Bill 137 removed promised 6 acre University from Project? Testify TODAY!

Aloha e Chairman Yoshimoto and members of the Hawai’i County Council,

I oppose Bill 137 because it has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

In 2003, Palamanui was able to obtain redistricting from the state Land Use Commission by promising a “University Village Center” within the project that would include six acres of university space (see http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/12/09/news/story7.html ).

In 2006, Palamanui removed the promised six-acre university space from its project, but obtained rezoning from the county by promising to provide $5,000,000 toward a 20,000 square-foot university building on the state land parcel to the south of Palamanui with access to the project’s water/sewer/electric infrastructure (see http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/06/22/local/local02.txt and http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/07/08/local/local02.txt ). It is important to note that Palamanui obtained this rezoning only one month before the county council placed a moratorium on new rezonings in Kona until the KCDP was completed and adopted..

Then, Palamanui submitted Bill 137 less than one month before the first meeting of the KCDP Action Committee this past June 4th. Personally, I do see how these “just in time to avoid” publicly-supported government regulation scenarios were coincidental.

Regardless, Bill 137 allows Palamanui to issue a construction bond instead of actually providing funds to construct the building prior to commercial, industrial, and/or residential occupancy on the project site. This is the same regressive strategy used by 1250 Oceanside Partners ten years ago from 1993 through 1999. This strategy, not litigation, is the first and foremost reason the Mamalahoa Highway has not been completed.

There is no clear language in Bill 137 that requires Palamanui to complete University Drive and provide infrastructure (water/power/wastewater treatment) to the 20,000 square foot building prior to occupancy within the Palamanui project. The university building will require infrastructure (water, power, wastewater, road, parking, etc), but Bill 137 only requires access to Palamanui’s infrastructure.

Therefore, Palamanui could build University Drive only to provide infrastructure to the mixed commercial/industrial area being proposed by Bill 136 and not beyond, while still allowing occupancy of the MCX area by only providing a bond for infrastructure to complete University Drive and associated infrastructure to the university building.

Palamanui and its supporters are using the argument of job creation and the promise of a site for a West Hawai’i Community College campus as reasons to grant the developer the concessions contained within Bill 137. However, Bill 137 does not contain language which provides reasonable assurance that either of these goals will be accomplished in the near future. Instead, it creates a situation where any disagreement between the university and/or Planning Director could be used as a reason for non-compliance.

Therefore, I strongly urge this council to defeat Bill 137 and advise Palamanui to submit a TND master floating zone plan to the KCDP Action Committee that encompasses the vision, guiding principles, goals, objectives, policies, and actions of the KCDP.

Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty.