where near-shore
development could increase the risk of infiltration of human waste products into coastal waters.
This policy is intended to further the intent of General Plan 11.6.3 (c): (b) Sewerage systems shall be designed for a
particular area, depending on topography, geology, density of population, costs, and other considerations of the
specific area; and 11.6.3 (i): All wastewater disposal systems shall conform to the applicable provisions of Chapter
11-62, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules for the Department of Health to ensure proper treatment and disposal of
wastewater and to prevent further contamination of waterways, underground water sources, and the coastal
waters. For more information on wastewater systems, see the General Plan section 11.6, and pages 126-128 of
Appendix V4C.
Policy 22
Seek funding and support continued scientific research relating to coastal hazards (e.g. research on erosion rates,
slumping rates, slope stability studies, sea-level rise rates, tsunami inundation mapping and coastal stream flood
mapping, etc.).
See related 4.2.5 Kōkua Action.
74 | Page
Rationale: The Hāmākua coast has a history of coastal hazards, including: local and distant tsunamis, coastal bluff
erosion, and cataclysmic slope failures. Additionally, climate change studies on the projected effects of extreme
weather events and sea level rise on coastal processes often focus on sandy/rocky shorelines, not on coastal bluffs.
Consequently, there is a limited knowledge base as to how these dynamic processes impact coastal bluffs. In order
to better understand the potential impacts of these dynamic processes and plan for the future, this policy seeks
county funding and support for continued scientific research. For more information, see Appendix V4A pages 134-
170.
Policy 23
To further protect coastal resources in the Special Management Area, review SMA boundaries in the Hāmākua
Planning Area and initiate appropriate amendments
Consider proximity to coastline and assess vulnerabilities to coastal changes;
Consider including within the SMA boundaries appropriate near-shore riparian corridors;
Consider SMA boundary amendments to further protect known recreational, historic, open space, ecosystem,
beach, near-shore riparian, and/or marine resources as well as scenic views toward the coastline from the highway.
Rationale: The SMA is the most resource-protective land use policy overlay. SMA/CZM Objectives require review of
scenic and open space resources and a cumulative impact analysis of projects within the SMA boundary. The Special
Management Area (SMA) permit is a management tool to assure that developments in the SMA are designed and
carried out in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) objectives, policies, and SMA guidelines. The
SMA permitting system regulates development within SMAs extending from the shoreline inland, as designated on
maps filed with the County Planning Commission. Within the Planning Area, the SMA boundary is generally defined
by the Hawai’i Belt Road up to Kaʻawali Gulch. North of Kaʻawali Gulch, the SMA is makai of the Hawai’i Belt Road
extending as a band averaging approximately 500-700 feet wide from the shoreline until Waipiʻo Valley. In Waipiʻo
Valley, the SMA extends inland encompassing most of the valley floor. Generally, because the CZM objectives and
policies are so comprehensive, the SMA is the most resource-protective land use policy overlay. CZM policies
address recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, coastal
hazards, management of development, beach protection, and marine resources. Therefore, SMA review is one of
the few opportunities to holistically consider coastal resources and their interrelationships. Moreover, because CZM
review requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of proposed development in the SMA, SMA review is
thorough, and SMA permits include conditions to protect coastal resources and mitigate impacts. This policy states
that SMA boundary amendments may merit consideration in some locations to protect known recreational, historic,
open space, ecosystem, beach, and/or marine resources as well as scenic views toward the coastline from the
highway. For more information on the SMA, see Appendix V4A, pages 139-140.
4.2.5 Kōkua Action
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kōkua Action 3:
Amend Hawaiʻi Administrative Rule (HAR), Section 13-322-2 to include “top of cliff” in the definition of shoreline.
Rationale: see the rationale for Policy 20.
75 | Page
Kōkua Action 4:
Amend HAR 13-5-40(b) to require that public hearings before the State Land Use Commission either be held in the
judicial district in which the land is located, or be live web streamed with the ability for testimony to be taken live
from the streamed location.
Rationale: State land use district boundary amendments involving lands in the conservation district, land areas
greater than fifteen acres, or lands delineated as important agricultural lands are processed by the Land Use
Commission, but following HAR section 13-5-40(b), public hearings do not have to be held in the judicial district in
which the land is located. This Kōkua action is intended to increase transparency in the land use amendment process
and facilitate greater engagement and participation with affected landowners in the Hāmākua Planning Area. This
Kōkua action is in part, based on recommendations from the State Land Use System Review Draft report of May
2015 (State of Hawaiʻi Office of Planning), and the South Kona-Ka‘ū Coastal Conservation Task Force.
Various Agencies: DLNR, NOAA, UH Sea Grant
Kōkua Action 5:
Prioritize research projects to better understand:
Bluff Conditions
Shoreline Movement (including the effects of climate change on shoreline movement)
Site-specific estimates of sea level rise impacts
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 22.
4.2.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
4.3 Protect Agricultural Lands & Open Space
See also Section 6.2 Strengthening Local Agriculture for policies supporting agriculture from an economic perspective.
This section of the CDP protects agricultural land and open space from non-agricultural development with the CDP Land
Use Policy Map, stronger farm dwelling regulations, minimum lot sizes, tax incentive programs, development of transfer
of development rights (TDR), land bank programs, and State Important Agricultural Land designations.
4.3.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 24
To preserve the agricultural character of Hāmākua and to reinforce existing protections, the official Hāmākua CDP
Land Use Policy Map designates agricultural lands in the Hāmākua Planning Area to be preserved for agriculture
and open space. Development and construction in agriculturally designated areas shall be limited to agriculture,
or via the Special Permit or Use Permit process (which allows for agriculturally related economic infrastructure,
cottage industries, renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community facilities) unless otherwise
permitted by law.
76 | Page
For more information on permitted uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone see HRS sections
205-2 and 205-4.5, and HCC section 25-2-60 for information on use permits in the Agricultural Zone.
Current Permitted Uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone
Agricultural and animal production
Renewable energy, including crops for bioenergy, biofuel production, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal
Uses and services accessory to agricultural production and bio, solar, and wind renewable energy production:
employee housing, processing, storage
Agricultural-based commercial operations
Agricultural education and tourism
Open area recreational facilities, including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding stables
Wireless communication antennas
Dwellings: single-family, farm dwelling.
It is important to note that:
“Agricultural-based commercial operations” is defined broadly as long as the operations promote the use of
products grown in the State of Hawai‘i.
Industrial renewable energy facilities are also permitted and currently only require plan approval and building
permits.
Rationale: This policy is an affirmation of the following existing policies:
Article XI, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i: requires that the State conserve and protect
agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the
availability of agriculturally suitable lands;
General Plan Goal 14.2.2 (a): Identify, protect and maintain important agriculture lands on the island of
Hawaiʻi;
General Plan Policy 14.2.2 (b): Preserve the agricultural character of the island”
General Plan Policy 14.2.3 (d): “Agricultural land may be used as one form of open space or as green belt.”
It is also a high community priority as identified in the Community Objective #2: “Protect and restore viable
agricultural lands and resources. Protect and enhance viewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural
character.”
Agricultural land in Hāmākua is in the State Land Use (SLU) Agricultural District. Pursuant to HRS section 205-5(b),
the minimum lot size in the Agricultural District is one acre. Pursuant to HRS sections 205-2 and 205-4.5, the
bulleted summary of uses are listed in the policy as permitted in the SLU Agricultural District.
The vast majority of land in Hāmākua is zoned Agricultural, primarily with minimum lots sizes of 20 acres. The
minimum lot area for the County Agricultural district is five acres; however the Hāmākua Planning Area contains
many areas of nonconforming agricultural subdivisions that have smaller lots than five acres (including pre-
statehood designated homestead areas). These smaller agricultural lots either pre-date the five-acre minimum rule
or were created through some other mechanism, such as consolidated subdivisions involving previous lots of record.
(See Appendix V4B, pages 237-247 for a discussion of the homestead areas in the Hāmākua.)
Pursuant to HCC section 25-5-72, the uses are permitted in the agricultural zone are detailed in Table 2: Permitted
Uses in State Agricultural District and County Agricultural Zone. The land use pattern in the 2005 General Plan is a
77 | Page
broad, flexible design intended to guide the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and
rational manner. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map indicates the location of various
land uses in relation to each other. Any changes in zone have to be consistent with the General Plan, and agricultural
lands in Hāmākua have two LUPAG designations:
Important Agricultural Land: County LUPAG designated Important Agricultural Lands (not to be confused with
State IAL) are those with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate,
topography, or other factors. The vast majority of agricultural lands in the Hāmākua Planning Area are
designated as Important Agricultural Land in the LUPAG; however, because of the scale of the LUPAG maps
originally used to designate Important Agricultural Land, the location of these lands should be verified by more
detailed mapping when considering specific land use decisions.
Extensive Agriculture: This designation includes lands that are not capable of producing sustained, high
agricultural yields without the intensive application of modern farming methods and technologies due to certain
physical constraints such as soil composition, slope, machine tillability, and climate. Other less intensive
agricultural uses such as grazing and pasture may be included in the Extensive Agriculture category.
For more information, see pages 93-131 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 25
When considering applications to consolidate and resubdivide pre-existing lots of record, the Director of Planning
shall endeavor to keep the lot sizes consistent with the minimum lot size, and only permit lots less than one acre
in the State Land Use Agriculture District and the County of Hawaiʻi Agricultural District if the applicant clearly
demonstrates that an unreasonable economic hardship cannot otherwise be prevented or land utilization is
improved relative to the objectives and policies of the CDP. (HRS 205-5(b); (GP 14.2.3(s))
Rationale: This policy is supported by General Plan Policy 14.2.4 (s): Important agricultural lands shall not be
rezoned to parcels too small to support economically viable farming units, and 14.2.4 (t): Discourage speculative
residential development on agricultural lands. It is in support of Community Objectives 2 and 5.
The policy is intended to preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands and to concentrate new residential
development in town/village centers. The minimum lot size in the State Land Use Agricultural District is one acre and
the County agricultural zone has a minimum lot size of five acres; however, landowners with pre-existing lots of
record (PLORs) may reconfigure the lots to suit their plans for the property without having to conform to the
Subdivision Code, subject to improvements required by the Planning Director. Moreover, pre-existing lots of record
are sometimes smaller than the minimum zoning designation would otherwise allow, and property owners often
seek to retain those small lot sizes when reconfiguring property that contains pre-existing lots. In these situations, if
the County finds that unreasonable economic hardship to the owner or lessee of land cannot otherwise be
prevented or where land utilization is improved, the County may allow lot sizes of less than one acre. Typically,
smaller lots are used for residential purposes, so they should only be permitted in agricultural areas when
appropriate.
Policy 26
The Planning Commission shall include in any Special Permit approval (or recommendation for approval to the
State Land Use Commission) appropriate performance conditions to achieve CDP objectives and implement CDP
policies. (HRS 205-6(c) & Planning Commission Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8).
78 | Page
Pursuant Planning Commission Rule 6-7 and 6-3(a)(5)(G), the County Planning Commission considers applications for
special permits for uses that are unusual and reasonable use of land, would promote the effectiveness and
objectives of state land use law, and meet the following criteria:
The desired use shall not adversely affect surrounding properties;
Such use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage,
school improvements, and police and fire protection;
Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were
established;
The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district;
The proposed use will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use;
and,
The request will not be contrary to the General Plan and official Community Development Plan and other
documents such as Design Plans.
Rationale: Rather than amend State Land Use (SLU) district boundaries and/or rezone, landowners in the SLU
agricultural district often apply for a specia l p e r m i t , a s p e r m i t t e d b y H R S Section 205-6. The State Land Use
Commission, or for parcels 15 acres in size or smaller - the County Planning Commissions, may permit certain
unusual and reasonable uses within the agricultural district other than those for which the district is classified.
However, a careful initial review of these projects is necessary to ensure natural resources and residents are
protected from potential negative impacts, and that any appropriate mitigating conditions are stipulated. Some
types of issues that have occurred with special permits are traffic and road improvements, adequate parking,
signage, noise, and visual impacts.
The special permit process is an important tool because these permits are conditional, they can be revoked for
noncompliance of conditions, and they are reviewed on a project-specific basis (whereas a rezone is permanent,
cannot be revoked, and often contain a spectrum of legal entitlements for its zoning category). This makes special
permits a flexible, yet targeted land use tool requiring thoughtful implementation that when used successfully, can
allow for a diversity of uses compatible with agriculture and the rural character of the area. For more information on
permitted uses on Agricultural lands and Special Permits, see Appendix V4A, pages 108, 112-117, and 246. This
policy relates to Community Objectives 2, 8, 9, and 11.
Policy 27
Educate landowners interested in subdividing agricultural lands on the option to subdivide as a farm subdivision
pursuant to Hawaiʻi County Code section 23-112.
Rationale: Agricultural lands may be subdivided as “farm subdivisions” and leased for agricultural uses provided that
no permanent or temporary dwellings or farm dwellings are constructed on the leased area. Lots created and
leased pursuant to this section are legal lots of record for mortgage lending purposes and are exempt from county
subdivision standards, including water and roads, provided that a roadway maintenance agreement is executed for
all roadways within the farm subdivision and adequate access from a government road is provided that meets the
requirements of the Department of Public Works. This policy is intended to promote a viable alternative to
conventional subdivision. Farm subdivisions are a cost-effective way to provide small acreage agricultural lots
79 | Page
without the risk of quasi-rural subdivision sprawl and loss of open space. This policy is in support of Community
Objectives 2 and 5. For more information, see pages 117 and 118 of Appendix V4A.
4.3.4 County Action
Policy 28
Amend the Zoning Code Section 25-2-71 to require Plan Approval for commercial open area recreational uses in
the “Important Agriculture Land” and “Extensive Agriculture” designations.
Rationale: Plan approval allows closer inspection of certain types of development in certain zones in order to ensure
conformance with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and conditions of previous approvals related to the
development. For example, plan approval is required for telecommunication antennas and towers, all development
outside Single-family Residential or Agricultural districts, and in the Agricultural district prior to the development of
any trailer park, major agricultural products processing facility, or agricultural tourism activity. Plan approval may be
required as a condition of approval of any use permit, variance, or other action relating to a specific use. Plan
approval is considered an important regulatory requirement for open area recreational uses on agricultural lands to
help mitigate impacts such as traffic and parking.
Policy 29
Recommend lands to be designated State Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) to the State Land Use Commission.
Rationale: Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi requires the State to conserve and protect
agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the availability of
agriculturally suitable lands. Important Agricultural Land (IAL) is a State Land Use designation designed to delineate
blocks of productive agricultural land and areas of agricultural activity for protection from the encroachment of
nonagricultural uses. HRS establishes specific standards and criteria for identifying IAL lands and requires that the
County of Hawai‘i develop recommendations of lands to be designated within 60 months of receiving funds from the
State for this purpose. This policy is intended to affirm several General Plan policies related to important agricultural
lands and to expedite the identification of IAL in Hawai‘i County.
The criteria for the designation of State Important Agricultural Lands is that they are capable of sustaining high
yields for export or local consumption, and are viewed as vital for future self-sufficiency, even if currently not in
production. Lands designated IAL benefit from several incentives including: farm dwellings, refundable qualified
agricultural cost tax credit, loan guaranty, State Agricultural Water Use and Development plan, agricultural
processing facilities permitting priority, and land reclassification. This policy is aimed at being proactive in fulfilling
the state mandate for identifying IAL under Article XI, Section 3. See also the corresponding Kōkua Action #6.
This policy is supported by existing General Plan policies 14.2.2 (a): Identify, protect and maintain important
agriculture lands on the island of Hawaiʻi, and 14.2.3 (i): Designate, protect and maintain important agricultural
lands from urban encroachment; and Community Objective 2.
Policy 30
Revise Planning Commission Rule 6, and/or to the Special Permit Application form (for Special Permits in the
Agricultural District) to include clarity on the potential impacts to be evaluated in the application process and to
80 | Page
clearly articulate the types of mitigating conditions that may be required. (HRS 205-6(c) and Planning Commission
Rules 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8).
For examples of conditions, look for applicable conditions used in the Concurrency Requirements from HCC 25-2-46
and Agricultural Tourism, HCC 25-2-75 and 25-4-15.
Rationale: For more on special and use permits, see the rationale for Policy 26. This policy addresses the need to
provide more transparent and consistent parameters for the Planning Department in evaluating applications and to
ensure the evaluation criteria is clear to applicants. Transparency and predictability for these types of evaluations
will aid efficiencies for all concerned and ensure that mitigating conditions are consistently applied.
Policy 31
Amend the County Code and associated Planning Department Rules to establish reporting and inspection
requirements, as well as enforcement for additional farm dwellings to ensure that dwellings are used for farm-
related purposes.
Rationale: Pursuant HCC section 25-5-72, the following uses are permitted in the agricultural district:
One single-family dwelling or one farm dwelling. A farm dwelling is a single-family dwelling that is located on or
used in connection with a farm or if the agricultural activity provides income to the family occupying the
dwelling.
Additional farm dwellings may be permitted only upon the following conditions: (1) A farm dwelling agreement
for each additional farm dwelling, on a form prepared by the director, shall be executed between the owner of
the building site, any lessee having a lease on the building site with a term exceeding one year from the date of
the farm dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement shall require the dwelling to be used for farm-
related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or
other evidence of the applicant’s continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to
the director. Such a plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized for farm-related purposes.
However, the County does not consistently enforce additional farm dwelling agreements. There is no reporting or
inspection process, and it is unclear what the implications should be if agricultural activity on the property ceases.
This policy is intended to preserve agricultural land and concentrate residential development in town/village centers
by strengthening the County’s farm dwelling policies and practices.
Policy 32
Update the County of Hawaiʻi’s property tax reduction programs to ensure that public tax incentives for
agricultural land uses result in public benefits and promote agricultural land use and production.
Rationale: Property tax reduction programs provide a reduction in taxes and reduce operating costs for farm
operations and rural landowners who rent their land to farmers. In Hawai‘i County, owners of agricultural land have
two tax reduction options:
Dedicated: Pursuant HCC section 19-60, landowners may dedicate their land to commercial agricultural use for
10 years and be taxed at a reduced “agricultural use value” rate. The land in dedicated agricultural use must be
used on a continuous and regular basis for agriculture on lands zoned by the County to be in the districts of
agricultural (A), residential and agricultural (RA), family agricultural (FA), intensive agricultural (IA), and
81 | Page
agricultural project district (APD). Farm dwellings are assessed at the highest commercial agriculture use value,
and all portions of land that are not dedicated for commercial agricultural use are assessed based on the
proportional market value of the total property. If there is a breach of the terms of the dedication, the owner
must pay up to 10 years in deferred taxes and a 10% penalty.
Nondedicated: Pursuant HCC section 19-57, lands classified and used for agriculture and that are not dedicated
are assessed at two times the dedicated rate. If the property is rezoned for nonagricultural use and subdivided
into parcels of less than five acres in size, the owner must pay up to 3 years in deferred taxes and a 10% penalty.
According to the Hawai‘i County Food Self-Sufficiency Baseline 2012, as currently implemented, these programs
have no mechanisms requiring landowners to submit periodic evidence that productive agricultural activity is still
occurring. The current systems also assign the lowest assessment rates to landowners who do the least amount of
regular farm work on their property by installing exterior fencing and stock water for pasture use. Landowners who
work to produce commercial food products for the local market are taxed at a higher rate. It might be appropriate to
update these programs so that they incentivize landowners to seek qualified farmers and ranchers to increase local
food production on their property.
Another option would be to consider ways that landowners could report farm revenue annually by providing
evidence of General Excise taxes paid from agricultural activities or to provide receipts of food donations to the
Hawai‘i Island Food Basket or other safety net programs. The intent of this policy is to preserve agricultural land and
concentrate residential development in town/village centers by strengthening the County’s property tax reduction
programs. This policy is in line with Community Objectives 2 and 11. For more information, see pages 124-125 of
Appendix V4A
Policy 33
Conduct a feasibility study for a County-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and/or Save Land for the
Future (SLF) program. If feasible, adopt any necessary enabling County legislation. (HRS Section 514B-136)
Rationale: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Save Land for the Future (SLF) are land transfer tools intended
to guide development to appropriate areas. SLF mitigation ordinances and policies require developers to
permanently protect an equivalent or greater amount of farmland in the event that agricultural land is converted to
other uses. Similarly, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs enable the transfer of development potential
from one parcel of land to another and are typically established by local zoning ordinances. Localities often use
market-driven TDR to shift development from agricultural land (sending areas) to designated growth zones
(receiving areas) located closer to municipal services. Successful TDR programs have been in place throughout the
country since 1980 and have protected tens of thousands of acres of farmland and open space. TDR is most suitable
in places where large blocks of land remain in agricultural use. TDR has been adapted by some communities into
Density Transfer Charge (DTC) or Residential Density Transfer (RDT) programs. Analysis completed for the Kona CDP
suggests that for a TDR program to be successful, sufficient demand for development rights needs to be stimulated,
opportunities to circumvent the market by seeking variances and zoning changes need to be limited, and an efficient
and transparent market structure needs to be established. HRS section 514B-136 is the enabling State legislation for
TDR programs. The County of Hawai‘i must adopt enabling legislation for the option to be available locally. Some
communities defer to nonprofit organizations to manage their TDR programs. The intent of this policy is to preserve
agricultural land and concentrate residential development in town/village centers by assessing the feasibility of a
County-wide TRD and/or SLF program and, if such a program is feasible, to propose enabling County legislation. In
82 | Page
collaboration with other stakeholders, including County agencies, the NRCS, DLNR, DOA, Office of Planning,
landowners, planning consultants, land trusts, and other community groups, the Planning Department should
investigate the feasibility of a County TDR or SLF program and, as appropriate, propose enabling legislation.
Consideration should be given to: the demand for and appropriateness of additional urban density in potential
“receiving areas,” “best practices” from other communities that have adopted and adapted TDR and SLF programs,
program features adapted to local conditions, and the appropriate system for program management and to
facilitate the exchange of development rights, including the possibility of using a nonprofit organization.
