In Bed at Mahukona
The first question is: How long will the county lay in bed with a developer who will not or cannot perform on agreements to do what it promised? The answer in Hawaii County is apparently indefinitely.
The second question is how long will the community involved put up with reduced expectations, delayed delivery of promises and having decisions made privately in the halls of Hilo? Not forever.
In the case of the Mahukona resort subdivision the largess of the county increases while the folks in Kohala take action to cut the continued land speculation on a very public place. The community-initiated development plan adopted last year by the county warns the county against land speculation, specifically by ignoring time limits of developers to produce on promises. It pointedly directs the county to purchase open coastal land, including Mahukona, and insists on community participation in land decisions. If the county did not get the message from the North Kohala Community Development Plan two Kohala organizations, Kamakani ‘O Kohala Ohana – KAKO’O and Maika’i Kamakani ‘O Kohala, have recently appealed two county decisions affecting Mahukona.
The land between the county parks at Mahukona and Kapa’a has held special value to the public since earliest Hawaiian settlement in the 1300’s. The first calm water rounding the island from the windward side, it was where canoes crossing the channels were launched and the site of the last remaining navigational heiau. Though it is Crown land, Mahukona changed into the hands of foreigners through an unrecorded transfer from Princess Ruth in the 1800s. As a village, harbor, train station, fishing site it remained open and accessible to all. That is until 1990 when a new foreign owner, Chalon International, cut off court-ordered public access to the shoreline in order to build a resort, golf course and high end subdivision.
The agreements made with the county were not just verbal. They are in the specific conditions of two ordinances (law), special coastal permits and agreements signed with at least two government agencies. These are to provide water, public access, improvements to both county parks, upgrading the highway and roads around it. The county also required, and the owner agreed, to strict control and monitoring of rain runoff, ground water and the ocean and reefs offshore. That was in 1990 and 1993.
All the ordinances and permits required time limits to encourage the developer to get going. But the project for a potential 311-unit hotel and 250 houselots stalled. Public access continued to be blocked, the two parks deteriorated as the county delayed, waiting for the promised improvements. Deadlines passed and the county routinely extended permits. A “final” deadline to complete construction of the hotel came and went in Feb. 2006 with nothing started. Nine months later, over objections from community groups, the county again extended the deadline to July 2008.
The developer, now called Kohala Preserve Conservation Trust, LLC, registered in Delaware, where owners can be kept secret, scaled down the project, subtracted the golf course, and finally in early 2008 scrambled to submit the first plans for 365 of the 641 acres it owns there. None of the environmental monitoring systems or drainage runoff measures was in place. And with not enough time to complete an expected 50-unit hotel by July, the developer instead submitted plans for a 6-unit “temporary” resort to be built in the eventual resort’s parking lot. It was all so rushed that the county issued building and grading permits for the hotel duplex rooms without the required historic sites preservation plan, the environmental monitoring, drainage plan, a plan for the park improvements or public access amenities, the highway improvements, wastewater treatment. In fact the developer had not even brought approved potable water to the project site.
Another glitch was that the resort-zoned land had still not been legally divided from the block of agricultural land intended for the upscale subdivision. Three different plot plans for that were filed during the spring 2008. Recognizing the unmet conditions the county deferred subdivision plans in July. The developer’s construction deadline passed. Temporary resort construction was not complete – IS not complete six months later. Nor are the controversial conditions met.
Meanwhile support for the project in Kohala has been eroding. The promised jobs for the project never materialized. The developer’s recent activities are seen as speculative shadowplay to keep the zoning and permits alive after 20 years of inactivity. A developer actually interested in seeing a project through to the end would have brought water, fixed roads and improved the parks long ago.
More important, widespread interest in keeping the entire North Kohala coast open and free of development is rising. Thirty years of community efforts for an open coastline have begun bearing fruit. Much of the coastal land is owned by the state or large land holdings. Widespread public and private support aimed at purchasing the last remaining smaller shoreline properties have held off residential construction on at least two sites. The recent Land Board decision to purchase private acreage next to Lapakahi Historical Park was widely supported by community organizations. The county’s Open Space, Public Access and Resource Preservation Commission named three Kohala coastal parcels on the top of its priority list for public purchase. The land at Mahukona is listed as third highest islandwide.
The new North Kohala Community Development Plan was adopted into law unanimously by the community steering committee, the Planning Commission and the County Council last year. The NKCDP echoes the call to purchase Mahukona. It warns against land speculation by insisting the county “adhere to time limits set.” Community groups that had been following the zoning process have complained to the county that laws were not being followed.
In response the developer accused the county of moving too slow on its subdivision plans and appealed the July deferral, saying the development should have automatic approval. KAKO’O cried foul and petitioned to intervene in the appeal. It cited the law showing the developer not eligible for automatic approval and documented all the conditions yet unmet. At the hearing all six speakers from Kohala berated the county for making decisions about public access, park improvements, and shoreline use with no input from the community or public. Rather than respond to testimony of residents and KAKO’O, the Board of Appeals in November deferred action so the county could negotiate their differences with the developer, again without community participation. Within two weeks the county granted tentative approval of the subdivision repeating the need to fulfill conditions, which included preparing two environmental assessments. A new one year deadline on the subdivision seemed almost impossible to meet, so the planning director said the developer would have to go to the County Council for further extensions.
The negotiated solution was apparently not enough for the developer who returned to the Board of Appeals two months later and asked again for the automatic approval, which was granted. KAKO’O’s right to intervene was denied.
Maika’i Kamakani ‘O Kohala filed an appeal to the county’s tentative approval, a matter to be heard by the Board of Appeals. KAKAO’O filed an appeal to the automatic approval and denial of standing to intervene in the Circuit Court. So now the two questions above --- 1. How long can the county keep old permits alive? And 2. Can a community have any say in development of its district? --- move on to a new level of discussion.
--- by Toni Withington, Hawi
See also: