Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0110.004 2002-2004 Harry Kim , > Christopher J. Yuen Mayer ~i ~ t r: ~ nirertor t`: `.aft - r Roy R. 'I'akemoto r.;.t,ry nrrecrrrr ~x~t >PL~N~~NG 1~;~~~:NT 101 P~~~aahi Sirc',t;~, Sulk::; 3 kilo, ~~a:vaii 9f 720-3G~±3 (808) 961-8288 Fax (80:x) 961-8742 February 18, 2003 Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council _ 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Arakaki and Members of the County Council: SUBJECT: )Bill No. 17 - T10~I1K Nos. 2-2-0:14 anel 69 - I am writing more on the subject of whether this property is properly considered "High Density" in the General Plan. After reviewing all of the records on the subject, I have to say there are two possible ways of looking at it, and that I should give a complete history so that council members can understand why. In considering this chronology, the key question is whether this site was changed to High Density when the council passed the comprehensive review to the General Plan on November 1, 1989. In 1982, the Council passed an amendment to the General Plan LUPAG map to designate an area "not exceeding forty acres...at the northeastern corner of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Ave." as "High Density." This was done specifically to allow the development, which was then known as "Redevco", and which since has become the Prince Kunio Plaza. See Attachment "1". It does not include the subject property, which is at the southeastern corner of Puainako and Kanoelehua. During the General Plan comprehensive review, in 1986, the Planning Director proposed an amendment to the LU~PAG maps, No. 11, which ~~vould change land surrounding the Prince Kunio Plaza from "Industrial" to "High Density". The map, Attachment 2, did not include the subject property, which is "Low Density", not "Industrial," and it is clear that the Director did not originally intend to include the subject property in No. 11. ~f. ~aa ~ _ _ _ Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 2 February 18, 2003 On June 23, 1987, the owner of the subject property wrote asking that it be included as a new General Plan amendment. Atachment " 3". Under the procedures at the time, had this been considered as a new amendment, it would have required a further round of hearings by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director at the time, Al Lono Lyman, initially responded that the LUPAG map could be interpreted to include the property as already within the High Density area by the 1982 amendment. Deputy Corporation Counsel Pat O'Toole opined, however, that one could not use map interpretation this way, because the LUPAG map amendment for Prince Kuhio Plaza had covered a specific area. See Planning Commission minutes of August 19, 1987, Attachment 4. I agree with this opinion, because otherwise one would be ignoring the Council's specific designation of the area covered by the amendment. This situation with respect to the 1982 amendment is unlike most General Plan LUPAG map designations, because most were not made by specific location, and were not intended to be precise locations on the map. Director Lyman then stated that he would consider the area as being included within No. 11. Planning Commission minutes of August 19, 1987. Thereafter, the Planning Commission's transmittal of amendments to the Mayor, which then went to the Council, explicitly stated that the changes included changing the subject property to High Density. Attachment "5". The Department did write to the owner, on October 26, 1988, that if No. 11 passed, the Department would "interpret" the subject property to be within No. 11. Attachment "6". If nothing had else had happened, and No. 11 had passed unchanged, I would have to conclude that the subject property was included within No. 11. After the Director's proposed amendments went to the Council, the Council had the opportunity to suggest amendments. The owner wrote to the Council on November 1988 asking that the Council propose an amendment that his property becomes High Density. Attachment "7". The Council at first put together a package of amendments that did not include this property. On January 25, 1989, however, Planning Committee Chair Takashi Domingo wrote to Council Chair Russell Kokubun, asking that this property be added to the Council's package, and stating that it had "inadvertently" been omitted. Attachment "8". At the Council meeting on Feb. 15, 1989, a motion was passed to add an Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 3 February 18, 2003 amendment for this property, refen•ed to as the "Suisan" property, to be changed to High Density. Attachment "9". At this point, the proposed General Plan ordinance was Bill 402, Drafr 4, and the subject property had been added as a specific amendment to Drafr 3. The Council's actions create a basic question, because if the Council thought that this property was already included in No. 11, there was no need for the Council to initiate this as a separate amendment. The Council's package went to the new Planning Director, Duane Kanuha; the subject property was item No. 8., p. 118. Attachment 0". Under the ordinance governing revisions of the General Plan in effect at the time, the Planning Director could refuse to initiate amendments proposed by the Council. (The ordinance has since been amended; the Planning Director no longer has that power). Kanuha refused to initiate the amendment and sent a message on May 8, 1989 giving a "Table of Disposition" on the amendments proposed by the Council; this clearly states that No. 8 was "not initiated". Attachment "11". It should also be noted that there were several amendments proposed by the Council that Kanuha believed were already contained in other amendments proposed by the Director, and he specifically refers to these in his Table of Disposition. Clearly, Kanuha did not believe that the proposed change to the subject property was already included in another pending amendment. Kanuha also prepared a document explaining the reasons why various amendments proposed by the Council had or had not been initiated. Attachment "12". Although as far as 1 can determine, this document remained within the Planning Department, it clearly shows that Kanuha rejected the Council's proposal to redesignate the subject property. The Director sent the council-proposed amendments that he did initiate on to the Planning Commission for further hearing; the subject property was not included. After the Planning Commission hearings, the new set of amendments went to the Council. Kanuha did explain, in response to a question that not all of the Council's amendments had been initiated, and the Council clearly understood that it was not getting to vote on those proposals that had not been initiated by the Director. See Attachment "13": minutes of October 4, 1989. The Council then enacted the revised General Plan, which passed second reading on November 1, 1989. The version finally enacted was Bill 402, Draft 5, and it was clear from the minutes that Draft 5 only included those Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 4 February 18, 2003 amendments suggested by the Council that the Planning Director had "initiated". See Attachment "14". Draft 5 was accompanied by a LUPAG map that kept the subject property as "Low Density". The two ways of looking at this are: (1) that the subject property was included already in amendment no. 11, and that everything that happened afterwards was superfluous; or (2) that because the Planning Director refused to initiate the change later requested by the Council, and the Council then enacted the General Plan without it, the subject property was not changed to "High Density". In explaining to staff what had happened in the General Plan revisions, the Planning Director, in 1990, included the document explaining that the change to the subject property had not been initiated. Attachment "15". (This letter actually refers to Attachment "12".) In 2000, the owner's representative wrote to the Planning Director asking for confirmation that the subject property was "High Density". Attachment "16". The Department answered affirmatively, refemng only to the events before the Council began considering the General Plan revisions. Attachment "17". I have also included a letter written in 2000 by Takashi Domingo, who had been chair of the Planning Committee of the Council, stating that he had been under the impression that the subject property was included as "High Density" when the General Plan was revised in 1989. Attachment "18" For the sake of completeness, I should mention that the current General Plan revisions show the subject property being changed to "High Density" in the new LUPAG, as part of B-14 in South Hilo. This change began before the current county administration but I kept it in to conform the new map to the previous letter by the Director that it was already included. Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 5 February 18, 2003 I don't know if this chronology has helped the Council make a decision but I thought the fairest thing would be to present the picture as completely as possible. Sincer~el~y, ~L2 CHRISTOPHER J. N Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris/Matsuno re GPl.doc Attaotunents BILL PJO. 878 COUNTY OF HAWAII - STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE N0. ~2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN ORDINANCE N0. 439, BY DELETING FROM THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION MAP, THE "INllUS"TRIAL" DESIGNATION AND INSEKTING A "HIGH DENSITY URBAN DEVELOPMENT" DESIGNATION A'I' THE NOKTHEASTEKN CUKNEt; OF PUAINAKO STKEEI' AND KANOELEHUA AVENUE, SOU'T'H HILO, HAWAII. BE I'1 ORDAINED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. The amended County of Hawaii General Plan, Ordinance No. 439, is hereby amended by deleting from the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Map a portion of "Industrial" designation, not exceedinb forty (40) acres, and inserting a "High Density Urban Development" designation at the northeastern corner of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue, South Hilo, Hawaii. SECTION 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance C or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be .severable. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTKO~DU~C?ELD BY: ~-~"'0~ COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII llate of Introduction: September 1, 1982 Date of Adoption: September 15, 1982 ECLective llate: October 1, 1982 ~ - ~ ~I'~' t ATTAQA'IETII' # 1 _ ti- s ~n> JAS`/ ~ `'.l o o co bur „'yd~ ~ ~ 4. J~ ~ o T H ~ (?a PAIYCOu ~~c~~ ~ j w.vlPOnl Pr. _ 24 22 ~ 18J ~2~ S I~ ~ ~ 13 ~ ~ -y bd ~ Sa r1 ~ \ a P ~ a , ? l Y i l f I. _ ~ \ &t `ter}$V. l i i ~ g % r 9 ~ t j. f+~rC ~ 1;k¢a ~ at P~s~p~~gt~P ~~ey' ~ ~3*' r t P ~wE ~ ~'~'.t ~ _ Y s tips 8 L~, ~P Pa y< KURTISTOWN 9x p0 t ho - ~ : 9~.;~" ~P~ 9'L 4 ~s k~ I~ JJJJ 1 1 4 ~ MOUNTAIN VIEW A `~°t f; .`,a Ro ~ _ \ - - - ATTAQ-~]'P ~Z ~ - ~ ~ P U N A .June 23, J_yS7 Mr. Toni Krieger, Chairman County F'lannan~; Commission 7.:i ~~upani 31:ru~;T: Ffilu, Dnwaal 9R72U Dear "4r. Chairman and members of the F'Lanning Commission: i2 F?: GP TJpdat:e - Proposed High Densii;y TMK: 2-2-40: 14 and 69 Milo, Il+rwai.i T am preseutay the owner of twu parcels of lend situated on thr, :;oi.it:heastorn r,orrur of t;he I>uainako Street/ Kanoelehua iLighway interser.t.:ian. These parcels can:-ist of approximately fi.fi+ ar,ros and arr. i.dentifir.d F>y TMK: 2 -'7.-4U: 7.9 rind E!). 'Chas area forms one of the Your corners of tt~e Ranoelehua 1lighway/Puainalco Street intersection. Direei;).y to the north of the s~rbje,ct property is the Prince Kuh~io ~i Shopping Plaza. Situa1:ed ar,ross or west of the suhjeci: property is the K'CA Shoppinl• Complex. As Che ai:tar,h~>d rr,port indicates, I:ho sub,jer,t arr,a is locatonaaly su:itat~le for cammercia] uses. W}rile there may br, some on--sil:e deveL~pmcut: constraints, i:he_re r,onsi:rai.nts are nut insurnunantabae. They can be worked out. .As such I re:;pr,ctYully raguest 1:he Commis.^, ion Co consider this area for fCiyh Density Orban Deve.lopmF:nt as part of i:Le L'ounty':a General Plan update grogram. Sance,reay~ ~ l P9R. 7~;X ATri17 0, 1'}2Js;i1DliN'P ~ _ it S iTFSE~h F.TD. ~ (?n~;J ATTACS~NP ~~3,, , . ~ ~ PLANNICdG CGMNiISSIGN County of Hawaii CiL-'ARING TaiANSC.RIP^1 August 19, 1987 A regularly advertised public hearing on the draft General Plan was Called t0 OYder at 7 p~m lfl I~?7 ~!iUnCiJ.-'':7 Cim, `.~fila 7lr µU. 1.l Y1=i _ ,11~';, t:a ~•.'all., vJ .i C(1 ~:n a].rl~~a.:l '.I.'Ofii k~rleyer preS1C;I.7.ny. PRESL;iiT: Thomas A. Krieger ABSBNT: Pearl Batalona ralarl..l. I_ (;'Yti }Pii~S_f; riFn ~dary r~iizuno 'Icmmy Ishimaru Tom Poy Arthur Martin Clarence Mills Albert Lono Lyman, Planning Director Virginia Goldstein, Staff Planner Brian Nishimura, Staff Planner Pat O'Toole, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 25 people from the public were in attendance CHAIRMAN: This meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission will come to order. Tonight is a continuation of a public hearing to discuss the draft General Plan and recommended changes to the LUPAG map, written testimony, comments and oral testimony received through its public hearings on June 2, 10, 16 and 23, 1987 and July 8, 1987, and to deliberate on modifications and revisions from the Planning Director to the draft Plan and LUPAG and Facilities Niaps, Is there anybody in the audience who wants to testify on this matter now before the Commission? Let the record show there is none. In the absence of any further testimony on this matter and since we have already gone through five previous meetings in various parts and sections of the County, I would recommend that we close the public hearing. MILLS: I so move, Nir. Chairman. ivIZUNO: Second. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that we close th a public hearing on the draft General Plan. Any questions? All these in favor say aye. CGMN;ISSIONEhS: Aye. CIrA:[RMAN: OF.pose, nay. Ne opposition. motion is carried. The public hearing is closed At this point in time, I think we'll ATTAC[]MQ11' #4 probably discuss how we°d want to handle the General Plan, the recommended changes to the General Plan, LUPAG N!ap and written testimony and so forth that we've heard in the past five meetings® IyYIL7~~5; 1°;r~. Chairman? CHAIRMAN; Commissioner PQills. °:!f 5; ! cvoiiiii like igst of all to retlect to last night°s comments that I made to the Planning Department and also the Planning Director, I would like to have the answers to the ra lleStlOnS that 7 3~,, k.~:1 , AP.d that i+?aS~ fir",Pt r,F z3.11, .t% I 'a l1 izij _ai i~l'~i.ta vvy~%rl aC. ~_hdirrlan. CHAIRMAN: In the interim, the Corporation Counsel is here to answer your questions. MILLS: Yes. There is one that we asked that the Department check with the Public Works on the flood map on the Kohala area where Mr. Ross indicated that his property is being, may be affected. And in looking at the map today at my occupational site, it also affects Kohala High School. And I was wondering if we can get a report on that from the Public Works. CHAIRMAN: Staff, did you check on this? NISHIMURA: Yes, I did. I talked to the Chief of the Engineering, well, not to the Chief Engineer, but the head of the engineering division of the Department of Public Works. And I indicated to him or described the question as Commissioner Mills had raised last night. And from the Planning Department's standpoint, you know, our position is, as we have previously explained to Henry Ross, and I'll so do now, that we have recognized or we do recognize that there is a flood potential in the area. However, it also, you know, those kinds of situations apply all over the island where we have, and we have designated urban designations over these areas. In our discussions with the Department of Public Works, the question is is it necessary to handle those kinds of questions or issues at the General Plan level or are there other levels in the land use regulatory process where those questions can be addressed? And our, you know, we were in agreement that the normal way that we have had handled it in the past and the way we are handling it now is to handle those questions during the rezoning process, in which if there is a potential for flooding the Department of Public Works will request that a drainage study or some kind of analysis be provided by the applicant to provide information regarding the flood hazards for the area and how they°re planning to mitigate any potential problems. Ana unless those concerns are addressed, the rezoning application will not be recommended for approval. And that, you know, that's the point in time where the .levell of detail 2... that would be necessary to evaluate the hazard, you know, tYiat°s the point in time that vae feel that we can adequately handle the problem. So, from our standpoint, we don't feel it's a strong General Plan proble,u that we'd have tG overcome before we can designate certain areas for urban uses. MILLS: SO, Brian, What vou'rE' Sar ln~ nGTN 1, that w,'~~t~ ~.S ';°7.:^d m -_%i;'.-=_ ht]~s d;cj i?L till `L d"iC ].v :3 ;i 17ie Ghin~~ t~l ctt 1~ gP_n erally Clan.=; NISHIiaURA: That's correct, <z~,,; .ic',, ;,oc somct~,ir,g done arbitrarily? IvISHIMURA: If you were to refer to, you know, other sections of the island, on the existing General Plan Map, you will notice that there is overlaid along with the urban designated areas, there are flood designated areas or potential flooding areas that are overlaid on it. And so we have designated urban areas that have some kind of MILLS: Gkay, I accept your analysis of it. The other issue that I brought up, and I'd like to ask Corporation Counsel to answer, and again, and here it is--The letter to the Planning Commission dated July 29, 1987, the Director is stating that the request can be accommodated by interpretations of the existing high density urban designation in and around the Prince Kuhio Plaza complex, and this determination will be verified with a letter to the owner of the affected property. And the concern that I have is it seems to me that only the Council is permitted to do that, and, this is, I need an opinion. You read a document last night, and I do not know whether you shared it with her today, to see if that sufficed. LYMAN: what Z read was the first standard in the land use element which is presently worded, reads as follows: "The designated land uses will be delineated on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Map. The boundaries indicated are long-range guides to general locations and will be subject to a) existing zoning, b) State Land Use district, and c) zone guide map and interpretation." And it goes on to some other text. O'TOOLE: I did review that, And as to the interpretation, we concluded that if the Council had amended the General Plan and the General Plan Map through an interim amendment which was specifically described either by tax map key or some other method that there would be no room for interpretation under those guidelines that have been read, if there is some specific ordinance description. ®3_ D1IliL5: .So, therefore, it would not have as much bearing as if the Council had approved it upon the recommendation of this Cornmissicn? O'2'Ur)?_~H; what wouldn't have as much bearing? DILLS: A letter of interpretation r,''I'GGL.f.~': bight. Ede don't believe that there is room £or such interpretation, other than what the Council had passed in the SpeC1f 1C OrdlnanC??, In Other CaneS~ y0U tK "t104l3 !i r? ^.°rt^~=ct 1. ='i, =3 n, i=,%,~ L'YMAN: If I can interject. 41hat she's doing is making a distinction between amendments that are, were specific tax map key parcels and changes that were done on the map without reference to tax map key parcels, is that correct? O'TOOLE: I believe so. I think that what S am saying is that the, as I understand it, the General Plan i~iap that would be aropted, for example, now would not be, the boundaries wouldn't be described by metes and bounds or any specific way, in that way. And so between, you know, the green and the blue there, you may not know exactly one parcel if it's to be in the green or the blue, except by interpretation of the general factors which is allowed. But if there has been an interim amendment and that amendment ordinance specifically describes the particular parcel, then only that parcel has been changed. LYMAN: In the review, we are adding to the map things that were done through amendment and the intent was that those map changes 6e generalized. How should that be treated? G'TOOLE: You're adding changes that the Council had already made? LYNiAN: Well, plus, we're doing other changes, too. O'TOOLE: Correct. So you're asking me about which changes? LYMAN: The, we're adding to the map in about half a dozen cases changes that ware already made by t_he Council but it's not made on the map. The amendment ordinance made no reference to the map. O'TOGLE: Sut the amendment ordinance specifically describes which area is changed in some way? LYMAN: That°s correct. Eut in some cases, things were going through both the review and the amendment process. O'TOOLE: find what are you asking me? --r1_ LYr1Aiv; well, the intent in our mapping these were to make them generalized, U'TGOLE; but you're distinguishing between amendments that you have Nroposed to the Commission and amendments that have been, in effect, made by the Council, and you're now placing tp,nga c;, r, map? t,'~hu~~r~,; That's correct, with the intent that the mapping be generalized. See, part of the dilemma .is we're dealing vrit;; r. r,~= inch equalling two miles on the ma,>, anc! ~,oin~,: ,,,dam v<=ry litaraliy =~nc nv*- ~~-r, =~i;ic Cc get down to specific parcels that I~~ aescribeu on the map by metes and bounds. G'TOOLE: Yes, but if the change can be traced to the ordinance and you look at the ordinance and it says tmk x, y, z, then that was the change that the Council had made. Now if you are proposing to the Planning Commission other changes, you know, of a more broad scope, then, you know, that's a different kind oL change. LYMAN; In responding to the Planning Commission, while we might have seen it differently than you're seeing it, our intent was that those changes represent more generalized changes. O'TOOLE: But it is the Council's intent which counts when they have passed this ordinance. If there have been other proposals made by yourself during the General Amendment process, you know, that's different from ones that are being picked up just because the Council has made a specific change. LYMAN; Yeah, but we've taken those changes though the entire process and noted them as having been tied in with specific amendments. And I think in our response to the Commission, we are clearly indicating, at least in two cases, that the intent in our putting them on the map through the review process is that they be generalized changes, as well as relating to the specific tmk changes that were made previously. O'TOOLE; Gdell, I guess I'd say then I would have to look to see what and how these proposals have been, you know, portrayed through this process up to this point. IN ILLS; 1tiJr. Chairman, what I'm hearing is that a particular area that we're taking about, if it is not going to have the clout that is necessary, my concern is that why don't we then color that map because the letter of interpretation, to me, seems synonymous with coloring the map. This is my interpretation. I don't know LYMAN; Maybe this can be a way of approaching this--I can state what our intent was. Corporation Counsel has the prerogative to review it. But at this point the Planning Commission :pan do one of two things, One is to make further recommendations back to the Plannin5 Department, which would be the second round of recommendations or alternatively make recommendations to the Council. And if the Planning Commission's intent is that these be 9eneral.i?ed map changes as opposed to specific, I think it's ntirel1 in order sor them to do so at this juncture. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I tend to agree with than, I tt;n!; wouldn't b., 't v:; ~ {L r,.~ li_ L ~h i.:J the c~lanning . a'l._dc a:Lo iv1TZUN0: Mr. Chairman? ~:21~„7,h,z~.ac C~o,r~missioner Mizuno. MIZUNO: Well, since the Planning Director presently has determined that this particular parcel adjacent to the Prince Kuhio Plaza is included as one of those to be redesignated high density, could we ask the Director to include it as one of his proposed amendments? CHA.iRNiAN: Certainly. MIZUNO: That would clarify the whole problem. LYMAN: They're really two ways that it can be done. One requires the whole thing going back to the Planning Department and going back to public notice and workshops and hearings. The other is that you, at this point, and I would be supportive of this in making your recommendation to the Council, note that these are intended to be or you recommend that they be generalized map designations as opposed to tmk specific. MIZUP70: I don't think we need to go back into public hearings and so forth because this has already been brought up at our previous meetings at the public hearings. So I think the Director would have the power to do it right here now. LYMAN: Well, what I'm noting is that you actually have the prerogative and authority to make a recommendation to the Council on this matter directly. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do~ LYMAN: A11 I make is a recommendation. CHAIRMAN: And although we made these recommendations to tha Planning Director in the past, they were not acted upon. They were ignored, I think, is that correct? And I think our process now, if he amends his position I think we have to go back for public hearing. Is that correct, counsel? O'dvGL6': _zight. Then the Commission should hold further hearings. CHAIRi=iAiJ: Yes, Ana if use can make a recommendation to the Council supNVrtera by the Planning Director on his honor, then we could proceed with this. Would that be satisfactory? C'TGOLc^^: ii~11; ~„u'r, to ;:;uimic your comments an a' :crr~;a::ndtac?on on any t~roposed amendment initiated by the Planning Director, I°rn not certain, you know, if this is an amendment that has been initiated by the Planning L~1 _r ertrr. __.-.a<:.t,r;::4: cdo, but i t would be a recommendation from us to the Council. MIZL'NO: But this was already recommended by the Commission to the Planning Director. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. t^,IZUr,C: So it seems obvious to me that the Planning Director would be able to revise his recommendation and add this particular recommendation to his list. G'TOOLE: Yes. So if he modifies an amendment or initiates a new amendment upon the Planning Commission's request, then the Planning Commission shall hold further hearings on it. MIZUNG: But he is not modifying or revising it. We have already made this recommendation. O'TGGLE: To him and he rejected it? LYtJ,AN: No, we didn't reject it. In responding, we responded that we felt it was already done; and it was done through interpretation. CHAIRMAN: And that's where the question is. Legally, is that interpretation correct? O'TGGLE: No. MILLS: Aio, the answer is no, right? O'TOOLE: Right, N,'ILLS: Mr. Chairman, I think we can end this pretty soon. I just want something else to be brought up. .lust for procedural, the dilemma that I'm in in this particular issue is that if the Department is recommending that it be urban on the interpretation, I cannot see why not ik just be changed to urban already. But my concern here is that is it possible that this Commission also l;roviae a recommendation other than uihat has already been recommended to the Planning Department, but just directly to the Council? bve can do that? 0°TGOL~E: 4vn_11, the only amendments that are going to be considered are those initiated by the Planning Director, along with your comments- and recommendations on those amendments> NIILLS~ , _ - ?ai.11. ~„~l~ i,,„~i<°-a rotnments to the amendments? U°T(~~~LE': On the Planning Director°s proposed aniendmants, You had a chance to ask him to change his .~ix,a~,tdm=~nt~ y~ t~ ~,;°~.;,<< a,=_,,~; amendrnents~ h.icii ,-,u ~ _t,sr i.ona hearing. MILLS: T'he last Rona hearing we asked that you be present or someone in your capacity be present so that we could determine the legality of a letter of interpretation. Now if you had concluded that that had equal weight as the Council's final decision, which I didn't quite believe would be, then we'd say, okay, let's yo for it. O'.TCOLE: No, I meant the hearing before that when you made suggestions to the Planning Director, would you consider changing this to this and this to that; and then the Planning Director was to come back to the Commission; and if he had modified one of his amendments or made a new amendment because of your recommendation, there would be further hearings. Now you closed the public hearing and you are now suppose to submit to your Council, to the Council, comments and recommendations on any of these proposed amendments that the Planning Director has initiated. MILL5: So you cannot add any more because it's closed, right? O'TOOLE: xight. So is this an amendment which the Planning Director has initiated? And that's what I'm not clear in my mind. LYMAN: Well, we've initiated map changes that were not previously referenced by ordinance. NiIZUNO: Nir, Chairman? CkiAJ.RhiAN: cor,}missioner Mizuno. NiIZUNO: I would like to ask the Flanning Director again to consider including this as part o£ his recommendation. And the reason is I would feel much more comfortable having it included as one of his recommendations. Because what is the difference in we recommending to the Council, the Council recommending it back to the Director? It still wasn't included as one of his recommendations, And if he included it on, as one of his recommendations, then it would be pretty hard to deny it at the very end, CHAIk1~iAlu: well, as I understand it, the senior, the Planning liirector has recommendations in this particular. regard anG saying that it's subject to interpretation. Is that correct? i,Yb1AN; That°s correct. And Corporation Counsel is saying that the subject to interpretation down°t apply to snetiF°;.c amendments. ~;.~iii?Ii::;r~rJ~ Lut_ it's still a recommendation from the Planning liirector which we can make comments on, isn't that corr.^t 't Ivilr.,LS; =`.z51 IY~.ii,~ 90i117f:etltS, ~eXOUSe me, Mr. ChalLman~ :,~{n !uahe cauiments. From what I'm interpreting here is that comments we can make; and i.f the Planning Director changes his recommendation that he's giving to us, then it has got to yo back for public hearing. CHAIRMAN; That's correct. MILLS: So his request, my request is subject to a pub.Lic hearing. Su then we would have to open up the public hearing again fcr this particular issue. LXMAN; I think perhaps what you could do is reopen this public hearing. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, well, let me get to that point right now. The motion was made, I guess by you, Commissioner Mills, to close the public hearing and seconded by Commissioner Mizuno. I have requests from two people here in the audience that would like to testify and would it be possible to reopen the hearing. And towards that end, perhaps we would do that and also solve this problem. NrILLS: Tf you'll remove your second, I'll remove my motion. NIIZUNO: I remove. CHAIRMAN; Move to rescind. HILLS: I so move. IdiI'LUNp: Second . CHAIRt~4Atd: Gkay. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS; Aye. Oppose, nay. Motion is carried, Public hearing is reopened, N;IZUNG; Mr. Chairman? "HAIRMANc Commissioner Mizuno. 1'~iILL'IDO: i would like to call for a short recess so 1 can think about what we have discussed the last few minutes. CF}AIRIr;ADi: Oka~~, we°.11 take rive minutes. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at ?;a5 ;~~%r:~. REC'ONVy,NED ?i~~, _..>>rd••~ i~:~~ui~.vened at 7:30 p<m. C`hA?RNiANe 'i'he meeting will come back to order, Okay, ~_;-~-=e public hearing has been reopened, I'~l J.ilr~~ ~n c_.is matter settled firsk haa:r- ~.~~ro~~=~~ rcocved ;with further testimony, so just =.r i.c,.,c ,;lth us, b~e'll get to you in a minute, okay. LYMAN: I think Virginia can shed some light on this. CHAIRMAN: Okay. GOLDSTEIN: I think in CH~?IRP'iAN: Turn your microphone on. Is it on? GOLDSTEIN: It's on. In terms of the proposed revisions that the Planning Commission had remanded back to the Planning Director, those, Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that those were revisions and modifications to amendments that had been listed and previously sent on to the Commission on through the, you know, to go on to the County Council. And none of the proposed revisions which the Planning Commission had asked the Director to reconsider were any new amendments to the map, So that to begin with, these were amendments as initiated by the Planning Director. So, you know, in that sense then I would ask the question if then the, you know, it's not as if it were a new amendment that they'd be asking the Planning Director to consider. These are modifications to something that he had already proposed as general map changes. Can they, at this point, you know, submit also their comments and recommendations on this that are already, have already surfaced as the Director's, in the initial Director's proposed amendments? O'TOOLE; Well, if the Director had recommended it, why is it that the Commission felt he hadn't recommended it. GOLDSTEIN: These were expansions or revisions O'TOOLE: This is all, you know, in general terms because I don't have anything specifically in front of me. But if the Director made the recommendation in the first place, is what you're saying, why is the Commission saying will you consider this change? GOLDSTEIN: These are revisions and modification upon something that he had already passed on, In the case of, say, for example, the one that's up right now, that was one of the items that was listed. but what it amounts to is an addition to that area, Likewise, there were two others, Z believe, that are additions, additional areas to the amendment that he had initially passed through. LYMAivs rare of the answer comes back to the one inch equals two miles; and last night Mr. Henry Ross was questioning whether the University of Hawaii Etc-nsion Field Service fr. tvo,-;~.h Y.ohala was c,n ore parr.:=. 1. de,j.gna~.-..iri, aaiot:kier. And it does come 'a G~l7- Lis Lh@ a:L .L @!iUna ~~f, y0u know, 1S SUm2tl'r lily Ofl th1S parcel Or' cn the nest parcel, dealing with the map drawn to scale. G'TGOLE, °es; kr°.11, .,~ayyeer_iny though is that l.c °c ms's no d.;.leiama, if there was an ordinance saying the map is changed, then the designation is changed on this piece of land. Now, Virginia, what you're saying is that the Planning Director had made a proposal, the Commission recommended that the proposal be changed in some way, and the Planning Director rejected that change or changed it? LY41AN: No, ~,ve weren't rejecting it. Lae were saying that the change that was being made a.tready reflecL-ed it. By no means were we rejecting those changes, those recommendations. O'TOOLE: Well, what is the recommendation at this point? How does it LYMAN: The recommendation at this point is those changes include and incorporate those specific parcels that were being recommended by the Commission back to myself as being included. O'TOOLE: So are you changing your original recommendation? LYMAN: No. 2°ni saying that our response to the Commission was not a rejection of their recommendation. O'TOOLE: Does it change your original recommendation? MILLS: It certainly does. CHAIRMAN: I think, are we talking about this Puainako Street by Prince Kuhio Plaza? MILLS : Y"~s . CHAIRMAN: Okay, the original, the recommendation on the General Plan comprehensive review land use pattern allocation guide map changes was to convert a portion of the area surrounding the Prince Kuhfo Plaza from industrial to high density urban> And the recommendation that came out of the Commission and the general public was redesignate the area which is on the southeastern corner of Kanoelehua Avenue and Puainako Street south of the Prince Kuhio d n Plaza complex irou~ low density to high density urban, These are the comments I've got here, LYMAN: And our response CHAIRMAN: We're talking about both into high density urban. His response was that that has a1r5a s ;~~;,a:~. The area, whether it°~ lor; :-:~~x ?;aL~ 1,~~y a, y, z or z, y, a, it°s included .in thti bc~~i~at,rush general scope of things and is subject to interpretation. 1.~IZONC° ~tr.~1l, '~~:r.:fi_'s r_n@ Problem, It is upon his <_._,:im.inacion; and Corporation Counsel has just told us tonight that that would not hold water. LYMAN: No, it's in the context of the review with a recommendation that we were originally making, that was originating out of this review process. The recommendation out of the review process was expanding upon a change made by amendmentY C.HAIRMA:d: There were some particular properties involved and it wasn°t really certain whether they were included in this broadbrushed high density urban or not. And I don't know exactly where the boundary lines exist for this particular recommendation that the Planning Director has made. It's certainly not on a map of that size. Okay, so that's probably where the problem lies. We're talking about a parcel of land that's maybe 12,000 square feet as compared to the area MILLS: hir. Chairman? CHAIRMAN; Yes, Commissioner Mills, MILLS: Could the Planning Department show me on the map this property that we're talking about that is painted in a color that would designate that high density urban? LYMAN: Brian. CHAIRMAN: You better yo over there and take a look. It's mighty small. P%iILLS: Loes .it include? NISHIMURA: Well, the Planning Director has said that it does include it. MILLS: What is your interpretation? NISHIMURA: Ede cannot distinguish property lines on this map. MILLS: Okay, that's my point. 'Phere is a gray area of determination of whether it is or .it is not, And the only way that we can determine that is to indicate it in writing as a recommendation to the Council. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a tax map key on the land in question? Are you talking about land map keys or what? We're talking General Plan, the broadbrushed General Plan her_~, fdrsa not talking specifics, regional or .~_re,~ t.;.lar~s, c,r anytl~,ing elseo We're talking about the General flan. And I don't know, do you want ~:<,t _nto _reco~nrending plots of land to be included in this br~~adbr_ushed thing when it's colored the same ~,~av hers? viZLLS: r _-.emendation by Commissioner Mizuno was ~xpilcit. but when the interpretation, what I'm concerned about is when the Planning Director brought it back to us he said that he can be handled by a letter of interpretation. NISHIMURP.: Commissioner Nills. PALLS: Yes. taISHTb'IURA: Niay I read the description that describes each of those numbers on the map; and the one that I'd like to direct your attention to is Item No. 11 which says, "Convert a portion of the area surrounding the Prince Kuhio Plaza from industrial to high density urban." Now, you know, to me that's a general statement which doesn't tie down the specific location of the area surroundin g Prince Kuhio Plata. And what I'm reading, when I read that description and I read our explanation to you in the July 29, 1987 memo, I think it can be interpreted to mean that the area is covered by or can be interpreted to be within this change No. 11. MILLS: Brians I understand what you're saying and I respect what the Planning Director has been saying for the last week. But Corporation Counsel has informed us that that doesn't hold water. O"TOOLS: Well, let me say this. The question that I was asked this afternoon or this morning was if these changes were made, being made to conform to a particular ordinance, in other words, the amendment was being suggested by the Planning Director to reflect a change made by the Council through an ordinance, could the Director then interpret other than what was in tine ordinance? And my answer to that is no. If there had been a proposal that is more general than just tied to the ordinance, then I would say it's like the rest of the stuff where you may not be, you know, it may be covered within there. CHAIRI~;AN: Your answer then is yes? O`TOCLS': If it's not tied to a specific ordinance, a specific amendment, yes. So it depends upon the proposal that has een considered. And what I caas asked today was in the instance .here it was, the change was being made because the r_ouncil had changed it and the proposal was being made to reflect what the Council had done, in which case the Planning Director couldn°t be going outside of that. Now if what they're saying tonight is something else, that's something else. CHAIPMAN: Part of the dilemma is the fact that the C_oun:~.y Council through ordinance changes, rez~.nirc; eh~r, ;:::.a ar.'