HomeMy WebLinkAboutINDIVIDUAL COMMENT EMAIL - 129011Mori, Ashley
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:26 PM
To: General Plan r'a
Subject: Draft General Plan Comments
Attachments: GP Comments .pdf c
Aloha, a
Per please see the attached comments regarding the Draft General Plan.
Thank you, 410
9
12901
October 31, 2019
Michael Yee
Planning Director
County of Hawaii Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yee,
SUBJECT: Comments Related to 2019 General Plan -Draft
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 2019 General Plan Draft. This
document is arguably one of the most important documents regarding growth patterns and
policies of Hawaii County. It is critical that this plan be thoroughly vetted and thought
through prior to the adoption.
The present form of the Draft is very concerning for multiple reasons. One major concern
is the premise that has been presented by the Planning Department regarding the amount of
existing zoned land and the statement that there is enough zoned land to meet the County's
needs for the next hundred years. This premise is misleading and unrealistic as much ofthe
existing zoned land is located in areas that are unlikely to see any type of development for
decades, ifever. Realistic metrics need to be used to ensure that we can meet the needs of
our growth.
Controlling growth patterns is critical in finding a balance of needed development and
preservation. In my humble opinion,the current form of the Genal Plan is overly
regulatory and less policy driven. The Plan should be consistent with the intent and
purpose of HRS Section 46-4 and the County Charter, which it currently is not.
HRS Section 46-4
HRS Section 46-4 provides the County the authority to adopt general plans and zoning
ordinances. There is a clear distinction between the guiding policies ofthe General Plan
and the regulatory element provided through zonings. Again,the current form of the draft
General Plan is regulatory in nature and not consistent with what is outlined below.
Per HRS Section 46-4
Zoning in all counties shall be accomplished within theframework ofa
long-range, comprehensive general plan prepared or beingprepared to
guide the overallfuture development ofthe county. Zoning shall be one of
the available tools to the county to put the general plan into effect in an
orderly manner. Zoning in the counties...means the establishment of
districts ofsuch number, shape and area, and the adoption ofeach district
to carry out the purposes ofthis section. The zoning power granted herein
by ordinance may relate to:
1) The areas within which agriculture,forestry, industry, trade, and
business may be conducted;
2) The areas in which residential uses may be regulated orprohibited;
3) The areas bordering natural watercourses, channels, and streams,
in which trades or industries,filling or dumping, erection of
structures, and the location ofbuildings may be prohibited or
restricted;
4) The areas in which particular uses may be subjected to special
restrictions;
5) The location ofbuildings and structures designedfor specific uses
and designation of usesfor which buildings and structures may not
be used or altered;
6) The location, height, bulk, number ofstories, and size ofbuildings
and other structures;
7) The location ofroads, schools, and recreation areas;
8) Building setback lines andfuture street lines;
9) The density and distribution ofpopulation;
10) The percentage ofa lot that may be occupied, size ofyards, courts,
and other open spaces;
11) Minimum and maximum lot sizes; and
12) Other regulations the boards or city councilfind necessary and
proper to permit and encourage the orderly development ofland
resources within theirjurisdictions."
County Charter
The Hawaii County Charter states that the Council shall adopt a General Plan"which shall
setforth the council's long range policyfor the comprehensive physical, economic,
environmental, and socio-cultural wellbeing ofthe County. "The County Charter is clear
that the General Plan focus on long-term objectives, standards, and principles regarding
land use in the County. Once the General Plan is adopted,then the Council"shall enact
zoning, subdivision and such other ordinances which shall contain the necessary
provisions to carry out the purpose ofthe general plan. "
However, the 2019 Draft General Plan departs from previous General Plan Documents and
the intent of the County Charter. Instead of broad policy statements and guidelines for long
term development,the current Draft GP includes rigid regulatory restrictions.
Regulatory
As presented,the 2019 Draft General Plan introduces a number of regulatory restrictions
where the use of the word"shall"mandates or prohibits certain actions. This can lead to a
myriad of problem if the accompanying language is not precise and differing
interpretations result. The policies ofthe GP should be implemented through clear and
concise legislation and should not be strictly regulatory. The present Draft GP states that
the provisions of the Draft plan"shall govern" any action taken in regard to a development
application. If adopted, the Draft GP will not satisfy the stated purposes of the charter,but
would rather prohibit or drastically delay the coordinated development of the County. In
general,the Draft GP contains many instances where vague terms are coupled with
regulatory language, inviting problems in interpretation and enforcement.
The 2019 Draft GP contains broad prohibitions and blanket statements that overreach and
preempt existing regulatory frameworks which contain specific and clear language and
methods for including development in the public interest or with appropriate mitigation
measures. If such regulatory language were to be adopted, an applicant seeking a
discretionary permit would be challenged with the argument that the permit must be denied
because it is contrary to the General Plan.
