The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0700.004 2006-2008 Print ~ Page 1 of 1 , From: Council Testimony (counciltestimony@.co.hawaii.hi.us) To: hawaiicounrycouncil@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:22:38 AM Subject: FW: Testimony for Bill 18l From: Anthony Ching [mailto:AChing@dbedt.hawaii.gov] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:50 PM To: counciRestimony~co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony for Bill 181 Chair Pilago: Please find attached my testimony for Bill 181 for Applicant Seascape Development LLC. Anthony J.H. Ching State Land Use Commission 235 South Beretania Honolulu ,Hawaii 96804-2359 (808) 587-3822 700. Reif! T ?nraM~l G Raf. Date OCT 1 6 2007 http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo. com/dc/launch?action=showLetter&umid=l _1009_AONkxEIA... 10/16/2007 • LINDA UNGLE s o r y AHfHONV J]1. CHVN6 GOVERNOR - 4r o, s ~ ~ ENEG/INE OFFICEP • t~,' f ~w''iods.'A~~ STATE OF HAWAII ~ DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM LAND USE COAAMISSION ro. Box 2asD HonoluW, Hawa1196004.2359 Talephrne: 000.507-3022 Fax: 000507027 October 12, 2007 I The Honorable K. Angel Pilago Chair, Committee on Planning ~ I Iawaii County Council i 25 Aupwu Street M Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chair Pilago: Subject: Bi11181- An Ordinance Amending the State Land Use Boundaries Maps for the County of Hawaii by Changing the District Classification from the f Agriatltural to the Urban District at O'oma 1~', North Kona, Hawai i, covered ~ by Tax Map Key 7-3-010:003 (Applicant: Seascape Development, LLC) (Area 10.001 acres) i While my schedule does not allow me to appear in person, I am compelled to offer this testimony on Bi11181, which is currently before the Hawaii County Council and your committee. I believe that passage of Bill 181 by the County Council of Hawaii would necessarily be in violation of the "spirit and intent" of the Land Use Law and should, instead, be more properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. I ~ base my testimony on the following facts and chain of events. ~ 1. The subject area is a 10.001-acre pazcel located within the State Land Use Agricultural District. 2. The subject area was derived fmm a portion of a larger 50--acre parcel, formerly identified as TMK No.: (3)7-3-010: 063. Subdivision of this 50-acre parcel produced five parcels. These parcels include: Parcel 3 -the subject area, consisting of 10.001 acres; Parcel 51-consisting of 10.001 acres; The Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 12, 2007 Page 2 Parce152 - consisting of 12.892 acres; Parce153 -consisting of 14.583 acres; and Parce154 -consisting of a 2,594 acre roadway lot bisecting the four above- mentioaled parcels. 3. The area now known as Parce151, formerly known as TMK No. (3)7~-010: 003 (portion) was reclassified to the State Land Use {SLU) Urban District by the County pursuant to §205-3.1(c), Hawaii Revised Statutes (I3RS). In its correspondence to the County of Hawaii Planning Department dated March 31, 2064 (attachment A), Land Use Commission (LUC) staff expressed concern regarding the potential development of the entire 50-acre parcel in a piece meal fashion. At that 6me, staff recommended that the County of Hawaii comprehensively consider the entire parcel• as a single development, especially if similar residential and related uses were proposed an that 50-acre parcel LUC staff also noted that the Third Circuit Court had ruled that projects should be reviewed by state and county agencies in an integrated and comprehensive mamler. 4, At the tune that the County of Hawaii considered the reclassification of the area now known as Parcel 51, the entire 50-acre parcel had received tentative subdivision approval for the parcel configuration that is described in item no. 2. During the caurse of the County's hearing on the reclassification of Parcel 57, Pluming Commissioner Graham expressed concern regarding the "segmentation° of the 10.001-acre development proposal from the larger 50-acre area. (TR: June 18, 2004, pg. 19, para. 4) 5. At the April 21, 2006 meeting of the County of Hawaii Planning Commission, the + applicant's planning consultant,lVlr. Sidney Fuke, stated that "...there are three other parcels that were part of this subdivision and which at some point are going in for entitlement." {TR: Apri121, 2006, pg. 5, para. l) 1 The Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 12, 2007 Page 3 At this same meeting, Direc#or Christopher Yuen indicated that the assurances given by the Applicant (aka Westpro Development} that an extension of Kakahiaka Sheet would be built was in the context of °a property owner who owns several lots and potentially develop the lots in the immediate area." ('I'R: Apri121, 2006, pg. 7, para. 5) 6. At the May 5, 2006 meeting of the County of Hawaii Planning Commission, Mr, Puke stated that, "I can tell you that the Applicant right now who also owns the re~naating three parcels will be filing for a SLU District Boundary Amendment for the remaining area to continue this type of a project (1'R: May 5, 2006, pg. 4, para. 5) 7. On September 22, 2004, the Hawaii County Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-105 reclassifying 10.001 acres of land from the SLU Agricultural District to the SLU Urban District. 