This policy directs the County to determine if these types of land transfer tools are appropriate for directing
development and preserving agricultural lands and if so, to move forward with the appropriate legislation to
implement such programs. This policy is related to Community Objectives 1, 2, and 5. For more information, see
pages 126, 254 of Appendix V4A.
4.3.5 Kōkua Action
State Legislature:
Kōkua Action 6:
Appropriate funds to the County of Hawaiʻi to develop recommendations of lands to be designated Important
Agricultural Lands.
Rationale: The identification and designation of State Important Agricultural Lands (State IAL) was first proposed at
the 1978 Constitutional Convention and subsequently approved by voters in the same year. Enacted as Article XI,
Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, the State is required to conserve and protect agricultural lands,
promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the availability of agriculturally
suitable lands. Act 233, SLH 2008 (HRS sections 205-41 thru 52), which provides incentives for designation of State
IAL, became effective on July 1, 2008, and triggered the commencement of the process to identify, map, and
designate important agricultural lands throughout Hawai‘i. By definition, State IAL are capable of sustaining high
yields, for export or local consumption, and needed for future self-sufficiency even if currently not in production.
The criteria to identify State IAL, listed in HRS section 205-44, include: suitable soil qualities, availability of
infrastructure, existing or traditional agricultural use, and lands identified under productivity rating systems. State
IAL may be designated by the State Land Use Commission (LUC) in two ways: a farmer or landowner may file a
petition with LUC to designate State IAL, or Counties can recommend State IAL for the LUC to consider. The State
Land Use Commission makes the final decision by a 2/3 vote and transmits the adopted map to the County. A 2/3
super-majority of the legislature is required to change the classification of lands designated as State IAL. Within 60
months of when they receive funds from the State for this purpose, each County is to recommend lands to be
designated State IAL through a collaborative, participatory process. The Planning Department is to lead the process,
and the County Council is to adopt the maps of recommendations by resolution. The County of Hawai‘i has not yet
received funding to develop recommendations of lands to be designated IAL.
Kōkua Action 7:
Pass legislation enabling land banks that counties can use to acquire tax-delinquent properties and use them to
preserve agricultural land and open space.
83 | Page
Rationale: Jurisdictions can acquire lots for non-payment of property taxes, remove or transfer development rights,
and use a “land bank” to offer tax-delinquent properties to neighbors. Such lots can also be used for relocation
purposes when other properties are acquired for future rights-of-way, public facilities, or land assembly. State
legislation is necessary to enable land banks. For more information, see pages 126, 254 of Appendix V4A.
4.3.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
4.4 Protect Mauka Forests
This section of the CDP designates the mauka and forest region as preserved for conservation and open space. It also
points to various other sections of the CDP for mauka resource protections, trail development and access, summit
management, and expanding land preserves.
4.4.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 34
To reinforce existing protections, the official Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map designates mauka regions and
forests in Hāmākua to be Conservation, and directs mauka areas to remain primarily as open space to be
preserved, protected, and connected to the region’s rich network of natural and cultural resources. Development
and construction in mauka “Conservation” areas shall be minimized and, when necessary, limited to recreation,
research, and education facilities unless otherwise permitted by law.
Rationale: Most mauka forest areas in Hāmākua are in the State Conservation district, where all uses and activities
require a conservation district use permit from the Board of Land and Natural Resources or other written approval
from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL). Most
privately owned parcels are in the Protective and Resource conservation subzones of the State Conservation District.
Uses other than those associated with managing natural resources are prohibited in the Protective subzone. In the
Resource subzone, a single-family residence on each legal lot of record is permitted with approval of the Board of
Land and Natural Resources. In the State Conservation district, there is no county zoning, per se, because the State
DLNR has jurisdiction. Nevertheless, much of mauka forest in Hāmākua is designated Conservation in the General
Plan LUPAG map. The Conservation designation includes “Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific
preserves, areas in active management for conservation purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with
minimal facilities consistent with open space uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations, and lands within the
State Land Use Conservation District.” Other proposed uses would require an amendment to the General Plan,
which requires an Environmental Assessment and approval of the County Council. Though this policy does not
supersede the authority of the State, it serves as a clear expression of the community’s desire to protect and limit
development in mauka forests. For more information, see pages 67-90 of Appendix V4A.
84 | Page
4.5 Preserve Scenic Areas and Viewsheds
This section of the CDP protects open space, natural areas, recognized areas of natural beauty, and scenic viewsheds
with permitting controls and by prioritizing viewshed identification and regulations, scenic overlooks, and scenic routes.
4.5.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 35
In the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area, the environmental report for proposed changes of zone on property that may
impact open space, viewsheds, and areas of natural beauty shall include viewshed analysis and, as appropriate,
line-of-sight analysis and propose conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (HCC 25-2-42)
Rationale: A County environmental report is required as part of a change of zone application. This report is an
informational document that contains a description of the physical, social, historical, economic, and natural resource
consequences of a proposed action, including but not limited to a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action,
any environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between
local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity, any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources which would be involved in the proposed action,
and an analysis of the proposed action.
In order to achieve the policy intent of the CDP (i.e., to protect open space, public views, and areas of natural and
scenic beauty), environmental reports for proposed changes of zone on property that may impact open space, view
planes, and areas of natural beauty should include an appropriate view plane and, as appropriate, line-of-sight
analysis. These scenic features are defined in other policy documents and in the CDP as follows:
Open space: The official Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands, and
mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the “Conservation,”
“Open,” “Important Agriculture Land,” and “Extensive Agriculture” LUPAG categories in the Policy Map.
Natural Beauty and scenic vistas: The General Plan’s list of sites is in Appendix V4A page 62.
For more information, see pages 42, 45-46, 59-64, and 250-261 of Appendix V4A
Policy 36
In the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area, applications for Special Permits that may impact open space, viewshed, and
areas of natural beauty shall include viewshed and, as appropriate, line-of-sight analysis and proposed
performance conditions to mitigate scenic impacts. (See Planning Commission Rule 6-3(a)(5)(G), 6-7, & 6-8)
Rationale: Special Permits may be approved only when, among other things, “the proposed use will not substantially
alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use” and “the request will not be contrary to the
General Plan and official Community Development Plan and other documents such as Design Plans.” In the
Community Objectives for Hāmākua, “viewscapes that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character” are elements of the
essential character of the landscape that may be impacted by uses proposed in Special Permit applications.
Moreover, the intent of this policy is to protect open space, natural and scenic beauty, and public views. These
aspects of community character are defined in other policy documents and in the CDP – please refer to the Natural
Beauty and Scenic Viewscapes as listed in Appendix V4A, page 62.
85 | Page
Planning Commission Rule 6-8 allows the Planning Commission to approve a Special Permit (or recommend its
approval to the State Land Use Commission) with appropriate performance conditions. This policy is intended to
protect those aspects of character of the land as much as possible without infringing on the Planning Commission’s
authority to make informed judgments based site- and use specific characteristics.
For more information, see pages 62, 114, and 116-117 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 37
In the Hāmākua CDP Planning Area, applications for Use Permits for wind energy facilities and
telecommunications antennas and towers shall include viewshed and, as appropriate, line-of-sight analysis to
demonstrate how the request does not cause substantial, adverse impact to the community’s character, including
open space, public views, and areas of natural and scenic beauty, and proposed conditions to mitigate scenic
impacts. (HCC 25-2-60 & 64)
Encourage the use of place-appropriate wireless concealment strategies in the development or upgrading
of telecommunication towers as a way to mitigate visual impacts (e.g., cell towers disguised as palm
trees)
Rationale: Wind energy facilities and telecommunications antennas and towers are allowed to exceed height
limitations provided by the Zoning Code. In many cases, they are placed in open space locations, where they can
provide the best service. However, they can impact open space views. This policy is intended to mitigate potential
impacts by requiring a viewshed analysis.
Use permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts that require special attention to insure that the
uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services nor cause substantial adverse impacts
upon the surrounding community. Telecommunications antennas and towers require a use permit in all Residential,
Agricultural, and Open zones, and wind energy facilities require a use permit in the Open zone. A use permit may be
granted by the Planning Commission if the proposed use is consistent with the general purpose of the zoning
district, the intent and purpose of the zoning code, and the General Plan and the granting of the proposed use is not
be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community’s character
or to surrounding properties. The Commission’s decision shall be accompanied by a statement of factual findings
supporting the decision, together with any conditions imposed upon a use permit approval. The conditions imposed
by the commission shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use permit granted. In the Community Objectives the
goal is to, “protect and enhance viewscapes and open spaces that exemplify Hāmākua’s rural character” and this
rural character may be impacted by wind energy facilities and telecommunications towers and antennas. Moreover,
the “Policy Intent” is to protect open space, natural and scenic beauty, and public views. These aspects of
community character are defined in other policy documents and in the CDP as follows:
Open space: The official Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policy Map designates the shoreline, agricultural lands, and
mauka forests as open space to be preserved and protected. These areas fall within the “Conservation,” “Open,”
“Important Agriculture Land,” and “Extensive Agriculture” LUPAG categories in the Policy Map.
Viewscapes and scenic vistas: The General Plan list of natural beauty sites and scenic vistas are listed in
Appendix V4A, page 62.
This policy is intended to protect those aspects of community character as much as possible without infringing on
the Planning Commission’s authority to make informed judgments based on site and use specific characteristics.
86 | Page
4.5.4 County Action
Policy 38
Develop and establish viewshed regulations to preserve and to protect from obstruction scenic resources, vistas,
viewsheds, open space, prominent landscapes, and areas of natural beauty identified in the General Plan.
Conduct a scenic resources inventory and map for the Hāmākua Planning Area
Develop a corridor management plan to direct viewshed protections along roadways;
• Consider structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways to protect viewshed.
Rationale: This policy is an affirmation of County Charter 13-29 and HRS 205A, and supported by the following
Policies:
Coastal Zone Management Policy HRS 205A-2(b)(3)(A): Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone
management area.
General Plan Policy 7.2 (a): Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty,
including the quality of coastal scenic resources;
General Plan Policy 7.2 (b): Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed;
General Plan Policy 7.3 (e): Develop standard criteria for natural and scenic beauty as part of design plans;
General Plan Policy 7.3 (f): Consider structural setback from major thoroughfares and highways and establish
development and design guidelines to protect important viewplanes;
General Plan Policy 7.3 (h): Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefully considering the
effects of proposed construction during all land use reviews;
General Plan Policy 7.3 (i): Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of natural beauty;
General Plan Policy 14.8.3 (d): Zoning, subdivision and other applicable ordinances shall provide for and protect
open space areas.
Currently, there are no specific viewshed regulations that adequately protect scenic resources and with the
exception of the General Plan’s listed Natural Beauty Sites within the Hāmākua Planning Area (Appendix V4A, page
62), no comprehensive scenic resource inventories and maps exist for the Planning Area. Without adequate scenic
resource identification and development of protective regulations, we risk a continual loss of visual access to areas
of scenic beauty (such as waterfalls, Mauna Kea views, and ocean/coastline views). The development of effective
protections strategies requires the specific identification of the resources to be protected. Such an inventory might
reasonably include written descriptions and photos of the views or open space of concern. The inventory may also
include site information regarding distinguishing characteristics, parcel size, ownership, access points for best views,
and potential threats to preservation.
The Hawai‘i County Planning Department will have to:
Define scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources by mapping them (HRS 205A-
2(c)(3)(A))
87 | Page
Develop application requirements for all land use and construction reviews to assess potential impacts on
view planes and other natural and scenic beauty resources, likely including line-of-sight analysis (GP 7.3 (e),
(h), & (i))
Develop permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from
major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. (GP 7.3(f))
For more information on this, see pages 38-42, 59-64, 155-156, and 249-255 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 39
Amend the Zoning Code to create a conservation designation for lands (or portions thereof) that should be kept in
a largely natural state, but that may not be in the Conservation District, such as certain important viewsheds,
riparian buffer areas, gulches, and very steep slopes.
Rationale: A vital part of the environment, open space is land that is basically not used for buildings or structures
and is characterized by scenic beauty, existing openness, and natural conditions. Open space on the island of
Hawai‘i consists of lands zoned Open by the County as well as those in the State Land Use Conservation District.
However, the “Open” zoning district permits golf courses with a use permit, some recreational facilities, and various
public and utility-type facilities. There is currently no County zoning district that calls for land to be preserved in a
largely natural state. Also, currently there are no specific protections (including building setbacks) in place for
gulches or steep slopes, and the Hāmākua Planning Area in particular is seeing a rise in problems, concerns, and
complaints relating to landslides and viewshed issues near the gulches, cliffs, and slopes. This policy is an affirmation
of existing General Plan policy 14.8.3 (e) and is related to the intention of General Plan policy 8.3 (m): “Encourage
appropriate State agencies to review and designate forest and watershed areas into the conservation district during
State land use boundary comprehensive reviews.”
See also Policy 42 for a specific policy addressing riparian area protection.
Policy 40
Assess siting options for and develop new scenic lookouts along Highway 19 (work with State DOT) and along the
Old Māmalahoa Highway as appropriate to ensure important views (coastal, mountain, and waterfall) are
preserved from development and that there are various opportunities to view these scenic resources throughout
the three districts of the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: To complement County efforts to protect open space, scenic resources, viewsheds, and areas of natural
beauty, it is important to implement General Plan policy 7.3(c): “Maintain a continuing program to identify, acquire
and develop viewing sites on the island.” Also, preserving ocean views is a high community priority (included in
Community Objective 1 and 2). However, agricultural land uses often do not preserve open space viewsheds due to
the prevalence of ‘wind blocks’ (rows of trees), and residential development also involves similar viewplane losses.
This policy seeks to preserve scenic overlooks at appropriate areas along the main routes for residents and visitors
alike to enjoy the scenic resources Hāmākua is renowned for. Particularly in the Hāmākua Planning Area where lush
foliage can quickly block views from the highway, developing and maintaining scenic lookouts in areas of natural
beauty should be viewed as a vital resource for residents’ quality of life and for quality visitor experiences. Providing
clear signage for parking for coastal and waterfall viewing is a safety issue, since visitors unfamiliar with the area
88 | Page
often block the highway for viewing and create dangerous pedestrian issues while crossing the highway or
attempting to take photographs of these scenic assets. See also Policy 41.
Policy 41
Prioritize maintaining the views at scenic overlooks with a frequently maintained vegetation management
program. Coordinate this work with regular roadway vegetation management maintenance program.
Current scenic overlooks in the Planning Area are located in:
Laupāhoehoe on Highway 19;
Onomea Scenic Route;
Waipiʻo Valley Lookout
Rationale: This policy addresses the intent of General Plan Policy 7.3 (c) regarding maintaining “a continuing
program to identify, acquire and develop viewing sites on the island” but it takes the next step in directing
maintenance of these scenic overlooks toward a more vigilant approach in protecting the scenic aspect of the site.
Particularly in the Hāmākua Planning Area where lush foliage can quickly block views, maintaining scenic lookouts
for optimum viewing should be a priority. Currently the scenic lookout in Laupāhoehoe is the only scenic lookout in
the Planning Area along the Highway 19, and it is often partially obscured by foliage. See also Kōkua Action 9, below.
4.5.5 Kōkua Action
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division
Kōkua Action 8:
Consider viewshed corridors for mountain and ocean views while negotiating leases along the Highway, such as
timber leases.
Rationale: There are significant State owned lands available in the Planning Area for agricultural leases. The DLNR
Land Division manages state-owned lands that are not under the jurisdiction of other state agencies. This includes
making lands under their jurisdiction available to the public through fee sales, leases, licenses, grants of easement,
rights-of-entry, or month-to-month tenancies. The Planning Area has close to 30,000 acres of planted eucalyptus
forest. However, in many cases, the trees have grown to impede views of the mountains and coastline, along the
highway. This policy advocates that the State consider these important viewshed corridors.
Department of Transportation
Kōkua Action 9:
Prioritize maintaining the views at scenic overlooks with a frequently maintained vegetation management
program. Coordinate this work with regular roadway vegetation management maintenance program.
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 40 and Policy 41.
89 | Page
Kōkua Action 10:
Assess siting options for and develop new scenic lookouts along Highway as appropriate to ensure ocean,
mountain, agricultural/pastoral, and waterfall views are preserved from development.
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 40 and Policy 41.
Kōkua Action 11:
Consider adding/improving viewing locations and interpretive signage near the scenic bridges for safe parking and
views of the areas’ waterfalls and coastline, and along Saddle Road for views of the summit regions. Work with
the Hawaiʻi Tourism authority to improve signage on the Highway and identify safe viewing locations.
Rationale: Providing clear signage for parking for coastal and waterfall viewing is a safety issue, since visitors
unfamiliar with the area often block the highway for viewing and create dangerous pedestrian issues while crossing
the highway or attempting to take photographs of these scenic assets. See the rationale for Policy 47 and Policy
122.
4.5.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
4.6 Protect and Enhance Ecosystems and Watersheds
This section of the CDP encourages increasing County capacity and participation in watershed planning and the
collaborative development and implementation of resource management plans, and the enforcement necessary to
protect ecosystems.
4.6.3 County Action
Policy 42
Develop and adopt policies (including setback requirements) to protect riparian (streamside) areas from
incompatible development and uses.
Rationale: Wetlands and riparian areas are natural habitats that can reduce polluted runoff and prevent the entry of
pollutants into receiving waters by intercepting surface runoff, subsurface flow, and certain groundwater flows.
They can further enhance water quality by processing, removing, transforming, and storing sediment, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and certain heavy metals. Thus, wetlands and riparian areas buffer receiving waters from the effects of
pollutants, or they prevent the entry of pollutants into receiving waters. Inappropriate uses and land management
practices can induce soil erosion and degrade these areas.
Currently there are no riparian setback requirements in Hawaiʻi County Code. The Zoning Code contains minimum
yard (setbacks) requirements, measured from the lot line, however, in many cases properties extend to the middle
of a stream, or across streams, allowing for structures to be built in those areas.
This policy will help to protect riparian areas and resources, and subsequently will serve to protect personal
property from the hazards of building structures near steep slopes characteristic of the streams and rivers within the
Planning Area.
90 | Page
Best Management Practices for Riparian buffers can be found in the following guides:
DOFAW’s Best Management Practices for forestry
NRCS’s Conservation Practice Standard (393) Filter Strip and Conservation Practice Standard (393):
Filter Strip and Conservation Practice Standard (391): Riparian Forest Buffer.
This policy is supported by the Mauna Kea Watershed Management Plan, Objective 2C: “Protect and enhance
riparian buffers to protect stream corridors.” See also the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management Plan
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/08may-wots/2-%20Kubo%20-%20Waipio%20Valley.pdf . For more
information, see pages 50-51, 57-59 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 43
Increase capacity to provide education and outreach and enforce conditions on grading and grubbing permits to
require screen planting, erosion control planting, or other treatments to maintain the good appearance of graded
areas, reduce the detrimental impact on adjacent properties, and protect watersheds. (HCC10-12 (c))
Rationale: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control provisions in HCC Chapter 10 are to safeguard the public,
property, and the environment by regulating drainage, erosion, and sediment, and to assure the safety of the
project. This policy is necessary due to a lack of knowledge and application in the community about erosion-control
requirements, and it emphasizes the importance of enforcement of existing County Code policy.
Policy 44
To further watershed management goals, collaborate with the Department of Health, the Three Mountain
Alliance, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation District to reduce
runoff, maximize soil and water conservation, and protect and effectively manage watersheds and natural areas.
(HRS 342D, HAR 11-54-3, GP 4.3(g), 5.2(e) & (f), 5.3(e), (n), & (o), and 8.2(e) & (j))
The County should participate in watershed planning in the following ways:
1. Build staff capacity and provide training to support development and implementation of stream management
plans;
2. Initiate a conservation planning process for priority watersheds with Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
from NRCS;
3. Enter into a partnership agreement with the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance via MOU Process;
4. Work with partners such as UH Hilo, Hawaiʻi Community College, Hawaiʻi County Research and Development,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Kohala Center on a pilot program to train UH/HCC students to
assist with Conservation Planning (GP 8.3 (e), (k), (j), (l));
5. Support best management practices through various regulatory review processes conducted by the
department; such as farm dwelling permits and conservation permits, and through environmental reviews of
publicly leased lands;
6. Identify streams and stream corridors as candidates for further protections, and once identified, prioritize and
seek to acquire corridors for further management;
91 | Page
7. Collaborate with the Waipiʻo Valley community in implementing the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management
Plan.
The above actions can be implemented independently of each other and do not reflect prioritization by their listing
order. The goal of this policy is that the County becomes actively involved in watershed planning.
Rationale: In Hawai‘i, watersheds are areas of land that drain downslope to a common point. The water moves
through a network of drainage pathways, both underground and on the surface, eventually reaching the ocean. The
protection and management of watersheds is particularly important to Hāmākua because the Planning Area is home
to 73% of the watersheds on the Island. However, the County and community are not actively involved in
watershed planning in Hāmākua. Watershed management plans typically identify the sources of pollution and the
recommended management strategies.
Specific to #2, above: conservation plans can also address regional conservation plans. NRCS helps decision makers
with the conservation planning process ranging from site-specific plans for individuals to more complex community,
watershed, or area-wide plans for groups of land managers. Conservation technical assistance furnished by NRCS
includes conservation planning and practice/system application, technical consultations, and assistance in the
technical phases of USDA and State cost-share programs.
Specific to #3, above: the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance (MKWA) encompasses approximately 484,000 acres above
the 2000’ elevation on the mountain of Mauna Kea. Coordinated management of these watershed lands is critical
to sustain adequate quality and quantity of water and provide important habitat for a wide diversity of native plants
and animals, including many that are endangered. An MOU was drafted for the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance and
several federal, state, and private land owners, and non-profit management partners have entered into this
partnership agreement. This policy recognizes that the County has an important role to play in watershed
management and should also be a party to the MOU. This policy is supported by 8.3 (l): “Work with the appropriate
State, Federal agencies, and private landowners to establish a program to manage and protect identified
watersheds.”
Specific to #4, above: due to high demand, there is a one year waiting list for Soil and Water Conservation District
(SWCD) Planning Services. A pilot program would allow students to obtain conservation planning training and real
world experience and will add needed staffing support for the Mauna Kea and Hāmākua SWCD.
Specific to #5, above: agricultural lands provide important ecosystem and community services. However,
unsustainable agricultural practices can create a negative impact on watersheds, downstream ecosystems, and
coastal waters. This policy seeks to strengthen and support the enforcement of agricultural and forestry best
management practices. The Planning Department could support best management practices through various
regulatory review processes conducted by the department; such as farm dwelling permits and conservation permits,
and through environmental reviews of publicly leased lands. For more information, see also pages 58-59, 100, and
128 of Appendix V4A, and also the DLNR reference at http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/forestry/files/2013/02/Hawaii-BMP.pdf
Specific to #6, above: the Hawai‘i Stream Assessment (HAS) identified 149 perennial streams in the Planning Area.
Of which, seven candidate streams, located in whole or in part within the Planning Area, were identified as needing
protection, see Page 46 of Appendix V4A for the list of streams. One of the actions for this policy seeks to identify
these streams, and any others identified as needing further protection.
92 | Page
Specific to #7: Refer to the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management Plan at:
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/08may-wots/2-%20Kubo%20-%20Waipio%20Valley.pdf
This policy is supported by General Plan Policy 8.3 (j): “Encourage the protection of watersheds, forest, brush, and
grassland from destructive agents and uses,” and 8.3 (k): “An identification and inventory of forest lands suitable for
watershed purposes should be conducted jointly by County, appropriate State and Federal agencies, and private
landowners” and 8.3 (l): “Work with the appropriate State, Federal agencies, and private landowners to establish a
program to manage and protect identified watersheds.”
See also related 4.6.5 Kōkua Action. For more information, see pages 43-64 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 45
To further ecosystem protections, revise Planning Department Landscaping Requirements Rule 17 to incorporate
and encourage native and noninvasive landscaping alternatives for County projects and to include the noxious
weed list from Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules 4-68 as plants to avoid.
Collaborate with the Big Island Invasive Committee (BIISC) and the University of Hawaiʻi to determine which native
and noninvasive plants to include with this rule revision.
Rationale: Note, the Planning Department’s Landscaping Requirements apply primarily to commercial projects or
noncommercial projects that have parking lots. These requirements currently encourage native species planting and
landscaping that does not cause “undue maintenance problems.” Invasive species pose one of the greatest threats
to the long-term viability of native ecosystems, watersheds, and a thriving agricultural and horticultural trade. The
State Department of Agriculture has designated certain plant species as noxious weeds for eradication. This list
should be incorporated into the Planning Department procedures for reviews of landscape plans. The county can
take a leadership role to ensure that county projects utilize native and noninvasive species, especially since invasive
species are commonly used in parking lot landscaping. For example, the ‘autograph tree’ (Clusia major or Clusia
rosea) is commonly planted in parking lots and is recognized as one of Hawaii’s top invasive species but so far is not
on the State’s noxious weed list. The Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), a project of the University of
Hawai‘i Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, engages in a voluntary partnership with private citizens, community
organizations, businesses, land owners, and government agencies to address invasive species issues on the island of
Hawai‘i. BIISC’s primary objectives include public outreach, early detection, control and eradication of invasive pests
threatening agriculture, native ecosystems, industry, human health and the quality of life within Hawai‘i county.
This policy seeks to partner with BIISC to determine a list of specific species to be considered and incorporated into
the plan review process.
This policy is based on General Plan Policy 8.3 (p): “Encourage the use of native plants for screening and
landscaping” and 4.3 (i): “Support programs to prevent harmful alien species from becoming established.”
4.6.5 Kōkua Action
For additional policies and Kōkua Actions relating to coastal protections, please see 4.2 Protect Coastal Resources.
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kōkua Action 12:
93 | Page
Update Hawaiʻi Stream Assessment (HAS).
Rationale: The HAS was the first comprehensive effort to compile existing information about Hawaiian stream
biota, published in 1990. The HSA was intended to serve as an accessible source of information that would evaluate
relative stream quality and serve to rationalize management actions by the State Water Commission. While the
study did identify streams in the Planning Area for further protection, it has little information on the streams along
the Hāmākua Coast due to difficulty of access. For this reason the level of confidence regarding perennial status and
other attributes for most of the streams in the Planning Area is low. Therefore, this Kōkua action recommends that
the HAS be updated, using the latest technology to provide better stream data.
Kōkua Action 13:
Develop place-based marine protected area plans for priority areas.
Rationale: Place-based management refers to designating appropriate uses for a particular geographic area to
reduce user conflicts and protect the area from some or all preventable harm. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are
one form of place-based management. They are marine areas that have been reserved by federal, state, tribal, or
local laws or regulations to provide protection to part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein. More
specifically, DLNR may designate community based subsistence fishing areas and carry out fishery management
strategies for those areas for the purpose of reaffirming and protecting fishing practices customarily and
traditionally exercised for purposes of native Hawaiian subsistence, culture, and religion. This policy advocates for
developing place-based strategies for specific areas.
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Health, Clean Water Branch
Kōkua Action 14:
Complete a comprehensive water quality monitoring program for the Planning Area’s coastal waters.
Rationale: Coastal waters are managed by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) (for aquatic
resources and boating), the State Department of Health (DOH) (for water quality), and the Federal Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). The Clean Water Branch protects public health and inland and coastal waters for marine life
wildlife. Responsibilities include coastal water surveillance and watershed-based environmental management
through permitting, monitoring, enforcement, polluted runoff control projects, and public education. The last time
a comprehensive water quality test was done for the coastal waters of our Planning Area was in 1987, and the
waters were given an “A” water quality rating. However, that testing was during the era of sugar agriculture with its
various near-shore impacts, and that rating does not necessarily accurately reflect current conditions. This Kōkua
action encourages DOH to complete a comprehensive water quality test for the Planning Area.
Kōkua Action 15:
Prioritize developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Impaired Streams (Clean Water Act § 303 (d)
Rationale: The Clean Water Act §303(d) requires States to submit a list of Water Quality-Limited Segments, waters
that do not meet state water quality standards, plus a priority ranking of listed waters, based on the severity of
pollution and the uses of the waters. The §303(d) list leads to action. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are
pollution budgets to bring §303(d)-listed pollutant/water body combinations into compliance with water quality
standards. 8 Impaired Streams have been identified on the 303(d) list in the CDP Planning Area. However, TMDLs
94 | Page
have not been developed. This Kōkua action seeks the development of TMDLs for impaired streams within the
Planning Area, so that streams can be monitored and analyzed for further management needs.
State Office of Planning
Kōkua Action 16:
Review and designate forest and watershed areas into the conservation district during State Land Use boundary
comprehensive reviews.
Rationale: Several, but not all, stream corridors in the Planning Area are located in the State land use Conservation
District. This Kōkua action is consistent with General Plan policy 8.3 (m): “Encourage appropriate State agencies to
review and designate forest and watershed areas into the conservation district during State land use boundary
comprehensive reviews.”
State of Hawaiʻi Legislature
Kōkua Action 17:
Provide the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) the resources necessary to actively support local
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). (HRS Chapter 180).
Rationale: Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 180, as amended, outlines the duties and powers of the Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCDs) to administer and conduct soil and water conservation activities within the State of
Hawaii. The DLNR provides the SWCDs with funding and administrative support. The Planning Area includes a
portion of the Mauna Kea SWCD and the Hāmākua SWCD. This Kōkua Action encourages the State Legislature to
continue to provide funding to support SWCDs.
Kōkua Action 18:
Provide assistance and funding for the control and management of Little Fire Ant infestations within the Hāmākua
Planning Area.
Rationale: In 2015 Hawaiʻi County received grants to control little fire ants at specific park sites. However, according
to University of Hawaii estimates, over the next 10 years, individuals and businesses on the Big Island could have to
bear losses of $140 million, spend $1.2 billion on mitigation and treatment and suffer 390 million stings. Some
Hawaiian farmers have had trouble hanging on to workers who pick fruit and flowers. A few have even abandoned
badly infested farms. And both farmers and nursery owners have had ant-infested product rejected and sent back by
inspectors from the mainland. (See http://www.littlefireants.com/)
United States Congress
Kōkua Action 19:
Provide sufficient funding to the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), Pacific Islands Area (PIA), the Farm Service Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to adequately
implement critical conservation programs.
Rationale: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a principal agent of the US Department of
Agriculture providing conservation technical assistance to private landowners, soil and water conservation districts,
95 | Page
and other organizations. This Kōkua Action encourages the Congress to continue to provide sufficient funding to
support NRCS.
4.6.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
4.7 Protect and Enhance Cultural Assets
This section of the CDP prioritizes the preservation of historic buildings and roads and the development of historic
streetscapes and rural road standards. It also guides community-led efforts to restore historic sites and buildings, retain
village and town character, and document oral, written, and video histories.
4.7.4 County Action
Policy 46
Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to
Hawai‘i and identify these sites with interpretive signage and/or other appropriate methods.
Rationale: The Hāmākua Planning area lacks sufficient recognition of significant historical and cultural sites. This
policy is consistent with and reaffirms the following existing General Plan Policies:
6.2 (a): Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural
importance to Hawaiʻi;
6.3 (h): Aid in the development of a program of public education concerning historic sites;
6.3 (i): Signs explaining historic sites, buildings and objects shall be in keeping with the character of the area
or the cultural aspects of the feature;
6.3 (g): Collect and distribute historic sites information of public interest and keep an inventory of sites.
Policy 47
Support the development and promotion of Heritage Corridors as part of a coordinated effort to promote the
roadways and towns of the Hāmākua Planning Area. GP 6.3 (l)
Coordinate this effort with Policy 122 relating to the State Scenic Byway Program.
Rationale: The County designated the Hāmākua coastline section of Highway 19 as the “Heritage Corridor” in the
mid-1990s to stimulate eco-tourism in the area after the closure of the sugar plantations. Although there is some
signage along the highway, there has never been an official designation and market promotion of this Corridor has
not gelled. The proposed Heritage Corridor route (from Appendix V4C, pages 109-110) features and connects several
scenic and cultural treasures in Hāmākua: the historic towns/villages, backroads through lush vegetation and
waterfalls, historic places such as Waipiʻo Valley and the former plantation landings, State Parks, farms offering
agricultural tours, and selected trails that draw the visitor out of their vehicles to experience the natural beauty of
the area.
96 | Page
This policy is an affirmation of existing General Policy 6.3 (l) and is supported by other GP policies specific to areas of
the Planning Area as follows:
Identify historic sites within the South Hilo District for inclusion within the Hawaiian Heritage Corridor Program.
(GP 6.5.2.2 (b))
Coordinate with the community to identify historical sites and buildings for inclusion in a heritage corridor
program. (GP 6.5.3.2 (a))
For more information, see pages 63, 174, and 252 of Appendix V4A and also related Policy 122.
4.7.5 Kōkua Action
State Legislature
Kōkua Action 20:
Following HRS 6E, provide the Department of Land and Natural resources sufficient staff and funding for the State
Historic Preservation Division to fulfill its mandates.
Rationale: Pursuant HRS section 6E-10, landowners shall allow SHPD an opportunity for review of any construction,
alteration, disposition or improvement of any nature that affects an historic property on the Hawaii register of
historic places. However, there have been cases where the reviews were not completed within the comment
period. The Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Plan October 2012 to October 2017 identifies additional resources
required for implementation.
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kōkua Action 21:
Encourage the State’s implementation of the ‘Aha Moku System.
Rationale: In 2012, Act 288 established the ‘Aha Moku Advisory Committee in the Department of Land and Natural
Resources, pursuant HRS Chapter 171. The Committee will advise the chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources on a variety of resource management practices. This kōkua action encourages the implementation of
their recommendations.
4.7.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
4.8 Establish and Manage Public Access and Trails
This section of the CDP prioritizes a County public access program, directs appropriate public access to the shoreline and
mauka forests, and guides community-led access management.
4.8.4 County Action
The following policies address Community Objectives 1, 3, and 12.
97 | Page
Policy 48
Establish a ‘County of Hawaiʻi Public Access and Trail Program’ with sufficient staff and resources. Staff will be
required to refer to this program in all permit reviews. Elements of this program could include:
1. A comprehensive access inventory;
2. A public access rating system to help with prioritization;
3. Ensure comprehensive reviews of projects (on public or private lands) that will affect public accesses and
trails.
4. Establish a program to inventory ancient trails, cart roads, and old government roads in coordination with
appropriate State agencies. Ensure that publicly owned historic trails and roads are properly identified and
consultation occurs to protect the public’s interests. (GP 12.3 (n) Highways Act of 1892)
5. Identify agencies/groups to develop, administer, and maintain public accesses, including developing County
capacity for this purpose;
6. Identify funding sources to purchase public access easement to priority areas;
7. When public access goals will involve several landowners, acquire the public access incrementally as
opportunities arise to do so;
8. Public accesses that cross private land will be acquired and held until appropriate management of the
accesses is in place;
9. Collaborate with State and Federal agencies on public accesses that require multi-agency involvement;
10. Develop a standardized template to promote consistency and comprehensiveness in the public access plans
required by landowners;
11. Partner with community organizations capable of assisting with public access management;
12. Work with State agencies (particularly with DOFAW) to coordinate, survey, develop, and manage public trails
and roads leading to forest reserves.
13. In co-sponsorship with the State when possible, acquire land for public access to historic sites and objects and
to the shoreline where safe transit does not already exist.
The above actions can be implemented independently of each other and do not reflect prioritization by their listing
order.
Rationale: Public access is a high community priority, and it remains a challenging issue for the entire County. State
and County policy requires that the County ensure public access. In addition, HCC section 34-4(b) requires the
County Planning Department to work with the State DLNR and County Department of Parks and Recreation to
compile an inventory (including maps) of “public-owned areas and the approximate location of the existing public
trails.” However, the County doesn’t have a formal public access program, and the County’s public access inventory
currently consists of primarily shoreline public accesses.
This policy is intended to address those deficits. The County’s public access program should include protocols for
mapping and marking access points and easements, standards for signage and access maintenance, access
98 | Page
regulations, and community-based management strategies. The program should also expand the public access
inventory to include mauka public access.
Specific to #3, #4, there are miles of historic trails appearing on old maps that may meet the legal definition of
“public trails.” Public access rights to cross private land may exist if it is determined that a government-owned road
or trail is located there. The services of an abstractor or land surveyor may be required to research whether a
government-owned road exists on the private land and where. This includes old government roads that were laid
out by government but never built (a.k.a. “paper roads”) and unmaintained old government roads (often called
“Roads in Limbo”). Approximately 62 miles of old government roads, a.k.a. “Roads in Limbo,” within the Planning
Area are potentials for development of new public access opportunities. If the State of Hawai‘i declares a trail or
other non-vehicular pathway to be a public right-of-way by virtue of the Highways Act of 1892, that trail is
determined to be a public trail and under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Land and Natural Resources. The Na
Ala Hele Statewide Trail and Access System, part of DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife, is required to inventory
“all trails and accesses in the State.” The program is responsible for managing and maintaining only those trails and
accesses that are approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources to become a part of the statewide trail and
access system.
Specific to #6, above: if no other option exists, there are provisions in the law for the public to purchase access
rights through the government’s powers of eminent domain (HRS Chapter 115 and HRS Section 46-1.5). Successful
trail/access projects, particularly those that are miles in length, may need to be acquired incrementally and will
require collaboration between multiple government agencies, several different landowners, and community
stewardship groups.
This policy an affirmation of the following policies:
HRS section 115-2 states that the “counties shall purchase land for public rights-of-way to the shorelines, the
sea, and inland recreational areas, and for public transit corridors where topography is such that safe transit
does not exist;”
HRS section 115-7 allows for State and County “co-sponsorship” of acquisitions for public access;
General Plan 6.3(d): Public access to significant historic sites and objects shall be acquired, where appropriate;
General Plan Policy 8.3 (r): “Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public trails and hunting areas,
including free public parking where appropriate;”
General Plan Policy 8.3 (s): “Establish a system of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, cultural,
natural, or recreational values;”
General Plan Policy 12.3 (n): “Establish a program to inventory ancient trails, cart roads and old government
roads on the island in coordination with appropriate State agencies;”
General Plan Policy 12.3 (m): “Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural
or recreational values. This system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an islandwide route connecting major
parks and destinations;”
General Plan Policy 12.3 (u): “Provide access to public hunting areas;”
General Plan Policy 12.4 (l): “Public access to the shoreline shall be provided in accordance with an adopted
program of the County of Hawaiʻi;”
99 | Page
See also, Kona CDP – ENV 2.1 Open Space Network Program; North Kohala CDP Strategy 2.2 – County Public
Access Coordinator or Public Access Planner.
For more information, see pages 191-223, 227, 260, and 292 in Appendix V4A.
Policy 49
Pursue access easements and/or acquisition of high priority public accesses to meet CDP objectives.
Rationale: The public access, open space, and natural resources preservation fund can be used to acquire lands or
property entitlements based on recommendations from the PONC. The PONC list is a good tool, and the public is
invited to nominate properties for acquisition.
The accesses listed below were collected through the CDP information-gathering phase. Some of them coincide
with properties that either currently are, or have been listed on the Hawai‘i County Public Access, Open Space, and
Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC) list. Note, land and easement acquisition priorities can change
depending on various circumstances and the list below reflects the priorities of the community during a particular
time-frame and may need to be adjusted as priorities shift and opportunities arise.
The following sites were identified as having public access potential:
Pāpaʻikou Mill Beach Trail TMK 2-7-027:065 and 2-7-004:118. (See County Council Res. No. 308-12) (See also
Community Action 25)
Hilo State Forest Reserve via Kaupakuea Hmstd Road 2-8-001:003. County has secured a public access easement
in TMK: 2-8-003:001, but the easement is not all the way to the Forest Reserve (FR) boundary. The State and/or
County would need to extend the easement to the FR.
Hilo State Forest Reserve in Kaiwiki via Kaiwiki Hmstd. Rd. TMK: 2-9-05:01 and also via Chin Chuck Rd. TMK: 2-9-
05:01. County and State cooperation needed to survey the government road all the way to the FR, post signs,
mark a parking area, and delineate trail to FR.
Hāmākua State Forest Reserve in Hō‘ea Ka‘a (“Small Forest”) TMK: 4-2-08:01. State plans to reserve the right of
public access to the FR through state lease of TMK: 4-2-07:02. The actual route for public access is yet to be
determined.
Road to Haina (a.k.a. Honokaʻa Landing) TMK: 4-5-02:19. Private, unpaved road to Haina Landing, voluntarily
open. County would need to work with landowners to secure a public access easement.
Trail from Haina Landing to Pā‘auhau Landing TMKs: 4-5-02, 4-5-01, and 4-4-05 (various parcels). County
Planning Dept. has required several coastal developments along this section of coast to allow “lateral public
access to and along the shoreline within forty feet of the top of the cliff or further mauka (inland) as may be
necessary for the safety of the public traversing the area.” It will take years to accomplish incrementally, but a
continuous, lateral, public access corridor along the top of cliff would need to be acquired.
Trail from Kukuihaele Viewpoint to former Kukuihaele Landing TMK: 4-8-01:04. County Planning Dept. has
required pedestrian public access to a viewpoint at the top of cliff. From there, a continuous, lateral, public
access trail along the top of cliff would need to be acquired to enable access to a fishing area at the former
Kukuihaele Landing.
For more on information, see pages 214-222 in Appendix V4A.
100 | Page
Policy 50
Where possible through permit conditions, easements, or acquisitions, the County of Hawaiʻi shall establish:
public access to and along the shoreline to significant historic sites, public transit along the top of cliff, streams,
mauka trails, facilities, and access to sites for gathering, hunting, and other recreational purposes.
Rationale: Public access is a high community priority, and it remains a challenging issue for the entire County. State
and County policy requires that the County ensure public access and this policy directs that the County of Hawaiʻi
use all of the appropriate regulatory mechanisms to ensure that opportunities to require public accesses are utilized
appropriately. This policy is based on existing General Plan policies 6.2 (b) “Appropriate access to significant historic
sites, buildings, and objects of public interest should be made available,” and 7.3 (a) “Increase public pedestrian
access opportunities to scenic places and vistas” and 8.3 (r) “Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public
trails and hunting areas, including free public parking where appropriate.”
Streams and coastline areas are used for cultural/recreational/ subsistence resources such as gathering and fishing.
However, cultural and recreational accesses are becoming increasingly difficult to physically and legally access due
to residential and agricultural uses, and ‘land-locked’ public lands that lack access points. Lateral public access is
frequently blocked due to the lack of a public transit corridor required in the shoreline setback. The Planning
Department has the authority to recommend and set public access conditions in its review and approval of
applications for Special Permits, Change of Zone, Subdivisions, and developments within the Special Management
Area. This policy seeks to utilize that authority to protect those public transit corridors.
This policy is based in part on HRS §115-5: “Beach transit corridor defined. (a)The right of transit shall exist seaward
of the shoreline and this area shall be defined as a beach transit corridor. For purposes of this section, "shoreline"
shall have the same meaning as in section 205A-1. However, in areas of cliffs or areas where the nature of the
topography is such that there is no reasonably safe transit for the public along the shoreline below the private
property lines, the counties by condemnation may establish along the makai boundaries of the property lines public
transit corridors which shall be not less than six feet wide.”
This policy directs the County of Hawaiʻi to use every opportunity to evaluate access potential and then require
appropriate public accesses through various land use regulatory and permitting processes.
For more information, see pages 53-56, 191-223 and 292 in Appendix V4A.
Policy 51
Identify ‘roads-in-limbo’ and other old road rights-of-way (including ‘paper roads’) with public access value for
trails that are being obstructed by private parties and work to remove the obstructions.
This policy is specific to roads-in-limbo or old road rights-of-way that are best adapted to trail use; however, for CDP
policies relating to the adoption of ‘roads-in-limbo’ into current the County of Hawaiʻi road inventory, see Policy 70.
