CONVENTION CENTER SITE SELECTION STUDY Calvin Azama Researcher Report No.3, 1987 Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol Honolulu, Hawaii FOREWORD While the findings and recommendations of this study are the Bureau's responsibility, the Bureau has received assistance and advice from many people. Thomas J. Smyth, Division Head, Business and Industry Development Division; Muriel A. Anderson, Chief, Tourism Branch; and Greg Barbour, Tourism Specialist, of the Department of Planning and Economic Development have been involved from the project's commencement, and the Bureau especially appreciates thei r cooperation, concern, and assistance. The Bureau also has benefitted from and has been impressed by the knowledge and courtesy of personnel of various agencies of the City and County of Honolulu: the Planning I nformation Branch of the Department of General Planning; Survey Unit, Planning and Survey Section, of the Department of Transportation Services; Plans Examining Unit, Building Code Section, of the Building Department; Municipal Reference and Records Center; and Office of Council Services. The Bureau appreciates and expresses its gratitude for the assistance and advice given. Samuel B. K. Chang Director February 1987 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD. .. .. .. ii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1 Ma rket Studies ............................................... 1 Pannell Kerr Forster's Ranking of Sites... ........... .... .... 4 2. EVALUATION CRITERIA........................................... 8 Assumptions. .. .. 8 Factors and Criteria........................................... 9 Scoring. .. .. .. .. 10 3. MARKET FACTORS................................................. 13 Proximity to Lodging Accommodations ......................... 13 Proximity of Area Amenities................................... 13 Degree of Complementing and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses............................................... 17 4. SITE FACTORS .................................................... 28 Site Size ..................................................... 28 Ran king. .. .. .. 28 Expansion Feasibility ......................................... 28 Site Configuration............................................. 30 Restrictions on Use of Site ................................... 31 Public Land Trust Status ..................................... 34 Flood Hazard ................................................. 36 Tsunami Hazard............................................... 37 Adequacy of Infrastructure .................. ....... .......... 39 5. DEVELOPMENT FACTORS........................................... 42 Land Acquisition ............................................. 42 I ndemnification or Relocation Cost............................. 44 Site Preparation............................................... 47 Absolutely Essential Off-Site Improvements..................... 49 Subsurface Conditions......................................... 50 6. PLANNING AND LAND USE FACTORS .............................. 54 Consistency with Zoning....................................... 54 iii Page Consistency with Maximum Heights............................. 56 Consistency with Existing Heights............................. 58 Consistency with I ntensity of Development..................... 60 7. LOCAL IMPACT FACTORS ........................................ 63 Open Space Needs............................................. 63 Evaluation of Displacement..................................... 65 Displacement Effect ........................................... 72 Displacement's Exacerbation of Need........................... 74 Relocation Feasibility ......................................... 76 Visitor Generated Traffic ..................................... 79 Local Traffic ................................................. 83 8. FORT ARMSTRONG MARKET SiTUATION .......................... 90 Maximum Distance............................................. 90 Survey of Convention Planners on Fort Armstrong............. 92 9. FINAL RANKING AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 95 Final Ranking................................................. 95 Recommendations ............................................. 96 FOOTNOTES ....................................................... 99 Appendices A. Senate Resolution No. 133, Thirteenth Legislature, State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1986 ................................ A-1 B. Area Amenities.................................................... B-1 C. Land Use Classifications of Parcels in Tracts...................... C-1 D. Restrictions on Use of Kapiolani Park.............................. D-1 E. Letter from Legislative Reference Bureau to Board of Water Supply, City and County of Honolulu, dated December 1, 1986 E-1 F. Letter from Board of Supply, City and County of Honolulu, to Legislative Reference Bureau, dated December 18, 1986 ........ F-1 iv Page G. Letter from Legislative Reference Bureau to Department of Public Works, City and County of Honolulu, dated December 1, 1986 ................................................... G-1 H. Letter from Department of Public Works, City and County of Honolulu, to Legislative Reference Bureau, dated December 22, 1986 ................................................. H-1 I. Permits and Concessions at Sites ................................... 1-1 J. Boring Logs ....................................................... J-1 K. Zoning and Maximum Heights of Parcels in Tracts ................... K-1 L. Zoning and Maximum Heights of Tracts. ........................ ... L-1 M. Total Number of Structures and Number of Structures of Four or More Stories in Tracts ................................. M-1 N. Land Areas and Buildings of Tracts ............................... N-1 O. Copy of Letter and Survey Sent to Out-of-State Convention Planners ............................................... 0-1 Tables 1-1 Pannell Kerr Forster's Typical Year Attendance and Space Requirements, Non-Local Groups............................. 2 1-2 Pannell Kerr Forster's Overall Rankings of Alternative Convention Center Sites ........................................... 6 1-3 Pannell Kerr Forster's Alternative Site Analysis. 7 2-1 Factors, Criteria, and Assigned Weights ........................... 12 3-1 Area Amenities Within One-Half Mile of Site......................... 17 3-2 Land Use Codes to Determine Complementing Uses and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses..................................... 21 3-3 Degree of Complementing and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses for Ala Wai Golf Course....................................... 23 3-4 Degree of Complementing and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses for Fort Armstrong.................. 24 3-5 Degree of Complementing and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses for Fort DeRussy . 25 v Page 3-6 Degree of Complementing and Aesthetically Pleasing Uses for Waikiki Shell/Kapiolani Park............................... 26 7-1 Area of Parks and Other Public Recreational Grounds in Diamond Head and Kapahulu Communities of Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board Area........................................... 64 7-2 Area of Parks and Other Public Recreational Grounds in Waikiki Neighborhood Board Area ............................... 66 7-3 Recreational Facility Usable Supply, Requirement, Need............. 68 7-4 Container Facility Requirement..................................... 70 7-5 Traffic Impacts, Arterial Streets ................................... 81 7-6 Traffic Impact Percentage Increase................................. 82 7-7 Major Routes to Sites, Peak Hour Traffic Volume, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Traffic Volume, and Difference....................... 85 8-1 Major Meetings/Show Planners Survey, Maximum Distance Between the Convention Center and the Nearby Hotels That You Consider Acceptable for Your Group ..................... 91 Figures 3-A One-Half Mile Radius Around Each Waikiki Site..................... 15 3-B One-Half Mile Radius Around Fort Armstrong Site................... 16 3-C One-Half Mile by One-Half Mile Square Tract for Fort Armstrong Site ............................................... 19 3-D One-Half Mile by One-Half Mile Square Tract for Each Waikiki Site ................................................... 20 vi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Market Studies Pannell Kerr Forster Feasibility Study A study of the feasibility of a convention center has been conducted by the firm of Pannell Kerr Forster under contract with the State Department of Planning and Economic Development. 1 The study, dated March 22, 1985, finds that a convention center in Honolulu is feasible. Although the debt service will be substantial and the center is expected to incur annual operating losses, net economic benefits are projected to be positive because of the additional out-of-state dollars introduced into the State by conventioneers. In short, Pannell Kerr Forster estimates, in a typical year, that the center will be used by 24 out-of-state groups. Of this number, 14 groups or 61 per cent of the total will have over 2,000 attendees and exhibits, with an estimated average attendance of 6,900. 2 This is the primary target group for the center. Table 1-1 reproduces the market findings of Pannell Kerr Forster. Pannell Kerr Forster also estimates that twenty local public and trade shows will utilize the center in a typical year. 3 When out-of-state and local events are combined, the main exhibit hall of the center will be utilized for 312 days, of which 168 are event days and