COM 0092.024 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: Claudia Rohr [cloud@hilo.net] r. Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:55 AM c~°~-J ~L ~ ~ -I ~ ~ To: Higa, Stacy; Safarik, Gary; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: RE: Bill 356- Continental Pacific, LLC ~ . ~lJl-~i .lip Connie Kiriu County Clerk Gary Safarik, Chair Hawaii County Councol County Building 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, HI 96720 Chris Yuen Planning Director Hawaii County Planning Department Re: Bill 356 Dear Ms. Kiriu and Mr. Safarik, Dear Honorable Chair Gary Safarik and County Council Members, Please review the email communication dated October 8, 2004 to Chris Yuen and Councilman Jacobson, forwarded with this email. I talked to Bob Jacobs shortly thereafter and was led to Connie Kiriu the County's legislative auditor. I ask the question of Connie: "/snY it more correct for the County Council to approve a motion: to amendment Ord. 84-46 (REZ 477], to rezone a 6.84-acne portion of Tax Map Key (3)2-8-8-104, (formerly known as Tax Map Key (3) 2-$-7-53), from Industrial to Residerutial to avoid conflicting conditions"? Connie said she would research it or have her assistant research it. Connie has seen amendments to rezoning ordinances before. I also asked the Clerk's office if I could get a copy of the transcripts and files for ORD. 84-46. Staff agreed to try to find the files in the basement. I also contact David Frankel and asked the same questions. I started my inquiries in the Fall and into the new year. I think my inquiries were forgotten because there was such a flurry of activity and necessary work to try to keep up with the Council's review and approval of the General Plan. I explain this only to show I have been attempting to get a cog~y of the transcripts and a review of the file. Please consider this a formal request for information under the freedom of snformation act. It is my opinion that theere is a conflict between ORD. 84-46 and Bill 356. In both cases there were SMA permits and REZ application reviews, weth discussions and communications concerning requirements and conditions. I have been arguing that Bill 356 is "undoing" existing public access to the shoreline discussed and confirmed in the former SMA 221 and REZ 477 without proper na~tice and review. The Planning Director has argued back that the public had been allowed to fish at the Mill but the access was not formalized. The Planning Director has argued back that the public access was not a condition of the permiit and rezoning ordinance. I have argued back that the existence of the public access to the shoreline at both the Mill and the old camp was a requirement of SMA 221 as amended and was listed in the Hawaii County 1979 Inventory of Public Access to the Shoreline. Approximately thirty acres of TMK 3-2-8-7-53 (formerly Hilo Coast Processing Company) had previously been rezoned from Agricultural to Industrial by adoption of ORD. 84-46 [REZ 477] in 1984 and only 6.64 acres (Parcel "C") is now being included in Bill 356. Approximately twenty-three acres of TMK (3) 2-8-8-104 will remain SMA 221 Industrial. The Hilo Coast Power Company may negotiate a new contract and continue to operate under SMA 221. Also, the Planning Department has indicated on several forms and in a letter that SMA 221 applies to the coal ash pile, which is still in operation. SMA 221 and the Hilo Coast Power Company's storm water pollution plan (NPDES permit #H10000191) indicates the coal storage pile's drainage features are overlapping onto the project area described in Bill 356. Therefore the Council is reviewing and potentially approving conflicting and overlapping uses. Please calf me when the Ord. 84-46 [REZ 477] file is available. Comm. No. ' Z Ref. To: ~rasnai~erl Ref. Dare i