All preservation land is not created equal ...

The proposal to build recreation cabins at Ka Iwi is based on a misinterpretation of the city's land use regulations

A PRELIMINARY proposal for an extensive vacation cabin development in the scenic open space area near the Ka Iwi coastline of East Honolulu has caused quite a stir. A large parcel, zoned P-2 General Preservation, is proposed for as many as 180 vacation cabins and related service facilities. Not since residential development was proposed for the land overlooking Sandy Beach has there been such a ground swell of opposition to a proposed East Honolulu development.

How can this development be proposed in a preservation area? Well, it appears someone has mistakenly interpreted that this development is permitted by provisions of the City and County Land Use Ordinance (LUO) because the P-2 zoning district permits one vacation cabin overall for each acre of land. (The cabins must be accessory to an outdoor recreation facility, and must be incidental to, and customarily found in conjunction with the type of recreational facility. Buildings cannot cover more than 5 percent of the zoning lot).

The mistake in the interpretation is clear if one reads the purpose and intent section of the Preservation Districts in the LUO. It states: "The purpose of the preservation districts is to preserve and manage major open space and recreational lands and lands of scenic and other natural resource value." So while there is land in the P-2 district because it has recreational value, not all the land is there for that reason. Some is included because it has major open space value. There is also land in the P-2 district for its scenic value, or because it has other natural resource value. This is where the interpretation runs afoul of the ordinance. Any interpretation that all land in the P-2 district is permitted to have recreational uses would violate the district's intent.

The important point is that all lands are not in the P-2 district for the same reason. Certainly not all are there because they have recreational value where vacation cabins may be appropriate. Land that has been placed in the P-2 district because it has scenic or open space value cannot be "preserved and managed" by building tourist cabins on it. Can we preserve Diamond Head by building cabins on its slopes?

Furthermore, the LUO in Section 21-3.40 says that it is the intent that lands designated urban by the state (as is the subject property), but well-suited to the functions of providing visual relief and contrast to the city's built environment ... be zoned P-2 ... This is another provision that indicates all P-2 lands are not designated for active recreational use. In addition, other uses are permitted in the P-2 district that are not suitable for all P-2 lands. These include agriculture, forestry, game preserves, grazing and resource extraction. Imagine resource extraction in a scenic resource area, or agriculture on pali slopes!

A decision on the appropriate use for any specific property zoned P-2 must logically, and according to the intent of the LUO, be based upon the reason the property is in the P-2 district. Otherwise the ordinance is violated, not to mention common sense. For the site under discussion, the proposed development would certainly destroy rather than "preserve and manage" a scenic, open space area.

---