~u~~d file Prince K11h 10 a±`f'.? i.~; :~ji •"v!d Ci OtJ nit th P_ ZQnl.ng OVer there. An CI Lois is, this xecornmendat_ion PJO, 11 converts the rest of it intc the same general use, without being specific. Is that what ~,~e°~~ talking about, N,r. rirectorq or ~re;:s;'t you 1i_=,~~•_~i,~-, ~..:~~s;~•~e I was listening. Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So I don't know where your dile~,ma is at here. You know, we're, evidently it's not satisfactory, this Item No. 11. The recommended changes has not been acted upon by the Planning Director and we don't know what to do about it now, is that correct? L,Y^aAN: No. Again, as it relates to the area around th e Prince Kuhio Shopping Mall, we were making a change to expand that; and it's very clear. So as it relates to that CHAIRMAN: Expand, which has already been converted by the County Council through zoning changes? LYMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Gkay, is that satisfactory to you? No? MIZUNO; Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mizuno. MIZUNO: If we recommended to the Council that this specific amendment be included and the County Council returns, recommends it back to the Planning Director, I would like to ask the Planning Director if he would be willing to include it? LYMAN: No. What we would then say is it is alreaq;~ included. NiIZUNO: That's what I mean. That's why I said earlier, you know, if you won't do it now, I don't know if you can do it when it gets back from the Council. LYMAN: And that would also to apply to the site south of Ylaikoloa. CHAIRMAN: Where°s the problem? Is the fact that, he says this particular parcel is included and you don°t believe that? Is that correct? is that where we°re at? Am I Leiny 'too straight forward? I don°t know. PTILUNC: Let's say I believe the Planning Director. But tet°s suf~pose the Planning Director is not going to be our Planning Director forever, And let's suppose that when this particular party wants to construct something on the property we have a different Planning Directoro The Planning Director at that time r_ould .L fi is 'c r't: '.:,'G L:1 '7 'I_L ~`_=CI1 ail %.4 YI it :°_r LYMAN: vaell, for things that are subject to i.nrer~;Ye~:dtlCn~ lt'S good to get their! ~n;qn in iy;-itipr, T al-'c~ ..h _ GIrao- _ ~ _.i t. .a _V ...V lU..... i_ N.L ~L i_v NiILLS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mills. MILLS: The issue could very well be settled if the Director, Planning Department, will take the recommendation that is 1~resented by this Commission. LYMAN: Well, in the case of both those recommendations, my response is that they are already reflected. This is both the one in the vicinity of the Prince Kuhio Mall and the one that's south of the Waikoloa Resort. MILLS: It is? LYMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: So we're saying the same thing. MILLS: Yeah, I agree with what you're saying and so on. But this lady is a legal officer here; and she's telling me, from what I'm hearing, no, you cannot. CHAIRMAN: No, she didn't say that. MILLS: Well, she said she's a little worried because she doesn't know how the proposal or the amendment CHAIRMAN: If the recommended changes are in reference ko ordinance changes that the Council has initiated and acted upon in past rezoning actions, those are bound, in effect, by law and cannot be interpreted by the Planning Director. Those areas which have not been designated or changed by County Council by ordinance are subject to the interpretations by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission in rezoning actions, and thus to the County Council. This is saying it should be in that same general area as the rest of them. Ydhat you°re saying is the same thing that he's saying. mis_ LYMAiv: zes, with respect to the two queries made by th Planning Commissioner, the two recommendations, my response would b~ now and into the future that they are already reflected. N,ILLS: Yeaho Giell, what I'm saying is I like it, right. But the gray area comes from right here. G°TOOLE'. I think that, though, it has been clarified to me ca'-_ _1 i.U'- :J i ':dP~ L.Jr <.la ;_i, :At r. is ..1 LaltG a .Sf-Etilf li.i ordi7:anoe, righ~? C'HAIRMAl~Ia Yes, Anra, consequently, it fines ;ant Home n,~rt ns~ ;al=: u. i =x yn~lC v1. ~~Rdl1, :yl YI~J ',L~ O'TOGLE: This proposal was not made only because of an ordinance, is not limited to an ordinance. There may be a couple of others that are. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. ^4ILLS: Therefore, it's okay? CHAIRMAN: Yes. O'TOOLE: Right. CHAIRMAN: Okay? O'TOOLE: Therefore, there is room for interpretation now. Now I'm not saying if it's ten miles away or something. But if it's in that area, yes, if it's in that area as described in this amendment. MILLS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: All right. Okay. I'd like to move on. MILLS: That's on tape, right? NOMORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to move on. We have 103 suggested changes cn the maP: and o~e're dwelling an awful lot of time on one. N,ILLS: I think it's a very serious issue. CHAIRMAN: 4ue11, I grant you, MILLS: She has explained it so fine, CHAIRMAN; Gkay, fine, Is that answer to your satisfaction then? -lti-- r~7ILL5: xes. CHAIRMAN: Ckay, great, Now tae°11 hear testimony from the two people who want to testify here. Nir. Winterbottom, would you come %orwar.~a, please. WINTERBOTTOM: Am I going to be sworn in or TrJIiVTERBOTTOM: Do you need to swear me in? :i3-J ~ Li _~7~ucii Yi)1 ~~i'ta~ ~a ti 11 ctLC ~.dtl(_j ~'L i»~_rl ~L Vllf last time we met in Naalehu. Just state your name again in to the microphone. WINTERBOTTOM: My name is Glenn 4vinterbottom, resident of Naalehu town and a member of the Punaluu Preservation Committee. I had kind of a long speech written up here but I think since there's kind of a small crowd I think I'll kind of just cruise through it. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do because we're heard your testimony before and I'd rather have refreshing kind rather than stale. WINTERBOTTOM: Okay. Following the referral to the Planning Department for consideration of those twelve proposals we made last time, one of our recommendations gained that agency's full concurrence and three others were to varying degrees partially adopted. At the present time, we are awaiting a written response from the Planning Department as to why 11 of our proposals were found to be either completely unacceptable or worthy of only partial approval. In the meantime, I have been advised by the Planning Director Albert Lyman to reiterate our recommendation during this public hearing. But maybe I can ask if there is anything you'd like to hear again of those proposals CHAIRMAN: Well, let me put it this way, if there's something that you feel very important, that's fine. What I would like to stress is that your testimony from the last hearing in Naalehu plus your well organized booklet that you submitted for written testimony and others will be forwarded to the Council for their consideration. uJINTE;RBUTTGNi: I see. CHAIRMAN: And we have Councilman Kokubun here; and I'm sure he will look very closely to what you're recommending from that particular part of the island. WINTERBOTTOM: But doesn't the Planning Commission make recommendation on these proposals? °11-- 1.1.3 r1i)L.U)~. C. T.~d(1 =t.. .i Ct>flrltf?C p~!~v„r, county o=_ %Era ~<~~~ii ,5 Hul~uni 54,r~~et Draar i~4:nyr~r Car. renter. r, ~1'f1H ('.O,In t~/ t, i' S13 wB 1'i 1'l all T11I1 C~ !'L>;lli,'ILStilUn 7tclS CD;-~n ~rv~Y.pr{ ii_g h-aar.ing nn the PL~nninra Dzr,~ctor's recommende:i rev.i~;i~n:, r.<> C.!,~~ .erieral P.Lar: rr~se,) on t_he corns-.r=.ka~ansive r¢-n>ie~a aT~ trr- ;~i:an. ;t'~e.~r r_rrceivinq tr~:,timony ~t ;2vc=gin 'ark^tzngs f[o[n na,cmerraus inraicri~::.~als s:,.i ;+r<7;~ni?at: i~n~„ the 21ann.inq C'~anTmi s ,inn r.ecruestn~3 tt,e F'7 -inn;.n '11 C°^f.OY. to L`.1nS1..53n~ ft]Ct}i~L tQV:L5lOT1E3 t0 tIB t).QCU(!tft rlt %!f'3 '..1 `d?7, ~ rl at: i,ir~Lu<l~~i ;~a+-~l rPcn,amera~i~ton~, ma,-1e to the Pl;~nninq ;)irac:tcar. r~f.3 nn 172,.7 ~~{»iYl1L3Sl/)il :9 rb"} Ot!'l `.?f' TP`T1S%O$iS 'J~99P, ci Un pUi 7, tf?_; t_17R ~P'~, '~'h,° F~1%t IL°7~~ IJl 'F'-t, s`.'J Y.'3 ):)L'O~`rfiF•<! kd'di_i l.uRn t'.(i ._.~iPi-j r :91.: I:P~? F~.il :~._i C.?.t ',Sl i.j,. t'i .3 (i rZTN.~ t, iy ri: ~r7LtII!z"it 'd s'f'E tarn J)r'~,pL . I-~., ~^,)^lS"-a1S-i ~l fi7: lp z. -}>'9~ r~ ;t;1 ~-i-+ ~ ~~_il"~175,t ::L i3~, .i;•V_ t.~ r, f<~;., 1=l '9TYC71-?'( t.'( it i_~;(ltz;t~.': t-~ .t-r.:71<~I L't"Ilt: 1. tans. _.r. r~<. »7" S"7, 1 yt*-':'- ~1E? 7'I ail 111 ilU 'n' V'. 5'. .'~~-f1 "'U: 'F C3'„l 1. t.f: i. r'f.1C 1[;C; at illi°E~~_L'i'-'-• 7`~, e"?'7 ]U~.t i._ .3nri AC N -IdliSC 't a?3C1.'(1-"!, tiY~ r1U (.7 .~Y ~).tg }.:s T2 Cy t „ lei. L9nn tR=1 ('.OS9fi 155 LD:'I .!-l8'11R10115 ~ZJ ~'.}a~t]t!'=~ t7 ~P[rk Lbn YCr YCa,..F;:.rr r: 8'=Y61=1 N}1,.-g "?!'1 'i L''IPL'at lOn OP hhr~ r~~17i7.;s 9 ~.~}<'ttRi d.l ~~1lit 1!{,)r~,T -;1;' n 1~~3ft Y:1 -'{~„?'1 :;i?'1n~ i-Of.l". Y.n :T .1 i.1C)rl tl'_E ~~Qid'. t~' .l. Y,. C ^'i7:(h1~>i=!S .Ilr7 .q i.n :.nC}.lIZ1 F.,ij ?1tj - P'I F7 u211; ,f,f F=C,~._. t' r"., h t ~Eltf~.C-'~~'t ,Un ':Ef i.. ._-i Lr(Tl elt.,~Cl~ :?r')C; 1'.•} f:r rT ~ _.i.r_±'. CE'v'iL'.~'r:-, Y' - - 'lf 2 r1;..t ~FV tYl$ ~']-rtnra 7. .7 aJ 'tY(?C C_r, g' I r. ~py~~ - _ !'''15' aa; ~:n C'l.[ > i>i '•C3r; ?.tit; .rp'L;1. ~l,'+Cl Cft x?P!, ''y r, LCn-~~ ~ . _ ,T ;t- ~r ~ .:1ir~<, .1 rh<. ,~~nt.icar, ,..rid t~CC,.n - i - a~Tii. ~ ,e~ gar r.,,;i~,~Stt;l r', C.ha c:,a;r,r; t ATT~ 9f5~~~~ . ~z ° ~ -,~r ~ i' Lf i.~l!' ,~~~i:i{~5_~1~J. :~1' _1l~'{1,...11; )l i]. v r_,li ~I. I:.r. 1' ~ w~,;a 'tit: _ ..d'+7, ~'1~a%. .T 1 ~ , ,.~P; -i l',. ~,:;V i~ r,p•r. •1'f': HIV -"x(_11 .i 1'C!':1 _ - 7 ,'1~ n ;_Ir r.;t_:"' riQn`F~`~'',i2~ _t.) ')~i i-E .7-ctC ui ST.41~1 )7-!Lv ~r x,' ~;'ur)2iT; of?P7±~ ~?1sL.IC:LY ItJ`i.'F~;t,P£.PT~;r~ Tn Ti P: ~~IPPHZ"3 TTiF., i2P'.!'~LIP:i'P'~:L• Pi1~:I?[i (`~rtf"{ ;:5 L.:RTIDS ~1?!I:'1iz It~ic; i~l'IPIC~? !fU}?IO 3t'- ~~~7tiI~^iS Pills?~y i"~I"I (Ct, ;,gyp L,A?i~', ii D1GF,'t i~ OP sAT,f)KO, I'~'FA1 ISO, 3L; A~7~) '{':i i'. ~~h',f;F Zip' 'I''t! ~.°I 31='„' t>OUS`H i)i 11?'.IA?:}t0'~'~1~1i..IJ 13F~Y I >)~7. 6." "}i P" :^'i'~~!. UE'; :?I: nJ S,'~';T) a_S SUCf1p ttiQD " 'ilH;i'(,;("'4' P!; 1?Z'i-I r;R `!!t'1 d1,! u'1 h; 121[; '1'ii f'fii,gpg7:±Siih`d'., ;7:. 1i !`:::-1 h _ L JN~, ,'J ',IP: hT ',,:7.9 ~ 1`-i. ,)Z 2 1: :1 y tV _ , .''.i'.~ ~ L, i, •r."., I F lL F'1 CSY" "1!r: T1Y, "'ic: -t.., L~„Y!~y ..i!L ~i „ F';iiS .,i~,'7 C1:" ~'.3,?.._ '1t., .1'"~1~.~ a. v. e.a;. I~i ,i'i: f .lsl~ 7„ ~ ~ . ~ `r _ . ~,i~i.l (],d :r ~iP nl ~2.P11 Ill 'C';;JI .,'~I" ,'L,. , ~ ~ ~ ~ a. i ~ f i ~ ~~VI ~ ' ` ;p. 'd ) 3~:a tl ]d'.o r.%t GYt'~3 Or1 ~fl? o':'fl "'}'h ~'-i~r-,~, t1 iic?ip 1B ;.ir.. .a } :oil ~ -Jao,? n a";~ - _ ~ ~ . 7i~1C: .7 aL.' .'%YP ~'1 F?: ,r ~.T'TiG l,t-.1 '"lt n' ~~.J? Y ix_ ? _ ~ ~I; 1 rl 1 4 ,P i.: ~ i -i :?t.. )'J ?i:Ci ~;.-~.i.: -.i ~~i' . ^i'i.Ln:,+ ~..~1"-~ :.i ['^;7.~8"." .7 L117t~a P. 't (7, r) fit rl •r 1P 3]': .lnt'~~il<"j i7 *Yi `I '~Ib)~.<~$ 'i5li. ?A'}~ i'.."'i'TY II'... o-v n :.i _-.7 bSY e[_~~: a;33.'h ~~HB:1)~. i.1~Li; lli~+ ~ m,-. i_",;~'I; iii 7_f, rzCS:, l.l, L'.r,_ ;'r~~, r. w,o '1. ~ ' I )'~LO^U."_d:'7 C1'i.312rJ i° )lU . l3 Y.1V 1P.Q 1, I,I t1 i ~<<7 t_F~n qia U~: x ?{N ~ q~i nar. is rier_n proper'tins, situa;.eF9 it kh~ ,lend di.ei. ;irr: s](" i7!l i~,,3 i1lllki ?;l `i 1L. k"'!1 `l]T'2C'r~ '7V t;a'.t ~y$7 ".°Y ~~_,-{~i)C ~4 tl f~ a. i~ 1(l '!'.~r Tn~'~l1 FitC 1.4 -~c!,°l~'ldta0*.Ij i±i~!j ~Slt~ LUL ~~I E?L'~ t• qua L;~i ~.'.`3 i?^= tl[>^_.1={ri ;tom:' °JT" "4 F:~i!STO DE'Il ~ltV t,7r Fran :I!~~PP lODi*IP 71 t'. F~. ~.2(+:~;p r, 1+T7i:ar@ 1.1 t~l'~°3 tRardl t~f' t~})g? f'". r`9 rt18.~3}tr~.1 ?31i_`i•..:~~7 7F~ Fhp 'Y 1. '.:"!fi`,' t~C 1lt):~ S.v'v '~R!~ k`!ttn;1'-11~CJ 'vJ ~?9t. 3['1?ri l7 }tU21,p r'Ci G"lt fcnrn -'~•ir,:;~,r~ra~;,nr; n~a '7}"?~'n t'~~ ?n;~t~, a",2'1.~.11~1 ~inrv L,:-.~~ ~?en::ir.V CJri~:an, `tea .i:r, iR~l t~r. stn:°.a ..ny .ail.j ~~~t?lYi i ~`i `~C N PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26 AUPU NI STREET HILO. HA~NAII 88720 DANTE K. CARPENTER - - - 1808) 061-8288 MaYOr COUNTY OF ALBERT LONO LYMAN HAWAII Director TIM LC?I-K WAN Deputy Director October 26, 1988 Mr. Sidney M. Fuke, Principal Sidney Fuke & Associates 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Fuke: Change of Zone Application Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd. RS-10 to CG-20 TMK: 2-2-40:14 and 69 This is to clarify our letter to you of October 6, 1988, regarding the General Plan designation for the area of the subject properties. We provide you with the following: 1. Under the existing General Plan LUPAG Map, the parcels are located within the Low Density Urban Development designation. 