HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0493.066 2000-2002 MICk-iAEL MATSUKAWA
ATTORNEY AT LAW ,
TERRITORIAL CENTRE, SUITE 201 ,
75-5751 KUAKINI HIGHWAY
KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740
TELEPHONE NO. 1808) 329-1385
FAX NO. IB081 329-0512
June 20, 2002
T._i . u ~~,.:"•.nu .ice a
kaki.
Chairman, County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
RE: GENERAL PLAN REVISION, ITEM NO. G-6
KALAOA, NORTH KONA
KEAHOLE GENERATOR SITE
Dear Chairman Arakaki:
During the Kailua-Kona meeting on June 19, 2002, the
Planning Department staff stated that Item No. G-6 is proposed to
be an "Urban Expansion" area because of a 1994 "interpretation"
rendered by the Planning Director.
This is HELCO's current generator station site. There is
no reason to designate this area as "Urban Expansion" unless the
County Council believes that the Council should eventually rezone
this area to let HELLO maintain and expand its station (in the
event the Hawaii Supreme Court rules that HELLO cannot expand its
station under its so-called default entitlement to expand its
station).
No. G-6 allows HELLO, if it loses in the Hawaii Supreme
Court, to ask for a change of zone to allow HELLO to expand the
plant anyway. Without No. G-6, HELLO could not do so.
Yours truly,
Michael J. Matsukawa
MJM: ] ff~131\arakaki.lt1
co~t~. No,~ ~q C®~
>G'ile No.
Fief. ~I'o: ,
[taf. IiAte ~ ZOOZ
MICHAEL .1. MATSUKAWA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
TERRITORIAL CENTRE, SUITE 201
75-5751 KUAKINI HIGHWAY
KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740
TELEPHONE NO. 18081 329-1385
FAX NO. 18081 329-0512
October 2, 2000
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
RE: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL DATED
SEPTEMBER 1, 2000
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
I reviewed a copy of the September 1, 2000 draft of the
General Plan amendment proposal at the library and a black and
white summary at the Kona Planning Department office. My comments
are noted below.
A. TWO VERSIONS OF LUPAG MAP
The LUPAG Map dated September 2000 attached to the
library copy shows the existing Keahole Ag Park/HELLO station site
as a yellow-shaded area. The black and white version at the Kona
Planning Department shows the area as proposed Industrial/
Commercial. Which is the correct or most current proposal?
I;i. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS
I believe it important to quote all of Section 3-15,
County Charter, including the implementing provisions of
subsections (a), (b) & (c). The public must know how the plan
relates to and affects the "nuts and bolts" of land use regulation
and how the General Plan is implemented in practice.
1. In this respect, it would be prudent to quote
the source of state land use laws which form the hierarchy of land
use law. The public and all officials must be able to view the
General Plan in context of the entire body of law, such as:
MICI°IA~I~ J. MA~'suKAw,~
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
October 2, 2000
Page 6
agencies and county enforcement of Chapter 205, HRS. Without an
explanation of the .effect of the new category, people will be
confused. Much of the ag lands would fall in the "other" category,
meaning they could be developed for other uses.
I. LUPAG MAP
a. North Kona ~Kalaoa~.
(1) The area occupied by the existing act
park
and HELLO station (now Extensive Ag for LUPAG purposes) is proposed
for industrial and commercial uses. This is inconsistent with the
state's Ag designation and K to.K Plan for the area. Since the
land is all ceded land, is occupied by the DHHL, DOA, other state
agencies and HELLO, what is their view?2
(2) Please note that the current HELLO station
is in this area and was slated to be closed back in 1988. Why is
the industrial designation being proposed, especially when area G-7
and G-12 near Honokohau is proposed for industrial°commercial use?
(3) What relationship does the K to K Plan
have to this specific proposal?
HELLO would be the only beneficiary of the
proposed change to industrial. Can we assume that HELLO requested
the change? If so, what is the rationale for the change? Have the
volumes of data set forth in the HLNR, circuit court, Public
Utilities Commission and Consumer Advocate's records been examined?
Have all state agencies been advised of this specific provision?
Please note that the Consumer Advocate has long argued that tI-~e
HELLO station is not needed.
Has the county Water Department, DHHL and BLNR
been consulted as to the water demands which an
industrial/commercial designation would create on the existing
water resources which are already taxed to serve existing and pent-
up demand?
Z There seems to be two versions for this area (see Item
A) .
_