Rationale: Public access rights to cross private land may exist if it is determined that a government-owned road or
trail is located there. The services of an abstractor or land surveyor may be required to research whether a
government-owned road exists on the private land and where. This includes old government roads that were laid
out by government but never built (a.k.a. “paper roads”) and unmaintained old government roads (often called
“Roads in Limbo”). Approximately 62 miles of old government roads, a.k.a. “Roads-in-Limbo,” within the Planning
Area are potentials for development of new public access opportunities. However, the County Department of Public
101 | Page
Works has limited staff for research or enforcement. This policy seeks to direct the Public Access Program to
coordinate with DPW for this purpose. For more information, see pages 94, 99, 114-115, and 237-238 of Appendix
V4B.
Policy 52
Prior to disposing of, leasing, or transferring public lands, including public roads or trails, public access potentials
will be assessed, documented and protected if public access use is in the public’s interest.
Rationale: There are significant public owned lands available in the Planning Area for public access. In addition, HRS
Section 46-1.5 gives counties powers to acquire, lease and hold real and personal property as the interests of the
county’s inhabitants may require, including the power of condemnation by eminent domain when it is in the public
interest to do so. The County Finance Department, Property Management Division is responsible for the acquisition,
management, and disposition of real property for the County of Hawai‘i. This policy requires that the County
consider public access needs prior to the disposing of, leasing or transferring public lands.
Policy 53
Reconstruct the Laupāhoehoe Boat Ramp to provide safe and adequate access to ocean resources for subsistence
fisher-people and recreational users.
Rationale: Safe access to ocean resources is rare in the Planning Area; the only boating facility in the Planning Area
is at Laupāhoehoe Point and the next closest public boat launch areas are located in Hilo and Kawaihae. The boat
ramp is an important asset to subsistent fisher people and recreational boaters. Originally constructed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Laupāhoehoe boat ramp is managed by the County of Hawai‘i Parks & Recreation
Department. Due to damage caused by heavy wave activity, the ramp floor has steel rebar protruding from
crumbling concrete, making it hazardous for boaters and especially hazardous for swimmers (swimming is officially
not an allowed use of the ramp, but the ramp continues to be a popular local swimming spot). The boat ramp has
been officially closed since June 2009 to protect public safety. Parks and Recreation Dept. makes minor repairs to
the rebar protrusions when they are reported and local residents have, at times, taken it upon themselves to make
repairs and continue to use the ramp on a limited basis and at their own risk. It is commonly thought that the
location of the ramp is part of the problem and until the ramp is relocated to its original position and orientation in
the bay, the problems of significant wave erosion will continue to manifest themselves. The County has been
assessing the ramp’s condition since 2009 in an attempt to develop a plan for restoring the ramp to a usable/safe
condition. Currently this project is on the CIP list but there are no funds allocated for it, and the report on the
County’s assessment of the ramp has not been made public. Supporting policies are the General Plan policy
13.3.5.3.2(a), “Continue to improve the small boat ramp at Laupāhoehoe, extend the offshore protective structure,
and provide for adequate parking” and CIP: FY2014-2015 Ord. No.14-82, item 2014015.
For more information, see pages 145 and 169 in Appendix V4A, and pages 159 and 161 in Appendix V4B.
102 | Page
4.8.5 Kōkua Action
State Legislature
Kōkua Action 22:
To facilitate greater public access to and along the shoreline and elsewhere, amend HRS 520, Hawai‘i’s
Recreational Use Statute (RUS), to:
Decrease ambiguity and discourage frivolous lawsuits;
Provide incentives for private landowners to voluntarily allow public access through incentives.
Rationale: To encourage private landowners to voluntarily allow recreational public access on their lands, HRS
Chapter 520, Hawai‘i’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS), was first established in 1969. It limits the private
landowner’s liability if access is made available to the public without charging a fee. Providing incentives to private
landowners to open more accesses by limiting liability and providing tax incentives and/or zoning credits may
encourage landowners to voluntarily allow access.
Bishop Estate/ Kamehameha Schools; State of Hawaiʻi
Kōkua Action 23:
Explore options for collaborative management with community groups to increase access to former sugar cane
roads to be used as non-motorized trails where feasible and appropriate.
Rationale: Bishop Estate/Kamehameha Schools and the State of Hawaiʻi are major landowners of former sugar cane
properties with their associated old cane roads that could be repurposed for trails. This Kōkua Action encourages
cooperation in establishing and collaboratively managing these resources to allow for community use when feasible
and appropriate. It is acknowledged that not all areas and not all possible uses are compatible with current
agricultural or forestry leases, however, this action advocates for exploring options to achieve access and manage
access for the mutual benefit of the landowners and the community.
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division
Kōkua Action 24:
Prior to disposing of, leasing, or transferring public lands, including public roads or trails, public access potentials
will be assessed, documented and protected if public access use is in the public’s interest.
See corresponding Policy 52.
Rationale: There are significant public owned lands available in the Planning Area for public access. In addition, HRS
Section 46-1.5 gives counties powers to acquire, lease and hold real and personal property as the interests of the
county’s inhabitants may require, including the power of condemnation by eminent domain when it is in the public
interest to do so. This policy urges that DLNR consider public access needs prior to the disposing of, leasing or
transferring public lands.
4.8.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
103 | Page
4.9 Preserving Sacred Places: Waipiʻo Valley and Mauna Kea
This section of the CDP identifies Waipiʻo Valley and Mauna Kea as sacred places needing special attention. This section
specifically addresses natural and cultural resource protections for both of these unique areas, but the section also
addresses other elements of the CDP that are specific to these places.
4.9.2 Waipiʻo Valley as a Wahi Pana
This section prioritizes protecting Waipiʻo Valley as a wahi pana, focusing on protecting natural ecosystems, viewsheds,
streams, managing responsible access, and perpetuating Hawaiian culture.
4.9.3 Waipiʻo Valley: County Action
Policy 54
Designate Waipiʻo Valley, including the Valley rim, as a Wahi Pana and create a resource protection overlay and
regulations that will protect Waipiʻo Valley’s natural resources, preserve its storied past and perpetuate its
agricultural traditions and unique rural lifestyle.
The resource overlays should address the following:
Prepare viewshed siting guidelines in the County Zoning Code for parcels along the southeast and eastern
portions of Waipiʻo Valley rim (GP Policy 7.3 (b));
Extend the SMA boundary beyond Waipiʻo Valley on the east and southeast Valley rim to ensure that
greater setbacks and viewshed protections are incorporated into the review of structures in those areas;
Collaborate with the Waipiʻo Valley community to develop a long range management plan for Waipiʻo
that addresses public access, carrying capacity, resource management, and potential funding sources for
on-going maintenance of streams and roads.
Support community organizations such as the Waipiʻo Community Circle, The Waipiʻo Taro Farmers
Assoc., and Ha Ola O Waipiʻo Valley in developing and implementing a community-based watershed plan
based on the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management Plan.
Rationale: In the Hawaiian cultural traditions, the term Wahi Pana is used to recognize "celebrated" and "storied"
places that have significant Native Hawaiian cultural and historical heritage. A Wahi Pana can be a heiau, royal birth
site, legendary site and places of significance for the people who live there. These sacred places have mana
(spiritual power) and are treated with great respect, honor and reverence. Most of the studies cited in "Previous
Waipiʻo Valley Related Planning/Studies" recommend designating Waipiʻo Valley as a Wahi Pana due to its
significant natural, cultural, historical, and spiritual value. Comprehensive, regional, conservation, watershed, and
open space plans often use resource protection overlay districts to link land use policies and conservation strategies
with specific landscapes. Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that creates a special zoning district, placed over an
existing base zone(s), which identifies special provisions in addition to those in the underlying base zone.
Regulations or incentives are attached to the overlay district to protect a specific resource or guide development
within a special area. This policy, to create an overlay zone, would entail County Code regulations to protect the
104 | Page
Valley's cultural and historical resources through measures such as vehicular access management measures,
establishing scenic vistas, resource protection, etc.
One existing tool that could be used to further viewshed protections is Special Management Area overlay. Currently
the SMA boundary in Waipiʻo extends mauka from the shoreline to the bottom of the Valley walls. The area west
and southwest of the Valley is within the Forest Reserve and Special Management Area, and, therefore, has limited
development potential. However, the Valley rim on the east and southeast sides are within the A-40a Zone District,
with the potential for residential and farm dwelling units. Generally, because the CZM objectives and policies are so
comprehensive, the SMA is the most resource-protective land use policy overlay. CZM policies address recreational
resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, coastal hazards, management of
development, beach protection, and marine resources. The SMA process allows the County to apply reasonable
conditions to a proposal to mitigate potential impacts. This policy would apply the SMA process beyond the Valley
rim. Determining where exactly the SMA boundary should be could be done via preparing a viewshed plan and
siting guidelines for the southeast and eastern portions of the valley rim. This policy action is supported by existing
General Plan Policy 7.3 (b) “(b) Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and enhance views of
scenic or prominent landscapes from specific locations, and coastal aesthetic values.” See also Section 4.5 Preserve
Scenic Areas and Viewsheds for more policies relating to protecting viewsheds throughout the Planning Area. For
the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management Plan, see here: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/08may-wots/2-
%20Kubo%20-%20Waipio%20Valley.pdf
For more information, see pages 17, 189, 177, 223-269 in Appendix V4A.
Policy 55
Provide a property tax credit for the perpetual conservation of taro systems on private land (i.e. agricultural,
conservation or cultural easements) for owners and lessees who enter into long term agreements (20 years) to
rehabilitate taro systems to active use.
Rationale: In 2008, the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed Act 211, establishing the Taro Security and Purity Task Force
(TSPTF). The Task Force was charged with finding solutions to the problems facing taro production, taro farmers and
taro markets. This policy is consistent with one of their recommendations for improving protections to taro-growing
lands and serves to protect taro as a special resource from both an agricultural and a cultural perspective. This
policy is consistent with the Taro Security and Purity Task Force recommendation to create incentives for active
rehabilitation of taro-growing lands that result in taro lands protection. For more information, see pages 233-239 in
Appendix V4A.
Policy 56
Work with farmers, landowners, community organizations and agency partners (Army Corps of Engineers, State
Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM), State Department of Health, State Historical
Preservation Division) to create a simplified stream maintenance permitting process for Wailoa Stream and other
streams in the Waipiʻo Valley.
Rationale: Several studies that have been conducted in Waipiʻo Valley have identified the need for a stream
maintenance program to ensure sufficient conditions for the cultivation of taro as well as providing flood protection.
However, the complexities of the permitting process and the implementation costs have resulted in minimal
implementation of the technical and organizational suggestions. This policy recognizes that the County should be a
105 | Page
party to any effort to streamline a permitting process. For more information on stream management, see pages 15,
45, 65, 190, 226-269 in Appendix V4A.
Policy 57
Perform a feasibility study on developing a scenic route from the Waipiʻo Valley Lookout extending mauka to
connect to Mud Lane at the entrance of Waimea.
Rationale: Improving the mid-section of Mud Lane would provide an alternate/emergency route to Kukuihaele and
the Waipiʻo Valley lookout, and potentially mitigate traffic through downtown Honokaʻa, improve travel times
between Waipiʻo Valley/Kukuihaele and Waimea, and create a loop road for drivers to travel without needing to
backtrack through downtown Honokaʻa with each visit to the Waipiʻo Valley Lookout. It would also develop Mud
Lane into a safe, improved County road for residents (currently portions of Mud Lane are impassable for 2-wheel
drive vehicles and the Waimea-side section of the road is considered a Road-in-Limbo).
However, developing this scenic highway would also be controversial in that it provides an access point to Waipiʻo
Valley that allows visitors to by-pass Honokaʻa town. While the development of by-pass routes often becomes
necessary as towns grow and traffic congestion increases, this by-pass could potentially negatively impact those
Honokaʻa businesses that rely primarily on pass-through visitor traffic. Therefore, this action is included as an
investigatory action to ensure that appropriate community engagement with residents from Mud Lane (including
consultations with the South Kohala CDP Action Committee), Waipiʻo Valley, Kukuihaele, and Honokaʻa business
owners, is conducted.
This policy is based on General Plan Policy 13.2.5.4.2 (c) “Encourage the State to construct a scenic highway from the
Waipiʻo Valley lookout extending mauka to connect to Mud Lane at the entrance of Waimea. See also related Policy
58.
Policy 58
Perform a feasibility study on the development of a scenic park (accessible via Mud Lane) with a viewing area of
Hiʻilawe Falls in conjunction with the development of the scenic highway.
Rationale: This policy is related to and dependent on the implementation of Policy 57, and is based on General Plan
Policy 12.5.4.2 (d) “Encourage the State to develop a scenic park on the Kohala side of Hiʻilawe Falls in conjunction
with the development of the scenic highway.” One of the advantages of developing a scenic park with a view of
Hiʻilawe Falls would be to incentivize scenic viewpoints above the Valley with the goal of minimizing visitor trips into
the Valley. To minimize impacts, this park could be accessible via a pedestrian hiking trail developed along the old
cane haul road.
Note: this is an existing “legacy” policy from the General Plan; but the CDP Team has not been able to verify that it
is still physically feasible to create a park in this location with a view of Hiʻilawe Falls. This policy is included here
specifically to solicit community input.
Policy 59
Encourage the integration of best management practices and an understanding of cultural values and experiences
during the land use application process for any business plans requiring Planning Department Plan Approval
within Waipiʻo Valley. (Refer to HCC Chapter 25 Section 2, Division 7 for more information on Plan Approval)
106 | Page
Rationale: Land use impacts related to the visitor industry have been a source of some concern and friction in the
Valley between local residents and commercial operators. Tourism-related impacts potentially include trespassing
on private property, desecration of sacred sites, and intrusion on the privacy of Valley residents and the peaceful
character of the Valley. However, when properly managed, the visitor industry can enhance both the physical and
the intangible heritage of an area while offering a positive, peaceful way for communities to express pride in their
cultural identity. This policy is related to General Plan Policy 6.3 (n) “Consider requiring Cultural Assessments for
certain developments as part of the rezoning process;” in that it seeks to specifically address cultural impacts
associated with the visitor-industry, but this policy’s focus is on stipulating and educating applicants on culturally
appropriate land use issues and practices to better protect the natural and cultural resources of the Valley, and also
to ensure that the host culture is accurately and respectfully represented. For more information on the relationship
between the tourism industry and Hawaiian culture, see the Hawaiʻi Tourism Strategic Plan, 2005-2015 located on
the web at: http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/brand/HawaiianCultureInitiative.pdf.
Policy 60
Develop the Waipiʻo Valley Heritage Center, including:
Support for its related Educational Programs such as the Waipiʻo Education and Information Program (aka:
Waipiʻo Valley Rangers Program).
Support community-based management of the Waipiʻo Valley Heritage Center through a lease or cooperative
use agreement with the County Department of Parks and Recreation.
Rationale: The County has already purchased a 1.804-acre site for the Visitor Center at the Waipiʻo Valley Lookout
(TMK (3)4-8-004:006), which is listed as a Natural Beauty Site in the General Plan Table 7-7. The Waipiʻo Circle, a
group of Valley residents and others, have started the planning and manual site clearing for this facility. This policy
seeks to prioritize CIP funding to design and construct the Visitor Center.
The Waipiʻo Education and Information Program was funded by two Hawai‘i Tourism Authority Natural Resources
grants obtained by the County Department of Research and Development (R&D). The purpose of the program is to
place guides at the entrance the Valley who will educate visitors about the Valley’s history, its cultural importance,
and its unique challenges as actively cultivated agricultural land in a fragile ecosystem. Waipiʻo Valley is the second
most visited location on Hawai‘i Island. The grant funding has lapsed, and the County budgeted $70,000 in the
2013/14 Operating Budget to continue this program until the funds are depleted. Recognizing that this is a valuable
resource, this policy seeks to explore continuous funding mechanisms for the program, which may need to be
developed as a new Department of Parks and Recreation program.
The County Department of Parks and Recreation enters into agreements with various community groups for similar
community-based management. This policy supports the community-based management of the Waipiʻo Valley
Heritage Center.
For more information, see pages 224-270 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 61
Integrate the support facilities for the existing Waipiʻo Lookout with the Visitor Center and the Heritage Corridor
route.
107 | Page
Rationale: The Visitor Center would have displays, presentations, docents, publications, performances, and other
means to engage and inform the visitor of the historic, cultural, and natural treasures of the Valley. The information
would be geared to school children, local residents, and visitors. The intent would be to provide a fulfilling
experience without having to actually go into the Valley. For those choosing to trek into the Valley, they would learn
the proper protocols. This policy would ensure the support facilities were all integrated. For more information on
the visitor center project and its functions, see pages 251-252 of Appendix V4A. See related Policy 47.
4.9.4 Waipiʻo Valley: Kōkua Actions
Hawaiʻi State Legislature
Kōkua Action 6: Appropriate funds to the County of Hawaiʻi to develop recommendations of lands to be
designated Important Agricultural Lands. See the rationale for Kōkua Action 6, above.
State Land Use Commission
Kōkua Action 25:
Reconsider the State’s agriculture land capability class designations to better protect viable taro growing lands.
Rationale: In 2008, the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed Act 211, establishing the Taro Security and Purity Task
Force (TSPTF). The Task Force was charged with finding solutions to the problems facing taro production, taro
farmers and taro markets. This Kōkua Action is consistent with one of their recommendations for improving
protections to taro-growing lands and serves to protect taro as a special resource from both an agricultural and a
cultural perspective. For more information, see pages 233-239 in Appendix V4A.
Bishop Estate, State of Hawaiʻi, Kamehameha Schools
Kōkua Action 26:
Perform a feasibility study on the development of a scenic park (accessible via Mud Lane) with a viewing area of
Hiʻilawe Falls in conjunction with the development of Mud Lane into a scenic route.
See the related Policy 58 and Policy 59 and their rationale. (GP 12.5.4.2 (d)) and 13.2.5.4.2 (c)).
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kōkua Action 27:
Support reintroduction of H.B. #414 or similar legislation that would provide funding and technical assistance for
stream maintenance programs.
Rationale: In early 2013, H.B. No. 414, Waipiʻo Valley Advisory Commission, was introduced to the State Legislature.
H.B. No. 414, “Establishes the Waipiʻo Valley Advisory Commission to advise the Department of Land and Natural
Resources on the development of a long-term plan for ensuring the proper stewardship, preservation, and
maintenance of Waipiʻo Valley.” and “ Appropriates funds for the design and construction of flood damage
reduction and stream stabilization in Waipiʻo Valley.” The purpose and intent of this measure is to promote the
108 | Page
proper stewardship, preservation, and maintenance of Waipiʻo Valley on the Island of Hawai‘i. For more
information, see page 263 of Appendix V4A.
State of Hawaiʻi, Governor
Kōkua Action 28:
Release allocated disaster funding to help taro farmers and residents of Waipiʻo Valley to avoid future flood
damage. (TSPTF recommendation)
Rationale: This policy is consistent with the Taro Security and Purity Task Force recommendation to improve and
fund stream maintenance capacity in taro-growing communities. For more information, see pages 233-239 of
Appendix V4A.
State Department of Agriculture
Kōkua Action 29:
Apply for Specialty Crop Block Grants to strengthen taro production.
Rationale: The purpose of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) is to solely enhance the competitiveness
of specialty crops. Specialty crops are defined as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery
crops (including floriculture). Taro would be considered a specialty crop. This Kōkua action asks the State
Department of Agriculture to seek block grants to strengthen taro production. For more information, see pages
265-266 of Appendix V4A.
4.9.5 Waipiʻo Valley: Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
109 | Page
4.9.6 Mauna Kea as a Wahi Pana
This section prioritizes protecting Mauna Kea as a wahi pana, focusing primarily on Kōkua actions to the existing
agencies and groups that manage resources at the summit and near-summit lands.
A Special Note on Mauna a Wākea: The summit lands are out of County jurisdiction and are under the State of Hawaiʻi
Department of Land and Natural Resources, with portions leased to the University of Hawaiʻi and managed by the Office
of Mauna Kea Management. At the time of the CDP draft development, discussions over land use and natural/cultural
resource management for Mauna Kea were continually evolving. This CDP section represents a focus on Kōkua actions
for the agencies and groups that currently manage resources at the summit and near-summit lands. All the CDP Kōkua
Actions are based on previously developed policies that align with CDP Community Objectives.
4.9.8 Mauna Kea: Kōkua Action
Various Agencies: Bureau of Land and Natural Resources; DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife – Natural Area
Reserve System;
Kōkua Action 30:
Continue to engage the Hawaiian community while exploring a cooperative agreement to formalize the
coordinated management efforts on Mauna Kea.
Rationale: Currently there is no mechanism for integrated or coordinated management of Mauna Kea’s resources.
These agencies have tentatively agreed to enter into a cooperative agreement and this Kōkua Action supports the
follow-through of this agreement.
Department of Land and Natural Resources & State Historic Preservation Division
Kōkua Action 31:
Nominate the Mauna Kea Summit Region Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places.
Rationale: The summit region of Mauna Kea is designated as a historic district by the State of Hawai‘i. It was also
determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. For more information on historic
designations, see pages 177-179 of Appendix V4A.
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kōkua Action 32:
Update the management plan for Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve.
Rationale: A management plan for Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve was drafted in 1989 (DLNR 1989) but needs
to be updated. This Kōkua Action is consistent with the intent of GP 8.3 (o): “Encourage the continued identification
and inclusion of unique wildlife habitat areas of native Hawaiian flora and fauna within the Natural Area Reserve
System.” See also page 83 of Appendix V4A.
110 | Page
Kōkua Action 33:
Identify mamane-naio forest sites within the Forest Reserve system on Mauna Kea for inclusion in the NAR
system.
Rationale: Recently, the Natural Area Reserve Commission identified the mamane-naio forest as a missing
ecosystem in the NAR system. Potential sites within the Forest Reserve system on Mauna Kea are being considered
for inclusion in the NAR system. This Kōkua Action is consistent with the intent of GP 8.3 (o): “Encourage the
continued identification and inclusion of unique wildlife habitat areas of native Hawaiian flora and fauna within the
Natural Area Reserve System.” See also pages 83-84 of Appendix V4A.
