HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0110.006 2002-2004 Sldrl@yFUke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ~ • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Faz: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits
• Enmronmental Repods
February 20, 2003
Honorable James Arakaki, Chair
Hawaii County Council ~ecttv;r~ .
25 Aupuni Street 'Imrm - - ey..,------_.__-°
Hilo, HI 96720 ;,t;,ra....._.....--.----_::_--c.-.--''
County Co~ncil~~~
Dear Chairperson Arakaki and members of the Council:
Subject: Bill No. 17. Draft 2
Over past 2 years, there has been considerable debate over this matter at
this level. The debate has focused around the a) General Plan Land Use Pattern
Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map; and b) impacts resulting from this project.
In response to a request by the Council regarding the site's relationship to
the General Plan LUPAG map, the Corporation Counsel in May 15, 2001,
concluded that
"...because the general plan and LUPAG map are intended to flexibly
establish only the general location of different types of uses in relation to
each other, the property's LUPAG map location should not automatically
foreclose consideration of rezoning. The significance of the LUPAG map
location should be considered in light of the advice of the Planning
Director and the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding
this rezoning." (emphasis added).
In that regard, the Planning Director and Planning Commission on
November 17, 2000 recommended the approval of this request, subject to certain
conditions. As such, it was my understanding that the General Plan LUPAG mao
question was not so much an issue as much as determining whether the request
was consistent with the olicies and objectives of the General Plan. Accordingly,
over the past year there has been considerable effort given to developing
appropriate mitigative conditions dealing with drainage, roadway, and quality of
life impacts. This painstaking effort is now reflected in Draft 2 of the subject bill,
as well as its further amendments.
It appears, however, that there are still lingering questions relating to the
General Plan LUPAG map issue. I would now like to use this means to share my
written understanding of this matter. And this understanding is based on my
having been involved with the preparation and implementation of the FIRST
General Plan in 1971, the Plan which is essentially the same document now
being debated in conjunction with this rezoning request. Na
File No. Z
Ref. o;
Sit. Date FFR 9 0 ?(1(1~
Chairperson James Arakaki
February 20, 2003
Page 2
Relative to the LUPAG map, there are two significant points that I would
like to make.
1. It has always been my understanding that the LUPAG map was
NEVER intended to be used in the same manner as a Zoning Map.
What do we mean by that?
First of all, it was never designed to be specifically measurable.
Unlike the zoning map, it was never intended to give a specific
parcel a LUPAG map designation. One of the Standards of the
General Plan (page 14) states that °The broad- brush
boundaries indicated are graphic expressions of the General
Plan policies, particularly relating to land uses. They are long-
range ug ides to eg neral location...." (emphasis added}.
The second related point is that the LUPAG map was intended
to be used as a GUIDE. You will note that all of the narrative
references in the General Plan document related to the LUPAG
map indicate that the map is a guide. LUPAG is the acronym
for Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide, and I emphasize GUIDE.
If the LUPAG map were to be used as a zoning map, there
would be no way that the Planning Commission could grant
Special Permits for commercial and industrial uses and even
some minor resort uses (such as B8~B or inns) in the State Land
Use Agricultural District. In almost all of those situations, the
LUPAG map does not indicate High Density, Medium Density,
Industrial or Resort. Instead, most if not all of those areas are
noted on the LUPAG map as Orchard, intensive or Extensive
Agriculture. So how do we justify these permits if the LUPAG
map were not used as a guide?
2. Notwithstanding the question of how the LUPAG map is used, the
other major issue deals with the question of WHO makes such an
interpretation? Is it the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or
County Council?
It is my considered opinion that the General Plan is a policy
document, and only the County Council is authorized to make such
policy determination.
Chairperson James Arakaki
February 20, 2003
Page 3
As noted by your Corporation Counsel, however, in reviewing zone
change and other land use applications, however, the Council
should not only consider the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and Planning Director but also "all applicable general
plan policies to determine whether rezoning would conform to and
implement the general plan..."
As you review the substantive recommendation of the Planning
Commission and Planning Director contained in the November 17,2000 letter,
you will find that the requested rezoning satisfies the locational, infrastructure,
and related policies and objectives of the General Plan.
~incerel~,
~~I
S~~Y M. FUKE
Planning Consultant