Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> s <br /> RE Bill 371 as Violation of HRS Chapter 343 March 7, 1997 <br /> 6. As we have seen, this proposed General Plan amendment is nat part of a <br /> comprehens/ve revJew, but rather an interim amendment. This interim amendment is thus <br /> not excepted from the provisions of EIS Rule 11-200-5(e). <br /> 7. Therefore, an environmental assessment must be prepared by the County before this <br /> General Plan amendment can be adopted. <br /> 8. The EIS prepared by Oceanside 1250 for their project is inapplicable, insofar as it is <br /> specifically for an applicant-proposed action (that is, private), and not for this <br /> agency-proposed, County action. Chapter 343 Dearly states that an EIS for an agency <br /> adlon must tie prepared by ~e agrer?cy. <br /> 9. Finally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Oceanside 1250's EIS could <br /> be used by the County, that EIS does not address a Genera! Plan amendment to Resort. In <br /> fact, when discussing the project's relation to the "Resort" Land Use section of the General <br /> Plan, the EIS states: <br /> Resort development is not a pert of the present proposal (p. 179) <br /> I advise the County Counal not to adopt Bill 371, since the amendment to a Resort <br /> designation will violate HRS Chapter 343 unless an environment assessment is first <br /> undertaken by the County. <br /> Further, the County Council should not adopt the accompanying zoning ordinance, since it <br /> depends on adoption of the General Plan amendment; and as v?e have seen, that <br /> amendment violates the law. <br /> Should the County Council adopt Bill 371, and should the Mayor sign the bill into law, <br /> without the provisions of HRS Chapter 343 first being followed, I expect to challenge the <br /> General Plan amendment in Court. <br /> Thank you for your attention. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> G/ G~G~~ <br /> CJ tlla <br /> • Page 2 <br /> <br />