Kōkua Action 34:
Develop a mechanism for the long-term protection of Palila sites.
Rationale: There is no formal agreement to sustain restoration of Palila habitat at Pu‘u Mali and Ka‘ohe beyond
2012, when the lease expires. A mechanism is needed for the long-term protection of these sites. This Kōkua Action
is consistent with the intent of GP 8.3 (o): “Encourage the continued identification and inclusion of unique wildlife
habitat areas of native Hawaiian flora and fauna within the Natural Area Reserve System.” For more information on
Palila habitat, see page 68, 79, and 89 of Appendix V4A.
Kōkua Action 35:
Provide natural and cultural resource preservation orientation training for tour operators, rangers, VIS staff, and
volunteers in coordination with native practitioners who practice on Mauna Kea.
Rationale: One method to ensure that all visitors receive the information they need in order to better protect
Mauna Kea’s natural and cultural resources is to provide everyone who visits the summit to an orientation of the
site’s significance. Mandatory orientation training for tour operators, rangers, VIS staff, and volunteers should be
implemented, regardless of whether mandatory orientation for the general public is implemented. This training
program could be implemented immediately, and no rule-making authority is required to implement it.
Kōkua Action 36:
Maintain a trail network with signage.
Rationale: There are several established (but unmarked) trails in the summit region and other trails at lower
elevations. Rangers monitor the trails that lead to the most popular places of interest and work to curtail unwanted
new trails by directing visitors to the established ones and covering over evidence of unwanted trails. New trails are
mainly created when visitors or researchers opt to explore new terrain. Due to lack of signage and a maintained trail
network, a faint trail used infrequently may be discovered by others and become more established and impacted.
Kōkua Action 37:
Consider establishing a working group with surrounding land owners and the user-community to educate users
and manage ATV use in the near-summit region.
Rationale: Off-road vehicle use has the potential to irreversibly damage cultural and natural resources. The use of
off-road vehicles is prohibited in the UH Management Areas; however there is a need to coordinate with DLNR to
ensure that all off-road vehicle use of the adjacent land areas are managed.
111 | Page
Kōkua Action 38:
Work together, in partnership with hunting associations and other land stewards, to establish clear recreational
hunting policies and disseminate education regarding these policies.
Rationale: Properly informing hunters of prohibited areas is challenging because access to hunting areas may not
require hunters to pass through Hale Pōhaku, where information about prohibited areas is available. Working with
the hunting associations and land stewards in devising and disseminating information on the hunting policies will
help to improve compliance.
Department of Land and Natural Resources; University of Hawaiʻi – Office of Mauna Kea Management
Kōkua Action 39:
Work with the Hawaiian community to develop a historic property monitoring program within the UH
Management Areas.
Rationale: A historic property monitoring program would provide a plan for monitoring the condition of identified
historic properties within the UH Management Areas. The primary purpose of monitoring these sites is to
determine what uses, if any, are affecting historic properties and the degree and frequency of these effects. This
information would, in turn, help in developing ways to prevent or minimize the occurrence of damaging uses. The
long-term effects of human activities and natural processes on historic properties shall be monitored and
management policies adjusted, as needed.
Kōkua Action 40:
Evaluate the need and feasibility of establishing a vehicle wash-station near Hale Pōhaku to prevent the transport
of invasive plants and animals.
Rationale: Many of the mountain’s ecosystems have already been impacted by introduced animals and plants, and
introduction of new invasive species remains a continuing threat. Virtually any user, vehicle, equipment, or material
that comes to Mauna Kea can be an unintentional carrier. The main activities and uses that may introduce invasive
species include vehicles and researchers that frequent Mauna Kea for work at the observatories; materials and
equipment used in construction and maintenance; recreational users that may import material on footwear and
vehicles; imported gravel used in road grading; landscaping materials used at lower elevations; and cultural
practitioners leaving offerings.
Kōkua Action 41:
Work with neighboring landowners and appropriate federal and state agencies to plan for coordinated responses
to a range of emergency situations, to ensure rapid response, and to minimize impacts to cultural and natural
resources.
Rationale: A number of emergency responses that may occur on Mauna Kea could adversely affect biological and
historical properties. Because the summit area of Mauna Kea is far from any local community, response times by
the standard emergency response agencies can be long. Thus, the various groups and agencies that operate in the
surrounding area must cooperate in emergency response activities. The existing medical emergency system involves
MKSS, the observatories, the military, county emergency services, and hospitals.
112 | Page
Kōkua Action 42:
Collaborate with Observatories to develop a site decommissioning plan for each observatory, in accordance with
the Decommissioning Plan for Mauna Kea Observatories.
Rationale: Since the summit of Mauna Kea is so culturally significant, the community would like to see a specific plan
that shows the removal of obsolete telescopes from the summit and decommissioning plans for each of the
observatories, including restoration plans. The University’s lease for the UH Management Areas continues through
2033, with the stipulation that the permitted “improvements” be removed at the end of the lease or sooner, unless
approval from the Chairman of BLNR allows them to remain. The existing observatories have various agreements
with the University with different provisions for disposition of the facilities in the event of termination or expiration
of their tenancies. Each observatory has specific provisions in its agreement related to what is to become of the
structure at the end of its term. Observatories will be required to develop plans for site recycling, demolition and
restoration. A Site Decommissioning Plan (SDP) documents the condition of the site, outlines an approach to
decommissioning, and proposes a plan for site restoration. Each SDP shall be developed in stages consisting of the
following four components: (1) a Notice of Intent, (2) an environmental due diligence review, (3) a Site
Deconstruction and Removal Plan and, (4) a Site Restoration Plan. See also pages 75-76 of Appendix V4A for more
information.
Department of Defense, Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA)
Kōkua Action 43:
Complete the large scale firebreak that extends completely across Pu‘u Anahulu between the Ke‘āmuku and
the1859 lava flows.
Rationale: the report: Analysis of Fire History and Management Concerns at Pōhakuloa Training Area concludes that
the Army’s primary fire management objective for the near future should be the completion of a large-scale
firebreak that extends completely across Pu‘u Anahulu between the Keamuku and the 1859 lava flows. For more
information, see Appendix V4A: pages 79-80.
Kōkua Action 44:
Improve Mauna Kea Trail and Infantry Road to firebreak standards and to extend Mauna Kea Trail slightly in the
area behind Pu‘u Pōhakuloa.
Rationale: see the section, Analysis of Fire History and Management Concerns at Pōhakuloa Training Area; Appendix
V4A: pages 79-80.
Kōkua Action 45:
Complete the Remedial Investigation for the Puʻu Paʻa Area (PTA-003-R-01). Remaining actions include a focused
Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan /Decision Document, followed by Remedial Design and Remedial Action for
Munitions and Explosives of Concern removal.
Rationale: See the section: Final Pōhakuloa Training Area Firing Range Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for
Residual Depleted Uranium; Appendix V4A, pages79- 80.
113 | Page
Kōkua Action 46:
Address the potential hazards of depleted uranium at the Pōhakuloa Training Area. Consider the eight-point plan
as outlined in County Res. No. 639-08. See also House Bill 2011 H.C.R. No. 181, “Pōhakuloa Training Area; Testing
and Monitoring of Radioactive Contamination.”
County RES. 639 Draft 01 2006-2008 http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/0/doc/39961/Page1.aspx
State Legislature: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/Bills/HCR181_.PDF
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/bills/SCR118_.pdf
Rationale: Several pieces of legislation have been proposed to address the depleted uranium issues at PTA; one
House resolution passed in 2007 (HR186, HD1), one County Resolution passed in 2008 (County Res. No. 639-08), and
one State House Bill H.C.R. No. 181 passed in 2011. So far the Department of Defense claims through the report:
“Final Pōhakuloa Training Area Firing Range Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for Residual Depleted
Uranium” that there is no human impact from the residual depleted uranium in the soil at PTA; however, the public
and legislators seek additional analysis and possible mitigating actions to ensure there are no risks to natural
resources or human life. For more information, see Appendix V4A: pages 79-80.
4.9.9 Mauna Kea: Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
114 | Page
SECTION 5: POLICY RATIONALE – STRENGTHEN INFRASTRUCTURE,
FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
5.1 Coordinate Infrastructure, Facility, and Service Improvements
This section of the CDP guides the coordination of regional infrastructure improvements.
5.1.3 County Action
Policy 62
Implement capital improvement priorities in the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Current capital improvement priorities for Hāmākua include:
Reconstruction of the Laupāhoehoe Boat Ramp. (Policy 53)
Develop the Waipiʻo Valley Lookout Visitor Center and support for its related Educational Programs. (Policy 60)
Improve/replace substandard bridges in the Hāmākua Planning Area. (Policy 69)
Complete the extension linking Pīkake and Pakalana Streets. (Policy 72)
Provide a cross-town connection to Plumeria Street by extending Kamani Street. (Policy 72)
Provide a mauka-makai connection from the Kamani Street extension to Māmane Street on the Hilo side of the
elderly housing. (Policy 72)
With the goal of developing alternative, emergency routes, improve substandard sections of the Old Māmalahoa
Highway and maintain for use as an alternative, emergency route to Highway 19. (Policy 73)
Add an additional chute/receptacle at the Honokaʻa Recycling and Solid Waste Transfer Station (Policy 83)
Add solar-water heating for Laupāhoehoe Swimming Pool. (Policy 101)
Re-roof Pāpaʻikou Gym (Policy 101)
Abate hazardous materials at Pāpaʻaloa Gym (Policy 101)
Rationale: The intent of this policy is to advance capital improvements for critical community infrastructure in
Hāmākua. The priorities listed are a summary of the capital improvement needs identified in policies throughout
the CDP.
Capital improvements are major, nonrecurring expenditure like those listed below:
Land acquisition
Infrastructure improvement that adds value to the land or improves utility (e.g., roads, drainage, sewer lines,
parking, landscape or similar construction)
New buildings or structures or addition to a building, including related equipment and appurtenances that are
integral to the new structure
Nonrecurring rehabilitation or deferred maintenance of infrastructure and buildings, provided that the cost is
$25,000 or more and the improvement will have a useful life of 10 years or more
115 | Page
Planning, feasibility, engineering, or design studies related to individual capital improvement projects or to a
program that is implemented through individual capital improvement projects
Information and communications technology provided that the cost is $25,000 or more.
Communities have several options for advancing capital improvements:
Be clear about community capital improvement priorities. The CDP is an ideal place to identify those priorities.
Via the Planning Director, recommend the order of priority of projects. Once the CDP is adopted, this can be
done formally through the CDP Action Committee. HCC section 16-6(4) empowers the CDP Action Committees
to “Provide timely recommendations to the County on priorities relating to the...CIP budget and program….”
Once high priority projects are appropriated, work with the Administration and County Council members to
secure any bond authorization or other funding sources needed to finance the projects.
Once funding is authorized for high priority projects, work with the Mayor to secure necessary project
allotments.
Once allotments are secured for high priority projects, work with the responsible agencies to prepare and
execute contracts to encumber funds and initiate the projects.
Policy 63
Provide technical support to communities and organizations pursuing capital improvement financing through
USDA Rural Development, infrastructure improvement financing districts, and other sources.
Rationale: Because there are limits on the size of the capital improvement debt burden that the County and State
can carry, bond financing can be complemented with other forms of infrastructure financing. For any given project,
these financing tools are often used in conjunction. Appendix V4B introduces several funding sources, including
USDA Rural Development, Community Improvement Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Tax Increment
Financing. The intent of this policy is to support the diversification of capital project financing with County expertise
in finance and project planning and implementation. For more information, see pages 33-35 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 64
The development of County facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while
providing the desired services. Implement protocols for receiving community input during capital improvement
project siting and design within the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: The County can be a leader in community facilities complementing their locale with attention to design
and community engagement in facility siting. Currently, there are no protocols for community engagement at
appropriate phases of capital project development. For more on information on CIP projects identified as priorities
in the CDP, see Policy 62.
5.1.4 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
116 | Page
5.2 Expand Affordable Housing Options
This section of the CDP seeks to incorporate water improvements, strategic planning, tax incentives, and self-help
programs to increase the supply of affordable housing.
5.2.3 County Action
Policy 65
Develop and implement a County-wide, cross-agency affordable housing plan.
Encourage affordable housing options sited within existing towns and villages, near services, and critical
infrastructure.
Propose and support amendments to the County's taxing powers as a means to increase the supply of
affordable housing.
Rationale: This policy seeks to improve coordination between the multiple governmental agencies that provide
housing programs, and improve community access to information on the various housing resources available. The
implementation of this policy would be instrumental in achieving the County’s housing goals as stated in General
Plan section 9.2.
This policy is supported by General Plan Policy 9.3(u), with the revision of language that strengthens the policy from
an investigative action to an implementation action.
It addresses Community Objectives 5 & 6, and is supported by the following General Plan policies:
9.3 (h): Formulate a program for housing that identifies specific mechanisms to implement the housing goals.
9.3(m): Accommodate the housing requirements of special need groups including the elderly, handicapped,
homeless and those residents in rural areas.
9.3 (t): Ensure that adequate infrastructure is available in appropriate locations to support the timely
development of affordable housing.
5.2.4 Kōkua Action
Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, State of Hawaiʻi
Kōkua Action 47:
Coordinate with County agencies in helping develop and implement a County-wide, cross-agency affordable
housing plan.
Rationale: See the rationale for corresponding Policy 65.
5.2.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
117 | Page
5.3 Improve the Roadway Network
This section of the CDP prioritizes road connectivity, safety improvements to roads and bridges, a road-in-limbo
improvement and adoption process, and guides road improvements toward multimodal transportation strategies.
5.3.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 66
All subdivision in the Hāmākua CDP planning area, including condominium property regimes (CPRs) and planned
unit developments (PUDs), shall conform to connectivity standards of the Hawaiʻi County Code, section 23-28, 29,
and 40.
Rationale: In some communities, subdivisions were exempted from connectivity standards and subsequently
became isolated ‘islands’ within communities, instead of contributing to the connectivity and walkability of their
greater communities. The intent of this policy is to provide clear, place-based connectivity standards so that new
roads contribute to the existing transportation network of streets, pedestrian, and bicycle access and integrate new
development with the existing fabric of the community.
5.3.4 County Action
Policy 67
Create a permanent Transportation Planner Position within the Planning Department’s Long Range Planning
Division to develop the County of Hawaiʻi’s professional capacity to plan for transportation issues.
Rationale: County of Hawaiʻi lacks professional capacity for transportation planning. Strategic transportation
planning is crucial to fulfill the community’s objectives of connected compact villages (Objective 5) via a rural
transportation network (Objective 7). Modern transportation planning is focused on Context Sensitive Solutions
(CSS), which seeks to balance the need to move people efficiently and safely with other desirable outcomes,
including historic preservation, environmental sustainability, and the creation of vital public spaces. Another focus
of transportation planning is to develop "complete" transportation corridors under the "complete streets"
movement.1 In response to auto-centric design of transportation networks, complete streets encompass all users
and modes of transportation in a more equitable manner. The complete streets movement entails many of the CSS
principles as well as pedestrian, bicycle and older adult movements to improve transportation.
The General Plan has called for county-wide inter-agency transportation planning since its inception in 1971, but the
County has lacked the professional capacity to complete those policies. A staff transportation planner would be able
to focus on implementing the various transportation policies within this plan, and in particular would be crucial in
implementing a Complete Streets program and collaborating with State DOT in implementing the State Bike Plan.
Policy 68
Identify suitable/priority locations for bicycle lanes and paths, walkways, and jogging paths, and set funding
priorities (especially in coordination with roadway for improvements such as widening, restriping, ADA
improvements, etc.)
Rationale: This policy affirms the following General Plan policies:
118 | Page
13.1.3(e): Develop a comprehensive, island-wide multi-modal transportation plan that identifies the location
and operation of automobile, mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems, in coordination with appropriate
Federal and State agencies;
13.4.3(b): Support and encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation, such as enhanced
bus services and bicycle paths;
3.2.3(f): Consider the development of alternative means of transportation, such as mass transit, bicycle and
pedestrian systems, as a means to increase arterial capacity.
The policy is needed in the interim of completing Policy 75 (Implement a Complete Streets Program) to direct
County agencies to take advantage of opportunities to coordinate road improvements with pedestrian/bike path
development.
Policy 69
Improve/replace substandard bridges in the Planning Area.
Rationale: The Hāmākua Planning Area has a high concentration of aging bridges and many deemed “structurally
deficient” by the Federal Highways Administration rating system. See Appendix V4B: Community Building Analysis
pages 87-92 for a discussion and a list of bridges.
Of particular note is the Kalōpā-Paʻauilo area, where eleven bridges in that community were recently deemed
structurally deficient. The prevalence of deficient bridges throughout the Planning Area means these communities
are vulnerable to bridge failures, traffic interruptions, and/or inaccessibility in the event of a natural disaster or
localized infrastructure failure. This is a health and safety issue as well as a transportation connectivity issue. It is
supported by General Plan Policy 13.2.3(d): “Support the development of programs to identify and improve
hazardous and substandard sections of roadway and drainage problems.”
Policy 70
Develop a roads-in-limbo adoption process according to population, usage, alternative route/connectivity needs,
and safety assessments.
Rationale: The Planning Area has the highest number and mileage of roads-in-limbo in the County. The County’s
ability to make the necessary road improvements in order to be able to adopt these as County roads is encumbered
by budget constraints. This policy provides a procedure for assessing the status of these roads in order to begin a
strategic approach for settling the issues of adoption and maintenance. The policy is supported by General Plan
Policy 13.2.3(m): Develop minimum street standards for homestead and other currently substandard roadways that
are offered for dedication to the County to ensure minimal levels of public safety” and 13.2.3(d): “Support the
development of programs to identify and improve hazardous and substandard sections of roadway and drainage
problems.” For more information on roads-in-limbo, see pages 94, 99, 114 of Appendix V4C, and pages 199-201 and
221 of Appendix V4A.
See also Policy 51 for another policy relating to roads-in-limbo.
119 | Page
Policy 71
Support and provide technical assistance to assist in the development of ‘road improvement districts’ in order to
finance road improvements.
Rationale: This policy is to address the County’s budget constraints of improving substandard roads and opens up
options for property owners to finance their own improvements. Supporting policy is County Res. No. 320-10, and
by the following General Plan policies:
Policy 13.2.3 (b): Investigate various methods of funding road improvements, including private sector
participation, to meet the growing transportation needs of the island;
14.6.5.2.2 Course of Action (a): Improve substandard residential roadways through the County's Capital
Improvement Program or by Improvement District;
For more information see pages 34-35, and 114-118 of Appendix V4A.
Policy 72
To increase arterial capacity and connectivity in Honokaʻa:
Complete the extension linking Pīkake and Pakalana Streets to provide arterial redundancy
Consider alternatives in the management of Pakalana Street, such as its conveyance to the State Department
of Education or its conversion to a one-way traffic pattern. GP 13.2.5.4.2 (e);
Provide a cross-town connection to Plumeria Street by extending Kamani Street. GP 13.2.5.4.2 (f);
Provide a mauka-makai connection from the Kamani Street extension to Māmane Street on the Hilo side of
the elderly housing. GP 13.2.5.4.2 (g)
Rationale: This policy is to improve connectivity within Honokaʻa town and it affirms General Plan policies 13.2.5.4.2
(e); 13.2.5.4.2 (f); and 13.2.5.4.2 (g).
5.3.5 Kōkua Action
State Department of Transportation
Kōkua Action 48:
Assess Highway 19 for passing opportunities and passing zones per DOT standards and implement these
standards where feasible. (GP 13.2.5.3.2 (d))
Rationale: The Planning Area has relatively few safe passing lanes on Highway 19 from Honokaʻa to Hilo. This Kōkua
Action is affirming General Plan policy 13.2.5.3.2 (d): Encourage the State to install additional passing lanes at
various sections along Highway 19.
Kōkua Action 49:
Develop turn lanes or other safety improvements at intersections (per DOT guidelines) on Highway 19; in
particular assess turn lanes for the following identified locations:
Kalanianaʻole School and Onomea Scenic Route intersection in Pāpaʻikou;
120 | Page
Mill Road intersection (aka: Pinky’s intersection) in Pāpaʻikou;
Honomū Road intersection
Old Māmalahoa Intersection at the School/Pool/Transfer Station turn-off in Laupāhoehoe;
Rationale: This Kōkua Action is to address safety concerns along the Highway 19. Several of the listed intersections
access school areas, the speed limits in these sections of highway are often 45 mph, and the Onomea scenic route
intersection headed toward Hilo has a curve in it that decreases visibility (this is the main access to Kalanianaʻole
School).
Kōkua Action 50:
Implement Bike Plan Hawai‘i
Rationale: the State of Hawaiʻi ‘Bike Plan Hawaiʻi’ can be found here: http://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/bike-plan-
hawaii-master-plan/ This Kōkua action is supported by the following General Plan policies:
13.1.3 (e): Develop a comprehensive, islandwide multi-modal transportation plan that identifies the location and
operation of automobile, mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems, in coordination with appropriate Federal
and State agencies.
13.4.3 (b): Support and encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation, such as enhanced
bus services and bicycle paths.
13.2.3 (f): Consider the development of alternative means of transportation, such as mass transit, bicycle and
pedestrian systems, as a means to increase arterial capacity.
Kōkua Action 51:
Continue to identify areas vulnerable to rockfall and shoreline erosion in the highway right-of-way and prioritize
funding for mitigation.
Rationale: This kōkua action would enhance safety conditions along the highway and protect valuable infrastructure
from erosion. In recent years, Hawaiʻi State DOT has invested millions of dollars installing rockfall mitigation
strategies along the horseshoe gulches; this action acknowledges that additional mitigation is needed in various
other locations to ensure the protection of existing infrastructure, and life and property.
5.3.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
121 | Page
5.4 Formalize Alternative Routes
This section of the CDP prioritizes formalizing and improving emergency alternative routes.