2. Ordinance No. 475, relating to the Prince Kuhio Plaza and area adopted by the County Council on October 3, 1979, specified that the change from Industrial to High Density Urban Development designation is not to exceed forty (40) acres. This designation is described as being located at the northeastern corner of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue. 3. At the August 19, 1987 Planning Commission hearing on the comprehensive General Plan review draft revisions, the Corporation Counsel clarified that if a General Pian land use designation had been adopted by an ordinance reflecting a specific amendment, then the Planning Director could not interpret other than what was described in the ordinance. ATTACF~IQdP # 6 Mr. Sidney M. Fuke October 26, 1988 Page 2 4, During the General Plan comprehensive review period, one of the Planning Director's recommended changes to the LUPAG map involved converting Industrial designated land, surrounding Prince Kuhio Plaza shopping center, to High Density Urban designation. The basis for this recommendation was due to the shift of residential growth in the Waiakea Homestead/Waiakea Uka area as well as in the Puna District. As a result, proposed Amendment No. 11 states, "Convert a portion of the area surrounding the Prince Kuhio Plaza from Industrial to High Density Urban." This amendment is intended to expand the High Density Urban Development designation in a broader area without being specific as to acreage or location. With this in mind and as explained at the Planning Commission August 19th hearing, should the amendment be adopted as part of the comprehensive review process by the County Council, this amendment can then be interpreted to include the subject properties within proposed Amendment No. 11. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of Ordinance No. 475 and excerpts from the August 19, 1987 Planning Commission hearing transcript. Based on the above, please be advised that in order to pursue the requested change of zone, you have the option of waiting until such time as the County Council adopts the revised General Plan LUPAG Map (including proposed Amendment No. 11) or filing a formal petition for a General Plan Amendment as noted in our earlier letter (October 6, 1988). Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Si cerely, ALBERT LONG LYMAN Planning Director AK:aeb Enclosures November 4, 1988 Mr. Steve Yamashiro, Chairman County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairman Yamashiro: Re: General Plan Update Program Proposed High Density TMK: 2-2-40: 14 and 69 I am presently the owner of two parcels of land situated on the southeastern corner of the Puainako Street/Kanoelehua Highway intersection. These parcels consist of approximately 6.6+ acres and are identified by TMK: 2-2-40: 14 and 69. This area forms one of the four corners of the intersection. Directly to the north of the subject property is the Prince Kuhio Shopping Plaza. Situated across or west of the subject property is the KTA Shopping Complex. As the attached report indicates, the subject area is locationally suitable for commercial uses. While there may be some on-site development constraints, they are not insurmountable and can be worked out during the development phases of this project. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the proposed updated General Plan.- No action was taken then, as it was thought triat said area was already part of the High Density Urban area. To be sure, however, we would appreciate the Council including the subject properties as part of the High Density Urban area in your General Plan update program. id2i3i E'14 'y'ii L1 'vc=~:"y isil'~.t'_.. Sincerely, ~~l, '7= ~ lG ~J f ~i ~.A z~ n.~ LJ REX MATSUNO, PRESIDENT SUISAN, LTD. P. O. Hox 366 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Enc, rr: Councilman Domingo, Planning Committee w/enc Hawaii County Planning Commission Hawaii County Flanning Director ATTAC! SNP # 7 Honorable Russell Kokubun, Chairman County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairman Kokubun: RE: General Plan Update Program Su gested Land Use Changes As you are aware, your Committee on Planning recommended to the Council that all suggestions made by members of the Council and/or Committee to both the General Plan document and Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map be forwarded to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. It should be emphasized that this position does not imply a commitment of any sort for any of the suggested amendments. Rather, they reflect the Committee's desire to give each proposal its due consideration. Accordingly, the Chair took a position to have all suggested changes to the General Plan LUPAG map be further reviewed by the Planning Director and Commission. These suggestions are covered in the bill before you. Regrettably, however, the Chair inadvertently overlooked a request formally made by Suisan, Ltd. last year to have the southeastern corner of the Puainako Street/Kanoelehua Highway intersection designated for High Density Urban Development. The Chair would thus appreciate your and the Council's consideration in having this matter included as part of the Council's package of suggestions for review by the Planning Director and Commission. Thank you very much. _ v E ~,iCtzrata, hr4. / J ~ . Ay.~... sty; v,._,...e3!1P1~w..~;,._3~fNp,.. ear , ,«..w_ ATT11Q-1MINP #8 Hawaii County Council February 1`.i, 1989 CHR. KOKUBUN: Mr. Domingo. MR. D MINGO: In addition to what you just ment:.oned, Mr. Ctarrman, of Draft 3 reflecting the reformatted plan ith the suggested changes of the Councilmc~mbers, we ha also intended for consideration at this meeting, amendments which are found on Page 3, cahich is in response to Mr. Teru Morigaki's letter an~i Mr. M tsuno's letter and also, a letter submitted by Mrs, Bale. CHR. OKUBUN: Okay, let's try to walk through *his thing one more time. We're going to approve Bill 402, Draft 2; move to amend Bill 402, Draft 2, as pe: Draft 3; anc move to further amend Bill 402, Draft 3, by the suggestions that Mr. Domingo has just stated, Mr. M tsuno's, Mr. Morigaki's, Mrs, bale's. We will clarify all of these motions as well as the amendment regarcing other considerations to incorporate the support document as Exhibit "C" to the document, okay. So, M Domingo, I think, would you please make that motio Mr. Domingo moved for the passage of Bill 402, Draft 2. Seconded by Miss Lai. CHR. OKUSUN: It's been moved and seconded tha= we appro e Bill 402, Draft 2. Mr. Domingo. AMENDMENT: Mr. Domingo moved to amend Sill 402, Draft 2, to reflect the changes as submitted under Draft 3. Seconded by Miss Lai. CHR. 'OKUBUN: It's been moved and seconded that we amend Bill 402, Draft 2, as per the amendments found in Bi 1 402, Draft. 3. Mr. Domingo. MR. DOMINGO: And Mr. Chairman, to further reflect the Chang s that have been submitted since our last Counc 1 meeting with respect to Mr. Matsuno and Mr. M rigaki, I would like to further amend Draft 3 to refle t the changes as submitted on Page 3 also to incluce Mrs. Hate's suggestion with respect to Pages 52 and 53, minor resorts and retreat resort. 337 ATTA(}~7Q1P #9 Hawaii County Council February 1`i, 1989 AMENDMENT: Mr. Dominyo moved to further amend Bill 402, Draft 3 to include Mrs. Hales suggestion with respect to pages 52 and 53, minor resorts and retreat resort. Seconded by Miss Lai. CHR. OKUBUN: It's been moved and seconded that we Furth r amend Bi11 402, Draft 3. Let mE just be specific about this, Mr. Domingo. The a endments being to add to the LUPAG map appli ant, Suisan, Ltd., TMK: 2-2-40:14 and 69; appli ant Teruo Morigaki, TMK: 2-7-30:Portion o- Parce] 1. Also, to amend Pace 52, Minor Resort, amend the first paragraph as follcws: "A minor resort area whi~;h is genet lly an area with many small property owners or an isclated resort development without sufficie;~t land area o develop into a self-contained destination area. MR. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. CHR. OKUBUN: Yee. MR. D MINGO: I would suggest that rather than taking a def Hite action on Item 2, that the Planning Department look at the suggested amendment and respond to us so we can consider it and vote on that am=_ndment in th. final stages of the adoption of the Plan, if it's okay with Mr=. Hale. MRS. EALE: Yeah, that's okay because actually, they have ro number on the minor resort. My proposal was to put a number ors the retreak resort to leave it at 100 icstead of going up to 500 like they had suggested. So, they should put a number on minor resort, so, you know, I have no objections. MR. D MINGO: And perhaps, we should press them for the r asoning for upping that amount to 500. MRS. SALE: Is there a reason? I don't--- MR. D MINGO: We11, I understand that they were conce ned that thc~ feasibility of developing a minor resor consisting of only 100 or so would be a losing propo.ition for them and that the recouperation of that oney would tie near impossible. 338 Hawaii County Counci February 15, 1989 CHR. OKUBUN: Fine. Okay, does that close the amend eats at thi~~ point? MR. D MINGO: Yes. CHR. fOKUBUN: Okay, Mrs. Inouye. MRS. NOUYE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification and my understanding. What I hear today is thet any amendments that are to be made, we •~re referring to be made by Councilmembers and no ore else will to able to do that? I'm kind of confused because, why are Fe going to the Planning Commi.~sion. If so e of us memt~ers would want to further see some deletions at the Flanning Commission's public heari gs, you meat. we're not going to be afforded a time r the public is not going to be afforded ,sny input at that time? CHR. OKUB[JN: I don't believe that's the situa-:ion. MRS. NOUYE: Oh, okay. CHR. OKUBUN: Do, you want to address that, Duane? MRS. INOUYE: So, why are we saying that we wi1L have to do it now? CHR. OKUBUN: So that, well, why don't we let '~)uane explain this. MRS. INOUYE: Okay, thank you. MR. K.NUHA: Again, the way the ordinance reads is that the modifications and/or amendments that a:e directed or requested for us to consider as a result of the r_ouncil's deliberations on the General Plan, those are the only ones that will go out for the Planning Commission review. MRS. LE: Could you enumerate which ones those are so we'll be specific? MR. K NUHA: Well, at this point in time, they would be all of those items that are listed under Sec~.ion 7 of Pa e 117, plus the additional request by Counc'lman Domingo and from you, Councilwoman Hale, in addition to other editorial and context changes that were ode to the document when it was reformatted. 341 ~ ~ % +i~ ~1v OF j~~~ l J 7 ~ - FL 1l i~~~ !1' v jai+S .4 lC 9i; A-:.R ~ ~,iy. -ry c., ~ t;-rk C- rt!4 Clerk ~ ~ H4~k.~7. ~'F .J!~ ~-1~" i J'•o~ !L fr"S iQfl:[ 4~Lllor ~~y~ QFFICE OF THE CDUN`IY CLERK County of Hawaii Hawaii County Building 2.5 l~aPl[Rt StTFCf Hifo, Hawaii 96720 February 28, 1989 Duane Kanuha, Planning Director Planning Department County of Aawaii 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: General Plan The County Council, at its meeting of February 15, 1989, moved to refer the attached Bill No. 402, Draft 4, and the General Plan Support Document, as amended, to the Planning Department for its review. In addition, the Council has requested that Proposed General Plan Amendments 43,.44, and 89 be reconsidered. All the testimony received regarding,Kohala Ranch's proposed General Plan Amendment and other related communications are being referred to you for consideration. ~L%"'"" J hn Wagner UNTY CLERK Att.-- 5 n~-r #1 (1 C • Y SECTION 7. Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. The Land Use Allocation Map for the Island of Hawaii is hereby adopted as referenced to as Exhibit "A". [(a) Include language to update Council's changes.] The Planning Director is directed to amend the Land Use Allocation Map to include the following amendments included and adopted by the Council in this ordinance: 1. Applicant: Hirose Nursery Tax Map Key: 2-2-44:35 & 37 (Approximately 8 Acres) Request: From Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban Location: Waiakea Homesteads, South Hilo 2. Applicant: Hale O Kau Tax Map Key: 7-2-05: 1 (Approximately 1,001 Acres) Request: From Agricultural, Orchard, Open and Conservation to Low Density Urban Location: Keahole, North Kona 3. Applicant: Palani Ranch Company, Inc. Tax Map Key: 7-4-02: Portion of 08 (Approximately 25 Acres) Request: From Agricultural to Alternate Urban Expansion Location: Honokohau I, North Kona 4. Applicant: Jack Ujimori and Yoshiaki Shioda Tax Map Key: 2-2-33:11, 19 & 20 (Approximately 2.036 Acres) Request: From Urban to Industrial Location: Waiakea Houselots, South Hilo -117- e 4 ~ 5. Applicant:. Leonard Paresa Tax Map Key: 6-4-24:27 (Approximately 3 Acres) Request: Agricultural to Low Density Urban Location: Waimea, Hawaii 6. Applicant: Oceanic Properties, Inc. Tax Map Key: 5-5-06: Portion of 10 & 5-5-07: Portion of 2 (Approximately 250 Acres) Request: From Agricultural to Low Density Urban and Urban Expansion Location: North Kohala, Hawaii 7. Applicant: Richfield of Hawaii, Inc. Tax Map Key: 1-4-91-18 (Approximately 74.9 Acres) Request: From Conservation to Extensive Agricultural Location: Pahoa, Hawaii 8. Applicant: Suisan, Ltd. Tax Map Key: 2-2-40: 14 & 69 Request: From Low Density Urban Development to High Density Urban Development 9. Applicant: Teruo Morigaki Tax Map Key: 2-7-30: Portion of Parcel 1 Request: From Extensive Agricultural and Alternate Urban Expansion to Medium Density Urban. (Property is currently zoned Residential (RS-20)). The Planning Director is directed to amend the Land Use Allocation Map by deleting the following proposed amendments: 1. Identified on the Land Use Allocation Map as number 106, involving an area in the Kealakekua land division, makai of the Lower Government Main Road. Proposed amendment: From Orchards and Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban. -118- r May 8, 1989 Honorable Russell Kokubun, Chairman and Members County of Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo HI 95720 Dear Chairman Kokubun and Members: Proposed Revisions to the General Plan Enclosed for your information are copies of the proposed revisions to the General Plan which I have forwarded to the Planning Commission. These are in the form of replacement pages to Bill 402, draft 4, and reflect changes from revisions which the Council had proposed. We have also included a Table of Disposition of all of your proposed changes and a flow chart €or the proposed comprehensive review amendment procedure to aid your review. However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, . ~ ~ " ``t.1 AUANE KANUHA Planning Director VKG:aeb encl. cc: Mayor Dep. Managing Director ATTA(I-MINP #11 ~~oyD Apr. 23,_odc Table of Disposition General Plan Revisions Page Item Disposition 2 (amendment) Deleted 3 -4. Other consider- Revised; moved to p. 1i9, new atians Section 9; this is not ar, assumotior.. 