Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0939.002 2004-2006 +rr a w~ Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor Director ''•r;• • • • Brad Kurokawa, ASLA ~ O/M+ LEED® AP Tountg of ~'aa Tjaff Deputy Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 cT) i1 c C,7) c_ G:; r July 17, 2006 _ :J :f Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning County of Hawaii Committee on Planning 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Pilago and Members of the Committee on Planning: SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION 939: RESOLUTION 383-06 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR LANDS ADJOINING HONOKOHAU HARBOR AT KEALAKEHE, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA The purpose of this letter is to offer comments on Resolution 383-06, which would initiate the process for an interim General Plan amendment to change the text of the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") map to include a "resort" designation near the Honokohau Harbor. The amendment would also expand the existing "alternate urban expansion" designation in the area. The resolution supports a project proposed by Jacoby Development, under a development agreement with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, that would expand the existing harbor, and in the proposal's current form, eventually develop 1800 timeshare units and about 700 hotel units. 1. Procedure. Under the County Charter, sec. 3-15(c), only the Council or the Planning Director can initiate amendments to the General Plan. For an interim amendment initiated by the Council, the procedure is set out in sec. 16.2 of the current 2005 General Plan. The Council must first pass a resolution asking the Planning Director to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the proposed amendment. The Planning Director then sends Comm. No. C1 Z Ref. To:Pf**Q*t*# Ref. Date ."11.11 71nM Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning County of Hawaii Committee on Planning Page 2 July 17, 2006 this study and a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which reviews the proposal and eventually makes its recommendation to the Council. The Council then acts upon the amendment. Neither the Planning Director nor the Planning Commission can block an amendment proposed by the Council. Once the Council passes the resolution asking for the study, the amendment itself will eventually come back to the Council for its action. 2. History of the General Plan and this property. The 1989 LUPAG map, which is attached to this letter as Map 1, showed "resort" areas, and an "alternate urban expansion area", on the State land near Honokohau Harbor. Most of the area was, however, designated "Open", as shown on Map 1. The "resort" areas were set back a considerable distance from the shoreline. The text of the General Plan referred to an "Intermediate" resort at Kealakehe. In 2001, I proposed the deletion of this resort designation in the comprehensive General Plan review, and this change was adopted with the new General Plan in 2005. The current LUPAG map for the area is attached as Map 2. There is currently a set of Planning Director-initiated interim amendments before the Council that includes a further proposed change to this area. This would change much of the "Open" area to "Alternate Urban Expansion" This proposed amendment is shown on Map 3. This amendment was intended to facilitate further commercial and harbor-related industrial development around an expanded small boat harbor. It differs from the amendment being considered by the Council in Res. 383-06 in that it would not allow the resort component. A resort development would require a "Resort" or "Resort Node" designation in the LUPAG map, and should be listed in the resort areas on Table 14-5. 3. State/DHHL jurisdiction. The ownership of the area is split between the State (under the jurisdiction of the DLNR) and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, with DHHL having generally the more mauka lands. See Map 4. The State transferred the portion owned by DHHL to the DHHL in 1994. The significance of this split ownership is that for the DLNR lands, under H.R.S. sec. 171-41(a), leases for "commercial, industrial and other business uses" must be "consistent with county zoning requirements." The State property is currently zoned "Open" and should be rezoned to be used for commercial or other business uses, included a resort. In turn, such rezoning must be consistent with the General Plan. On DHHL property, however, the County has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning County of Hawaii Committee on Planning Page 3 July 17, 2006 DHHL, which is believed to be consistent with the law regarding the County's land use authority (or lack thereof) over DHHL property. The MOA essentially allows the DHHL to choose the zoning of its property, without regard to the County General Plan. 4. Analysis. It is the Council's prerogative whether or not to initiate this General Plan amendment. I did want to briefly explain why I did not initiate a similar General Plan amendment to allow a resort at Honokohau, although this was requested by representatives of Jacoby Development, DLNR, and DHHL. The proposal would create about 2500 new visitor units. This is a massive project. Currently, there are about 4500 visitor units in North Kona, so this would be a major addition to the current inventory. This project, while a major development in itself, will generate a huge amount of additional development. The hotel and timeshare units, given typical staffing levels, will require from one half to one employee per unit. These employees cannot come from an existing pool of unemployed people seeking resort jobs in Kona, because there isn't one. West Hawaii resorts currently have more than 1000 vacant jobs that they have been unable to fill. The new workers for the Honokohau project will either have to commute into Kona from long distances, or we will need a huge increase in housing in Kona that these workers can afford. Clearly, long-distance commuting is not a viable strategy. The roads are already overcrowded, and commuters use the roads at the most congested times. Gas prices are high. Even if workers take the bus, spending hours each way to get to work is not a desirable lifestyle. These are the most important reasons that there are few employees to take existing jobs in West Hawaii resorts. The developer does propose to build some housing for its workforce on nearby State land. While this would be essential for the project, and a good thing, it does mean that Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning County of Hawaii Committee on Planning Page 4 July 17, 2006 these lands would be used to house the workers needed for the new development, not to relieve the shortage of housing that already exists. Even if the housing problem is solved for these workers, the additional population that is generated by this project will need public services such as schools, will use highways, beach parks, and other public facilities. The government will have to build these facilities to keep up. Economists differentiate between "primary economic generators" and secondary economic activity that results from the primary economic generators. Resort development like this proposed project is a primary economic generator that will lead to further development. This project will speed up growth and development in Kona when we should be slowing down and catching up with what has already been approved. We need to make sure that we have the roads, schools, parks, affordable housing, and other necessities to deal with the growth that is already occurring and has already been approved before we can add new growth generators. Kona is already suffering from the side effects of too-rapid growth and development. Traffic is one symptom of the current development boom. These side effects have seriously reduced the quality of life in Kona. Almost all of the current development has occurred on sites that received zoning and other major land use approvals from the 1970's to the 1990's. There is a great deal of further development built into existing zoning. Thousands of units can be built within Hualalai Resort, Kuki'o, Keauhou, Kohanaiki, Hokuli'a, and other approved projects. This is enough to fuel construction activity and growth in the visitor and second home market for decades to come. The current administration has supported several major rezonings in Kona in the last five and a half years. The basic reason for supporting all of these rezonings was to increase housing opportunities. We need more housing for people of ordinary means, and unfortunately, most of the zoned areas do not have affordable housing conditions. These rezonings were meant to absorb the growth generated by resort-oriented development that had previously been approved. Without it, we will continue to price ordinary people out of the communities where they work. This project, however, is different: it will generate Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning County of Hawaii Committee on Planning Page 5 July 17, 2006 further development that somehow will have to be absorbed in a community that is already struggling with excessive growth. Sincerely,,y CHRISTOPHER J. EN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris2/Angel Pilago - Honokahau Harbor -RES. 383-06 Attachments Map 1 N 1989 LU PAG Legend Honokohau - Industrial Harbor - Open - Resort urban Expansion Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 Map22 N 2005 LU PAG Legend Honokohau Harbor - Industrial - Open urban Expansion Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 Ma 33 2006 Proposed LUPAG Interim Amendment E-4 N Legend - Industrial - Open Proposed Urban Expansion Urban Expansion Feet o 0 500 1,000 2,000 Honokohau Harbor TTTTT Map 4 State DHHL and DLNR Ownership 1 N Legend QG _ STATE LANDS Owner State - DHHL 0 State Other yG tl Feet ° 0 5001,000 2,000 2G k Honokohau ~y Harbor x th