5.4.2 County Action
Policy 73
Improve substandard sections of the Old Māmalahoa Highway and maintain for use as an alternative, emergency
route to Highway 19.
Rationale: This policy are to address the issues of the lack of alternative routes, lack of road redundancy, and the
need for emergency routes for circumstances that result in the closure of Highway 19. Currently, the police open
emergency routes temporarily using the Old Māmalahoa Highway, but some sections of it are not maintained
adequately for 2-wheel drive vehicular traffic. This policy is based on General Plan Policy 13.2.5.2.2(a): “Portions of
the Old Māmalahoa Highway, especially those serving Pepeʻekeo and Honomū, should be improved to provide a
secondary north-south route along the Hāmākua Coast.”
5.5 Develop Place-Appropriate Road Standards
This section of the CDP prioritizes a flexible approach to road design appropriate for the Planning Area’s rural character
and small towns.
5.5.2 County Action
Policy 74
Adopt rural road design standards that accommodate, where appropriate, flexibility in the design of streets to
preserve the rural character of an area, including pavement width, unpaved shoulders/swales, rock walls, lighting,
and landscaping featuring native plants. (HCC 23-41, 86, & 87; GP 13.2.3(l) and 13.2.3 (m))
Rationale: Current County road design standards are based on urban models and are inconsistent with the rural
character of the region. They are also cost-prohibitive to develop for both the County and communities that may
seek to use road improvement district strategies. This policy is reaffirming General Plan policies 13.2.3(l): “Adopt
street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate, flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the
rural character of an area and encourage a pedestrian-friendly design, including landscaping and planted medians,”
and 13.2.3 (m): “Develop minimum street standards for homestead and other currently substandard roadways that
are offered for dedication to the County to ensure minimal levels of public safety.”
Policy 75
Implement a Complete Streets Program, including place-appropriate roadway design and sidewalk development
for the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: The State of Hawaiʻi has passed legislation requiring each County to adopt a Complete Streets policy that
seeks to reasonably accommodate convenient access and mobility for all users of the pubic highways within their
respective jurisdictions. The law requires the policy to include access and mobility choices for pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit users, motorists and persons of all ages and ability. Hawaiʻi County adopted Resolution 171-11 supporting
122 | Page
the establishment of a Hawaiʻi County Complete Streets Policy and has initiated its development. This CDP policy
affirms the importance of the Complete Streets program in designing safe, place-appropriate roadways for both
rural and village applications. This is especially important in addressing safety improvements around the Planning
Area’s school facilities. See Policy 67 and Community Action 35.
5.6 Expand Mass Transit Facilities and Services
This section of the CDP prioritizes bus system improvements, including adding intra-town routes, increase bus trips
through the Hāmākua Planning Area, and developing additional bus shelters.
5.6.2 County Action
Policy 76
Implement the recommendations from the Kohala Center’s study Expanding Transportation Opportunities on
Hawai‘i Island to optimize efficiencies and create new transportation alternatives, including:
Optimize Public Transport with Technology;
Partner with private enterprises for both rideshare and vanpool alternatives.
Rationale: See the Kohala Center’s Study, Expanding Transportation Opportunities on Hawaiʻi Island here:
http://kohalacenter.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Research_Hawaii_Transit_Study_2014.pdf. This policy
addresses the need to expand mass transit options for users while also focusing on a more efficient allocation of
transit resources for the Planning Area. The policy addresses scheduling efficiencies and partnering with private
enterprises to expand transit options for residents, commuters, and special needs residents. This policy is supported
by General Plan policies:
13.4.3 (a): “Improve the integration of transportation and land use planning in order to optimize the use,
efficiency, and accessibility of existing and proposed mass transportation systems.”
13.4.3 (b): “Support and encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation, such as enhanced
bus services and bicycle paths.”
Refer also to General Plan policies 13.1.3(b); 13.1.3(c); 13.1.3(f). See also the State of Hawaiʻi Coordinated Public
Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan, pages 31-55 (2001) (References: to be added to Appendix).
Policy 77
Provide rural transit centers within the Planning Area in areas of heavy user-ship, particularly provide shelter
options at the following locations:
Pepeʻekeo, Near the Post Office
Laupāhoehoe, near the Highway Overpass
Assess where to provide a bus shelter on Māmane Street in relation to Policy 78.
Rationale: The County Mass Transit agency has been actively developing new bus shelters throughout the Island.
This CDP policy is to prioritize the need for bus shelters in these heavily used and highly weather-vulnerable areas.
123 | Page
For example, currently, riders in Rural South Hilo and North Hilo struggle to find shelter from the rain under the
eaves of nearby structures, such as inside the Pepeʻekeo Post Office, or huddling under the Laupāhoehoe pedestrian
overpass.
Policy 78
Modify existing and develop additional bus routes, as appropriate, with scheduled stops within the towns and
villages where practicable; particularly:
Honokaʻa: Māmane Street
Rationale: See the policy rationale for Policy 105 and 106. See also the State of Hawaiʻi Coordinated Public Transit –
Human Services Transportation Plan pages 31-55 (2001) (Note: to be added to Appendix). It is an identified service
gap in the transit system to focus mass transit strategies on a fixed-route schedule that primarily stays on the
Highway. Expanding the service area into the towns, as appropriate, would increase ridership and provide transit
access to residents who find it difficult or are unable to get to the Highway location bus stops. This would achieve
the intent of other General Plan Policies such as: 13.4.3 (a): “Improve the integration of transportation and land use
planning in order to optimize the use, efficiency, and accessibility of existing and proposed mass transportation
systems.”
Policy 79
Develop, or collaborate with private owners to facilitate the development of, Park-and-Ride facilities throughout
the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: This policy is intended to accommodate commuters in the Planning Area. The majority of the employed
residents of the Planning Area commute more than a half hour to their places of employment. The prospects for
partnering with business owners or property owners to use underutilized parking areas (churches, undeveloped lots,
etc.,) was explored at the CDP Small Town Revitalization Workshop held in Honomū in 2011. This policy is supported
by the following General Plan policies:
13.4.2 (a): Provide residents with a variety of public transportation systems that are affordable, efficient,
accessible, safe, environmentally friendly, and reliable;
13.4.3 (a): Improve the integration of transportation and land use planning in order to optimize the use,
efficiency, and accessibility of existing and proposed mass transportation systems
13.4.3 (b): Support and encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation, such as enhanced
bus services and bicycle paths.
5.6.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
124 | Page
5.7 Improve Water Infrastructure
This section of the CDP prioritizes the improvement of existing potable water systems to support infill growth.
5.7.2 County Action
Policy 80
Water system improvements shall correlate with the County’s desired land use development pattern. Work with
Department of Water Supply to ensure that adequate infrastructure is available in appropriate locations to
support infill growth within the Hāmākua CDP growth boundary.
Towns identified in the Hāmākua Planning Area where water availability is inhibiting infill capacity are as follows:
Pepeʻekeo;
Hakalau-Wailea;
Nīnole;
Honokaʻa;
Continue to evaluate growth conditions to coordinate improvements as required to the existing water systems.
Importantly, County water distribution systems shall not be extended outside the growth boundary established in
the Hāmākua CDP Land Use Policies and Policy Map, with the exception of water designated specifically for and
limited to agricultural irrigation and livestock.
Rationale: This policy is based on the existing General Plan policies:
11.2.2 (a): Water system improvements shall correlate with the County's desired land use development pattern;
11.2.2 (e): Water system improvements should be first installed in areas that have established needs and
characteristics, such as occupied dwellings, agricultural operations and other uses, or in areas adjacent to them
if there is need for urban expansion;
11.2.2 (f): A coordinated effort by County, State and private interests shall be developed to identify sources of
additional water supply and be implemented to ensure the development of sufficient quantities of water for
existing and future needs of high growth areas and agricultural production;
Currently the lack of available water is an impediment to infill growth in many of the Planning Area’s towns and
villages. See Appendix V4B pages 177-237.
125 | Page
5.8 Improve Environmental Management Facilities
This section of the CDP prioritizes recycling education, waste diversion strategies, and transfer station facility and
programmatic improvements.
5.8.3 County Action
Policy 81
Promote recycling or composting of agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste material through education,
outreach, and incentives.
Rationale: This policy affirms the following General Plan policies:
4.3 (d): Encourage the concept of recycling agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste material;
10.5.2 (f): Continue to encourage programs such as recycling to reduce the flow of refuse deposited in landfills;
The community was supportive of recycling and composting enterprises at the Regional Workshops of 2012 (See the
summary of workshop results from the 4.1.2012 CDP meeting minutes). Further, the policy is supported by the
Hawaiʻi Zero Waste Plan, and the State of Hawaii Hawaiʻi Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (HRS§342G). For
more information, see Appendix V4B, pages 124-125.
Policy 82
Incorporate greenwaste facilities at appropriate rural transfer stations. Particularly assess these facilities for
greenwaste options:
Honomū
Paʻauilo
Rationale: This policy is an affirmation of General Plan Policy 10.5.2 (h): Encourage the full development and
implementation of a green waste recycling program, and is supported by the Hawaiʻi Zero Waste Plan, State of
Hawaiʻi Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (HRS §342G). For more information, see Appendix V4B, pages 124-
125.
Policy 83
Add an additional chute/receptacle at the Honokaa Recycling and Solid Waste Transfer Station.
Rationale: This policy is to address an identified need at the Honokaʻa transfer station as identified during CDP
research. For more information, see pages 122-126 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 84
Increase recycling education and outreach online and through signage at rural transfer stations, including:
Facility schedules and what types of disposal/recycling/reuse options are available at each of the rural
Recycling and Transfer Stations;
Up-to-date information on recycling events.
126 | Page
Rationale: This policy is based on research performed through the CDP process that found it is sometimes difficult
to determine the types of services available at the County solid waste facilities – particularly when it comes to
special recycling events or which rural transfer stations accept whitegoods. The County maintains an excellent
informational page at www.hawaiizerowaste.org, however some improvements to the information available online
may be advantageous. Also, to ensure that waste streams are being diverted from landfills and not dumped illegally,
an on-going program of educational outreach on anti-littering, recycling, reuse, and other waste reduction strategies
should be prioritized by the County.
Policy 85
Encourage new and maintain and enhance existing community-County partnerships in managing recycling/reuse
centers at County facilities to increase waste diversion. (Particularly at Laupāhoehoe Recycling & Transfer Station)
Rationale: This policy affirms General Plan policy 10.5.2 (f), “Continue to encourage programs such as recycling to
reduce the flow of refuse deposited in landfills.” It is also supported by the Hawaiʻi Zero Waste Plan and the State of
Hawaii Hawaiʻi Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (HRS§342G). The community has expressed a desire to
increase community and County collaborative management of facilities, and this policy encourages the County to
continue to focus resources on managing these collaborative efforts. See Appendix V4B: Community Building
Analysis pages 124-125. See also affiliated Community Action 30.
Policy 86
Ensure that County Recycling and Transfer Station Facilities are complying with best management practices to
ensure pollutants are not contaminating natural resources such as soil, streams, and near coastal waters,
especially during periods of heavy rainfall.
Rationale: This policy is to confirm and prioritize the need to be especially cognizant of the effects of waste facilities
sited near sensitive environmental receptors, such as streams and coastal waters. Each of the Planning Area’s five
transfer stations are sited near streams and thus are susceptible to contaminating waterway resources with run-
off/leachate during periods of heavy rainfall. Transfer station facilities are regulated by the Department of Health.
This policy is supported by General Plan policies 4.3(b), “Reinforce and strengthen established standards where it is
necessary, principally by initiating, recommending, and adopting ordinances pertaining to the control of pollutants
that affect the environment,” and 4.3(h), “Work with the appropriate agencies to adopt appropriate measures and
provide incentives to control point and nonpoint sources of pollution.” These best management practices are
mandated by the Hawaiʻi Revised Statute rules §58.1-31.
5.8.5 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
127 | Page
5.9 Improve Emergency Preparedness & Hazard Mitigation
This section of the CDP prioritizes hardening of facilities, facilities assessments, and evacuation plans for isolated
communities.
5.9.2 County Action
Policy 87
County Civil Defense and State Civil Defense should ensure that communities within the Hāmākua Planning Area
are adequately served by emergency shelters.
Rationale: The Planning Area is vulnerable to a wide-range of emergencies and disasters ranging from hurricanes,
earthquakes, rock falls, tsunamis, and floods. Hurricanes, above all others, are clearly the most dangerous and
capable of inflicting enormous damage and loss of life. Hurricanes provide the greatest challenge to Civil Defense
and emergency management agencies at all levels of government. It is also recognized that the shelter capacity
local is not adequate to shelter the population within their home communities. The newly updated Hawaiʻi County
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2015 lists the following schools shelters:
Hāmākua District
Honokaa High and Intermediate
Building A
Building N [Special needs + general population]
Building T [Special needs + general population AND pet friendly]
Building X
Kalanianaʻole Elementary
Building A[Pet-friendly]
Building H
Building I
Building J [Special needs + general population]
Building E [Pet-friendly only]
However, according to the Hawaiʻi County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, none of the Planning Areas schools listed as
shelters have been evaluated for safety by DAGs (see page 284).
Policy 88
In coordination with the State Civil Defense Agency and in line with Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans, harden critical
facilities.
Laupāhoehoe Fire Station Hardening;
Replace and relocate the Honokaʻa Fire Station to Highway 19;
Harden Kulaʻimano Community Center (Pepeʻekeo)
Look for opportunities to combine hardening with other facility improvements, such as ADA improvements,
etc.
128 | Page
Rationale: This policy is supported by both the State and County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation plans and addresses
Community Objective 6. See the rationale Policy 90, below, and Appendix V4B, pages 128-132.
Policy 89
County Civil Defense, in cooperation with Red Cross, FEMA, State Civil Defense, DOE, and DAGS, should conduct
routine facility assessments for all emergency shelters in the Planning Area and keep the County Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan emergency shelter references up-to-date.
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 88. Also, according to the Hawaiʻi County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan of
2015 in regards to the lessons learned from Tropical Storm Iselle (August 8, 2014) on page 17-8 and 17-9:
“On August 7th through August 8th, 2014, Tropical Storm Iselle made landfall on the County of Hawaiʻi, which
opened 12 public shelters throughout the county. Typically, a number of buildings at each school were available
to be opened for sheltering. A variety of types of buildings were selected by school officials and utilized during
Tropical Storm Iselle. Therefore, it was appropriate to examine the buildings that were chosen to be used as
shelters in this event so that any immediate evaluation or operational lessons to be learned from Hurricane
Iselle are identified. Overall, there was no damage observed at any of the shelters, but this could be attributed
to the weakening of the hurricane by the time it reached the Big Island.
It appears that in several cases buildings were selected despite not being on the approved Department of
Education list of Tropical Cyclone shelter buildings. On the other hand, the Department of Education list of
Tropical Cyclone shelter buildings had not been distributed across multi-agency stakeholders including Hawaii
County Civil Defense Agency and the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, and the American Red Cross.
There needs to be further clarification of what buildings are available and judged to be appropriate for use as
hurricane shelters, which have an additional requirement of being sufficiently resistant to high winds while
occupied. This is a distinctly different use than “shelters” used for other types of disasters or for post-disaster
temporary mass care shelters. Some buildings customarily used for mass care purposes may not be appropriate
for use as hurricane shelters. A coordinated itemized list of hurricane shelter buildings needs to be maintained.
Information on buildings in the DOE list of shelters should be maintained to indicate whether it had been
evaluated, whether deficiencies exist, and whether retrofits have been done. The list of buildings at each school
should be prioritized by hurricane resistance and risk. This list should be regularly updated with versioning
control metadata and periodically distributed to civil defense agencies, DOE staff, and ARC personnel involved in
shelter operations.
It is very likely during tropical storm and hurricane force wind speeds that power will be lost at the shelters. The
procedure for furnishing emergency power generators and connecting them to the building switch should be
exercised with DOE security and maintenance staff.”
This CDP policy is supported by General Plan Policy 10.3.2 (l), “Encourage the State to evaluate the disaster shelters’
ability to withstand various natural disasters;” and 10.3.2 (j), “Mitigate hazards through the preparation of disaster
assessment reports and appropriate follow-up on the assessment recommendations.”
Policy 90
Develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans specifically for Laupāhoehoe Point and Waipiʻo Valley, including
evacuation plans.
129 | Page
Rationale: This policy was developed from CDP research and community feedback. This policy is intended to
address community concerns over being able to safely evacuate these isolated and geographically vulnerable areas
when necessary. Both locations have winding, hazardous, single-lane roads as their only ingress and egress.
Residents have noted that evacuating Waipiʻo Valley has been problematic due to emergency vehicles attempting to
enter the valley, while residents were attempting to evacuate using the same single-lane route. Residents of
Waipiʻo are often also evacuating livestock and have expressed the desire for more coordinated efforts in addressing
how to efficiently evacuate, or even how and when they can safely shelter in place as appropriate. The policy is
supported by General Plan Policy 10.3.2 (j), “Mitigate hazards through the preparation of disaster assessment
reports and appropriate follow-up on the assessment recommendations;” and 10.3.2 (k), “Educate the public
regarding disaster preparedness and response, especially proper responses for sudden impact hazards.” For more
information, see pages 131 and 138 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 91
Assess the feasibility of installing an emergency telephone for Waipiʻo Valley residents and determine if
additional emergency telephones are appropriate and feasible in other areas of low cellular connectivity.
Rationale: This policy is to address the issue of low cellular and telephone connectivity in Waipiʻo Valley for
emergencies. However, emergency phones can be prone to weather-related failures and vandalism issues;
therefore the County Highways division would need to assess the cost-benefits of installing land line emergency
phones and where emergency phones should be sited. Some examples of isolated areas with emergency phones are
the Daniel K. Inouye Highway (aka: Saddle Road, or Route 200), and the Hana Highway on Maui. This policy was
developed from CDP research and community feedback. It is supported by General Plan Policy 11.3.2 (b), “Work
with the telecommunications industry to increase the availability of emergency telephones throughout the island.”
For more information, see pages 129-139 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 92
Educate and prepare the public for disaster preparedness and response by increasing the number of CERT
programs in the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: The County’s Civil Defense Agency administers the Community Emergency Response Team or CERT
program and the County’s Fire Department conducts CERT training. CERTs are community-based, comprised of
residents and businesspersons that have the local knowledge of their community and the fundamental skills to
properly respond to an emergency. CERTs fall under the authority of and can be activated by Civil Defense and can
be self-activated in an emergency until professional responders arrive. Because of the vulnerability of the Planning
Area to various natural hazards and also to becoming isolated from the closure of the Highway 19, there is a
significant need and relevance for CERT within the Planning Area. Also, there are currently three active CERTs in the
Hāmākua Planning Area, in Honokaʻa, Pa’auilo, and Laupāhoehoe. The policy is consistent with General Plan Policy
10.3.2 (k), “Educate the public regarding disaster preparedness and response, especially proper responses for
sudden impact hazards.” For more information on this, see page 135 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 93
Coordinate with FEMA and NRCS to address areas developed prior to flood regulations and riverine flood areas in
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). (HCC Chapter 27)
130 | Page
Rationale: The County Department of Public Works uses the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) to administer
floodplain management regulations and to mitigate flood damage, pursuant HCC Chapter 27, which meets the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Although the NFIP has significantly mitigated flood
damages, major flood problems exist in areas developed prior to flood control regulations and building standards, in
areas that are subject to flooding but not identified on the FIRMs, and areas with flood control improvements that
are inadequate to contain or control larger floods by present standards. This policy seeks to prioritize the finalization
of the FIRM maps for those areas developed prior to flood control regulations and to include riverine flood areas, as
appropriate. This policy is supported by General Plan Policy 5.3 (c), “Update and improve the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and other flood maps in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as needed.” For more
information, see pages 158-159 of Appendix V4A.
5.9.3 Kōkua Action
Department of Education, Department of General Accounting and Services, State Civil Defense, and Federal
Emergency Management Agency
Kōkua Action 52:
Conduct routine facility assessments for all emergency shelters and prioritize funding for improvements.
Rationale: This Kōkua action is supported by General Plan Policy 10.3.2(i), “Encourage the State to evaluate the
disaster shelters’ ability to withstand various natural disasters.” For more information on this, see pages 130-138 of
Appendix V4B.
Hawaiʻi Health Services
Kōkua Action 53:
Request State CIP funding to harden Hale Hoʻola Hāmākua (aka: Honokaʻa hospital).
Rationale: This is an identified need from the Hawaiʻi County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010). It is also
consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
10.5.2 (a) Encourage the development of new health care facilities or the improvement of existing health care
facilities to serve the needs of Hāmākua, North and South Kohala, and North and South Kona.
10.5.2(d): Encourage the State to continue operation of the rural hospitals
10.5.2(e): Encourage the establishment or expansion of community health centers and rural health clinics.
For more information, see pages 130-131, 141, 143 of Appendix V4B.
5.9.4 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
131 | Page
5.10 Improving Protective Services
This section prioritizes police, firefighting, and related facilities. Note: Sections 5.9 and 5.10 both relate to preventing,
mitigating, and addressing emergencies and critical services for preserving life and property.
5.10.2 County Action
Policy 94
Actively expand Community Policing programs such as Neighborhood, Farm, and Business Watch programs.
Rationale: This policy is to address the rise of crime (particularly thefts) throughout the region. It affirms General
Plan Policy 10.3.2(g), “Encourage the further development and expansion of community policing programs and
neighborhood and farm watch programs in urban, rural and agricultural communities.” Research shows that these
programs can reduce crime and resident fear of crime, as well as increase citizen satisfaction with police, resident
involvement in crime prevention activities, and positive interactions between police and residents. For more
information on this, see pages 136-139 of Appendix V4B.
Policy 95
Optimize use of the Pepeʻekeo substation to increase Police and Fire department presence in the Planning Area
and improve emergency response times in Rural South Hilo.