8. In the later months of 2006, the Applicant (Seascape Development, LLC) requested of and received a LUC docket number (LUC Docket No. A06-768) for the purposes of processing a petition far district boundary amendment (DBA) with the Land Use Commission. Since receiving that docket ntunber, the Applicant has not yet filed any petition with the Comrission. 9. Contrary to their stated intentions, Seascape Development LLC filed utstead, an application with the Counl of Hawaii for State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 10.001 acres of land from the Agriculiural to the Urban District. I have communicated my conrnrn to Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director of Planning that the subject petition for DBA should be properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission, but have yet to receive a response which address my concerns. 10. I subsequently appeared before the Planning Commission on July 20, 2007 and provided oral testimony expressing my concerns and offered to discuss strategies with the Petitioner which might still allow this very worthy project to move forward in a legally defensible manner. The matter was continued by the Commission to allow defects in notice to be corrected. The Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 12, 2007 Page 4 11.On August 31, 2007, the P1amling Commission resumed and completed their hearing on the petition for District Boundary Amendment and recommended that the matter (without amendments responding to my previous testimony) be approved by the County Council. Due to a conflict in my schedule, I was not able to appear before the Planning Commission and again provide testimony expressing concern with respect to the reclassification of the subject lands. Findings and Conclusion The LUC is charged with the overall administration of the State Land Use Law (Chapter 205 I-lRS). As such, the L.UC must be the final arbiter (where any controversy exists) in determinnlg whether a petifion for DBA (pursuant to §205- 3.1 bIRS) is appropriately before an individual county. Wlule §205-3.1 I-IRS of the Stafie Land Use Law provides that petitions for D8A involving 15 acres or less are within the juirisdiction of the appropriate county authority; should the cumulative project involve acreage greater than 15 acres, that pefition is subject to the jurisdiction of the LUC. • The subject petition for DBA of 10.001 acres of land represents the sewnd action by this appiicant to urbanize a portion of their origina150-acre holding. • LUC staff previously expressed concerns that the County of I-lawaii should comprehensively consider tlm 50-acre parcel as a single development if similar residentia3 and related uses were proposed on that 50-acres. • An individual County of Hawaii Planning Commissioner has already expressed concerns as to the "segmentation" of the initial 10.001 acre parcel from the larger 50-acre project. • Appendix E of the subject petition for DBA is a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) fora 50-acre residential development composed of four separate "lots°. The project plaiuied for "Lot A1" is the same residential project described in the subject application. The TIAR considers the 50-acre as a single project. The Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 12, 2007 Page 5 • The ownership and development of the 50-acre area is apparently being pursued by the same entity (Westpro Development LLC/Seascape Development LLC - A1aznDickler). • The subject petition for District Boundary Amendment should properly be before Use LUC as the cunndative project encompassing 20.002 acres is beyond the jurisdiction of the County of Hawaii. • If not submitted to the jurisdiction of the LUC, I believe that this project might otherwise be certified by the appropriate County or State housing agency and processed as a 201I1-38 HRS "fast track affordable housing project " While fine developer had 'indicated tome an interest in pursuing this strategy, their actions before the Planning Conunission or County Council have not matched their stated intentions. Conclusion. Given the history and actions of the petitioner for DBA for the 50-acre area, the comments and findings that I have outlined in this letter, it is my belief that the subject petition for DBA should be properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the LUC. I am deeply concerned that despite my testimony and objections, it is the recommendation of the County of I-Iawaii Planning Commission that this petition for District Boundary Amendment be approved by the County Council. Sincerely, t ANTHONY RING Executive Officer c: Chair, County of Hawaii Planning Corrunission Chair, Hawaii County Council Mary Lou Kobayashi, Acting Director, Office of Planning