3/4 Relating to Series C Deleted; to be carried within and population support document, p. 13-15; support distribution document to be re-integrated and adopted a_= part of the ordinance Exhibit C. 6 Added new policy From proposed energy element pclic~. p, Q, r. z. 7 Added new oolicy From proposed Land Use/Agricuitura' policy p. ~1, r5. 7 Policies 1 & 2 relating Mov2d to public facilities policy CIP budgets P• 7 Policy 3 relating to Deleted, carried in existing zoning/land use standard, Land Use, p. 39. apps-ications 7 Policy 4, relating to OK with minor revisions tourism promotion 7 Policy 5, relating to Revised, moved to Kau profi'_es space-related launch course of action, p. 1C6. facilities 9 Policy 1, relating to OF geothermal resources ~ PO1~C`--' 2, r°_'. at:.z nn `_O RPV15ed, 'S'OV °r_= t0 eCOnOm~C =nc~'.r p:; ,r,- CJ~°- alcer-~ate eP.ergV b'y'- P011Cy, D. o: c prO~L_°r rOdnChc Of dCt10.^., _ ` course o£ ac dor., p. 91. 17 ~o:icy 1, elating to Deleted, carri~.o in. eaisti~:-_ ~.er QuC~~t~ _...C dG_v~ ."'.t G.~.CGrd, ATTAQ-II~IIIV'P #11 17 Policy 2., relating to Combined & reviser. wild_ife habitats and Policy 4, relating to forest areas with unique biotic characteristics 17 Policy 3, relating to OK landscaping 17 Policy 5, relating to Deleted protection of all natural resources 17 Policy 6, relating to De'~ete; toc specific; consideration endangered birds for this expressed as coal and standard, p. 15/17. 17 ?o L cy 7, relating to Delete, considerations carried anchialine pools through existinc standard, p. 18. 22 Added three policies From economic element, ~oiicies 1 & relating to capital 2, n. 7; .from public utilities, improvement programs policy 3, p. 25. 25 Policies 1 and 2, re- Delete, consideration= ir,cludec lacing to planning and within Land Use standards, 2 s 3, development in high p. 35. growth areas 25 Policy 3, relating to Revised; moved to public CIP programs plans - facilities, n. 22; la;:d ?se, p. 3c. nigh growth areas 26 Policy 1, relating to Delete; programmatic and got social impacts, programs wit'r.in Cocnty functions. 27 Policy nl, relating to Delete, already mandated by lag: and ~:ater quality in standards, p. 29/30. 30 Added policy, relating From Doge 7 with reviszcns; ~lso tc C1Ps ircm o. 2~. 31 ?O1:Cy cl, reldt=nQ t0 Deleted, LeLalneC] 2x1CL:.^.g aublic access revision. 3= ~oli~v ~et,;s!Gn, relit- Oi'. 1^~ t0 ff:a SS L'an5it 3~ ..-'.GC D011C_V C?latl P. G_ .'_vm D. : . rEVl~10`:°O: c_EO ~G Ci°s am D'_c,^.S C. -L- 38 ?olicy =I, relating to i!oved to a. 9uF. course o. a 2nd urban center, action, Yor.a profile. Glast ijaWall 38 Policies n2 & ~3, relat- Combined, revised. ing to community develop- ment plan=_ 38 Policies ? and 5, relating Loved back to support docur~~ent, to urban, rural and p. i74A, deleted, rural residential agricultural designations density cap. 39 Policies 1 and 2 relatinc h;oved back to support document, agricultural designations p, 175. 40 Goal revision, relating Deleted; considerations included to ur.iaue agricultural in definition oz important aa_*icul- land tural lands (p. 1fi0, support document). 41 Policies 1 ar,d 2 relatinc Revised to important agricultural lands 41 Policy °3, relating to Deleted agricultural industries 41 Policy n4 relating to Deleted restriction of non- agricultural uses in agricultural areas Sl Policy u5 relating to Revised and moved to: 2conorio support of sugar element, n. 7; carried as ex_stiac industry course of action, S. 6ilo, a. 62, C]. Hilo, p. 71, Hamakua, p. 76. ~2 Added policy relative Policy added in place o` deletion t0 landSCaDinC Open Oi Standar0 On CrOUnd CO'?er ra~1C space rp_ 46). q5 Added policy relating to Policy added in place o~ the i.andscaninc, open space deletion of standard or: orour.c ~b D21et10r? Or ...`_anCard Cc., adCeC GOL1Cy ir~L~~.. p'_arit lnO tq ?rGG.'1C cC'?er CL D, C7, -7. _ L.CG tl~l° ~'1 al Lc51_=..~ 7cleteO to S=r.c' . ~ ~ _ _ .~.Y :rj ~yrt-=- 48 ?o lic•? i relating to Moved, re-introduced ir. support rural-resi^ential documents, p. 182. density 48 ?olicy r2 relating to OK rural style residential 48 Policy n3 relating to Delete, error in section. r=sort development 48 Added policy relating to Combines concerns o` policy rl, re-examina_ion of land p. 48, and policy ``-4, o~ 38. use codes/r'~ral-resi- dential su'~divisions 50-52 Revision o= standard Revised relating tc employes housing ratio 52 Revision o_' standard OK relating tc maximum units for minor resorts 52 Addition standard Establishes density. relating tc minimum acreage for minor resort 53 Revision o' standard OK relating to unit for retreat resort 55 Revision to course of From proposed policy energy eieme,t action by Geothermal p. 9• bv-products 55 Addition course of action From proposed policy energy elemect relating tc geothermal p. 9. research program 57 Cour_e o°_ action relating Deleted. to long-ra~Ge plans for Pahoa, Keaau and Nt. View JCnOOIS r~'~","_- 9_`~O?1 De'a~Eri, rn (`°r^ 1^.C i'.]C EC r. L°la'i^4 DG11C1cS e}:: St 1.^C COU C.~~ O" aCC=O::v _ 7i. 57 Cocrse of action =3 OK relatinc t~ E'~iT services -I- 62 Course o.f action ~1 OF relating to master land use p'_an for University and surrounding lands 62 Course of action ;2 Revised, moved to public facilities relating to the Univer- p. 64 sity of Hawaii at Hilc 62 Course of action r3 Moved to public facilities, p. 6~ relating to University of Hawaii research park 63 Course of action `-`1 OK relating to Afook-Chinen Auditorium 53 Course of action R2 Delete, similar to course o` action. relating to a Foreign p. 69 Trade Zone and air cargo distribution 63 Course of action ~3 OK relating to Kalakaua lark Heritage area 64 Added two courses of From p. 62, economic course of relating to University action, Hilo profile. of Hawaii 69 Course of action rl OK with minor revision. relating to air cargo dis~rihution 92 Added course of action From economic element, o. 38. relation to Ocean Thermal Energy converter 94 Added course of action From land use e~ement, p. 33. relating to second ~.~rba^ cer.*_er 1C6.-.dried course of action From economic element, p. 7 relating co space-related _~unct. ~ct~. .__F~ '_09 =.e~~-:s'_cn to ccurse c' G:' =.ct:on r~latir.? to diversified acricul'~_ure and ~:.ac~damia nut industry 111- Revisions to the com- Further revised. 113 prehensive review proced'~re 117 Addition to LUPAG map Not initiated. =1 117 Addition to LUPAG map Initiated. 2 117 Addition. to LUPAG map Initiated. :3 117 Addition to LUPAG map Clot initiated; already reco:r~menced =4 as item =13. 118 Addition to LUPAG map Not initiated. =5 118 Addition to LUPAG map C]ot initiated. '-'6 118 Addition to LUPAG map Not initiated, already recommended ;=7 as item =2. 118 Addition to LUPAG map Ciot initiated. =s 118 Addition to LUPAG map Not initiated. €9 118 Deletion LUPAG map Initiated chance. item 106 118A Consider LUPAG map Initiated chances as ite-s 44A, s, changes (r44) in area C. of Kahua (KOha1a Ranch) 118A Consider LUPAG map Init;ated as 43A. c!;ance in area of Kahua f C i 4 3 118 A. Consider LUPAG map Deleted aS9. chance in the coastal area r,_~ F:onaie tt:ro°rcl: Keoou (=39) 119 Sun~or~ doc°,~ment Adds ne>: Secticr. inc~_~Cr~ti'.c as °x`:bit C, S cporc -5- Exhibit C Su~oo~t Document 179 Revis_ons tc land use P.e-introduced, except lcw density desic~ations deleting urban; revised low density urban maxir.,~m units desianatidr. definition. 177 iist'_na of urban center Added urban center in North Kohaia district. 182 Re-introduced paragraph From p. 38. in rural-residential Natural Resources ?xamples I:ot included. for all dis.ricts ~ 9~~ SUGGESTED CHANGES NOT INITIATED ON LUPAG MAP PUNA DISTRICT 1. RICHFIELD OF HAWAII, INC.: Change from Conservation to Extensive Agriculture The subject area is located along and at the corner of the Kapoho-Pahoa Road and Kaimu-Kapoho Road at the base of Green Lake Hill in Kapoho. Originally, the area was suggested for a change from Conservation to Extensive Agriculture so as to establish macadamia nut orchard uses. As a result, the Planning Director recommended to the Council that the area be redesignated from Conservation to Orchards (Item #2). As the Orchards designation rather than Extensive Agriculture was more appropriate to the proposed orchard type of uses. Based on the foregoing, the amendment for the area has been already included on the LUPAG Map as Orchards. SOUTH HILO AND NORTH HILO DISTRICTS 2. HIROSE NURSERY: Change from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban The area is located on the southeastern corner of Kahaopea Street and Kanoelehua Avenue in Waiakea Homestead House Lots, South Hilo. The area both east of and west of Kanoelehua Avenue and on the Keaau side of Kahaopea Street is presently designated Low Density Urban. ATTACf~Q7ENT $12 The Planning Director had recommended to the Council that the existing Urban Expansion area to the east, between Railroad Avenue and Kanoelehua Avenue, be converted from Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban (Item #10). This change is an alternative to increase the Low Density Urban area in Hilo in order to provide for residential expansion, diversity of residential environments and housing mix. In this area, the existing Medium Density Urban designation is located northwest of the subject area and bounded by Kanoelehua Avenue-Kahaopea Street and Kilauea Avenue. Commercial activities have already been developed within this area. A few nodes of Medium Density Urban designation also exist on Kinoole Street which' encompasses existing commercial activities. The requested Medium Density Urban designation was not included in the Planning Director's recommendations because it would be contrary to the land use direction being pursued in the subject area. Further, it is recommended that commercial development should be concentrated within the existing Medium Density Urban designations rather than to extend or string them out beyond Kanoelehua Avenue and Kahaopea Street. 3. SUISAN, LTD.: Change from Low Density Urban to High Density Urban Development The area requested is situated on the southeastern corner of the Puainako Street/Kanoelehua Avenue intersection. Directly to the north of the subject area is the Prince Kuhio Shopping Plaza and to the south and east ace residential uses and the Hawaiian Home Lands -2- residential lots. Situated across or west of Kanoelehua Avenue and the subject area is the KTA Shopping Complex. The suggested change from Low Density Urban to High Density Urban was submitted before the Planning Commission. Subsequently, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that this change be included on the LUPAG [4ap. The Planning Director had recommended to the Council that the existing Urban Expansion area to the east, between Railroad Avenue and Kanoelehua Avenue be converted from Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban (Item #10). This change is an alternative to increase the Low Density Urban area in Hilo in order to provide for residential expansion, diversity of residential environments and housing mix. The Planning Director had also recommended that the suggested Industrial designated lands, surrounding the Prince Kuhio Plaza be converted to High Density Urban (Item #11). Other areas being converted to High Density .Urban designation which were forwarded to the Council include the redesignation of the area bounded by Kinoole Street, Lanikaula Street, Mililani Street and Mohouli Street from Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban (Item #15) and the area between Kekuanaoa Street, Mililani Street and waiakea Pond from Resort to High Density Urban (Item #14). These additional High Density Urban designation areas have reasonably level topography, adequate access and would more fully develop the range of services and activities that can be provided in Hilo. -3- The Planning Director did not include the requested area as there are sufficient High Density Urban areas in Hilo which have already been included on the LUPAG Map. Further, the existing trees/openspace area would provide a buffer between the commercial and the residential areas. 