Consider expanding North Hilo policing jurisdiction to include parts of rural South Hilo (Honomū and
Pepeʻekeo) to increase response times in these rural areas;
Rationale: This policy is based on consultation with community policing officers in the South Hilo district. Currently
the police substation in Pepeʻekeo is not being used the majority of time and officers responding to calls within Rural
South Hilo generally are traveling from other parts of Hilo Town. This results in longer response times to crimes in
progress or other emergencies in the more distant areas of Rural South Hilo. This policy is consistent with General
Plan Policy for South Hilo, 10.3.4.2.2 (a), “Expansion of Police, Fire, and emergency medical facilities should be
considered in accordance with district needs.”
Policy 96
Work with community members to develop volunteer firefighter capacity for the Laupāhoehoe Fire Station.
Rationale: This policy was developed from CDP research identifying a recently developed gap in volunteer firefighter
capacity in the North Hilo district. During the development of this Draft, there was not a volunteer firefighting team
for Laupāhoehoe. See also corresponding Community Action 33 in the CDP and Community Action Guide.
Policy 97
Prioritize securing an emergency vehicle for Honokaʻa fire station with the capacity for providing safe service to
Waipiʻo Valley.
Rationale: This policy is based on a recently identified need for improved capacity for emergency vehicles to safely
service Waipiʻo Valley emergencies.
5.10.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
132 | Page
5.11 Expand Healthcare & Social Services
This section of the CDP prioritizes healthcare improvements, with an emphasis on advocating for system improvements
at the State level.
5.11.2 County Action
Policy 98
Develop a broad spectrum of care for the aging population of the area, including:
Increase age-in-place options;
Support expansion of programs such as traveling nurses, in-home care visits, meals-on-wheels, etc. (GP 2.3(x),
(n))
Rationale: The Planning area has the highest percentage of people over the age of 65 in the County (17%)
compared to the countywide age distribution pattern for persons over the age of 65 (14.5%). As the population
continues to age, there will be a greater demand of housing types and services that allow residents to "age in place"
in either their own homes or group home facilities. This policy focuses on developing a broad spectrum of care to
enable aging or ailing residents of the Planning area to remain in their homes or communities for as long as they are
able. Currently, the County sponsors or participates in various programs through the Parks and Recreation
department and the Office of Aging. For more information on this, see Appendix V4B, pages 79-86 and 142-147.
5.11.3 Kōkua Action
Rationale for this section: The following Kōkua Actions are affirming existing General Plan policies (cited within each
action) to encourage a continued focus on improving existing and developing new rural healthcare centers and
programs in the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Health, Dental, and Vision Care Providers:
The following Kōkua Actions could be implemented by various health care providers such as: Kaiser Permanente,
HMSA, Hawaiʻi Dental Service, Hawaiʻi Health Systems, Aloha Care Quest, Medicare, etc.,:
Kōkua Action 54:
Develop new, expand, or improve existing community health centers and rural health clinics in the Hāmākua
Planning Area. (GP 10.5.2 (a, e))
Kōkua Action 55:
Expand the use of mobile health centers and services (health, screening, vision, dental, etc.) to rotate through the
Hāmākua Planning Area on a regular basis. (GP 10.5.2(e))
State of Hawaiʻi
Kōkua Action 56:
Continue operation of rural hospitals. (GP 10.5.2(d))
133 | Page
5.12 Strengthen & Expand Education Facilities and Services
This section of the CDP prioritizes education facility coordination between the State, County, and community.
5.12.2 County Action
Policy 99
Encourage joint-use of schoolyards, County parks, and other public facilities for community use for recreational,
cultural, and other compatible uses.
Rationale: This policy affirms General Plan policies 10.2.2 (b), “Encourage combining schoolyards with county parks
and allow school facilities for afterschool use by the community for recreational, cultural, and other compatible
uses,” and the recreation policy of 12.3 (g), “Facilities for compatible multiple uses shall be provided.” The Hāmākua
CDP is affirming these General Plan policies based on research demonstrating that joint-use strategies are an
efficient way of collaborating between agencies and communities. Currently many communities in the Planning Area
are benefiting from joint-use of facilities, and this policy seeks to support the continuance and expansion of these
cooperative arrangements. The impediments and challenges involved with cooperative arrangements often involve
liability and jurisdictional issues, however several joint-use organizations are active on the mainland endeavoring to
help communities and municipalities deal with these challenges. Funding and technical resources are also
sometimes available from various organizations that seek to expand recreation access to young people, particularly
organizations focused on health and active living (e.g., Safe Routes to School). See the Appendix V4B: Community
Building Analysis pages 152-155.
5.12.3 Kōkua Action
State Department of Education
Kōkua Action 57:
Work with the County of Hawai‘i and community groups to expand facilities resource sharing opportunities /
programs. GP10.1.3 (a); (b); 10.2.2(b)
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 99.
Kōkua Action 58:
Continually improve existing educational facilities.
Rationale: This action affirms General Plan policies: 10.2.4.2.2 (e); 10.1.2 (a); 10.1.3 (a); and 10.2.4.4(a).
Kōkua Action 59:
Provide pedestrian walkways to and around all school complexes, and improve vehicular traffic management.
(GP 10.2.4.2.2 (c); 10.2.4.3.2 (a))
Rationale: See Policy 75, and related Kōkua Action 60, and 61, and the General Plan policy 10.2.2 (a), as cited
above. See also http://www.saferoutesinfo.org and https://www.bluezones.com/ for more information.
134 | Page
Kōkua Action 60:
Develop and implement a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program.
Rationale: Kōkua Action 59 affirms the cited General Plan policies and focuses attention on the need to improve
traffic safety in and around the schools. For example, there continues to be no pedestrian walkway or crosswalk
guard at the Highway 19/Onomea intersection at Kalanianaʻole School since the pedestrian overpass was
damaged and permanently removed. This section of the Highway has lower visibility, traffic speeds of 45 mph,
and no dedicated turn lanes. (See also Kōkua Action 58, and 61).
Hawaiʻi State Legislature
Kōkua Action 61:
Allocate sufficient funds to improve traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety improvements at all schools in the
Hāmākua Planning Area.
Rationale: See Policy 75, and Kōkua Actions 59-61.
5.12.4 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
5.13 Expand Parks & Recreation Facilities
This section of the CDP prioritizes recreation improvements and trail development.
5.13.2 County Action
The following policies address Community Objective 6: “develop and improve […] recreational facilities to keep our
ʻohana safe, strong, and healthy.”
Policy 100
Conduct Park facilities condition assessments and prioritize improvement funding. Update the “County of Hawai‘i
Recreation Plan: to reflect newly identified recreational priorities.
Specific needs identified include:
Assess court conditions for basketball and tennis courts and prioritize these improvements (e.g., Hakalau
tennis courts; Pepeʻekeo basketball courts, etc.).
Identify parks in need of playground equipment and pavilions. (GP 12.3 (f) & (e))
Rationale: This policy affirms the existing General Plan policy 12.3 (e), “Develop short and long range capital
improvement programs and plans for recreational facilities that are consistent with the General Plan,” and 12.3 (f),
“The "County of Hawaii Recreation Plan" shall be updated to reflect newly identified recreational priorities.” The
policy reflects a community goal of keeping the County’s Recreation Plan up-to-date and providing transparency to
the public on park facility conditions and priorities.
The specific actions listed address specific facility improvements identified as community priorities. This policy is
supported by General Plan policy 12.3(b). “Improve existing public facilities for optimum usage,” policy 12.3 (h),
135 | Page
“Provide facilities and a broad recreational program for all age groups, with special considerations for the
handicapped, the elderly, and young children;” and Table 17 of the Appendix V4B, and pages 156-160 for a
preliminary assessment of existing facilities.
Policy 101
Complete the following recreation projects:
Solar-water heating for Laupāhoehoe Swimming Pool
Re-roof Pāpaʻikou Gym
Convert the old Honokaʻa courthouse facility to use for community meetings and functions. (Requires a
management agreement with the State of Hawaiʻi, and relates the intent of GP 12.5.4(a))
Prioritize hazardous materials abatement at facilities: Pāpaʻaloa Gym (CIP FY2014-2015 Ord. No. 14082, Item #
2014010)
Rationale: This policy focuses budget priorities on completing these specific existing projects. The swimming pool
solar-water heater improvement has been done at other County pools (such as Pahoa), and would likely increase
facility use during the winter months. It has particularly been identified as an improvement that would increase
participation in the school swimming program. The gym reroofing project is an important maintenance issue that
would increase the use of the facilities - for example, prior to Honomū gym being reroofed; it needed to close
during heavy rains. Replacing the Pāpaʻikou gym roof would protect and prolong the life of the buildings. The
conversion of the old courthouse in Honokaʻa into multipurpose rooms would increase the community’s capacity to
gather together; currently the main facilities for gathering are school facilities or NHERC facilities, which might not
be available or amenable for all types of community functions. The hazardous materials abatement at Pāpaʻaloa
gym is a safety and capacity issue needed to remove the identified hazardous material. For some years now,
sections of the gym have been required to be cordoned off from use, and this remains the case even after recent
improvements were made to the same facility’s outdoor recreation areas.
This policy is supported by General Plan policy 12.3(b). “Improve existing public facilities for optimum usage,” policy
12.3 (h), “Provide facilities and a broad recreational program for all age groups, with special considerations for the
handicapped, the elderly, and young children;” and Table 17 of the Appendix V4B, and pages 156-160 for a
preliminary assessment of existing facilities. For more information, see Table 17 of the Appendix V4B, and pages
156-160 for a preliminary assessment of existing facilities.
Policy 102
Seek to combine Park facility improvements projects with other needed facility improvements (e.g., ADA
improvements with facility hardening, etc.)
Rationale: While the County Parks and Recreation department is fiscally challenged in bringing all the Island’s park
facilities into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, efficiently combining improvement
projects would aid in accomplishing multiple objectives. This policy is supported by General Plan policy 12.3(b).
“Improve existing public facilities for optimum usage,” Policy 12.3 (h), “Provide facilities and a broad recreational
program for all age groups, with special considerations for the handicapped, the elderly, and young children;” and
Table 17 of the Appendix V4B, and pages 156-160 for a preliminary assessment of existing facilities.
136 | Page
Note: For information on prioritizing CIP funds for the Laupāhoehoe boat ramp, see Policy 54.
Policy 103
Develop a system of trails and paths for walking, jogging, and biking activities.
Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural or recreational values. This
system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an island wide route connecting major parks and destinations (12.3
m))
Rationale: Currently there are very limited opportunities in the Planning Area to walk, jog, or bicycle on dedicated
paths (not combined with vehicular traffic). This policy addresses community priorities for recreation and access
improvements (Community Objectives 1, 5, 6, 7) and reaffirms General Plan policies:
12.3 (o): Develop facilities and safe pathway systems for walking, jogging, and biking activities;
12.3 m): Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural or recreational values.
This system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an island wide route connecting major parks and destinations;
12.3 (n): Establish a program to inventory ancient trails, cart roads and old government roads on the island in
coordination with appropriate State agencies.
See also Policy 75 for a policy on Complete Streets.
Policy 104
Coordinate with the Hakalau community to investigate and pursue the redevelopment of the Hakalau gym facility
for community use.
Rationale: Currently there is no indoor community facility in Hakalau and both the old school facility and the County
Gym are closed and have dilapidated into states of questionable usability. This policy encourages the County to
work with the community in developing a plan to move forward on providing for recreation/community use of this
property. Some of the options are to allow a community group to manage and use (including repair) the facility,
allow the community to redevelop the property for community use (this would likely involve new construction), or
redevelop the site for community use as a County funded project. This policy is supported by General Plan policy
12.3(b). “Improve existing public facilities for optimum usage,” Policy 12.3 (h), “Provide facilities and a broad
recreational program for all age groups, with special considerations for the handicapped, the elderly, and young
children.”
5.13.3 Kōkua Action
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Education
Kōkua Action 62:
Coordinate with the Hakalau community to pursue the redevelopment and community management options for the
old Hakalau School property. See the corresponding Community Action 38 in the CDP and the Community Action
Guide.
See also:
Bishop Estate, State of Hawaiʻi, Kamehameha Schools
137 | Page
See Kōkua Action 23: Explore options and collaborate with community groups to increase access to former sugar
cane roads to be used as non-motorized trails where feasible and appropriate.
Rationale: Many former sugar cane roads would make excellent trails if agreements can be reached between
property owners and community groups interested in community-based collaborative management of the trails.
See Kōkua Action 26: Explore the feasibility of creating a scenic park (accessible via Mud Lane) with a viewing area of
Hiʻilawe Falls in conjunction with the development of Mud Lane into a scenic route. See related policies P93 & 94;
based on GP 12.5.4.2 (d)) and 13.2.5.4.2 (c).
Rationale: See the related Policy 58 and Policy 59 and their rationale.
5.13.4 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
5.14 Enhance Telecommunications & Energy Infrastructure
This section of the CDP guides telecommunication and energy infrastructure as high community priorities while also
protecting scenic resources.
For policies relating to promoting telecommunications and energy as economic sectors, see Section 6.
5.14.3 Land Use Policy
Policy 105
If the most suitable and reasonable location for utility lines (power and telephone) is underground, for the
purpose of preserving viewshed resources, then underground siting of utility lines should be a condition of
subdivision. (HCC§23-55, GP 11.3.2 (a), 11.3.3)
Rationale: This policy protects scenic viewsheds and open spaces from development that impacts natural viewshed
resources. It is supported by the following policies:
General Plan 11.3.2(a): Encourage underground telephone lines where they are economically and technically
feasible;
General Plan 11.3.3: In the development and placement of telephone facilities, such as lines,
telecommunications and cellular towers, poles, and substations, the design of the facilities shall consider the
existing environment, and scenic view and vistas shall be considered and preserved where possible;
See also Hawaiʻi County Code 25-2-75(a) & 76, and Community Objective 1. See also related viewshed policies
at 4.5 Preserve Scenic Areas and Viewsheds.
5.14.4 County Action
Policy 106
Collaborate with local businesses, community groups, and private enterprises to develop Wi-Fi service within
appropriate towns.
138 | Page
Rationale: This policy encourages the County to partner with community and private groups to increase access to
Wi-Fi service within the Planning Area’s towns. Currently, several towns in the Planning Area have limited cellular
connectivity and thus are technological ‘holes’ for residents and visitors seeking online resources. A pilot program
launched in Honokaʻa through collaboration between the County, private businesses, and the Downtown Honokaʻa
Business Association is aimed at providing Wi-Fi access within the downtown area intended to serve as an economic
boost in encouraging visitors and residents to stay (and shop) in the downtown area longer.
Policy 107
Use alternative energy sources to power County facilities within the Planning Area.
Rationale: This policy focuses on the County administration leading by example by powering their facilities with
alternative energy sources. Examples of this leadership can currently be seen in the use of solar lights in County
parks, and the photovoltaic system on the remodeled County Building. This policy is supported by General Plan
policy: 3.3 (k), “Strive to diversify the energy supply and minimize the environmental impacts associated with energy
usage;” and the goals articulated in General Plan 3.2 (a), “Strive towards energy self-sufficiency,” and (b), “Establish
the Big Island as a demonstration community for the development and use of natural energy resources.”
5.14.5 Kōkua Action
Hawaiian Telcom, Time Warner Cable, and other service providers
Kōkua Action 63:
Prioritize rural broadband access in underserved areas in the Planning Area (e.g., rural and mauka areas).
Rationale: See Policy 106. This policy is consistent with the intent of providing adequate communication
connectivity articulated in General Plan policy 11.3.2 (d).
Hawaiʻi Electric Light Company
Kōkua Action 64:
Expand Net-Metering (NEM), Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) programs, and other similar programs designed to lower costs
and diversify power sources.
Rationale: This policy is based on existing General Plan Policy 3.3 (o), “Support net-metering and other incentives for
independent power producers.” It expresses the community’s goals on alternative energy production and lowering
consumer energy costs. For more information, see pages 62-63 of Appendix V4C.
5.14.6 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
139 | Page
E lauhoe mai nā wa‘a; i ke kā, i ka hoe; i
ka hoe, i ke kā; pae aku i ka ‘āina.
Everybody paddle the canoes together;
bail and paddle, paddle and bail, and
the shore is reached.
SECTION 6: BUILD A SUSTAINABLE, LOCAL ECONOMY
Note: The State of Hawaiʻi takes an active role in economic
development through various endeavors, initiatives, and
programs. The role of the County of Hawaiʻi in economic
development is much more limited. Relative to other counties
and municipalities in other parts of the country, Hawai‘i County
is a small, rural county with limited revenue sources and
jurisdiction. The most direct role that Hawai‘i County plays in
economic development is through land use regulation and
property tax policy. Otherwise, the County seeks to support
economic development through the Department of Research and Development. The Department has economic
development specialists who focus on business development, agriculture, energy, tourism, and film. It also maintains the
County Data Book and provides small grants to advance local economic development.
Most of Section 6 of the Draft CDP is organized by sectors – local agriculture, health and wellness services, creative,
education and research, place-based visitor, local retail and town centers, and green industries. Though each sub-section
typically includes policies and Kōkua actions, growth in each sector will mostly be dependent on implementation of the
Community Actions, which are detailed in the “Community Action Guide.” As with the rest of the CDP, near the
beginning of each subsection there is a section on Existing Policy. The existing policies for economic development
compiled from the General Plan of 2005 are generally aspirational in nature and do not necessarily reflect a realistic
impression of the County of Hawaiʻi’s economic development capacity. As an example, General Plan Policy 14.2.3 (l)
directs the County to: “Assist in the development of agriculture.” This is a well-intentioned policy, but it is vague, varies
upon interpretation, and does not provide guidance for any mechanisms to provide assistance to the agricultural
industry. Due to the acknowledged limited capacity of County government to directly affect economic development,
Section 6 focuses on Kōkua Actions and Community Actions to advance community objectives.
6.1 Coordinate Regional Economic Development
This section of the CDP guides the implementation of regional economic development strategies, including an education,
enterprise development, and research network and regional strategies to increase “buying local.”
6.1.3 County Action
Policy 108
Develop a distinctive identity for the Hāmākua region to enable public and private industries to promote it as
unique within the State of Hawai‘i. (GP2.3 (o))
Rationale: This policy recognizes that the Hāmākua region has a unique heritage and identity in the State of Hawaiʻi,
it addresses Community Objectives 8-13, and it is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.3 (o): “Promote a
140 | Page
distinctive identity for the Island of Hawai‘i to enable government, business, and travel industries to promote the
County of Hawai‘i as an entity unique within the State of Hawai‘i.” For more information on this, see pages 112, 120-
124, 149, 181-184 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 109
Commission a study of Economic and Financial Impact (EFI) Reviews and recommend integration of EFI Reviews
into existing regulatory and approval processes (e.g., the Environmental Impact Statement process and
community benefits agreements).
Rationale: This policy balances ʻĀina-related Community Objectives with Economic Community Objectives and is
affirming the following General Plan Policies:
2.2 (h): “Promote and develop the island of Hawai‘i into a unique scientific and cultural model, where economic
gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. Development should be reviewed on the basis of total
impact on the residents of the County, not only in terms of immediate short run economic benefits.”
2.3 (y): “Encourage new industries that provide favorable benefit-cost relationships to the people of the County.
Benefit-cost relationships include more than fiscal considerations.”
Municipalities have long evaluated the impact development projects may have on such things as traffic and the
environment. Some are now adopting policies that require that the economic and fiscal impact of developments of a
certain size be evaluated as well. Economic impacts include the effect on local businesses, village/town commercial
core, jobs, and wages. Fiscal impact refers to the impact on tax revenue and government costs. This policy adds
economic/fiscal impact evaluations to the regulatory process for projects that already qualify for project plan
reviews. For more information on this, see page 144 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 110
Pursue brownfields assessment grants to complete the Phase I and II environmental assessment for high priority
sites in the Planning Area.
Rationale: Brownfield is the term used for all abandoned or underused sites where redevelopment or reuse is
complicated by the presence or perceived presence of contamination. The Federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) administers a Brownfields Program that empowers states, communities, and other stakeholders to
work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields.
The issue of brownfields complicating redevelopment is particularly important in areas of previous industrial or
intensive agricultural uses. The County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has identified potential
brownfield sites in Hāmākua, including old mill sites, baseyards, and fuel depots. There are four basic stages to
brownfield redevelopment, starting with Phase I and II environmental assessment. Redevelopment, site planning,
and construction can proceed when the pre-development assessments are complete.
This strategy addresses the role of proactive remediation in order to encourage and enable redevelopment. Besides
the Economic Objectives, this policy addresses Community Objectives 1, 2 in the ʻāina section. For more information
on brownfields, see pages 47-49 of Appendix V4B.
141 | Page
6.1.4 Kōkua Action
State of Hawaiʻi Office of Planning
Kōkua Action 65:
Align the clusters and priority projects in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) with the
objectives, policies, and actions in the Hāmākua Community Development Plan.
Rationale: This Kōkua Action seeks to coordinate economic strategies between the State’s Office of Planning and
the Hāmākua Community Development Plan. For more information on CEDS, see pages 33-34, 92-93, 123, and 125
of Appendix V4C.
6.1.5 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
6.2 Strengthening Local Agriculture
This section of the CDP guides efforts to strengthen the local agriculture value chain, including agricultural land
acquisition, agricultural parks and water systems, the diversification of agriculture-based businesses on agricultural land,
and agricultural tourism.
See also Section 4.3 Protect Agricultural Lands & Open Space.
6.2.3 County Action
Policy 111
Support the implementation of the County of Hawaiʻi Agriculture Development Plan of 2010. (Adopted via
resolution no.61-11)
In particular:
Marshal resources for key infrastructure projects that would broadly benefit the agricultural sector;
Serve as a liaison and ombudsman for local agricultural ventures and interests and government agencies
at the county, State, and U.S. federal levels;
Provide extension and inspection services.
Rationale: For more information on the County of Hawaiʻi Agriculture Development Plan, see pages 32-33 of
Appendix V4C.
Policy 112
Encourage the establishment and continued operation of open farmers markets to allow local agricultural
products to market their own products.
