Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.020 2004-2006 4OJN~Y OR Mgl„q'i H Kim ~ Christopher J. Yuen arty ~ ~ , Mayor L ~~,i, Dlrccmr d• rgtf O•~N•~ - Roy R. Takemoto ' Deputy DlrtClor NZ~u~#~r of ~tt£utxii PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 January 3, 2005 Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Co-Chair and Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Co-Chairs Hoffmann and Pilago: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS, BILL 163, DRAFTS 1, 2, AND 3 The Council is currently considering the comprehensive General Plan revisions, Bill 163, Drafts I, 2, and 3. 1 support Draft 1, but with the deletion of proposed map amendments G-9 and G-10 (covering Kohanaiki) and H-1 (covering Keopuka, a small portion of Onouli, and the area above Kealakekua Bay) because of compromises reached with the affected landowners. If these proposed amendments (or other amendments) are deleted, not modified, the Council can enact Draft 1 as the new Genera] Plan without having to go back to the Planning Commission for further deliberation. Then I would introduce interim amendments to the General Plan to put the compromises into effect. Bill 163, Draft 1, contains the Planning Director's proposed amendments to the General Plan. I proposed G-9 and G-10 (Kohanaiki), and H-1 (Keopuka) largely because of the potential for development of these coastal areas. In 1999-2000, there was a great deal of controversy over a proposed development of lots, golf course, and associated recreational facilities at Keopuka. Under current zoning, houses can be built 300' from the shoreline, and the Planning Commission can allow golf courses. H-1 was meant, in part, to preserve coastal open space and the ecology of Kealakekua Bay. After the proposed amendments went to the Council in December 2001, long negotiations with the landowner resulted in a compromise that preserves these Hnwai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Comm. No. ~ 2. ZU Ref. To: Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Co-Chair and Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING Page 2 January 3, 2005 objectives. It is discussed in more detail in the attached August 21, 2002 letter to Bobby- Jean Leithead-Todd (then Council planning chair). In brief, the compromise proposal would create a coastal open space band about 1400' deep which would remain largely in its natural state. The letter contains a map that shows the compromise amendment. Kohanaiki was zoned for hotels, commercial aeeas, and apartments right up to the shoreline. A strong community group, the Protect Kohanaiki `Ghana, represented the voices of many people who wanted to keep the area for a shoreline park and Hawaiian cultural practices. After long discussions, the developer, County, and community members agreed to a compromise development plan where the entire shoreline would be kept open and donated to the public, the developer would build public pazk facilities, and the total development would be greatly scaled down and major buildings kept away from the shoreline. The coastal open space azea is not as deep as in G-9, but it is a good compromise for the public, given the private ownership of the area and the existing zoning. The attached letter dated June 17, 2003, discusses this in more detail, and includes [he compromise General Plan map. If the Council follows this recommendation and drops G-9, G-10, and H-1 from the current comprehensive review, there is little risk that development inconsistent with the compromise will occur before the interim amendments can come to the Council for action. Kohanaiki is being developed, but in accordance with the compromise, and the terms aze secured by the SMA permit and the Good Faith Agreement between the landowner and community members. The Keopuka and Onouli areas that are covered by H-I are in the Special Management Area, and an SMA permit from the Planning Commission would be necessary for any significant development. The remainder of H-1 is either owned by the State and in the state pazk, or is in the Conservation District and would need an SMA permit and Conservation District Use Permit for substantial development. The Kohanaiki and Keopuka landowners made good-faith efforts to understand and agree to the desires of the County administration and many members of the public to have coastal open space, environmental protection, and development at a lower intensity and scale. They have consented to land use changes that greatly reduce the development potential of their properties, and greatly reduce their potential financial return. They should not be penalized by the enactment of General Plan amendments that aze much more restrictive than the compromises. Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Co-Chair and Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING Page 3 January 3, 2005 If the Council does enact Draft 1 with these deletions, I will introduce interim amendments following the compromises as mentioned in my August 21, 2002 and June 17, 2003 letters. I will also introduce an interim amendment to the Roads and Facilities maps, as explained further in my July 22, 2003 letter. The law allows the Planning Director (and Council) to introduce interim amendments to the General Plan at any time other than during the comprehensive review. I should also comment on Draft 2 and Draft 3. My June 14, 20041etter (attached) still stands as my comment on Draft 2. Draft 3 is an improvement over Draft 2, but still does not have clear, strong policies for the protection of good agricultural land and a clear statement about the significance of the General Plan maps as a guide to future zoning decisions. It also has the same LUPAG map issues that I mention in my June 14, 2004 letter. I will attend the January 3, 2005 public hearing, and the January 4 Planning Committee meeting, and I will be happy to discuss all General Plan issues more fully with the Council members at those times. Sincerer CHRISTOPHER J. Yl1EN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpin60/Chns/General Plan Revisions Bill 163, Drags 1, 2, & 3 Attachments cc: Mayor Harry Kim Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Esq. Mr. Dave Eadie, Rutter Development Mr. William Moore o~aev as y~~ v ~ ~ lid, Harry K_im @ , Chris+ohher J. Yuen Mayan nr,ecror •i : +rp•nr~H~:M Roy R. Takemoto e~.rrrr nF~,ua o,,e~r.,, ~1.D1TY1~~I B~ ~LCfU2XtT PLANNING DEPARTMF,NT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 ~ Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 - - June 14, 2004 _ . Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL ' 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Elarionoff and Members of the Committee on Planning: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS ON BILL NO. 163, DRAFT 2 I am writing to present some initial comments on Draft 2, Bill 163, the proposed redraft of the General Plan released by the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Council Chair on June 8. In summary, my recommendation is that if the Council wishes to adopt a much-condensed version of the General Plan similar to Draft 2, it should include some of the major policies and map changes that were in the proposed new General Plan that was sent to the Council in Draft 1, but have been deleted in Draft 2. In January 2002, the Council received the Planning Director's comprehensive redraft of the General Plan, including many new amendments. (I will refer to this January 2002 draft, which is Bill 163, Draft 1, as "Draft 1."Page references are to the "Ramseyered" version, with the green cover.) Since January, 2002, we have been at the stage in the General Plan review process where the Council must act on the Planning Director's amendments, propose modifications to those amendments, and initiate new amendments that it might want to suggest. Any new amendments proposed by the Council, and any modifications to the Planning Director's amendments, must be reviewed by the Planning Director and the Planning Commission before the Council can take final action on them. For example, if the Council votes to enact the changes in Draft 2, these have to be sent to the Plaiming Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer HonorableLCningrad EiarionoCf, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 2 June 14, 2004 Director and reviewed by the Planning Commission before the Council can take final action to pass a new General Plan. This review process will itself take some time-- months, probably--and so I wanted to comment on Draft 2 as soon as possible, and remain in close consultation with the Council, because if the Council wants to make significant changes to amendments after the next round of Planning Director and Planning Commission review, this will create the need for yet another period of review and comment by the Director and Commission. Therefore, the Council should try to thoroughly work out issues with the General Plan as much as possible before voting to send a new draft back to the Planning Director and Commission for review, so that this can be the final stage before enactment. The Council has not yet considered or voted on Draft 2, nor has it voted on Draft 1. The comments in this letter are somewhat preliminary because Draft 2 is a major revision of the Draft 1 draft, and has been publicly available only since June 8, but I wanted to make some comments before the June 14 and 15 Council workshops. Draft 2 is obviously the product of a tremendous amount of work and deserves careful study. 1 Reorganization Draft 2 is a major reorganization. The text consists primarily of the "objectives" (a renaming of the "goals" in the current General Plan), "policies", and "standards". The descriptive text (such things as descriptions of the water systems or flood history of various districts) would be moved to a "County Profile", which would be printed separately, and not adopted by ordinance. The text portion of Draft 2, if adopted in its present form, would consist of about 50 pages, versus about 300 pages in Draft 1. The current (1989) General Plan is organized like Draft 2, but the other descriptive material was also enacted by ordinance, as the "General Plan Support DocumenP', and bound together with the goals and policies, resulting in a bulky document similar in size to Draft 1. Moving the descriptive material to a separate document is the on]y feasible way to significantly reduce the bulk of the General Plan. This is a good reorganization, and the descriptive material, while useful and important, does not have to he enacted as law, unlike the various policies and maps. As I will discuss in more detail later though, dropping the "courses oCaction" deletes many of the more specific policy recommendations. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Plamaing HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 3 .Time 14, 2004 Draft 2 also reorganizes some of the elements into an "Infrastructure" element, and combines the Natural Beauty, Environmental Quality, and Natural Resources elements into one. These are useful and sensible reorganizations. Vision Statements The inclusion of an overall "Vision Statement" and individual district "Vision Statements" is a significant positive innovation in Draft 2. The various Vision Statements that have been drafted have many features that would probably enjoy a broad base of support. Specific LUPAG Map Changes Draft 2 retains most of the important Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map changes proposed in Draft 1. These include the elimination of resort areas next to Spencer Park and the Pu'ukohola Heiau in Kawaihae (F-8), and at O'oma (G-7). Draft 2 ~ also properly incorporates the compromises at Kohanaiki (G-9, G-10a, and G-lOb), and at Keopuka (H-1), that were negotiated after the Draft 1 draft. Draft 2 does reject some of the proposed map changes in Draft 1. While I would like to comment on some of these later, I would like to mention a few now. Draft 2 retains the "Hawaiian Riviera" major resort project at Pohue Bay in Ka'u, and associated urban and industrial areas. Draft 1 had deleted these (I-3, I-4, and I-5). This proposed resort was originally added to the General Plan in 1988. There has been no discen~able action on this project since a court action invalidated its LUC reclassification about ten years ago. The coastal property is currently in the State Land Use Conservation District. I continue to recommend that it be deleted because the project is not viab]e, it diminishes the credibility of the General Plan to show a major resort in this location, and even if it were viable, we should not continue promoting new coastal mega-resorts. Draft 2 also takes out amendment A-4, which would shrink the "alternate urban expansion" area around Kea'au. The current General Plan has an urban expansion area of about 3000 acres on the west (mauka) side of the Volcano Highway. This is far larger than needed for the expansion of Kea'au town. Even including the undeveloped Gateway project (32 acres), the present town of Kea'au is not a tenth the size of the urban expansion area. Most of the 3000 acres is prime agricultural land. The purpose of A-4 was to focus future urban development closer to the existing town. Honorable Leningrad Elarionotf Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 4 lone 14, 200a Draft 2 would also reject I-8, which designated coastal ]ands between Honuapo and Ninole Cove as Conservation. Draft 2 also reduces the proposed H-1 "Conservation" area (Keopuka-Kealakekua Bay) by deleting the state land State land at Kaawaloa (around the Captain Cook Monument) and the Captain Cook Ranch lands, above the cliff at Kealakekua Bay. The County General Plan should recognize the significance of these areas by putting them in Conservation. "Important Agricultural Lands" Draft 2 eliminates the "Important Agricultural Lands" LUPAG designation in Draft 1, and returns to the former "Intensive" and "Extensive" agricultural categories. Draft 2 also takes out some of the specific policy statements that were meant to protect important agricultural land from being converted to non-agricultural uses, such as "Important agricultural lands shall not be rezoned to pazcels too small to support economically viable ~ fanning units", and "Discourage speculative residential development on agricultural land." (p. 350.) The present General Plan and Draft 2, while describing "Intensive" agricultural land as areas more suited to crops, do not give clear policies for how such ]ands should be treated in rezoning and other land use decisions versus the "Extensive" agricultural lands. This island has 1.2 million acres in the State Land Use Agricultural district, ranging in quality from recent lava flows to highly-productive farmlands. The idea behind designating important agricultural land is to identify areas deserving of protection as a base for commercial agriculture. The County land use system, and particularly the General Plan, should contain policies to discourage the conversion of prime agricultural land to residential estates, because this fragments farm land into units too small to support commercial farms, and the potential of creating these residential estates tends to drive up land prices so that farming is uneconomical. The "Report" for Draft 2 explains the deletion of "Important Agricultural Lands" by noting that the State Constitution requires the "State" to identify important ag lands, implying that this is not a county function. In 1978, the voters of the state enacted a constitutional amendment requiring the state to identify important ag lands. The ftrst step is that the State Legislature must enact a ]aw specifying the standards and criteria for this process, but in 25 years, the Legislature has never passed a bill taking this ftrst step. Iionorabie Leningrad Elarionoff; Chair and Members of the Committee ou Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 5 June 14, 2004 Despite a major effort in the past year, spearheaded by an Agricultural Working Group of about 50 active participants, including all county planning directors, the IAL bill died in conference committee this past session. We should not continue to wait for state action. The state land use law, H.R.S. Chap. 205, and the zoning enabling law, Chap. 46, clearly give the county the power to enact programs to protect agricultural land through the General Plan and zoning. County action will not replace the constitutional mandate on the State, and any county lands identified for protection will not have to meet the 2/3 standard for rezoning established by the state constitution for important agricultural lands, but the