The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0939.025 2004-2006 ~r a Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor Director t ^1 i _ Brad Kurokawa, ASLA (rt p LEED® AP Q l} VJDlxYCt? IIttttiiUL 25 fll l Deputy Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT" 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 130t,3043 - ' (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 July 26, 2006 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai'i Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Dear Chair Higa and Members of the County Council: 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 At the Planning Committee meeting on July 18, 2006, Council Chair Stacy Higa asked for information about the size of the resort areas shown on the 1989 Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") map. To answer that question, enclosed is a copy of that map, with the three resort-designated areas that are completely or partially on State land labeled 1, 2, and 3. (The unlabeled resort area to the north is clearly within the Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park.) Area 1 scales out to 3.55 acres, Area 2 scales out to 11.55 acres, and Area 3 scales out to 34.0 acres. I do not want to over-emphasize the importance of the size or exact location of the resort areas in the 1989 LUPAG map. These were meant to designate the general area of uses, and usually, not to show an exact size or location. Attached is a letter to Corporation Counsel dated April 27, 2001, which discusses this aspect of the LUPAG maps. (This letter was also previously sent to the Council in connection with another General Plan issue.) Comm. No., 2.9 Ref. To: Pte** I RGf. Cats A ]G 0~ 1 2008 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai'i Page 2 July 26, 2006 The 1989 LUPAG maps do indicate, however, that the resort areas within the State land near Honokohau Harbor were to be set back a considerable distance from the ocean, and were more limited in size than the conceptual site plan for resort areas shown in the recent Jacoby Development proposal. Another indication of the potential scale of the resort in the 1989 General Plan, is that Kealakehe was designated as an "Intermediate" resort, which would allow a maximum of 1500 "hotel and condominium hotel" units. There was also a "minor" resort designated at Honokohau, which referred to the area within the National Park. I hope this letter answers the questions and the Planning Department will be happy to respond to any further questions. Sincerel CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris2/HigaCounty Council - Honokohau GP Scale - Comm. 939 - Res. 383-06 Enclosures Ma~1 N 1989 LU PAG Legend Honokohau s'x Industrial Harbor ® Open _ Resort urban Expansion Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 JNfY Or ~4~ Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor Director - - iT! O's •1~p-!~ Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director (911unf of ('701tt£unit PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 April 27, 2001 Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel 101 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Ashida: SUBJECT: PLAN INTERPRETATION The County Council has requested that Corporation Counsel issue an opinion about the scope of the Planning Director's discretion to make "map interpretations" that particular parcels are within specific categories on the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) maps in the General Plan. This is in connection with a specific rezoning request-the property on the Panaewa corner of Puainako and Kanoelehua, across Puainako from Blockbuster, but it is something that is of great general significance. For that reason I wanted to share my thoughts before your office issued an opinion. The difficulty is that the LUPAG maps were, in most cases, only meant to show the general locations of particular uses. I have been told by Norman Hayashi, who worked on the original 1971 GP, that the maps were not meant to be precisely scaled. For example, the maps may show an industrial area that corresponds to an existing location, like a mill site, but if you were to try to scale the map location from fixed points, like a street intersection or the shoreline, you would not necessarily arrive at the actual existing location. The Planning Department simply did not try to make the maps have this kind of accuracy, in part because it did not intend that they be used with this degree of precision. The 1989 maps are on a scale of one-inch equals two miles, so a sixteenth of an inch is about 650 feet. This may be very significant in dealing with a particular property if one attempts to precisely scale off the map. In many cases, the designations are inherently imprecise. For example, there is often a 1 band of "Low Density" or "Urban Expansion" surrounding existing towns. This signifies Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Page 2 April 27, 2001 that the existing town can expand in that direction, and it may give a general indication of the ultimate size, but it does not indicate a precise boundary for the town. There is a band of "Open" designation along the shoreline which could be scaled off at 300-500 feet wide, but this does not designate a policy of a 300-500 foot wide shoreline setback. It signifies that there is a shoreline setback, but given the scale, it is not possible to delineate an exact width on the map. I have found many instances where zoning has been allowed that is not precisely consistent with the LUPAG, if you try to precisely scale the map. For example, the Kona Industrial subdivision is partially within the "High Density" urban core of Kailua-Kona. Industrial uses are not permitted within "High Density." The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is located at least partially, and maybe completely, on an "Open" LUPAG designation, although there is a "Resort" designation in the immediate vicinity. I must conclude, as have previous planning directors, that there must be some discretion to interpret the map. There have been a number of formal "map interpretations"; more often zoning has proceeded without this being raised as an issue. That being said, the key question is the extent of discretion. Unfettered discretion makes the LUPAG map completely worthless. I agree with an opinion orally given by Pat O'Toole that there is no discretion when the map area in question was enacted by an ordinance which specifies metes and bounds, or by a specific parcel, as has sometimes been the case for interim amendments. I also feel that there are circumstances where the intent of the map is clear. Among these are the "conservation" designations that appear to coincide with the state land use conservation district boundaries or forest reserve boundaries. I don't think the director has the discretion to "map interpret" those areas to include adjacent properties. Another example would be where the map clearly covers an existing facility, like a mill site being shown as industrial. In those circumstances, the map would be interpreted to cover the existing mill area, and perhaps something larger, depending upon the size of the area shown on the map. I also think that in where a road appears to be the boundary between markedly different LUPAG categories, the road ought to be respected as a boundary. For example, if an urban use is only shown on one side of a road, one should not interpret it to be on the other side of the road. I think that where an urban use is clearly shown on one bay it should not be extended or moved to the next bay. Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Page 3 April 27, 2001 Areas where the map can be interpreted would include examples like a future resort shown on a particular bay. The map was not done to exactly locate the hotel site, which could be determined in the zoning process, but still be consistent with the LUPAG map. Where the boundary is inherently imprecise-for example, where an area of urban expansion or low density has been drawn around an existing residential area-if a proposal comes forward to rezone the property somewhere near or past the apparent fringe, the more cogent question may be whether it is right to rezone the fringe before the adjoining land closer to the existing urban area has been developed. I also feel that there should be some ultimate limit in map interpretation vs. the exact location shown on the LUPAG-something between five hundred and a thousand feet, in my opinion. On the specific question of the Puainako St. property, my office has extensive files which give a chronology of what happened. In brief, the question is whether the 1989 General Plan amended the map to include this property within the "High Density" area of Hilo, even though the map itself did not change to include it. Because the original amendment creating the High Density area at Prince Kuhio Plaza was by metes and bounds, it is clear that this area was not High Density before the 1989 amendments. I would be happy to share what we have in response to any question that may come from the council. Sincerely CHRISTOPHER J.( N Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60\Chris\Plan Interpretation letter cc: Patricia O'Toole, Esq. Mr. Roy Takemoto Mr. Rodney Nakano Mr. Norman Hayashi Ms. Alice Kawaha