Rationale: This policy is an affirmation of General Plan Policy 2.3 (u): “Encourage the establishment of open farmers
markets to allow local agricultural producers to market their products.” For more information on farmers markets,
see pages 153, 35-37, 44, 47, 50, 59, 127, 14-143, 147 of Appendix V4C.
142 | Page
Policy 113
In order to provide a means for local agricultural producers to market their products, the County shall interpret
HRS 205 liberally to allow the establishment and continued operations of open farmers markets and road-side
stands in the State Land Use Agricultural district without a Special Permit. If the project qualifies for Plan
Approval, a market management plan containing provisions for adequate on-site parking, on-site and off-site
traffic management, and adequate sanitation facilities must be approved by the Planning Department prior to the
operation of the open farmers market.
Rationale: This policy guides the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department to interpret the agricultural activities of
selling agricultural products in open farmers markets and road-side stands on agricultural land as a permitted uses,
not requiring a Special Permit. Previously, farmers markets on agricultural lands were required to apply for a Special
Permit to sell products on agricultural land, and this additional regulatory hurdle may be impeding agricultural
entrepreneurialism instead of accommodating it. However, as noted in the policy, if the project qualifies for Plan
Approval, it would need to address and possibly mitigate certain impacts (such as traffic management and sanitation
facilities) but as long as the vender is using the agricultural land to sell agricultural products, including value-added
products, the policy is to treat this activity as a permitted agricultural use under HRS 205. This is consistent with
Community Objectives 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and General Plan Policy 2.3(u), “Encourage the establishment of
open farmers markets to allow local agricultural producers to market their products.” See also CDP Policy 112. For
more information on Special Permits, see Appendix V4A, pages 116-117; and for more information on the
importance of farmers markets, see Appendix V4C, pages 36-50, 59, 127, 140, 147, 150, and 153.
Policy 114
Amend Hawaiʻi County Code, Section 15-72 to expand the designated list of parks authorized to allow farmers
market permits to include parks in rural areas that lack appropriate commercial zoned lands for farmers markets.
Rationale: This policy directs the County to expand an existing code to allow farmers market events to be held in
parks in rural areas. Currently, Article 9 of Section 15, states this intent: “allow for the establishment of farmers
markets at various County parks and facilities. Farmers markets will offer the general public the opportunity to buy
and sell homegrown and homemade products and wares” and stipulates:
The director may establish reasonable limitations on the duration and frequency of any farmers market
activities that may be allowed;
The department may apportion and/or delineate the area within the County park as the facility where the
farmers market activity is allowed. The department shall provide a map of the farmers market site clearly
delineating all farmers market spaces reserved for the exclusive use of any person granted a permit;
The following are authorized designated areas:
(a) Waimea.
(b) Kona.
(c) Honokaʻa County Park Complex.
Permit; fee.
o (a) All responsible persons, eighteen years of age or older, shall be allowed to secure a permit on
their own to sell their products and wares grown, produced or made on the island of Hawai‘i in any
of the designated farmers market sites subject to policies, rules and regulations established by the
director. Permits shall be issued on a first-come, first-served basis and shall be based upon a fee of
143 | Page
$5 per day. Each permit shall identify the permittee, the specific market space and site and the
date(s) of said permit.
o (b) No permit shall be issued for more than five consecutive days, nor shall any person be granted a
permit for more than fifteen days in any given calendar month. The holder of a farmers market
permit shall, upon request, show the permit to any law enforcement officer, park caretaker, or an
administrator or manager contracted by the department therefor.
o (c) Permit fees may be used by the department to enter into a purchase of services contract with a
nonprofit organization for the administration and management of a farmers market program and/or
site.
(1993, Ord. No. 93-97, sec. 1.)15-73
As noted in the above ordinance, the only park in the Hāmākua Planning Area listed as a designated area is the
Honokaʻa Park Complex. However, other rural parks in the Planning Area may be suitable for appropriately
scaled farmers’ market events. See also the above rationale for Policy 113.
Policy 115
Support the development of private, County, and State agricultural parks to make agricultural land available for
agricultural activities. (GP 14.2.3(k))
Rationale: Lands for agricultural parks are areas set aside by the State specifically for agricultural activities to
encourage continuation or initiation of such agricultural operations. The State's Agricultural Parks Program makes
land available to small farmers at reasonable cost with long-term tenure. The State Department of Agriculture
currently operates four agricultural parks on the island, one each in the districts of Puna, South Hilo, Hāmākua and
North Kona. The County is also developing an agricultural park in Hāmākua. This policy is an affirmation of General
Plan Policy 14.2.3 (k), “Support the development of private and State agricultural parks to make agricultural land
available for agricultural activities.” For more information, see pages 50, 55 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 116
Cooperate with appropriate State and Federal agencies and the private sector to develop, improve and expand
agricultural water systems.
Rationale: This is an affirmation of General Plan Policy 11.2.2(j), “Cooperate with appropriate State and Federal
agencies and the private sector to develop, improve and expand agricultural water systems in appropriate areas on
the island.” This is especially crucial as drought events negatively impact agriculture and are forecast to increase in
the coming years.
6.2.4 Kōkua Action
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Education
Kōkua Action 66:
Develop and support Farm to School programs and other programs designed to provide locally produced food to
Planning Area schools.
144 | Page
Rationale: Schools can serve as anchor institutions to provide a steady market for farmers and ranchers. Farm-to-
School initiatives connect independent farms with programs to address the declining nutritional status of school
meals. For students, such initiatives can provide increased access to fresh produce; a hands-on experiential learning
opportunity; a link between the cafeteria, the farm, and nutrition education; and a foundation for building life-long
dietary health. The Hawai‘i Farm to School and School Garden Hui coordinates efforts to increase school
procurement of local foods. For more information on this, see pages 36 and 147 of Appendix V4C.
State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Health (and Dept. of Ag – USDA)
Kōkua Action 67:
Work with local farmers/producers to educate and facilitate the development and management of farmers
markets within the Planning Area. (GP 2.3 (u))
Increase safe food handling education opportunities tailored to farmers;
Increase transparency on policy and education on DOH rules relating to food production and food service.
Rationale: One challenge for producers of local, value-added products has been the lack of predictability and
transparency in the regulations placed on value-added products. This Kōkua Action guides the Department of
Health to focus special attention on producers and farmers market venders to ensure that these producers are given
the knowledge and assistance necessary to create a successful and safe value-added product.
State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Agriculture
Kōkua Action 68:
Support the development of agricultural parks to make agricultural land available for agricultural activities. (GP
14.2.3(k))
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 115.
Kōkua Action 69:
Cooperate with County and Federal agencies and the private sector to develop, improve and expand agricultural
water systems in appropriate areas on the island. (GP 11.2.2(j))
Rationale: See the rationale for Policy 116.
University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo / Hawaiʻi Community College
Kōkua Action 70:
Prioritize development of programs and research that increases local agricultural capacity, including marketing
and other small business training.
Rationale: The University of Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻi Community College are leaders in local agricultural research and
play a pivotal role in developing local capacity. This action focuses on developing programs and research to increase
local knowledge base and capacity to enable the agricultural industry to develop into a progressive and sustainable
model.
145 | Page
Kōkua Action 71:
Explore the feasibility of establishing an aquacultural program in the Hāmākua Planning area for research,
demonstration, and development purposes. (GP 2.4.2.2(i))
Rationale: This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.4.2.2 (i) to, “Coordinate with the University of Hawaii at
Hilo to establish an aquacultural program along accessible areas of the Hilo coast for research, demonstration, and
development purposes.” This program may no longer be deemed feasible or advisable for the Hilo coast area, and
so this guidance is adapted to suggest testing the feasibility of establishing aquacultural programs for possible land-
based aquaculture programs within the Hāmākua Planning Area.
Hawaiʻi State Legislature
See Kōkua Action 7: Pass legislation enabling land banks that counties can use to acquire tax-delinquent
properties and use them to preserve agricultural land and open space.
Rationale: Jurisdictions can acquire lots for non-payment of property taxes, remove or transfer development rights,
and use a “land bank” to offer tax-delinquent properties to neighbors. Such lots can also be used for relocation
purposes when other properties are acquired for future rights-of-way, public facilities, or land assembly. State
legislation is necessary to enable land banks. For more information, see pages 126, 254 of Appendix V4A.
6.2.5 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
6.3 Expand Health and Wellness Industry
Health and wellness is an important and growing sector in the Planning Area. While the County is limited in its capacity
to directly increase health and wellness as an industry, there are various approaches the County currently uses to
address health and wellness through programs and outreach in coordination with various other agencies and
organizations.
See also Section 5.11 Expand Healthcare & Social Services for strategies that address healthcare and wellness services.
6.3.2 County Action
See also:
Policy 121: Encourage the development of small “bed and breakfast” type visitor accommodations, in particular
those with heritage, agriculture, wellness, or similar themes. (GP 14.7.5.9.2(b))
6.3.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
146 | Page
6.4 Promote the Creative, Education, & Research Sector
This section of the CDP guides the development of a regional education, enterprise development, and research network.
6.4.2 County Action
Policy 117
Promote and develop the island of Hawai‘i into a unique scientific, environmental, and cultural model, where
economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. Development should be reviewed on the basis
of total impact on the residents of the County, not only in terms of immediate short run economic benefits.
Rationale: This is an affirmation of General Plan policy 2.2(h): “Promote and develop the island of Hawai‘i into a
unique scientific and cultural model, where economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities.
Development should be reviewed on the basis of total impact on the residents of the County, not only in terms of
immediate short run economic benefits.”
6.4.4 Kōkua Action
State of Hawaiʻi, Workforce Development Division
Kōkua Action 72:
Assist in the development of management and training programs to strengthen the skill levels of the workforce to
be in step with existing and emerging industries. (GP 2.4.2.2 (e), 14.3.5.2.2 (b))
Rationale: This is an affirmation of existing General Plan policies 2.4.2.2 (e), “Assist in the formulation and
implementation of management education and manpower training programs to strengthen the overall skill levels of
its work force to be compatible with existing and emerging industries,” and 14.3.5.2.2 (b), “Assistance to small
businesses in obtaining loans and management education classes and manpower training programs shall be
encouraged.”
6.4.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
6.5 Develop a Place-Based Visitor Industry
This section of the CDP guides the development of a regional hoʻokipa network – a place-based approach to community
tourism.
6.5.3 County Action
Policy 118
Encourage the development of a visitor industry that promotes small business development in harmony with the
character of Hāmākua and with the environmental and social goals of residents. (GP 2.3(c))
Rationale: This is an affirmation of the following General Plan policies:
147 | Page
2.3(c): “Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the social, physical, and
economic goals of the residents of the County.”
14.7.5.9.2 (a): “The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development shall complement the
character of the area.”
Policy 119
Encourage appropriate visitor-related uses and facilities. Some examples of appropriate visitor-related uses and
facilities are ones that:
Directly promote Agriculture, Ecotourism, Health & Wellness; or Cultural Heritage, and/or. . .
Are Located near points of interest (as long as they will not detract from the natural beauty of the area or
negatively impact the host community’s privacy/public safety and rural lifestyle); and/or. . .
Offer an educational experience as well as recreational activities.
Rationale: This policy addresses Community Objective 13 and is an affirmation of various General Plan policies. This
policy is intended to expound on what is meant by the term “appropriate visitor-related uses and facilities”. The
General Plan Policies this policy is adapted from are as follows:
14.2.3 (r): Encourage, where appropriate, the establishment of visitor-related uses and facilities that directly
promote the agriculture industry;
2.4.8.2 (e): Encourage eco-tourism and agricultural tourism as regional opportunities.” Note - though this policy
is listed for the South Kona district in the GP, it is an appropriate policy to affirm for the Hāmākua Planning Area
as it is the primary type of tourism the community articulated as appropriate for their region.
2.3 (x): Encourage the health/wellness industry;
14.7.5.3.2 (a): Encourage the development of small-scale visitor related facilities near points of interest;
2.4.4.2 (b): Allow the development of limited visitor facilities that will not detract from the natural beauty of the
area;
14.7.3 (h): Encourage the visitor industry to provide resort facilities that offer an educational experience of
Hawaiʻi as well as recreational activities.
For more information on this, see pages 91-103 of Appendix V4C.
Policy 120
Encourage the development of small “bed and breakfast” type visitor accommodations, in particular those with
heritage, agriculture, wellness, or similar themes.
Rationale: This policy addresses Community Objective 13 and is an affirmation of an existing General Plan policy
14.7.5.9.2 (b), “Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor accommodations”
with the added preference for accommodations that would further the other themes and heritage priorities of the
community. Note: while the original GP policy was focused on promoting bed and breakfast type visitor
accommodations in Kaʻū, this small scale accommodations industry was found to be amendable to the Hāmākua
Planning Area communities and small bed and breakfast establishments are preferred over the current related GP
148 | Page
policy for accommodations in Hāmākua District, which currently reads at 14.7.5.4.2 (b), “Consider small-scale retreat
resort development.”
Policy 121
Encourage and assist in the promotion of festivals and events that celebrate regional culture, heritage, and
agriculture.
Rationale: This policy addresses Community Objective #13. Gathering together in festivals, events and community
spaces is considered a key component in developing a thriving, place-based economy. While some heritage and
agricultural events have been launched in the Hāmākua Planning Area in the past, and while the County Dept. of
Research and Development has often been helped promote these events, many of the events formerly held in the
Planning Area have been unable to maintain a yearly schedule and thus fail to become a local tradition. This policy
encourages the County to be an active partner in promoting these events in Hāmākua. For more information, see
pages 140-142, and 177 of Appendix V4C. See also Community Action 12, 40, and 44.
Policy 122
Support the designation of sections of the Old Māmalahoa Highway as a scenic byway through the State Scenic
Byway Program.
Rationale: Scenic Byways are “roads that tell a special story” and contribute to the legacy of Hawai‘i. Local byways
are sponsored by the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (DOT) and facilitated locally by a community sponsor
that wishes to lead the preservation, protection and/or promotion of the byway with a Local Advisory Committee
and Corridor Management Plan. Local byway sponsors and committees receive technical assistance and training
from the State byways program and the National Scenic Byway Program. The Federal Highways Administration also
has an Annual Discretionary Grant program corridor management, safety improvements, facilities, access
improvements, resource protection, interpretation, and marketing.
This policy is based on General Plan Policy 13.2.3, “Encourage the State Department of Transportation to establish
special scenic routes within and between communities.” See also Policy 47.
Policy 123
Encourage and provide incentives for businesses to develop and promote public restrooms along Highway 19.
Rationale: This policy is based on comments received from the public about the lack of amenities along Highway 19
between Honokaʻa and Hilo. There is only one gas station with one, gender-neutral, over-used public restroom in
that stretch. By providing more public restrooms along this route, it would provide a basic amenity that would serve
as a community benefit, and give visitors an added reason to stop and shop at local businesses. For more
information, see page 104 of Appendix V4C.
6.5.4 Kōkua Action
Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority
Kōkua Action 73:
Encourage the development of a visitor industry that promotes small business development in harmony with the
character of Hāmākua and with the environmental and social goals of residents. (GP 2.3(c))
149 | Page
Encourage appropriate visitor-related uses and facilities (such as Bed and Breakfasts). Some examples of
appropriate visitor-related uses and facilities are ones that:
• Directly promote Agriculture, Ecotourism, Health & Wellness; or Cultural Heritage, and/or. . .
• Are Located near points of interest (as long as they will not detract from the natural beauty of the area);
and/or. . .
• Offer an educational experience as well as recreational activities.
Encourage and assist in the promotion of festivals and events that celebrate regional culture, heritage, and
agriculture.
See also:
Kōkua Action 10: Assess siting options for and develop new scenic lookouts along Highway as appropriate to
ensure ocean, mountain, and waterfall views are preserved from development.
Kōkua Action 11:: Consider adding/improving viewing locations and interpretive signage near the scenic bridges
for safe parking and views of the areas’ waterfalls and coastline. Work with the Hawaiʻi Tourism authority to
improve signage on the Highway and identify safe viewing locations.
6.5.5 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for more details about the rationale for community actions for this section.
6.6 Revitalize Local Retail & Hāmākua’s Town Centers
This section primarily points to various policies throughout the CDP that encourage the rehabilitation and revitalization
of the Planning Area’s commercial centers.
6.6.3 County Actions
Policy 124
Encourage the rehabilitation of existing service-oriented industrial areas.
Rationale: This policy is affirmation of General Plan Policy 14.4.5.4.2(b). This policy recognizes that there is a need
for service-oriented industrial areas sited near population centers. Examples of service-oriented industries from the
General Plan include, wholesaling, government facilities, printing, utility installations, iron works, and bakeries.
These types of industries are usually located close to population centers and transportation facilities and provide for
areas of diversified businesses and employment opportunities by permitting a broad range of uses, without exposing
nonindustrial uses to unsafe and unhealthy environments. For more information, see pages 20-23 and 28-32 of
Appendix V4B.
6.6.3 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for the rationale for community actions for this section.
150 | Page
6.7 Encourage Green Industries
This section of the CDP guides sustainable, ecologically sensitive approaches to economic development.
6.7.3 County Action
Policy 125
Support local training and education programs to develop green job growth; especially in renewable energy and
natural resource management.
Rationale: This policy is supported by the existing General Plan Policy, 2.4.2.2 (e), “Assist in the formulation and
implementation of management education and manpower training programs to strengthen the overall skill levels of
its work force to be compatible with existing and emerging industries” and 3.3 (c), “Encourage the expansion of
energy research industry.” It directs the County to support the development of green jobs and it is both in line with
State of Hawaii economic planning objectives and the CDP Community Objectives. See also the Hawaiʻi 2050
Sustainability Plan, Goal 2: Strategic Actions: 1. Develop a more diverse and resilient economy, it directs this:
“Provide incentives that foster sustainability-related industries, which include, but aren’t limited to renewable
energy, innovation and science-based industries, and environmental technologies.”
http://hawaii2050.org/index.php/site/sp_goals/P8/
6.7.4 Kōkua Action
Hawaiʻi Electric Light Company
Kōkua Action 74:
Encourage the continuation and expansion of HELCOs Net-Metering (NEM), their Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) programs,
and other similar programs designed to lower costs and diversify power sources.
Rationale: This policy is an affirmation of General Plan policy 3.3 (o), “Support net-metering and other incentives for
independent power producers,” and is supported by the intent of 3.4 (a), “Encourage the continuation of studies
concerning the development of power that can be distributed at lower costs to consumers.”
For more information on this, see pages 61-65 of Appendix V4C.
Hawaiʻi State Legislature
Kōkua Action 75:
Amend HRS to include greenwaste, composting, and fertilizer yards (utilizing only manure and soil) for
commercial use as permitted uses on agriculturally zoned land.
Rationale: This policy addresses a regulatory impediment to the development of commercial greenwaste,
composting, and fertilizer yards on agriculture land. Currently, these land uses are permissible on agricultural land
only after obtaining a Special Use permit from the State (if the property is over 15 acres), or a Use Permit from the
County (for acreages under 15). Separately from land use regulations, these types of industries must also comply
with State Department of Health regulations, which involve permitting, inspections, and continued oversight of the
enterprise. Therefore, requiring a Special Use or Use permit is seen as adding additional scrutiny that may be
cumbersome to developing these green industries, especially in comparison to very similar land uses on agricultural
land that are currently allowed. Both the County Department of Environmental Management’s Solid Waste Division
151 | Page
and the Planning Department see these uses as appropriate permitted uses on agricultural lands, and are satisfied
with the regulatory oversight these types of projects would receive from the Department of Health. See also, HRS
205-4.5(10); HRS 205-2(d)(7). This policy is supported by General Plan 4.3 (d), “Encourage the concept of recycling
agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste material,” and 10.5.2. (f), “Continue to encourage programs such as
recycling to reduce the flow of refuse deposited in landfills.” For more information, see pages 122-126 of Appendix
V4B.
6.7.5 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for the rationale for community actions for this section.
6.8 Preserve Informal Economies and Living off the Land
This section of the CDP preserves traditional subsistence living, reciprocity arrangements, and opportunities to live off
the land.
6.8.3 County Action
See the following previously cited Policies:
Policy 16: Identify and secure in public trust (fee simple or by easement) priority lands that achieve one or more
of Hāmākua’s Objectives.
o Seek to use conservation easement or acquisition opportunities through funding sources such as PONC,
etc., once critical habitat areas are identified as priorities to protect.
o Seek to protect with easements or acquire suitable important coastal lands that would protect
viewsheds, provide the public with access to scenic viewing areas, or otherwise promote appropriate
coastal recreation and subsistence.
o Support the efforts of landowners in establishing conservation and agricultural easements to preserve
important resources in perpetuity.
Policy 48: in regards to establishing a ‘County of Hawaiʻi Public Access and Trail Program’ with sufficient staff
and resources;
Policy 50: Where possible through permit conditions, easements, or acquisitions, the County of Hawaiʻi shall
establish: public access to and along the shoreline to significant historic sites, public transit along the top of cliff,
streams, mauka trails, facilities, and access to sites for gathering, hunting, and other recreational purposes;
Policy 53: Reconstruct the Laupāhoehoe Boat Ramp to provide safe and adequate access to ocean resources for
subsistence fisher-people and recreational users;
Policy 112: Encourage the establishment of open farmers markets to allow local agricultural products to market
their own products. (GP 2.3 (u));
See also the following Kōkua Actions:
Kōkua Action 22: To facilitate greater public access to and along the shoreline and elsewhere, amend HRS 520,
Hawai‘i’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS), to:
152 | Page
o Decrease ambiguity and discourage frivolous lawsuits;
o Encourage private landowners to voluntarily allow public access through incentives.
Kōkua Action 23: Explore options for collaborative management with community groups to increase access to
former sugar cane roads to be used as non-motorized trails where feasible and appropriate.
Kōkua Action 37: Consider establishing a working group with surrounding land owners and the user-community
to educate users and manage ATV use in the near-summit region.
Kōkua Action 38: Work together, in partnership with hunting associations and other land stewards, to establish
clear recreational hunting policies and disseminate education regarding these policies.
6.8.4 Community Action
See the Community Action Guide for the rationale for community actions for this section.
153 | Page