Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.027 2004-2006 t- 3-Ug; 9: 13AM: 18095453463 +8085283463 n I q r--~~~ J(ii i Fjai q „ - c i t '9 r ' LAND USE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF HAWAII 70o Bishop Street. S[e, t9z8 ` Honolulu, Hawaii 9683 ~ Phooe 521-q~t7 I Fax 536-ot32 January 3, 2005 The Honorable Pete Hoffmann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, and Members Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 BY FACSIMILE: (8081961-8912 ~ Dear Co-Chairs Hoffmann and Pilago, and Committee Members: RE: BILL NO. 163 [DRAFTS 1, 2, and 3] FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-142, AS AMENDED My name is Dean Uchida, Executive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii i (LURF), a private, non-profit research and trade association whose members include major Hawaii landowners, developers and a utility company. One of LURF's missions is to advocate for reasonable and rational land use planning, legislation and regulations affecting common problems in Hawaii. LURF is testifying in regard to Bill No. 163 and the County of Hawaii General Plan Revision Program because of our overall concern that the General Plan be a meaningful guide to public- private investment for growth and development in the County, rather than a regulatory document requiring individual project consistency and concurrency of infrastructure as preconditions to fuhtre development approvals. We believe that the General Plan, when revised, should remain true to the intent of the Hawaii County Charter, Section 3-15 of which provides that the General Plan shall set forth policy for the long-range comprehensive physical development of the County, and shall contain a statement of development objectives, standazds, and principles for the most desirable use of land within the County. By way of background, we understand the following with respect to the General Plan Revision Program which has taken place to date. The comprehensive review of the General Plan began in January, 2002, when the Planning Director transmitted Bill No. 163 [Draft I ] to the Council- After anumber of meetings, workshops, and hearings, the Council Plamiing Committee asked the Legislative Auditor's Office to revise Bill No. 163 to make it more "succinct and Comm. No. 4~•2 Ref. To: Preseep+ Ref. Uate - _-05: 9-13AA~; iP,065983453 iR0651e?a6? 4 ~i -l 1~ 1 Honorable Pete Hbffinann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, and Members Committee on Planning Illl January 3, ?005 1 Page 2 understandable." The Auditor then submitted Draft 2, containing a statement of value-based 3 principles, a purpose section, and vision statements projecting desirable concepts for growth and ' lifestyles in each geographical district of the island. On June 14 and 15, 2004, the Committee on Planning held workshops on Bill No. 163, Draft 2, which proposes to repeal the current General Plan (adopted in 1989) and replace it in its entirety. Draft 2 was intended to guide fiiture I development and the provision of infrastructure with less regulatory reliance on a Land Use Pp Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map such as contained in the current plan. Major substantive changes in Draft 2 included; (1) emphasis on concentration and infiIling of urban form and settlement patterns rather than designation of specific urban uses; (2) inclusion of a rural- t agriculture designation which is intended to be distinguishable from the State Rural Distract; and ~ (3) deletion of designated important agricultural lands, which the Auditor believes must first be Y identified by the State. In a detailed respouse, the Planning Director pointed out on June 14, 2004, that the Comrcil had taken no action on Draft 1 of the revised plan, let alone Draft 2, which must first be reviewed by f the Planning Commission before the Council could adopt it. The Director expressed particular concern that map consistency continue to be required between Zoning Code maps and the LUPAG map in the General Plan, which has the force and effect of ]aw. Accordingly, Draft 1 had removed the "floating zone" concept. The Director also noted with concem that Draft 2 retains the Hawaiian Riviera major resort project; retains a large expansion area for Kea'au town; rejects designation of certain Ka'u coastal lands as conservation; and deletes State lands around Kealakekua Bay as conservation. Additionally, the Director recommended that no commercial development be permitted along the Hokuli'a Bypass Highway. Finally, he urged the County not to wait for State action to identify importattt agricultural lands, on the premise that the County has the zoning power under State law to enact programs to protect such lands. Following additional Plaruung Committee workshops on Draft 2, the Legislative Auditor prepared and submitted Draft 3 on November 9, 2004. Major substantive changes in Draft 3 include: (1) deletion of the statement that the General Plan is "not intended to be regulatory"; (2) regnirernent that development and facility plans be adopted by ordinance; (3) inclusion of "district courses of action"; (4) identification of intensive agricultural lands, prime and unique ALISH lands, and the Kona coffee belt; and (5) distinction between the descriptions of State and County conservation lands. We have the following general areas of concern regarding the General Plan Revision Program: • The maior specific concem is that basic infrastructure, particularly highways and schools, is not being developed concurrently with the completion of major development projects. i In