Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.025 2002-2004 vv w Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor [ ~ Dirtc mr t l~_( I, 03 DEC 1 S 9 4 7 Roy R. Takemoto DryaN Direcb.r (i~uun#g of ~.ttfnttii Co,,~>. PLANNING DEPARTME)~~N i ~ ~ ~ 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 December 15, 2003 (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Elarionoff and Members of the Committee on Planning: Introduction This letter is in preparation for the General Plan workshop scheduled for Decemberl8, 2003. I greatly appreciate the Planning Committee of the Council scheduling this workshop to renew the effort to comprehensively revise the General Plan. The current General Plan was adopted by ordinance effective November 14, 1989. The General Plan itself contains a requirement that it be updated every ten years through a process of comprehensive revision. In April 2001, after many public hearings, the Planning Department forwarded a draft revised General Plan to the Planning Commission. After more public hearings, a further revised draft was sent to the County Council for its consideration on December 21, 2001. Since then, the Council has held a number of public hearings and workshops (although none since April 21, 2003.) To finally adopt a new General Plan, the Council must vote on the proposed revisions. If the Council wants to add any new amendments, or modify any of the amendments in the current draft, the ordinance requires that these new or modified amendments be sent to the Planning Director for review and comment, then to the Planning Commission for review and comment, before final action by the Council. Unless the Council wants to vote on the changes in the December 21, 2001 draft as they stand, and not propose any new amendments or modifications, the process to finally adopt a revised General Plan will require the Council to: (1) propose new amendments or modifications, and vote on those by resolution; (2) have those changes reviewed by the Director and the Planning Commission; and (3) take its final votes on the General Plan Comm. No. `'~~'_2'S Ref. To: ha~d«t L Ref. Uate ~ s .003 Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 2 December 15, 2003 changes. The Council should allow at least four months for the Planning Director and Commission to finish their review of any Council-initiated amendments, because the Planning Commission will have to hold hearings before taking a vote on them. It will take a concentrated effort by the Council to adopt a revised General Plan before the end of the current council terms. If it is not done by December 2004, there will be at least some new councilmembers who will have to become familiar with the revisions (based on announcements that have already been made by members that they will not run), and we will possibly have a different administration. The importance of a timely comprehensive revision to the General Plan cannot be overstated. According to the County Charter, "no public improvement or project, or subdivision or zoning ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms to and implements the general plan." Sec. 3-15(b). Under state law, all zoning must be done within the framework of along-range, comprehensive general plan. Without a comprehensive general plan, specific zoning decisions can be attacked legally as arbitrary and capricious. Much has changed since the 1989 General Plan. That plan was based on population projects for 2000 that ranged from 155,000 (Series A) to 212,000 (Series C). The actual population was 148,000. The 1989 Plan projected westbound visitor amvals in 2000 to range from 1,485,000 (Series A) to 1,664,000 (Series C). The actual figure was 925,000. The largest agricultural employer, sugar, has disappeared. A comprehensive revision to the General Plan is overdue. "Housekeeping" Issues With a project of this magnitude, it can be difficult to keep track of all of the paper that comes in. To assist the council, this portion of the letter discusses some of the key documents. The councilmembers have two bound volumes of the revised General Plan. The volume bound in green, entitled "County of Hawaii General Plan Revision December 21, 2001 Draft" contains the Ramseyered version of the current General Plan with revisions proposed by the Planning Director. New additions to the General Plan are show in bold, deletions are shown by [brackets]. The thinner volume, bound in pink, entitled "County of Hawaii General Plan Revision December 21, 2001 Draft Appendix A" contains the Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 3 December 15, 2003 text of the General Plan as it would be if the Council adopted all of the changes proposed in the "green" volume. The "pink" volume does not contain a complete set of the LUPAG maps or the Facilities or Roadways maps. These are contained only in the "green" volume. In addition, we have sent each councilmember a binder entitled "Supplemental General Plan Revisions from Planning". These contain modifications that the Planning Department would like the Council to make. The Council would have to initiate these modifications by resolution. The binder contains cover letters that explain each of the proposed changes. In brief, these changes are modifications to the proposed changes for Kohanaiki and Keopuka, and changes to the roadways and public utilities maps. The Kohanaiki and Keopuka revisions are based on negotiations with the landowners, and reduce the size of the Open designation in Kohanaiki and the Conservation area in Keopuka. In addition, for the sake of clarification, we previously sent the councilmembers a set of 21 maps showing each change to the agricultural designations in the LUPAG maps. The LUPAG maps at the back of the "green" volume contain the proposed designations, but the separate set of 21 agricultural maps show each of the changes, for example, "Orchards" to "Important Agricultural". Recurring Issues with the General Plan Draft There have been many comments and suggestions about the General Plan revisions. The comments are too many to address one-by-one, but there are some common themes and issues that aze worth discussing. 