Not infrequently there are inherent conflicts between an attractive concept and its successful implementation. Such appears to be the case in respect of the interesting idea that it would be beneficial if the North Shore had an open air facility
Not infrequently there are inherent conflicts between an attractive concept and its successful implementation. Such appears to be the case in respect of the interesting idea that it would be beneficial if the North Shore had an open air facility suitable for presentations by performing artists to substantial audiences. In principle this proposal could hardly be objectionable.
Yet the passage of this concept from a nebulous idea to a specific proposal has generated a maelstrom of controversy in the town of Kilauea and its Kalihiwai neighborhood.
The site chosen by the Anaina Hou organization, the proponent of the project and applicant in the Planning Commission proceedings, is according to the planning commission notice for its April 12, 2011 meeting an about 6.55 acre parcel situated generally southerly of the miniature golf course along the Kuhio Highway. The parcel is presently zoned open-agricultural. The proposal includes a pavilion consisting of an indoor auditorium, a conference center, a certified kitchen and an outdoor amphitheater. Rather than requesting a rezoning to a commercial status that would avoid many issues resulting from its agricultural zoning, the applicant is seeking a special use permit for the current zoning.
Both the state and Kaua‘i County have enacted laws intended to prohibit or restrict commercial enterprises that are non-agricultural in nature from operating on agricultural zoned lands. In addition there are more specific statutes and ordinances that govern conditions that may exist in particular projects. Compliance by the proposed project with HRS 205 and Kaua‘i County Code section 8-1 and other laws is at best dubious
The project also appears to fail to conform or meet several matters of practical concern. They include:
1. The proposed amphitheater is to contain about 250 bench seats and a hillside lawn area that could accommodate up to 2,000 more. Yet only 75 parking places are planned to be shared by users of the adjoining miniature golf course and the pavilion. This would be seriously inadequate for any substantial audience.
2. The law requires for agricultural lands that not more than 10 percent of the open area may be covered with improvements. The exhibit prepared by the project’s architect for lot coverage shows that of the 428,609 square feet of open area it uses the coverage area is only 42,212 square feet. This is 9.85 percent of the 10 percent allowed coverage. But the meeting notice states that the parcel is only 6.55 acres or 285,318 square feet, and the coverage on this sized parcel would be 14.78 percent. And the applicant’s computation ignores several items which would bring total coverage to substantially more than 15 percent. If the parcel size stated in the notice is in error, doubt is cast on the validity of the proceeding.
3. Access to the pavilion facility is only by a narrow cul-de-sac roadway. If any kind of a significant disaster or accident occurred people and their vehicles could be critically endangered.
4. The plan submitted for a sewage system is incomplete and would potentially be a major pollutant for the adjoining Pu‘u Kuku stream.
5. There is no feasible way to control noise from an open amphitheater.
As is too often the case, the project was launched on an interesting concept, but it does not seem to have been thoroughly considered.
Controversy about the project has sharply divided adjoining area residents. When the application for the project was filed last year the directors of the Kalihiwai Ridge Community Association, a group of about 180 property owners of land lying southerly and westerly of the project filed an intervention petition with the planning commission. The developer, concerned about this adverse threat, waged a campaign with the association members and was able by a single vote to elect a new board of directors. The new board has withdrawn the intervention petition. Those concerned about the project have formed a coalition called Preserve Kaua‘i’s Rural Character and took a full page ad in The Garden Island on April 7th to publicize their views.
The matter was heard by the planning commission at its April 12th meeting. If results could be predicted by the extent and weight of public interest shown it might be concluded that the commission would act unfavorably on the proposal as it received only 12 favorable letters while getting 31 letters in opposition according to the meeting notice.
As noted the law generally prohibits non-agricultural commercial projects on land zoned agricultural-open. However an allowed exception is provided for an use which is “unusual and reasonable”. In 1982 the Hawai‘i Supreme Court in Neighborhood Board v. State Land Use commission decided in a strikingly similar situation to the Kilauea project to reverse the commission and deny the special use permit it had granted.
However, our planning commission ignored the Neighborhood Board case and unanimously voted in favor of granting the use permit although adding a condition limiting noise generation. It remains to be seen what, if any, further action may be taken by the disappointed opponents of the project. I spoke to one who said they may bide their time and watch the project fail of its own doing.
Once again the commission showed its propensity to favor development and to seek to avoid legal controls as piece by piece Kaua‘i’s open spaces are reduced.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly colum for The Garden Island.