The Draft GP contains a number of standards which would no longer allow agency
discretion to be applied. This would have the effect of subverting the authority of agencies
to promulgate rules regarding their delegated authority, also eliminating the authority to
require mitigation measures to allow for reasonable uses to occur.
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map
From the 2019 Draft General Plan:
Thesefuture land use designation boundaries have been refinedfrom the 2005 General
Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide(LUPAG)Map with inputfrom the CDPs and the
use ofneighborhood analysis areas. These neighborhood analysis areas were established
using criteria such as subdivision boundaries, census block groups,place types, zoning
designations, state land use designations and CDP guidance...
The 2005 General Plan used the LUPAG map to provide a broad,flexible design intended
to guide the direction and quality offuture developments in a coordinated and rational
matter. These concepts and maps were reviewed during the development ofthefuture land
use designations and accompanying maps. Revisions to the designations were guidedfirst
with the land use goals andpoliciesfrom the adopted CDPs... Further revisions were
made using thefollowingfactors:
Accommodate projectedpopulation growth
Align with infrastructure—Potable Water
Align with Infrastructure—Roadway Network
Align with Infrastructure— Wastewater
Ensure that commercial designations are appropriate
Ensure that industrial designations are appropriate and consistent
Minimize new coastal development
Minimize encroachment onto agricultural lands
Align with State Land Use District Boundary
Align with County Zoning
The described review process is brief and vague and leads to more questions as to how
particular designations were arrived at. The importance of clarity and thoroughness on
these designations necessitates a more detailed discussion of what specific methods
informed the revision process. As presented,the 2019 Draft changes existing or previously
planned uses in unjustified and inexplicable ways.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map (LUPAG)has been drastically changed from
its present form by a massive reduction in areas currently designated for urban growth.
This theme is present for LUPAG maps related to Hilo, Keaau, Kona, Waikoloa and other
areas. This will make the potential for development in our urban cores more challenging
and it will depend greatly on landowners of specific parcels to develop their properties in
order to keep up with demand for housing and commercial services. Therefore, if
landowners aren't willing to develop their properties, the available inventory ofbuilding
lots,homes and commercial services will be stifled.
Lands with former Medium Density Urban designations consistent with CDPs and required
for preventing sprawl have in many cases been designated in the Draft GP as Low Density
Urban, limiting uses to residential,with some ancillary community and public and
convenience type commercial uses. There are many areas that have been changed from
Urban Expansion to Low density urban. Interestingly, these areas that are now being
classified as low-density urban would be much better suited for medium or high density
urban. There are areas that are designated as Transient Oriented Development nodes
TOD's)being classified as low density urban. This will never work to realistically
develop the TOD's as TOD's need a mixture of various uses such as multifamily
residential, single-family residential and commercial. A low-density urban designation will
not allow this type of development.
The poorly defined"Natural Area" designation has been applied to wide swaths of land
and is severely restrictive of permitted land use with little explanation. There are also areas
where extensive planning has occurred, such as Keaau,that have now been changed in a
manner that conflicts with copious amounts of Planning. I have no direct interest in Keaau
at this time, but it's a good example of the inconsistencies in this particular area of the
General Plan.
Additionally, there are many areas on the LUPAG Map that are identified as "Pastoral"
that are not suitable for pastoral purposes as they are primarily lava rock. These areas
would be much better suited for a Rural designation.
Urban Expansion is defined as the following in the current General Plan.
Urban Expansion Area:Allowsfor a mix ofhigh density, medium density, low density,
industrial, industrial-commercial and/or open designations in areas where new
settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlementpattern and mix ofuses
have not yet been determined.
The proposed land use categories eliminate the Urban Expansion designation. This is very
concerning as the Urban Expansion designation is a very important planning tool. For
example,the area below the Waikoloa Village on the Kailua Kona side of the Waikoloa
Road is currently designated as Urban Expansion. This is a logical location of future urban
growth in the area. Places like Waikoloa need room for expansion and opportunities to
develop housing and commercial services. Many island residents drive to the Kohala coast
on an almost daily basis for employment. The opportunity to provide workforce housing in
the area will be lost in the current form of the Genal Plan.
An argument has been made to focus development patterns in areas with existing
infrastructure such as water and sewer.While on the surface this makes sense, from a
practical perspective growth can occur in areas without existing infrastructure as the
developer will build the required infrastructure. This works well on projects that have
enough economies of scale. Again, the area ofWaikoloa outlined above is a prime example
of this.
Urban Expansion Areas Redefined
12000
10000
8000
2 6000
4000
2000
ac a a `ate Qa t atoot
Q
e
a
C
0 ,e
4e`
c ¢
eZ`
b
a`
04,
1>
RST
4ea
Z-‘)
0
Oe
el
Future Land Use Class
Hamakua Hilo a Kau Kona "'North Kohala o Puna South Kohala
Figure 1. The area of newly classified lands from LUPAG designated urban expansion is
shown for each District.