County should be diligent in trying to protect good ag land. Unfortunately, some passages in Draft 2 suggest that the County should not take any action until the state has acted, such as "When identified by the State, protect and encourage the utilization of the County's important agricultural lands." (p.42). It is not essential that the term "Important Agricultural Land" be used, as long as the _ ~ policies exist that protect these lands, whatever they are called. Some of the areas mapped as important in Draft 1 are open to question, and I am willing to work on better mapping. in particrdar, the category of "fair for 2 or more crops, on an irrigated basis", can be re- examined. Significance of the LUPAG Maps and Role of the General Plan Under the current General Plan, any rezoning must be consistent with the LUPAG maps. If not, the rezoning is inconsistent with the General Plan and must be rejected. Sec. 3- 15(b) of the County Charter provides that "no public improvement, project, subdivision, or zoning ordinances, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms to and implements the General Plan." The requirement for map conformance explains why, For example, projects such as Prince Kuhio Plaza or the "Hawaiian Riviera" needed to obtain a General Plan map amendment before they could even be considered for rezoning. Without the requirement of map consistency, the General Plan is not a guide to rezoning. The verbal policy statements in the General Plan are so broad that some can always be found that will justify a particular rezoning action. Although it has been the practice for many years to require map cousistency, to remove all doubt from this point, Draft 1 contained an explicit statement on this, on p. 340, along with some Curther guidance on the relationship between the General Plan and rezoning. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWA[[ COUNTY COUNCIL Page 6 .lone 14, 2004 Draft 2 removes this statement, and some of the language may create some confusion, particularly language about the General Plan maps becoming more general and being supplemented by more specific community development plan (CDP) maps. The language on p. 340 of Draft 1 is important and should be retained. Although it would be a good idea for the County to move toward more specific CDP's, we cannot abandon the legally binding nature of the LUPAG maps before formulating the CDP's. The City and County of Honolulu, for example, has a very short and broad General Plan, with non-specific maps, but it also has District Development Plans with much more specific maps. Rezoning in Honolulu must conform to those Development Plan maps. We also have to be realistic about our ability to prepare and enact CDP's. The County has not enacted a CDP by ordinance since 1979, and only three plans have been enacted by resolution since 1987 (Kailua, Keahole to Kailua, and Hawaiian Paradise Park). All ~ plans require hard choices, and so will become points of contention. (If the plan ducks the choices in a haze of generalities and ambiguities, it is worthless.) So the CDP's will take time to adopt. The statement in the "Introduction" to Draft 2 that the General Plan "is not intended to be regulatory" needs some explanation. The General Plan is not itself a regulation in Nle sense that, for example, the zoning code is a regulation. So a parcel that is zoned for residential use may be used for residential, even if the property is "Open" in the LUPAG map, and a building permit cannot be denied based upon the LUPAG map alone. But the General Plan and LUPAG maps do have the force and effect of ]aw, and discretionary decisions such as rezonings and SMA permits have to follow the General Plan and LUPAG map. LUPAG map consistency does not mean that the boundaries in the LUPAG maps are precise. The 1989 LUPAG map is on a scale of roughly 1"=11,000'. It was meant to indicate the general location of various land uses, not to be precisely scaled- (Except for map amendments that were adopted by spccific metes and bounds.) Honorable Leningrad Etarionofl; Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 7 June 14, 2004 Community Development Plan Process While emphasizing the importance of such plans, Draft 2 deletes the process specified in Draft I for adopting CDP's by ordinance. Plans adopted by resolution lack teeth. The CDP's should be enacted by ordinance. "Floating Zones" The current (1989) General Plan and previous General Plan contained the concept of "floating zone" for industrial and retreat resort uses. The "floating zone" means that the Council could rezone such uses as a "floating zone" even if their specific location is not shown on the LUPAG maps. (Note that if LUPAG map consistency had not been required, everything would be a "floating zone" and there would be no need to have it as a separate concept in the General Plan.) Draf4 1 removed the "floating zone", because it is not consistent with the idea that one should plan ahead for land uses. There does tend to be a difficulty, however, in that many of the rural areas do not have areas zoned for the kinds ofservice-oriented light industrial uses that are often necessary, and do not have "Industrial" designations on the LUPAG maps. So Draft 1 stated in the "Courses of Action" that such uses could be zoned within certain areas not specifically mapped for industrial uses, like within the Honalo area. If the Council wishes to continue the "floating zone" on a limited basis, the General Plan should specify the reasons that a floating zone can be utilized, and the general locations. Otherwise, it becomes an invitation to spot zoning. Conservation Lands Draft 2 eliminates language in Draft 1 (on p. 347) that would allow small-scale recreational facilities in Conservation. This should be retained. Among other reasons, the County must sometimes review SMA (Special Management Area) permits in Conservation areas, for example, for public parks. This language makes it clear that such facilities may be consistent with the Conservation designation. Other Policy Changes Draft 2 eliminates the "Courses of Action" that are in the current General Plan and in Draft l . While some of these are included within other policies, many have been Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning EIAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 8 .tune 14, 2004 eliminated entirely, and in some cases, even if they are meant to be contained in other policies, they have been rewritten in a way that they lose much of their specificity. The "Report" attached to Draft 2 makes the apt criticism that the current General Plan and Draft 1 are often inconsistent in that some "Courses of Action" that could easily apply to all districts are only listed for one or a few districts. While this is a valid observation, this could be fixed rather than dropping them entirely. The "Courses of Action" tend to be more specific and direct than the other policy recommendations. Among the dropped "Courses of Action" are those stating that commercial development in some districts should be centered around the existing towns rather than allowing strip or spot commercial development along the highways. Our small towns like Honoka'a, Honomu, and Pahoa are treasures. When new highways are built bypassing the older towns, new commercial businesses typically try to locate along the highway. The end result is a strip mall/gas station convenience store landscape that could be anywhere, rather than the unique identity of an older, traditional town. Typically, the older town withers, and the "bypass" nature of the highway is lost to the new commercial clutter. Partially by design, and partially by luck, we have not completely lost the character of our older small towns. I would suggest that in addition to retaining these courses of action, the Council also adopt a specific policy that commercial development not be permitted on the Hokulia Bypass Highway. This will help keep the commercial viability of communities like Captain Cook and Kealakekua along the Mamalahoa Highway, while preserving the Bypass Highway as an arterial route. Other important policies or courses of action deleted in Draft 2 from Draft l: --"Require a study of signiftcant cultural, social, and physical impacts of large developments prior to approval." (p. 41). --"The Waipi'o Valley area should be retained for limited recreational and agricultural activities due to its high susceptibility to flooding and tsunami inundation."(p. 99). "Maintain and re-establish forest cover in mauka areas to improve the capacity of the ground to absorb heavy rainfall." (p. l03). --"Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefiilly considering the effects of proposed construction during all land use reviews." (p. 131). honorable Leningrad Eltuionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 9 .Tune 14, 2004 --"Do not allow incompatible constniction in areas of natural beauty." (p. 131). --"Discourage intensive development in areas of high volcanic hazard." (p. 91). --"Encourage an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawaii's resources by protecting, preserving, and conserving the critical and significant natural resources of Hawaii County." (p. 154). --"Review the County grading and grubbing ordinances to ensure that they adequately address potential erosion and runoff problems." (p.84). --"Seek assistance to develop a comprehensive flood study for the subdivisions between and along Highways ll and 130". (p. 93). --"Encourage the mapping of the floodways in North Kona to develop more effective flood control programs." (p. 103). --"Encourage the development of affordable retirement communities." (p. 170) ---"Vacant lands in urban areas and urban expansion areas should he made available for residential uses before additional agricultural lands are converted into residential uses." (p. 170.) --(For North Kohala) "In reviewing Special Permit applications, rezonings, and other land use changes in the Agricultural District, great care should be given to preserve existing viewplanes to and along the coastline." (p. 364). --"Lands currently designated Resort should be utilized before new resorts are allowed in undeveloped coastal areas." (p. 410). [t is not clear whether some of these have been deleted because the authors of Draft 2 disagree with them as policy goals, or whether they are believed to be incorporated in other policies. The Council should make it clear when voting on various proposed policies whether it is a matter of disagreeing with them or that they are stated in other words, and if they are, make sure that the intent of the policy is retained. honorable Leningrad Elarionof[; Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Pagc 10 June 14, 2004 Other Issues Draft 2 (at p. 5) states that the Council will decide whether firture ten-year comprehensive reviews of the Ueneral Plan should be done. These are mandatory under current law, and should remain mandatory. The ten-year review forces a periodic evaluation of land use. Otherwise, decisions are only made on arezoning-by-rezoning basis, without re- examining the overall framework. A "Puna Makai" Minor resort (up to 500 rooms) is listed on p. 47, but no location is mapped. I am not sure of the reason for eliminating the acreage requirement for a major or intermediate resort: there should be a large area for a resort of this size, and all listed major or intermediate resorts meet the current acreage requirement. I will be happy to discuss these issues and any others that the Council may wish to ~__J consider at the June 14 and 15 workshops. Sincerely,-, i CHRISTOPHER J. YLJ~EN Planning Director CJY:pak WpwmGO/Chris/GP comments on Bill No. 163, Draf[ 2 cc: Mayor Harry Kim Mr. Roy Takemoto, Deputy Ms. Alice Kawaha, Planning Program Manager Ms. Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor Ms. Charmaine Doran, Assistant to Legislative Auditor ~ OF a,~,N,?:~. • ~ I Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen m,,,,~. D,re~r~~ ~v~mi'µ'Rd Roy R.'I'akenaoto ~~,.9{yp" y Ley p~~y Deputy Director dL[Y1tYL~~7 Ind F~LU.~IYT PLANNING I)EPAItT1~iIEIQIT lOP Pauahi Sheet, Suite J Hilo, Hawaii 95720-3043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808)951-8742 June 17, 2003 Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Councilperson Hawaii County Cortncil 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Councilperson Leithead-Todd: SUBJECT: KOHANAIKI GP MAP CHANGE Over the years, there has been strong public interest in preserving coastal open space at Kohanaiki, as well as securing long-term public park use of the area. The coastal area has been informally used as a recreational area by the public for many years, and it contains treasured cultural and natural resources. The present draft of the General Plan contains two proposed LUPAG map amendments for the area, G-9 and G-10 on the North Kona-2 map. The amendments called for a substantial open space area along the coast and a replacement of the existing resort, low density, medium density, and open areas further from the coast with alternate urban expansion. Since that proposal was sent to the Council, the County administration has been involved in discussions with the landowner anti concerned members of the community over the long-term future of the area. From these discussions has emerged a new master plan, prepared by the landowner, that incorporates many of the features that the County and public users of the area want. It includes a large coastal open space buffer that would be dedicated for public use and open space, as well as a level of development on the remainder of the property considerably less than that proposed by the prior landowner in the early `90's. Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Councilperson Hawaii County Council Page 2 June 17, 2003 Although there are details still to be worked out, the administration generally supports this new compromise proposal. We expect that an SMA permit application will be filed soon based on the new master plan. The new master plan does differ from the LUPAG amendments currently before the Council, primarily in that the coastal open space area is not as deep. Although the SMA permit will probably be heard and decided under the present LUPAG map before the Council finalizes the adoption of the new General Plan, we would like the General Plan as finally adopted to be consistent with the new development concept for the area. We would also like to demonstrate our commitment to the compromise over the development of the area that has been worked out with the landowner. At this point, any new amendments or modifications to amendments proposed by the PIa~u7ing Director must be initiated by the Council. Accordingly, i request that the Council substitute the attached North Kona 2 map for the one contained in the December 21, 2001 draft. Specifically, G-9 still creates an "Open" area along the coast, but it is not ~ as deep as that in the December 21, 2001 draft. In the "Open" area, an SMA permit could allow a golf course, and recreational facilities such as a public beach park with restrooms and camping areas, as well as the small private beach facility proposed by the landowner. Adjacent to the "Open" area, the ]andownerplan calls for single-family homes on one-acre lots. This is consistent with a "Low Density" LUPAG map designation, hence this area is now shown as "Low Density", and referred to as G-10a. Finally, G-1 Ob remains as an area of alternate urban expansion. The landowner plans additional housing in this area, including possibly some multi-family housing. We would appreciate the Council's favorable action on this suggested change to the LUPAG map. Sincerely, ~ i`- Cl; I&ISTOPHER J. YUEN Planning Director RRT:pak Wpwinfi0/Roy/Kohanaiki GP map change_ doc Enclosures Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Councilperson Hawaii County Council Page 3 hme 17, 2003 cc: Mayor Harry Kim Mr. Ray Rutter Mr. Bill McWorrall ! N 7 w (0 C Q ~ ~ O Y Z 0 ,y%ry:`. ai}a ; , o m a c a r 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ CAL ~ CS i. r ~ o C o ~ d a O N c D m .r c ~a 3 ; c ~ c 5 N p. ~ J J O N w ~ x c c c D c ~ o a Q ~ 'u_ ~ ~ w u°-i 0 2 o c~ c~ ~ c c o o ~ Q r` o f `m Z o$ o c E c0= y0 ~ U y h ~ w y~~ E Z~ u'S c O w H ~ Wy c r aci c ~o c c ~ r c c 2$ w~ o N m m~ v Ommm pin i n n c.~ S vy~ c ~ N n a n o a> ~C c 'e W ui K x o¢ E w~ ~ 2 U>>~ W W j W o~ j~~ c C W W io v Q w v v v v v v v v o p m~ m o o~ c o d o v a a y c w c~$ Y w S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 m y a c d~ w twn ~ w~ ~ ~O>> °z~°cgw=~~ d S SAS SSA n O u u u u n m n u u n ~ ° d (7 C7 C7 C7 U C.7 C7 C'J C9 (9 ,HSV of yq~ QO•_._ 9 T .a _ ~~~~iG~ zga,ry rim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor ••.".