4. JACK UJIMORI AND TOSHIAKI SIIIODA: Change from Urban to Industrial The area is located at the northeast corner of Mililani and Piilani Streets between Hoolul:: Park and Wailoa State Recreation Area in Waiakea House Lots, South Hilo. Originally, the area was suggested for a change from Open to Medium Density Urban in order t~ establish commercial activities. Because this requested change would be compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses,'trt'e Planning Director had recommended to the Council that the area be redesignated from Resort and Open to Medium Density Urban (Item X13). The Planning Director had also recommended that the area along Manono Street be redesignated to Medium Density Urban (Item X13). While the subject area does include some ongoing non-conforming industrial uses, the Industrial designation for the area would be inappropriate due to the scenic and recreational resources of the Wailoa State Recreation Area as well as the mix of residential and commercial uses of the surrounding area. Based on the foregoing, the amendment for the area has been already accommodated on the LUPAG Map as Medium Density Urban rather than the requested Industrial designation. -a- Hawaii County Council October 4, 1989 somehow in an amendment passed in 1982, in Ordinance 761, (see ATTACHMENT "C"), you find that this ordinance does not reflect the authority given to this Council on initiating amendments to the General Plan. It can do so only with reference, to the interim amendments and not with reference to the comprehensive review and in the language of Ordinance 761, there is no authority given to the Council other than to make suggestions by resolution. So, the Corporation Counsel's Office must interpret the law based only upon what is in front of them, not on what it should be. As a result, the opinion of our office is that this Council may either approve the entire bill in total and pass it on so that in due time, interim amendments can be made by this Council or recommended by this Council. Or this Ordinance 761 be amended in due course to make it possible for this body to do something else and I'm not sure whether that is even possible or not. MRS. HALE: What was the last sentence you said, I'm sorry I lost you right there. MR. MIYAMOTO: In other words, we only act upon what is in front of us, Ordinance 761, and this ordinance does not give any authority for this Council to modify or make modifications upon the recommendations made by the Commission through the Mayor. MRS. HALE: So, we can accept the recommendations,--- MR. MIYAMOTO: That's right. MRS. HALE: Or we can reject the--- MR. MIYAMOTO: Reject it, that's correct. MRS. HALE: That's what you're saying? MR. MIYAMOTO: That's correct. MRS. HALE: Accept or reject the whole General Plan ordinance, as submitted? MR. MIYAMOTO: That's right but you can make specific recommendations for changes by way of resolutions, so that you go through the whole process again. 1238 ATTA(SII~NI' #13 Hawaii County Council October 9, 1989 CHR. KOKUBUN: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: First, a point of clarification, Councilwoman Hale. Are those amendments that you are referring to related to the LUPAG map or substance because if it's related to the document, there were a whole lot more than just, you know, several amendments. MRS. HALE: They were the ones that we put down for specific changes in the LUPAG map. I think there were about 4 or 5 of them. Well, I think on page 6, it says not initiated, not initiated, not initiated, what does that mean? There are 4 not initiated on that page, these LUPAG map items, what does that mean? MR. KANUHA: Okay, under the process that we're working with now, the ability to initiate or not initiate specific considerations by the Council was vested with the Planning Director. Okay, i could either modify a proposed amendment or I could initiate a new amendment. In regard to the LUPAG map, there were several land use changes that were not initiated, you know, for various reasons, are those the ones you'd like to go into? MRS. HALE: I want to know what the reasons were that you didn't initiate those, yeah. MR. KANUHA: Okay, there were a number of reasons. Again, do you want me to go to the specific ones that were not done? MRS. HALE: Well, if you can generalize, fine. MR. KANUHA: Well, I don't think I can generalize because some of them were already included as part of the LUPAG map. MRS. HALE: The references here don't make an addition, it's just number 7, number 6, so it's kind of hard to tell from your summary what we're talking about. 1254 Hawaii County Council October 4, 1989 MR. KANUHA: That's correct. Some of them were not initiated because of impacts to prime agricultural lands. And a few were not initiated, particularly several amendments relating to changes from orchards or agriculture over to alternate urban expansion because the whole thrust of the General Plan was working in a different direction and so it varied. MRS. HALE: May I ask you another question to follow up then. Under this new amendment procedure of this General Plan 402, Draft 4, which I understand, Mr. Chairman, and I've just been told is this (She held up a white book) that we're considering and there is no number on here so that was what had always confused me. I don't know whether that is the same as this attached amendments, Bill 402, Draft 4. Is all of this in here, in this (white book too, are they the same? MR. KANUHA: That's correct. MRS. HALE: Okay, thank you. Then we can consider this because this shows---. Under this new procedure, that would not be possible then is that true? MR. KANUHA: No, the new procedure provides that every request by the Council, once they review what the Planning Commission has recommended, if the Council has any additional request to add over and above that and those requests are referred back to the Planning Director for his consideration, the Planning Director has to move everything through. In other words, he has to provide a recommendation as to why he is recommending denial or why he is modifying a request by the Council. Or the Planning Director can say, "yes", I agree with the Council and I will initiate it and those all move on to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission turns around, gives their consideration and all of those items come back up to the Council and the Council takes the final action on them. MRS. HALE: Then the final question, when it says here together with its recommendations to the County Council for their action. At that point when it comes back to us, after having gone through 1255 Hawaii County Council October 4, 1989 Planning Commission hearings and what not, we can do what we want to it. We can delete, as long as we don't add, so that we go back through the process again, but we could delete or we could deny or we can affirm. Is that correct? MR. KANUHA: That's correct. MRS. HALE: Hut if we did add, it would have to go back to through the process again? MR. KANUHA: That's correct. MRS. HALE: Now, I understand but I'm talking about what we're passing if this bill passes as it's written. I just want to be sure we understand it's meaning before we vote on it this time. Well, I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, I'm really frustrated as I think most of us are and I'm sure the people who sat here all afternoon listening to this must feel as frustrated as we are. I was hoping that we would have the power to delete but since we don't have that power and since I think we do need to clean this up, I'm going to vote for the General Plan on first reading. CHR. KOKUHUN: Mr. Yamashiro. MR. YAMASHIRO: You know, on the existing law on page 112, provides that the Council may request the Planning Director to consider any specific modifications to any proposed amendment or to initiate within 60 days a new proposed amendment. If the Planning Director either modifies a proposed amendment or initiates a proposed amendment, such proposed amendment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with subsection E. I don't find it discretionary, that does not seem to be discretionary that the Planning Director can pick and choose from the Council's changes. MR. KANUHA: There is a--- MR. YAMASHIRO: Or is there another change. I don't know like she said, you know I'm reading a white document, there's a green document. 1256 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 MISS LAI: I call for the question. CHR. KOKUBUN: Well, actually, we have a motion to amend the initial motion. The motion is to amend. Vote on the amendment: Unanimously carried. CHR. KOKUBUN: The Chair would entertain a motion then to approve Bill 145, Draft 2, as amended. Mr. Domingo moved for the passage of Bill 145, Draft 2, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ruddle and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Domingo, Hale, Inouye, Lai, Makuakane, Ruddle, Schutte, Yamashiro and Chairman Kokubun - 9. NOES: None. CHR. KOKUHUN: Bill 145, Draft 3, is adopted on second and final reading. ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 150, amends BILL 150: Section 25-114 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 3, (C-876) Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, by changing the district classification of 21,780 sq. ft. from Single Family Residential (RS-15) to Single Family Residential (RS-10) at Waiakea, South Hilo, covered by TMK: 2-4-09:23, Michael Seto, applicant, introduced by Mr. Domingo on October 18, 1989, was presented for second and final reading. Mr. Domingo moved to defer Bill 150 at the Council level until the next Council meeting, as requested by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Ruddle and unanimously carried. ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 402, Draft 5, adopts BILL 902: the County of Hawaii General Plan and repeals (DRAFT 5) Ordinance 439, a5 amended, introduced by Mr. Domingo on October 4, 1989, was presented for second and final reading; and 1365 ATTAQ-II9Q9'I' # 14 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 COMM. 976: From David & Mary Beth Kahn, The Ritz-Carlton Mauna Lani, dated October 3, 1989; and COMM. 977: From Mr. and Mrs. D. L. MacArthur, dated October 3, 1989; and COMM. 986: From Jerry & Lorraine Gagnon, dated October 2, 1989; and COMM. 987: From Thomas S. Byrnes, dated October 4, 1989; and COMM. 1021: From Paul A. Lerew, dated October 24, 1989. Mr. Domingo moved for the passage of Bill 402, Draft 5, and to close the files of Communications 976, 977, 986, 987 and 1021. Seconded by Mr. Schutte. CHR. KOKUBUN: It's been moved and seconded that we approve Bill 402, Draft 5, and close the files on Communications 976, 977, 986, 987, and 1021. If there's no further discussion---. Mrs. Hale. MRS. HALE: I had written to the Corporation Counsel and asked to get clarification. This whole process of the General Plan amendment is so complicated that---. I have before me Draft 4. I don't even have Draft 5, I don't even know where it is. But I wanted to get answers to some of my concerns because although I spent several hours and hours and hours trying to go over this and trying to reconcile Draft 1 with Draft 2 with Draft 3, with amendments and whatnot, I found it very very difficult to understand what it was we were finally passing. And Draft 5 is something that's coming before us today for the first time. CHR. KOKUBUN: Mrs. Hale, can I clarify that very quickly? MRS. HALE: Yeah. CHR. KOKUBUN: Draft 5 is actually those recommendations that came up from the Planning Director, as found on our green sheets that were submitted to us. 1366 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 MRS. HALE: I see, so they're attached to Draft 9. CHR. KOKUBUN: That's correct. MRS. HALE: Yeah, so that was what is difficult. Okay, you have Draft 4 with all these attached proposed amendments, which make it Draft 5. Hut what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions, and I'd like to ask the Corporation Counsel, please, to---. I had asked him to get me a written opinion of this so that I could present to all my colleagues, but he was not able to do it in time for this meeting. But he has told me that he is prepared to answer my questions. (At this time, Corporation Counsel Miyamoto came forward to address the Chair.) What I want to know, number one, does the amended wording give the Council the power to change recommendations of the Planning Director and/or the Planning Commission? CHR. KOKUHUN: Mr. Miyamoto. MR. MIYAMOTO: It would not, at the moment, because we are still using the present--- MRS. HALE: Under the new Draft 5? MR. MIYAMOTO: I haven't seen the new Draft 5. MRS. HALE: I thought you were going to be able to answer these questions. I wanted to know, number one, Draft 5, does it have the two/thirds vote in it? CHR. KOKUBUN: That's correct. MRS. HALE: That, according to my colleague, Mr. Yamashiro, is against the County Charter and I agree with him. Therefore, we have to amend Draft 5, first of all, so that we can at least be in conformity with our County Charter. It's my understanding the Corporation Counsel has said that because it is in conflict, we can amend that. Is that correct? 1367 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 MR. MIYAMOTO: Yes, you could. MRS. HALE: Then I'd like to say that the first thing we should do is to start out by amending Draft 5 by deleting the two-thirds vote, and I've asked the Corporation Counsel to give us the proper wording to do that. CHR. KOKUHUN: If I can comment on that, Mr. Miyamoto, very quickly. By modifying, amending Draft 5, it will trigger the whole process, at this point in time, of going back to the Director and back to the Planning Commission before the bill is finally adopted. Is that correct? MR. MIYAMOTO: There is that possibility, yes. CHR. KOKUBUN: There is that possibility. Well--- MRS. HALE: I thought you said that we could amend the two-thirds vote without triggering the process of going back. That's what I'm trying to find out. I don't want to trigger this process again. MR. MIYAMOTO: I would recommend--- MRS. HALE: But I was under the impression that since this two-thirds vote is not allowable under our County Charter that we could---this was a procedural matter. That's what you told Mr. Yamashiro last time. MR. MIYAMOTO: I will suggest that all amendments to the amendments procedure be taken up in one amended ordinance so that we can take it as a whole. There are quite a number of amendments that need to be made on the procedure. We are working on it now with the Planning Department, and there's a need to work with individual Councilmembers so that the procedure is less complex than what it is now. MRS. HALE: Yeah, I see. Okay, well, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say then that I'm not really happy with our General Plan as we have it. I don't think we need a great deal of improvements in some areas, but I'm going to vote for it because what we're working with now is a 1971 General Plan as amended over the last 20 years, which is ridiculous, and nobody knows what we really have. 1368 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 At least now, we should have a document that we can begin to amend, and I would like to warn my colleagues that I shall immediately begin the amendment process as soon as the Mayor has signed this document. Thank you. CHR. KOKUBUN: So warned. Thank you, Mr. Miyamoto. The motion then is to adopt Bill 402, Draft 5. The understanding that we received at the last Council meeting was that the Council will be able to initiate amendments. The Planning Director will be able to initiate amendments to the bill. MR. YAMASHIRO: After adoption. CHR. KOKUBUN: That's correct. Mr. Domingo. MR. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, by virtue of the fact that we've had a number of opinions from our Corp Counsel with regards to what we can and we cannot do with the document that's before us, I'd just like to mention that there are a number of applications before us, to which I felt when we as individuals had submitted to the Council for insertion into the document and for the Administration to consider and for the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations, now, those--I speak for myself as an individual--those were inserted with the knowledge that after it's traveled through the process and, ultimately, before the Council at this time that we would have had the opportunity to really digest that and get some real reaction to it, and even if we needed to delete that out of the document. There's a number of applications; and I'd just like to mention that we don't have that opportunity now and that my personal feeling is that when we take that up for consideration on the zoning application that I will thoroughly scrutinize those applications. Even if I feel that I need to make any changes, I will pursue it, and it's because we don't have that opportunity to do so at this point. CHR. KOKUBUN: Thank you. If there is no further discussion, the motion before the body is to approve Bill 402, Draft 5, on second and final reading. Mr. Clerk. 1369 Hawaii County Council November 1, 1989 The roll call vote on Bill 402, Draft 5, was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Domingo, Hale, Inouye, Lai, Makuakane, Ruddle, Yamashiro and Chairman Kokubun - 8. NOES: None. EXCUSED: Councilmember Schutte - 1. CHR. KOKUBUN: Bill 402, Draft 5, is approved and adopted on second and final reading. The Council Chairman requests that it is past noon, and we do have a number of committee reports that we need to address, and the Chair would call for a lunch recess until 1:30 p.m. when we will reconvene here to take up the rest of the agenda. RECESS: At 12:15 p.m., the Chair declared the meeting to be in recess until 1:30 p.m. RECONVENE: The meeting reconvened at 1:50 p.m. by Chairman Russell S. Kokubun, with all members present. CHR. KOKUBUN: I apologize for the late start after our luncheon recess. REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports. FINANCIAL Monthly Revenue Reports from the Department of REPORTS: Finance for the month ended September 30, 1989. Mrs. Inouye moved to receive the Financial Report. Seconded by Miss Lai and unanimously carried. 1370 PLA ERS February 21, 1990 _ Plarf ing Direc or General Plan Maps Please find enclosed the following materials for your information and files so as to assist you on what changes occurred an the LUPAG and Facilities mans. 1. Listing of LUPAG map changes, adopted 1989 2. Rationale of " , 1587 and 1989 3. List of Facilities map change, adopted 1989 4. Suggested charges/rationale not included in LUPAG men, 1987 and 1989 (PLOT PU2LZC INFORMATION). AK:aeb ercls. DEB 2 2 ~sso ATTAQ-H~2fP $15 .~nm,r+e... •.•••,rv„efnndm••nRnnluf•mu»ae w,uu+vun+•vueuue•.......v....uvuu-~..~ .........U,s• - Y .~1..~.'.'u+mYi..- ......~nwx.:r~.~.v...............-va...~ve.vrun...ne...v.~~. }UlIW.Wi•1 1 SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance -Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • fiuhdmsan • larq Use permits • Envvonmenlal gepons February 11, 2000 Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director Planning Department COUN"I'Y OF HAWAII 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Goldstein: Subject: Confirmation of General Plan LUPAG Designation Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd., TMK: (3) 2-2-40: 14 and 69 The subject properties aze located on the southeastern corner of the Puainako/Kanoelehua Street intersection. This the only undeveloped corner of this intersection, with the others being the Prince Kuhio Shopping Center, KTA Shopping complex, and the Firestone/gas station complex now under construction. It is the landowner's tmderstanding that said properties fall within the High Density Urban azea on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map. The basis for this understanding (which is documented in your files) follows: a. December 26, 1986: A request by the landowner to have fhe Planning Director consider said properties High Density Urban in conjunction with the Director's General Plan update program was made. b January 8, 1987: The Director responded that the request was essentially too late. As such, a request had to be submitted directly to'either the Planning Commission and/or the County Council. c. June 23, 1987: A formal request was then made of the Planning Corrunission. d. August l9 and 25, 1987: At the Planning Commission's meetings, the Planning Director interpreted that the subject properties were already within the High Density Urban azea. As such, no general plan amendment was necessary. As such, the Commission's package of amendment did not include the landowner's request. e. October 2 and 6, 1988: Pursuant to this interpretation a commercial rezoning application was filed on October 2, 1988. On October 6, the Director rejected the application noted that a General Plan amendment was needed first. ATTAR-)SNP #16 ?i Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director February 11, 2000 Page 2 f. October 26 1988: The Director then writes (see attached) in item number 4 that "should the amendment be adopted as part of the comprehensive review process by the County Council, this amendment can then be interpreted to include the subject properties within proposed Amendment No. 11." g. November 1989: The Council approves the package ofamendment, including No. 11, on November 1, 1989, and the approval became effective on November 14. Based on the sequence of events and the letter of October 26, 1988, the landowner believes that the subject properties aze designated High Density Urban on the General Plan LUPAG map. There have been no contrary amendments since the 1989 action. Relying on this understanding, the applicant has entertained different development proposals of this site and will be submitting an application to rezone said properties into the General Commercial (CG) district in the immediate future. We look forwazd to hearing from you. If you need more information or have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sirycerely, ~~;u~ SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosure cc Mr. Rex Matsuno w/ enclosure Mir os Virginia Goldstein - c°'' c- Dimaor Stephen K. Yamashiro f , ~Lt%<. ~Ho~'or Russell Kokubun . _ - Deputy Di~gaur Cnuixixf~x ix~ ~ttivttii PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Aoom lU9 • Hilu, };awaii 96720-4252 BUR) 961-8288 • Fax (8118) 'J61-8742 February 22, 2000 Mr. Sidney Fuke Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 2l2 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Fuke: Coulu-nwtiou of General Pl:w LUPAG Map Designation High Density Urban Matsuno Eutcrprises, Ltd. T'MK: 2-2-d0:ld and G9 This is to confirm that the above-captioned properties are designated High Density Urban on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. In reviewing the Planning Commission's public hearing transcript (August 19, 1987) pertaining to the Comprehensive General Plan Review, then Planning Director, Mr. Albert Lyman, confirrned that the properties were included for consideration into;the High Density Urban classification. therefore, wish the adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan ir. November of 1989, parcels l4 and 69 ofTT?ll<: 2-2-40 were desig:ated High Density Urban on the LUPAG :vlap. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us again. Sincerely, ~ ~ VIRGf lA GO DSTFIN Planning Director NH:gp P'.wpwin601numilktters\fukt 2-17-UU ATTAQ-)MINI' #17 August 22, 2ooo2000 rI~G 22 F~l 2 17 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director COUNTY OF HP,4'~.~Alt Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: General Plan Designation -Southeastern Corner of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue Intersection (TMK: 2-2-040: 14 & 69) Dear Ms. Goldstein: As you are aware, I was Chair of the Council Planning Committee when the update of the General Plan was being reviewed by the County Council. Specifically, this relates to the time between 1986 (when the Planning Department and Planning Commission were considering the update) through 1989 (when the County Council finally adopted the update on November 1, 1989). During this period, I reviewed all proposals very carefully before making any recommendation to the my Committee. The Committee -which essentially consisted of the majority of the Council -ultimately made its recommendation to the County Council for final action. It has recently been brought to my attention that there is a question relative to the designation of the subject properties on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map. To assist in your review of this matter, I though it best to share my understanding of the circumstances surrounding my Committee's and subsequently the Council's action on this matte~:"~7'tiis is being done only after reviewing the transcript and all related correspondences on this matter to help refresh my memory. When the Planning Commission was considering the subject properties for High Density Urban in August 1987, the Planning Director and Assistant Corporation Counsel both conceded that proposed Amendment No. 11 covered the request. With that understanding, the Planning Commission did not believe that further separate action on the applicant's request was necessary. This position and/or understanding was further confirmed in the Planning Director's letter of October 26, 1988 (enclosed). The letter stated that if proposed Amendment No. 11 were adopted by the Council, the subject properties could be interpreted to be part of the High Density Urban. ATTA(I-P~Q~FP #18 Ms. Virginia Goldstein August 22, 2000 Page 2 I, too, shared that understanding. As such, when the owner of said properties made a request of the Council on November 4, 1988 (enclosed) to consider the properties for High Density Urban, I believed that -while it could make matters clearer - it was, nonetheless, superfluous. (Please note that the owner's letter also acknowledged that the Commission's understanding was as described above and that the current request was designed as a "To be sure" measure. ) With the understanding that proposed Amendment No. 11 covered the subject properties, I did not believe further action was necessary. However, as it was the committee's position to have every specific written public request -rather superfluous or not - be considered by the Planning Director, I included this as part of the overall review package. Although the Director did not make this part of his final package of proposals, it was not materially significant to me. It was my position that it was covered by proposed Amendment No. 11. In the end, proposed Amendment No. 11 was adopted by the Council. I trust that you find this information of assistance. Should you have questions, please feel free to call me at 961-8599. Thank you. Yours very truly, • i~ TAKA~I DOM NGO~" P.O. Box 1740 Honokaa,Hl 96727