The Chart above shows the new GP classifications of formerly classified Urban Expansion
lands. The vast majority of former Urban Expansion lands that retained Urban/Residential
character in the Draft GP are in Kona(over 10,000 acres),while the KCDP states that
Comparing the LUPAG and zoning maps, the amount ofpotential land availablefor
rezoningfar exceeds the amount ofland needed to accommodate future growth
projections." Conversely,the South Kohala and Puna Districts had the majority of
formerly classified Urban Expansion lands reclassified into Natural Areas.
In general, I believe the LUPAG Map element of the General Plan needs major revisions
and a transparent comprehensive review to ensure the best use of these lands. Further,the
Urban Expansion Areas and designation should remain in its current form.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Generally, successful Urban Growth Boundary implementation depends on regular review
and redrawing of growth boundaries to maintain an adequate supply of land that can be
developed. Further, great care should be taken in drawing the urban growth boundary. If
the growth boundary is too small,the lack of adequate land for new development will push
up the cost of new housing and other developments. Most of the CDPs the UGBs are based
on are more than ten years old and problems are likely to arise if we plan for twenty years
of future growth with more than ten-year-old priorities.
I suggest a system of periodic review of growth boundaries with clear criteria (as in Policy
487,but expanded) of where growth should be prioritized.
Further,there was not a consistent Urban Growth Boundary concept applied during the
development of the CDPs. For instance,the Puna CDP defines three types ofcenters—
regional, community, and neighborhood—which differ in size and range ofuses according
to their intendedfunction... based on several specific criteria.
It appears that the community center areas outlined on maps included in the PCDP were
used to almost directly draw the urban growth boundaries, a misrepresentation of the
tentative lines drawn for a completely different reason. "The maps shown in this chapter
are not meant to be precise or strictly interpreted, but rather as guidelines in the
preparation ofrezoning requestsfor areas within or adjacent to regional town center,
community village centers, or neighborhood centers. "
The Hamakua Community Development Plan has a different take on designated Urban
Growth Boundaries, more closely aligned with the 2019 Draft GP. As stated in Section 3.1
Land Use and Settlement Patterns—Policy 2
Land use designation changes that would result in new State Land Use Urban or new
County zoningfor residential, commercial, or industrial uses outside a designated Urban
Growth Boundary shall not be approved within the Special Management Area. (HRS 205-
A; GP8.3(d))
Further the HCDP states in Policy 5:
In the CDP Land Use Guide Map, the Urban Growth Boundary between developed areas
designated "Low/Medium Density Urban") and lands designated as Agricultural or Rural
are intended to direct growth in the Hamakua CDP planning area.Areas that are clearly
beyond designated Urban Growth Boundaries shall be preserved as rural or agricultural
lands.to maintain open space, scenic viewplanes, and natural beauty areas.
The Kona CDP approaches urban growth the following way:
The regional land useframework, restatedfrom the Guiding Principles (Section 3.2) is as
follows:
Urban Area.Most ofthe future growth in Kona will be directed to an Urban Area
UA) defined in the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7). Within this Kona
Urban Area, growth would be directed to compact villages located alongproposed
transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development...
However, as noted in the KCDP Section 4.2.1 Existing Conditions
Comparing the LUPAG and zoning maps, the amount ofpotential land available for
rezoningfar exceeds the amount ofland needed to accommodatefuture growth
projections. This excess could encourage a low-density sprawling growth pattern.
The KCDP then goes on to define TODs and TNDs as a means of concentrating
development in compact villages,while leaving the Urban Growth Boundary larger than
strictly necessary. These widely varying approaches to urban growth restrictions, or in
some cases community center designations,can be effective if applied in the context in
which they were developed(the CDPs). The potential for problems arises when designated
development areas are taken out of context and turned into strict growth boundaries.
Again, I believe the LUPAG Map element of the General Plan needs major revisions and a
transparent comprehensive review to ensure the best use of County lands.
Conclusion
While it is clear considerable time and effort has gone into the preparation of the 2019
Draft General Plan, in its current state it has many serious flaws. The Draft should be
revised in consideration of the purpose of the General Plan and its role in guiding future
decision making and its responsibility to provide policy statements and goals instead of
regulatory standards. Also, considerable work needs to be done to revise not only the land
use maps themselves,but the process employed to generate the land use designations.
The proposed General Plan is being adopted for 20 years, a 20-year timeframe for this plan
is too long; a 10-year timeframe would allow for more adaptability as conditions on the
island change.
There are so many regulatory policies that are problematic that I have not had the time to
list them all. I will be sending in an item by item list after the current draft has been
revised.
I honestly believe the Draft General Plan in its current form will negatively affect our
island and we will continue to struggle with housing and economics. As we have seen with
Community Development Plans, while the intention may have been good,the needs of the
communities have not always been met.
We are still having major issues with housing, services, infrastructure and general
economic growth under the current General Plan. How does a reduction in growth patterns
and more regulations help these issues?
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,