HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0107.016 1996-1998 756100 Aul DRIVE PHONE (SOS) 3296753
(C)[ C36
KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740 CJV@ALOHA.NET
~rlr~ 3~ 7 ~ 7
March 7, 1997 ~1 4i rt
l1
Counalman James Arakaki
Chairman, Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI
Dear Chairman Arakaki:
Subject; Bill No. 371 Requires a County~xepared HRS Chapter 343
Environmental Assessment
Bill number 371, which proposes to amend a portion of the General Plan from "Orchards" to
"Resort', will violate Hawaii state law, unless an environmental assessment is first prepared
by tl?e County, according to the requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter
343. These are the reasons:
1. This General Plan amendment is a County action, since it was initiated by the Planning
Director pursuant to Section 315 of the Hawaii County Charter, and Section 6.4(b) of
Ordinance 89-142 (which is, itself, the General Plan).
2. Further, this General Plan amendment is by definition an interim amendment. Section
Cr4(b) of the General Plan, under which this proposal was initiated, is titled "Interim
amendments".
3. Moreover, the language of Section 6-4(B)(4) of the General Plan, which applies
specifically to Planning Director-initiated amendments, further distinguishes this as an
interim amendment, and not an amendment pursuant to comprehensive review.
4. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Rules, Section 11-200-5, define when
environmental assessments are required for "Agency actions". Under these rules -
which derive their authority from HRS Chapter 343 -the offices of the Planning Director,
as well as the Mayor, are considered "agencies". The proposed General Plan
amendment is therefore an "agency action", since it was initiated by the Planning
Director, and is finalized by the Mayor.
5. EIS Rule 11-200-5(e) reads in relevant part:
Any amendment to existing county general pians...where the amendment
would result in designations other than agriculture, conservation or
preservation requires an environmental assessment. (Actions by a county
initiating a comprehensivoe review toward effectuating either a general plan
or amendment thereof may be excepted). (emphasis added)
Corr~? xa O ' 6
I~'Ile loo. ZNG~1cM
~rosent@d Co~~ n1c~ L
};~f. To:
Bpi. tom. MAR 7 1997
s
RE Bill 371 as Violation of HRS Chapter 343 March 7, 1997
6. As we have seen, this proposed General Plan amendment is nat part of a
comprehens/ve revJew, but rather an interim amendment. This interim amendment is thus
not excepted from the provisions of EIS Rule 11-200-5(e).
7. Therefore, an environmental assessment must be prepared by the County before this
General Plan amendment can be adopted.
8. The EIS prepared by Oceanside 1250 for their project is inapplicable, insofar as it is
specifically for an applicant-proposed action (that is, private), and not for this
agency-proposed, County action. Chapter 343 Dearly states that an EIS for an agency
adlon must tie prepared by ~e agrer?cy.
9. Finally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Oceanside 1250's EIS could
be used by the County, that EIS does not address a Genera! Plan amendment to Resort. In
fact, when discussing the project's relation to the "Resort" Land Use section of the General
Plan, the EIS states:
Resort development is not a pert of the present proposal (p. 179)
I advise the County Counal not to adopt Bill 371, since the amendment to a Resort
designation will violate HRS Chapter 343 unless an environment assessment is first
undertaken by the County.
Further, the County Council should not adopt the accompanying zoning ordinance, since it
depends on adoption of the General Plan amendment; and as v?e have seen, that
amendment violates the law.
Should the County Council adopt Bill 371, and should the Mayor sign the bill into law,
without the provisions of HRS Chapter 343 first being followed, I expect to challenge the
General Plan amendment in Court.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
G/ G~G~~
CJ tlla
• Page 2