1. Coastal Open Space The proposed LUPAG Map changes contain a number of amendments that take away resort or other urban designations from various coastal properties. None of these have actually been developed, and with the exception of Kohanaiki, none of the properties in question aze currently zoned for resort or other urban use. These changes include taking away resort and medium density urban designations immediately adjacent to Spencer Pazk and the Pu'ukohola Heiau (F-8); resort, medium density and urban expansion azeas in the coastal portions of O'oma and Kohanaiki (G-7, G-8, G-9, G-l0a and G-lOb); resort, medium density, and low Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 4 December 15, 2003 density in Honaunau (H-5), and the "Hawaiian Riviera" project (I-3). In the same vein, there is the proposed "Conservation" area at Keopuka and around Kealakekua Bay, H-1. While we will have growth and development on the island, and the General Plan allows for that, we must also preserve coastal open space and viewplanes, and recreational areas and sites of cultural importance, long-term. This is the main reason for these proposed changes. There is naturally concern about the potential economic effect of changes like these. Unless we actively protect open space and environmental quality, we will lose the things that lure visitors and new residents. More directly, for at least the next ten years, and probably well beyond, projected increases in visitor amvals can easily be absorbed in hotel rooms that currently go vacant, and in the additional inventory that will come from the renovation of the Kona Surf, and various timeshare and smaller hotel projects that are currently moving forward. Hotel occupancy rates on the island have long lagged behind the state average. There is a general trend that more visitors are being accommodated in timeshares, B&B's, vacation rentals, and on cruise ships. At the same time, the proposed LUPAG map changes will simplify land use approvals within the existing major resort areas, which are being changed from a mix of uses to a "resort node" LUPAG map category. Although the landowners can speak for themselves, it is my understanding that the Kohanaiki, Keopuka, and Honaunau landowners do not object to these proposed LUPAG map amendments. The deletion of the "Hawaiian Riviera" is also meant to restore some credibility to the LUPAG maps. The landowner has done nothing in the last few years to get the remaining entitlements it needs to develop the project. The concept upon which the General Plan "major resort" designation was granted in the late 1980's is not viable. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 5 December 15, 2003 2. Urban Expansion Areas The current LUPAG maps have enormous areas identified as "Alternate Urban Expansion" that far exceed any conceivable need for urban lands in the next twenty years or more. By having such large areas, the General Plan fails to fulfill one of the main purposes of a master land use plan: to focus and channel urban development to desired areas, with an incremental pattern of development. The proposed LUPAG map changes trim the alternate urban expansion areas around Kea'au and Honoka'a. In the current LUPAG map, the urban expansion area for Kea'au, mauka of Volcano Highway, encompasses about 3500 acres. The proposed amendment reduces this considerable, but the urban area of Kea'au, including both sides of the highway, will still exceed 3000 acres. This is still far more than any reasonable estimate of the area needed for the urban growth of Kea'au in the next twenty years or more. The urban expansion area for Honoka'a in the present LUPAG map stretches almost two miles west of the present town. Even after the proposed reduction, the potential urban area of Honoka'a will be at least five times the area presently occupied by the town and its adjoining residential districts. 3. Agricultural Designations The Council had a workshop on April 21, 2003, regarding the treatment of agricultural areas in the General Plan. The current General Plan has three agricultural categories: Intensive Agricultural, Extensive Agricultural, and Orchards. In general, the Intensive Agricultural lands aze those with deep soil; the Extensive Agricultural lands are mostly lava or high elevation lands with soil, and the Orchards include many of the older subdivisions, as well as some areas that have mixed soil and lava, including most of the Kona Coffee Belt. The current General Plan does not contain strong policy guidelines how these different categories should be treated for rezoning purposes. The draft General Plan replaces these three categories with two: Important Agricultural and Extensive Agricultural. The Orchards category has been dropped entirely. Most of the subdivisions that were in Orchards are now in the new "Rural" category. The basic policy distinction between Important Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 6 December 15, 2003 Agricultural and Extensive Agricultural is that the preservation of the agricultural potential of the lands should be given first priority in rezoning and other land use decisions involving Important Ag lands. The designation of"Important Agricultural Lands" has drawn some concern, particularly from large landowners. There have been a number ofparcel-specific objections, by the Liliuokalani Trust with regard to property above Kailua-Kona, by some landowners in the Honalo makai area, and in Waikoloa, near the Mamalahoa Highway, among others. These "Important Ag" lands were identified primarily on the basis of agricultural potential, mainly as determined by soil types. The criteria are stated on p. 345- 346 of the "green" General Plan draft. Some of the aeeas that the private owners contend should not be considered, as "Important Agricultural Lands" are included because of the criterion "at least fair for two or more crops, on an irrigated basis." While the criteria we used aze all valid, there is no one right way to develop maps of areas of relatively high agricultural potential. There are a number of ways to modify the maps, but still relying upon objective criteria. We can, for example, review the use of the "irrigated" criterion, for areas that are in fact not imgated and where imgation is not likely to be available. If the Council wants to make changes in these designations, it is important that we have an early discussion of this question because it affects so much land. The elimination of the "Orchards" category also means that there must be a designation for those "Orchards" areas that are not being put in "Rural". There is a statewide Agricultural Working Group, convened at the request of the Legislature that has been reviewing agricultural policy statewide. (The Planning Director has attended several of these sessions.) One result is a renewed effort to fulfill the mandate contained in the 1978 amendments to the State Constitution to identify "important agricultural lands" (IAL's). It remains to be seen whether this effort will result in a process to identify the IAL's. (Bills to do this have been considered and rejected in every legislative session for more than twenty years.) This will take (1) action by the state legislature to establish the criteria for IAL's, (2) actual mapping island-by-island, and (3) ratification of the IAL's by some state body, probably the Land Use Commission. We will not know until the end of the 2004 legislative session whether this process will even begin. Once Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 7 December 15, 2003 enacted, the mapping and ratification process would probably take a couple of years. This is too long for the county to delay action on the General Plan to wait to see what happens with IAL's on the state level. 4. Length of the General Plan Some councilmembers have commented about the length of the draft General Plan. It is not much longer than the current General Plan, but perhaps this is not a sufficient justification. It would be possible to significantly reduce the length of the General Plan by separating out the material that really needs to be part of the Plan and enacted by ordinance, from text that is primarily descriptive. Only part of the General Plan text must have the force and effect of law: primarily the goals, policies, standards, and courses of action, the LUPAG maps, facilities, and roadways maps, the lists of areas of natural beauty and protected historic sites, and the general policy materials in the Land Use and Plan Implementation sections. The district profiles, tables of information about housing units, historical materials about population and visitor arrivals, while useful, do not have to be enacted by ordinance. The current 1989 General Plan is basically organized in a way that separates out the goals, policies, standards, and courses of action, with the remaining material in a "Support Document", but both parts were enacted by ordinance and printed together. Reorganized this way, the General Plan could probably be reduced to about half of its present size. The other descriptive material is important, and could be a supplement to the General Plan, but printed in a separate binder. There is no other way to substantially reduce the size of the General Plan without completely rewriting it. The reorganization of the General Plan would have to be carefully done so that the important policies remained part of the adopted plan. Some of the "descriptive" material is important to provide a context for the rest of the plan. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning COUNTY COUNCIL Page 8 December 15, 2003 The Planning Department would be very willing to participate in such an effort, if it is the desire of the Council to have a shorter plan. We should not compare our General Plan's length or the degree of detail in the maps with that of the City and County of Honolulu's, which is much shorter and has much less detailed maps. The City and County also has comprehensive district development plans, which contain maps that are much more detailed than their general plan maps. Although our General Plan calls for a similar two-step planning process, in practice, Hawaii County has not adopted a community development plan or other district plan by ordinance since 1984. Sincerely, C~ CHRISTOPHER J. YU~ Planning Director CJY:pak W pwin60/Chn s/Gpexplanation lettertocounc ilDee03.doc cc: Mayor Harry Kim Mr. Roy Takemoto, Deputy Director Mr. Norman Hayashi Ms. Alice Kawaha Mr. Daryn Arai Mr. Bennett Mark