recent years, private developers have borne the primary burden of providing adequate offsite infrastructure for their projects, without which the projects will not be processed I I li 3-<J5: 9:i3AM:~9pH5283463 i609S2a_3JF= h Honorable Pete Hoffmann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, , nd Membcrs Committee on Planning January 3, ?005 Pagc 3 for land use approvals. But badly needed infrastntcture funded by the public sector has lagged conspicuously, most obviously in the fastest growing regions of the island. In Che future, we would like to see greater evidence in the General Plan of a clear commitment ofpublic agency staff, resources, and funding to ensure that infrastructure will be built, maintained, expanded, and replaced as needed to accommodate projected development. One way to do this is to indicate with appropriate specificity, perhaps in the district courses of action, where individual CIP projects are most needed, and how soon. • The public sector commitment to build needed infrastructure can and should also include greater use of innovative means ofpublic-private financing to fund that infrastructure, such as impact fee assessments, development agreements, community facilities districts, special improvement districts, and tax increment financing (see HRS ch. 46 pts. VI-VIII), rather than ad hoc exactions. We would like to ensure that all development projects, large or small, contribute their fair shaze - no less but r:o more of the costs of the infrastructure from which they benefit. • The revised General Plan should reflect a truly visionary and conceptual planning process, and not include explicit terms and conditions which will provide a rationale for rejection of individual development proposals on the grounds that they are not consistent with the Plan. Charter § 3-15(b) provides that "no public improvement or project, or subdivision or zoning ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted uttless the same conforms to and implements the general plan" (emphasis added). Settled case law in Hawaii also ~ indicates that [development] plans become "de facto zoning" when they contain provisions more restrictive than the corresponding zoning ordinance and with which that zoning must be consistent; see GATRI v. Slane, 88 Hawaii 108, 962 P.2d 367 (1998), cited in Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Honolulu, 102 Hawaii 465, 78 P.3d 1 (2003). The content of the General Plan is therefore a very powerful instrument which must be used judiciously to guide the entitlement process rather than overlap with, supplant, or regulate it. Accordingly, it is important that the General Plan include a statement of legislative intent to the effect that it is "not intended to be regulatory like theaoning code or other land use regulations, butjlexible and resilient." • With regard to consistency, we would not like the LUPAG map to be interpreted as a fixed and arbitrary guide to the phasing of development projects, such that zoning requests cannot be accepted for processing if the projects fall outside an urban expansion or resort area at a given point in tune. Instead of providing a rationale for saying "no" to private projects, the LUPAG map should become a signal of government's commihraent to say "yes" to the finding of needed infrastructure in support of development. i- 3-05; 9:13AA~;iB085283463 100352~3J63 # y: y Honorable Petc Hoftinann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, and Members Committee on Planning January 3, ?005 ~ Page 4 3 ' • It is the proper role of the Legislature to establish the standards and criteria for important agricultural lands (IAL), following which it is incumbent upon the State to identify those lands which meet the criteria. Legislative proposals considered in the deliberations of the "Agriculture Working Group" and during the 2004 Session of the Legislature contemplated an important role for the Counties in designating IAL for identification by the Land Use Commission. We expect similar proposals to be reintroduced in the 2005 3 Session, and LURF will support them, as we did in 2004. However, the General Plan shoetld not attempt to preempt the Legislature by identifying ]AL. Drafts 1 and 3 contain references to "important agricultural lands" which skirt close to suggesting that the County has already made this identification. • From the overall perspective of consistency in planning and implementation, the County's real property tax assessments need to reflect what is discussed in the General Plan. For ~ example, if the intent is to encourage and support agriculture, then the real property ~ taxation policy and practice should reflect the need to tax agricultural lands at a realistic assessed value and rate that is indicative of agricultural use. A policy of assessing agricultural lands at "fair mazket value" based on comparable sales is not consistent with i the objective of preserving and enhancing the agricultural industry, unless of course the + real intent is only to protect open space, and not support agriculture. In summary, we will be watching to see that the revised Genera] Plan becomes a meaningful guide to public-private investment in the region, rather than a regulatory document requiring individual project consistency with the Plan and developer responsibility for concurrency of ~ infrastructure as preconditions to future development approvals. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this matter, and look forward to further + discussions with the Council regarding the General Plan Revision Program for the County of Hawaii. f