The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0106.023 2004-2006 Honorable Virginia Isbell Honorable K. Angel Pilago County Council County of Hawaii Kailua Trade Center 75-5706 Hanama Place, Suite 109 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 RE: STATE LAND USE AMENDMENT (AG TO URBAN) COUNTY REZONING (AG TO CN-20) Applicant: Puaa Development LLC (14.973 Acres) - and - STATE LAND USE AMENDMENT (AG TO URBAN) COUNTY REZONING (AG TO RM 2.5) Applicant: Suffolk Investment LLC (18.87 Acres) Hearing Date: April 12, 2005 (6:00 P.M.) Dear Councilpersons Isbell and Pilago: I am writing in response to these two applications, both of which seek to amend the state land use boundary and to amend the county zoning district for the two parcels of adjoining land. A. State LUC Concern The Executive Director of the State Land Use Commission (Mr. Anthony Ching) questioned whether the two applications actually constitute a single proposal involving more than 15 acres of land. Section 205-3.1, HRS provides: (a) District boundary amendments involving land areas greater than fifteen acres shall be processed by the land use commission Even if there are no financial or entity connections between the two applicants and no pre-existing development plan between the applicants, the two applicants are bringing their projects forward together affecting a combined area of 28+ acres. Comm, No: Z !j o F i Ref, To; eta . Honorable K. Angel Pilago Page 2 Furthermore, both applicants are required to improve what is called "Easement 1" that covers land lying outside of the affected parcels' boundaries. "Easement 1" must be improved as a condition in SUB 2000-0201 and functions as a connector road between Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. When the area of "Easement 1" is added into the area of each parcel, the total "involved" area will probably exceed 15 acres for each parcel. Section 205-3.1(a), HRS emphasizes that the affected land area is the key criterion: "(c) District boundary amendments involving land areas greater than fifteen acres shall be processed by the land use commission." In summary, the Executive Director's conclusion has merit and you should study this issue before taking action on the two applications. B. Zoning Issues 1. Puaa Development (CN-20) Bill 32 proposes to rezone 14.973 acres (TMK 7-5- 17: 1) to CN-20. This parcel lies along the makai side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. In its formal application (rezoning checklist), the applicant states that it does not propose to subdivide the parcel after rezoning and, further, that it has not conducted a study to determine the need for its project. The County Council is now being asked to rezone the parcel for some generalized "concept." Bill 32 states that the applicant may build at least 100 "housing" units (housing is permitted in a CN zoning district), but there is no subdivision or housing proposal appended to the application. The application shows plans for commercial development only. Bill 32 simply rezones the parcel to CN-20, which action will permit the applicant to place commercial uses, housing and other uses on the parcel in any combination of its choosing. Honorable K. Angel Pilago Page 3 Bill 32, further, does not require the applicant to build a shopping center at all, the use that the applicant proposes in its application. Instead, Bill 32 requires the applicant to build 50 "housing" units before the applicant may obtain certificates of occupancy for commercial structures. Nonetheless, the applicant is left with the discretion to place a mix of housing and commercial uses or housing only on the parcel. Finally, since the formal application (rezoning checklist) states that the applicant will not subdivide the parcel after rezoning, how will "housing" units be separated from the commercial structures on site? How will "housing" units be developed and sold? In summary, Bill 32 gives the applicant a "blanket" CN-20 designation without a proven need therefor and without any condition or limitation on the future use of the parcel. If the Council intends to give the applicant such a "blanket" privilege, the Council should so inform the public. 2. Suffolk Investment (RM 2.5) Bill 30 proposes to rezone 14.87 acres (TMK 7-5- 17: 19) to RM 2.5. Although public announcements refer to the "affordable" nature of the project, Bill 30 does not contain any express limitation on the proposed project except that the applicant maintain rental housing for at least 20 years and that the applicant comply with Chapter 11, Article 1 (Article 1 requires only a percentage of units be subject to the county's affordable housing policy and guidelines). In the absence of clearly articulated conditions, only a fraction of the rental units will be occupied by the target group and at an "affordable" rent. In summary, Bill 30 gives the applicant a "blanket" RM 2.5 designation with a requirement that only a fraction of units be used for "affordable" rentals. If the County Council intends to give the applicant such a privilege, the Council should so inform the public. Honorable K. Angel Pilago Page 4 Closing The state Land Use Commission's Executive Director's comment that the State Land Use Commission may have jurisdiction over the state boundary amendment applications is supported by the fact that each application "involves" an area greater than 15 acres. The rezoning bills lack conditions to ensure that the applicants, the community and the Council all have a clear understanding of what will be actually built should the parcels be rezoned to CN-20 and RM 2.5, respectively. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Respectfully submitted, Z~~ ~s'-~7 I {0.~ Enc. cc: Anthony Ching (State LUC) Sidney Fuke, Consultant Puaa Development (CN-20) (14.973 acres) `menu Hwy. tee'; p-y Kuakini Hveyl rr~s A-Sf A- CN~fO p-3s A-Sa p-Sa "Easement 1", SUB 2000-0201 uak/ni A-ta straddling property lines. wy, and must Ue improved prior' to issuance of certificates of occupancy Suffolk Investment (RbS 2.5) (14.87 acres)