Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.074 2004-2006 OJatV OF Ngw9 4. . Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayan Dirtnor er ~ w trE ci:H~.t• Roy R. Takemoto Drpury Dirtcmr NZnlxnf~r >rf ~tTiTYttti PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~tt~"r v~ 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 ~e~, Eoondl d January 31, 2005 Honorable Gazy Safarik, Chair and Members of the County Council HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Safarik and Members of the County Council: SUBJECT: BILL 163, DRAFT'S (GENERAL PLAN) There is a slight difference in the location of the Hokulia resort site on the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") maps between Draft 1 and Drafts 4 and 5. This is not a change to the General Plan; the site itself has not been changed. The purpose of this letter is to explain how this difference happened and to ask the Council to pass a motion authorizing the Planning Department to make a more accurate map of this area when the General Plan is finally published. The motion could be made at the February 2 council meeting. It isnon-substantive and does not require further review by the Planning Commission. The explanation for the map differences is a bit complicated. I have attached a map of the area to help with the explanation. In 1997, the Council passed Ord. 97-34, which amended the LUPAG map to change a 25- acre site within the Hokulia project from "Orchazds" to "Resort", and to also add a "retreat resort" site in the area to the text of the General Plan. Ord. 97-34 was accompanied by a map showing the 25-acre site. On the map attached to this letter, the 25 acre site is labeled "1 The Council also enacted Ord. 97-35, which reclassified a 15 acre area within the 25 acre site from the state land use agricultural district to the urban district, and Ord. 97-36, which rezoned the same 15 acre site to "V" ("Visitor"). The 15 acre area is shown on the map as " 2". It lies within "1". Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider anti employer. Comm. p°esey ~ 1 Ref. To:_._. Ref. Uate - Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair and Members of the County Council HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 2 January 31, 2005 The subsequent court action is not directly relevant to this letter, but I must mention it for the sake of completeness and explanation. The Third Circuit Court's Hokulia decision, among other rulings, declared that Ords. 97-34, 97-35, and 97-36 are invalid. The County and Hokulia are appealing this decision. In 1999, the State Office of Planning prepazed a number of Geographic Information System ("GIS") maps for the County of Hawaii. These are computer-based maps. One of them was a GIS version of the LUPAG map. It is extremely important to remember that the original LUPAG maps were not intended to be precise. Rather, they show the general location of uses. So, for example, the areas zoned for hotels within the various major resorts sometimes do not exactly match the areas for resort shown on the LUPAG maps. There are, however, a few interim map amendments, like the Hokulia resort site, that did have a definite location. The official LUPAG map, attached as an insert with the 1989 General Plan, was never updated to include interim amendments like Hokulia. So we are not sure how the Office of Planning mapped the Hokulia site on the GIS, but in any case, the GIS map shows it slightly mauka and somewhat larger than the site in Ord. 97-34. The GIS mapped location is labeled " 3" on the attached map. The Planning Department, in mapping South Kona for LUPAG map amendments, showed the Hokulia resort site as " 2", the 15 acre zoned site, rather than "1", the 25 acres. It was not labeled as an amendment because it was existing as a resort site. There was, of course, no intent to actually change the size of the resort designated area on the LUPAG maps. This same map, South Kona 1, was sent to the Council and is the "Draft 1"map for the area. When the Council Planning Committee voted to revise the maps for South Kona 1 and North Kona 2 (the Ackerman/Paris/Bell requests), we had to revise these maps. The head of the GIS section for the Planning Department, who normally prepares our GP maps, was on vacation, and we prepared the maps for Draft 4 (which is now Draft 5), using the GIS version of the LUPAG 3" on the attached map). Thus, the resort site looks larger and more mauka than on Draft 1. We did not catch this until it was recently brought to our attention. The best mapping for the Hokulia resort site is to follow what was done by the Council in Ord. 97-34, "1" on the attached map. Although we think that we could make this slight map change administratively, we are asking the Council to specifically authorize it by Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair and Members of the County Council HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Page 3 January 31, 2005 motion because this has been a controversial area and the public may question why the maps were changed. The motion would say: "Correct the LUPAG map so that the Hokulia resort site is shown as described in Ord. 97-34". I would be happy to discuss this further at the February 2 meeting and I apologize for the length of this explanation, and also for the differences in the maps. Sincerel~~ iJ ` //'1 ~ 1- CHRISTOPHER~!!X'UEN Planning Directo CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris/Safank - GN Hokulia.Map Attachment cc: Bobby-Jean Leithead-Todd, Esq. Ms. Alice Kawaha Mr. John DeFries Print Date' Jan. 31, 2005 N w E HOKULIA MAP s ~ 1 ~ x~ 0 m Z Iz 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet LEGEND 0 1 ® 2 3 i'~,~,~ District Boundary