City exercised correct discretion in nixing cabins

THE ISSUE The city has turned down a proposal for construction of 180 cabins on the mountainside above Hawaii Kai.

RESPONSIVE to neighborhood concerns, the city -- for now -- has rejected a developer's plan to build 180 vacation cabins on preservation land on the mountainside above Hawaii Kai. The proposal claims the cabins to be of "accessory use" to outdoor activities in the area, but the opposite appears to be the case -- that of the tail wagging the dog.

Opposition to the proposal by the development group QRM came from some of the same people who successfully blocked proposed development from Sandy Beach to Makapuu in the 1980s. The city's sensitivity to preserving the area was borne of that effort, and the cabins proposal should require drastic changes for it to earn further consideration.

The proposal consisted of units positioned in clusters on two sections of a Ka Iwi Coast mountainside totaling 181 acres, one parcel above the Hawaii Kai Golf Course and the other adjacent to the Queen's Gate residential area. Zoning laws allow one cabin per acre, but Gary Weller, a Kamilonui Valley farmer, said that allowance was "originally designed for something like Boy and Girl Scout camps."

The QRM plans appeared to be far more ambitious -- 800-square-foot cabins with "unobstructed ocean and mountain views" to house visitors who would be provided opportunities to hike, bike, climb, swim, play tennis, golf, fish, snorkel or scuba dive. The developer refused to tell the Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board whether it planned to sell the cabins, sell time-shares or use them as vacation rentals.

Henry Eng, director of the city Department of Planning and Permitting, wrote in his decision that vacation cabins are permitted in areas zoned as preservation only as an "accessory use." As proposed by QRM, he added, "the outdoor recreational activities appear accessory to the vacation cabins."

QRM can resubmit the plan, but Eng said it must show that the cabins are secondary to the recreational activities, address neighborhood concerns and provide details about its target market, length of guest stays, ownership, operation and traffic information and how it would not alter the character of the surrounding area. Those requirements will be difficult if not impossible to meet.

The developer might have expected an easier path to approval of its plan. Public hearings are not required of such permits, but residents have other ways to voice their concerns. More than 200 people attended a Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board meeting in July to protest the plan, and the city cannot ignore such opposition.

The city has latitude in determining whether a plan meets city zoning rules, such as whether proposed structures are secondary to preservation land's use as outdoor recreation. Eng exercised that discretion in recognition of neighbors' concerns.