For Kaua‘i after the adoption of the General Plan in 2000 and until the fall of 2008 the economy was generally robust and developer optimism soared. Although the General Plan assumed an annual population and transient growth rate of up
For Kaua‘i after the adoption of the General Plan in 2000 and until the fall of 2008 the economy was generally robust and developer optimism soared. Although the General Plan assumed an annual population and transient growth rate of up to 2 percent for the period to 2020, in fact its guideline was not readily enforceable and approvals were in this period being routinely obtained by developers from our county Planning Commission and our County Council for transient accommodations at several times the assumed rate and apparently with no attention being given to the longer term problems of such rapid growth.
Concerned about the accelerated development rate for transients, in 2008 a citizen group, the Coalition for Responsible Government, initiated a proposed County Charter amendment to have some meaningful standards to govern transient accommodation growth. The concern of the coalition resonated with Kaua‘i’s voters who adopted in 2008 by a nearly two to one vote an amendment (now Section 3.19 of the charter) which entrusted to the council approval for any plural number of facilities for transients with procedural requirements intended to assure that the development would be consistent with the General Plan concepts, but also authorized the council to restore to the planning commission approval powers subject to an annual transient accommodation growth limit of 1.5 percent.
However, larger forces were at work. Beginning in September 2008, Kaua‘i, along with the rest of the nation, entered the recession which has continued to this date. Construction of transient units has essentially halted and it appears that no applications have been made to the council to date for transient accommodation approvals after the Dec. 5, 2008 effective date of the charter amendment.
Last November, the council, evidently having no enthusiasm to undertake the role normally entrusted to the planning commission, introduced a bill (2386) which would authorize the planning commission to process and issue the requisite permits for transient accommodation units (TAUs). The action by the council to provide an appropriate framework for administrating the standards of the charter amendment should be applauded..
Following the introduction of the bill it was referred to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendations. The commission has pursued its obligations well by obtaining from the county Planning Department staff a report as to the proposed mission of the commission, by holding a public hearing on Feb. 8 and by conducting a Workshop on Feb. 22 in which a representative of the coalition was a panelist. It is expected that the commission will be reporting to the council of its findings in the near future.
The provisions required to implement the terms of the charter amendment are complex and there are some serious questions as to whether the bill 2386 in its present form faithfully conforms to the amendment. Some of the more important areas of concern are:
1. The amendment requires identification of the quantity of TAUs existing at the December 2008 effective date of the amendment. This number is needed to enable computation of the allowable 1.5% annual change. The available data seems inadequate or unreliable and the proposed bill’s terms identifying TAUs do not accurately reflect the standards set forth in the amendment.
2. At the effective date of the amendment a substantial number of building permits were outstanding in cases where the construction had not been commenced or was not complete. Many of them relate to units for residents and are therefore not subject to the bill, but appropriate procedures will be needed for the TAU portion of them.
3. The bill proposes to exempt from the growth rate “Existing Resort Projects”. These would include parcels that are in a Visitor Destination Area and on which “Substantial Sums” have been expended prior to the effective date of the amendment. The effect of this exemption would be to significantly increase the number of transient accommodations beyond what is allowed by the amendment.
At present it appears that there are about 9,000-plus TAUs on Kaua‘i. Under the terms of the amendment and over a 10-year period there would be allowed around 1,500 new units. However, because of the issues mentioned under the proposed bill the additional number could be more than doubled and the impact that the amendment could achieve would be sharply affected.
The results of the election in 2008 demonstrate that most Kauaians believe it important to limit the rate of growth in tourist accommodations on our island to prevent overdevelopment and maintain its generally rural nature. In some respects the amendment is akin to the recognition that our federal deficits are unsustainable and its spending must be reduced. It is easier to accept the principle than to make the determinations as to which reductions must be made.
In the near future the planning commission will offer its comments and the bill will be returned for further consideration to the council. It can certainly be expected that developers will be present before the council to protect what will be claimed to be “vested rights” to pursue their opportunities to build facilities to serve the needs of future tourists. Those persons who were part of the large majority of our voters and supported the purposes of the amendment also have a stake in the deliberations by the council on this matter. Their participation in structuring the bill to carry out the purposes expressed in the amendment will be vital.
Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