-~j":~ ~ Director s ~a:'O ~yrF oi'w•;ps ROq R. TakeIT10(O ~.~~tt~~ DepvtyDirector ~J.IILITT~~I II~ ~~If1Y2Itt PLANNING I3EPARTMENT 25 Aupuni 5teeei, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 46720-4252 (AOA) 961-A2A6 • Fax (AOfl) 961-8742 August 21, 2002 Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Leithead-Todd: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN During the General Plan revision program, many individuals wrote and testified in favor of designating areas near and north of Kealakekua Bay into Conservation in the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) maps. Most of the letters and public testimony stressed the importance of the marine resources of Kealakekua Bay, and the open scenic shoreline around the bay and to the north. To some extent, these sentiments were in response to plans for a proposed development at Keopuka, a 660-acre parcel to the north ofKealakekua Bay. In 2000, the landowner had announced plans to request land use approvals fora 124 unit residential/agricultural subdivision, with many one-acre lots proposed 300' from the shoreline, a golf course, members' clubhouse, and lodge (the lodge was later withdrawn.) Last year, the Planning Director proposed a LUPAG map amendment that would designate a large area around Kealakekua Bay as Conservation, including much of the makai portion of the Keopuka property. A map showing the proposed General Plan map amendment (H-1) is attached to this letter as Map 1. It shows a proposed band of Conservation extending 2400'-2800' into the Keopuka parcel. The objectives of the proposed LUPAG amendment were: --to protect the quality of the nearby ocean waters and Kealakekua Bay from potential effects of non-off that might result from construction activities or the Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING County of Hawaii Page 2 August 21, 2002 importation of soil for landscaping or golf courses, or from possible leaching of nutrients from golf courses, agriculture, landscaping, or domestic waste systems; --to retain the present open space along the coastline; --to protect cultural and archaeological sites, burials, and important natural features such as lava tubes. In June, 2002, Lyle Anderson, the owner of the Keopuka property, announced that to protect a valuable resource for the community, he was unconditionally committed, independently from any land use applications for the Keopuka property, to place the entire shoreline area of Keopuka in a Conservation Easement, protecting the area from development, and is in the process of completing such transfer. The Conservation Easement area includes all the land below the Old Cart Road as well as a portion of the pali mauka of the Old Cart Road, a total of approximately 175 acres. This will preserve ~ coastal open space that varies in width from a minimum of about 1300' to a maximum of 2100'. Except for the minimal recreational development described below, the area will remain undeveloped and in its natural state. The Planning Director now believes that the objectives of the proposed LLJPAG map amendment can be achieved with a modified conservation designation, along with sensitive controls over the remainder of the Keopuka property. The suggested modified Conservation designation is shown on Map 2. This includes the entire area below the Old Cart Road as well as a portion of the pali mauka of the Old Cart Road. The present "Open" LUPAG designation along the coast, plus this proposed "Conservation" designation, would cover about 175 acres and create an open space belt 1300' to 2100' wide. The County envisions the following general principles with respect to any development of the Keopuka property: 1. Within the area to be designated "Conservation" in the General Plan, the existing "Open" designated area, and the "Conservation Easement area", which together contain about 175 acres, the landowner would dedicate an area of about 20 acres for long- term public park use. In the park area the only improvements would be for park use, including public trails. In the remainder of the "Conservation", "Open", and "Conservation Easement" areas, the only private development would consist of a handful Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING County of Hawaii Page 3 August 21, 2002 of simple picnic pavilions for the use of owners of some of the private lots. These would all be located at least 300' from the shoreline, north of Keawekaheka Pt. The remainder ofthis 175-acre area would remain entirely natural and undeveloped except for access easements and public trails. There would be a public shoreline trail running the entire length of the Keopuka property, with a mauka-makai connection to the Old Cart Road. 2. In the area between the "Old Government Road", which runs parallel to the Old Cart Road, but about 1600' further inland, and the "Conservation" area, consisting of about 110 acres, development would be limited to about 16 subdivided lots. One farm dwelling could be built on each lot. The areas that could be grubbed, graded, or covered with imported soil would be strictly limited to about 10% of each lot area, exclusive of roads and driveways. The homes would be required to use enhanced septic systems for domestic waste disposal that would greatly reduce the nutrients that could percolate into the ground. Because of the size of the "Conservation 'and "Conservation Easement" areas no home would be constructed closer than about aquarter-mile from the shoreline. _ j Except for access and utility crossing as necessary, all significant historic sites would be preserved, along with significant nahiral features such as lava tubes and lava feeding channels. 3. In the remainder of the property, mauka of the Old Government Road, consisting of about 350 acres, the landowner could subdivide about 1 10 individual lots. Except for necessary access and utility crossings, significant historical sites would be preserved, along with significant natural features such as lava feeding channels and stands of native trees. There would be no golf course development. There might be a recreational facility for lot owners. There would be an agricultural program and best management practices to control against the potential pollution of ground water by over- fertilization or other agricultural or landscaping practices, and any farm dwellings would use enhanced septic systems. On the entire property, preservation of burials would be handled under the rules of the Burial Council, but the landowner would agree that burials should be preserved in place with appropriate buffers. The public would have ungated vehicular access along the main project roadway through the subdivision to get to the public park area. Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING County of Hawaii Page 4 August 21, 2002 The development as described herein would need an Environmental Impact Statement, an SMA major permit, a special permit for any enclosed recreational facilities, a Planned Unit Development Permit, and a Conservation District Use Permit, as well as possibly a Shoreline Setback Variance, for a shoreline trail and park facilities. During the course of these applications the public will be able to comment on aspects of the project, and further planning will be done to identify burials, historical and cultural sites, and important natural features, and determine the best way to preserve them, and the best way to handle public access and public recreational use of the area. At present, the entire area, except for 40 acres along the coast that is in the State Land Use Conservation District, a band about 300' deep, is in the County's Agricultural-5 acre zone. This means that the Keopuka parcel of 620 acres could potentially be subdivided to about 124 five-acre lots. In the area mauka of the Old Government Road, the five-acre lots would only need a subdivision approval. The landowner would be entitled to i subdivision approval by building the roads, water, and other infrastructure to county standards. Public access and protection of historic sites would also be conditions of subdivision approval, but otherwise, under present law, the landowner would have the right to subdivide this mauka area to about 69 lots. Between the Old Government Road and the area currently in the State Land Use Conservation District, any development, such as subdivision, would require an SMA permit. The owner could, with an SMA permit, potentially create up to 55 more lots (in addition to the 69 mauka lots) as close as 300' from the shoreline. The scenario set forth above has the effect of moving almost all the development away from the sensitive shoreline area, which also contains most of the recognized historic sites. The present General Plan maps have an "Open" designation along the shoreline, but the rest of the parcel is designated "Orchards" or "Extensive Agricultural". Neither designation offers any long-term protection or guidance for land-use decision-making. Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair COMMITTEE ON PLANNING County of Hawaii Page 5 August 2l, 2002 The Planning Director therefore requests that the Counci] modify proposed LUPAG amendment H-1 to follow Map 2. At this point, procedurally, it would be up to the Council to initiate this modification of the amendment. Sincerely CHRISTOPHER J.YLJ>~ Planning Director CJY:pak '.Vpwin60\Pat\Leithead-Todd -General Plan ,Attachments cc: Honorable Harry Kim, Mayor Honorable James Arakaki, Council Chair C _ y~ ~~rr~~ 'p O ~i W V N ~ x ~ ° a ~ ~ ~3 f ;d .~r4 1 N~ 5 ~ }~~~Y[~~ it I + J y~- ifA '~~I ~ + f ~ ' ~~~'l.t r t1'r ~x 'r r ~n ~`t~tt :~~f "a a.,t jj p~ I 'r a' ~yM, } NK/ ex F~. tJ?r5i ~ 1~I S rf 'r~~yks {'~~A' Q ~V" xY ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Yi ~~~f Y { ti 'h'ti nr, .f, of f} y % y~r ClV - f ~ ~ ky 1~ y~"' ~ ;X '4R}~ i tl- d ~~1 i ~ } ~ rf f ieS~~! 15 tit}. ~ C x' : y y y ~ M)11 t P hkW ~ ~Q )5 .+>K F~' rt f ~ r ~ t ~p7 ~Y r f ?if d' y, ~ ,..r 5 ~~OV k e r 5 S ~ t n~Y n' T, 1~ ~i I v 'M r. YS-l+ try y r 'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~V k~ t G!t JJ (~t t' ( ~s yyyyy iy ~ A~+ v t7r ~ I i / ~c ' l l i'~yrxtsf k '4 k s x r ~ i Yya ~r ~ ~ t ~ I F ~ ty ~l. V } . ~.Y f ~Jw K l nn r tl O Al ~ ~ 2 C O _ N v x ~ ~f1^ ~V F / ~ fl C F-1 l_ x ~ ~ i. r,~ , ~ s~ , ~ ~ ~f r p ~y~~ ~ r 1; ~x ~ ,r~ ~ f t > .f~ oJ~~}.{'r t~ ~ ~a'h iN~l ~ r ~ ~A r r'{ ~yilr ~ ~ r 'a lA 5µY ~ ~ r$. ~~~~i ~ r { ~i ~ ~,tir~` ' ~ ~ti~ s ~ ~ ,.y,~ ttgq > It ~ tr ~{~,r ,',ti i ~ f h~ ~'l~~f j~~ y~r r v X11 ~ ~ t ; `h4 ' S ~ y"i' ~ x ~ yh v ~t J 1~~ ~5 S ~ ~(2 4' ti lY 2 1 } t ~~I '^'FY ~ f iY 6 IYA kK V~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,'~",r t f d ~ t k, ti,, ~~+i uu r 5.}~ 1 Y \I ~~~~y~y~. tr l iY 4 ~ ~ ~ i =G a a W}tti~. {j t~! pl r S i t ~ ~ w 1 ~ ti 1. •'a f ~ ~ ~ r Y4 ~ ~ti ~ ~ ( 'r w y i } a ;'j~ e ~ I. ~~l ~ ~ Y' ) Y ~A. ..Y N \ / Ah f . /1 } ~l . Y1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Aber 7 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ J ~ ~~;'s, ~ ~v,~~ v ~ a ~ r ae ~ ~ d