Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0998.017 2006-2008>. CARLSMITH BALL LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP 121 WAIANUENUE AVENUE P.O. Box 686 Hao, HAWAII 96721-0686 1~LEPHONe $08.935.6644 FAX $0$.935.797$ W W W.CARISMrrH.COM SLIM®CARLSMITH.COM OUR REFERENCE NO.: 0588225-1 September 8, 2008 V[A HAND DELIVERY Honorable Peter Hoffmann, Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council 333 Kilauea Avenue, Second Floor ;,r~ Hilo, HI 96720 - ;-` ;~' Re: Kohala LLC -Bill No. 237 (Draft 2) _. ' Tax Map Key No. (3) 5-9-001: 008 (37.88f acres) at North Kohala, Hawaii Planning Director Initiated Repeal of Ordinance No. 97-102 and Downzoning From RS-15 District to RA-15a District; and Repeal of Ordinance No. 97-102 Deaz Chair Hoffmann and Members of the Hawaii County Council: 0 we r•~ m We represent Kohala LLC, the owner of the above referenced property located in North Kohala (the "Subject Property "). I am writing to inform you that the proposed downzoning of the Subject Property from RS-15 to RA-15a (the "Downzoning") is illegal and that the County Council should vote against this proposed Downzoning. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and believe that after consultation with Corporation Counsel, you and the other members of the Hawaii County Council, will agree that there are numerous legal defects with the proposed Downzoning. For a variety of reasons the Downzoning is illegal. First of all, it is inconsistent with the General Plan, would result in illegal spot zoning, and therefore contravenes State law. Second of all, the proposed Downzoning is tantamount to a taking without just compensation and therefore violates the U.S. and Hawaii State Constitutions. Thirdly, if enacted, the Downzoning would violate Kohala's rights to substantive and procedural due process, as well as equal protection under the laws, all Constitutional violations. Finally, the proposed Downzoning is being pushed through without the mandatory environmental review. Although this testimony is being submitted in response to the proposed RA-15a Downzoning, the azguments presented herein apply to the Planning Director's previous attempt to downzone the Subject Property to RA-Sa zoning, and we incorporate by reference herein all correspondence, memoranda and :7', r~~ ;' -. ~- ?7 ~-) arguments presented by Kohala LLC in the RA-Sa downzoning proceedings. Comm. No. q 7 S. ~ 7 Ref. To: ~r®aepted k Ref. pate SFp 2 HONOLULU KAPOLEI ~ HILO ~ KONA ~ MAUI ~ GUAM SAIPAN LOS ANGELES Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair September 8, 2008 Page 2 The County's singular and unprecedented "vendetta against Kohala has been charging ahead since May 2007, despite grave concerns expressed by certain members of the Planning Commission over the unfairness of the proposed actions. In this time, Kohala has vigorously fought all proposed downzonings, and has obtained support from nationally recognized scholazs in the fields of land use and takings law. Despite the militant approach that the County has taken, neither of the two proposed downzonings have been enacted. That is because the proposed downzonings are so azbitrary and unfair that the actions conflict with the fundamental Constitutional notion that a taking occurs when the government forces "some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. U.S., 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960). Downzoning the Subject ' Property to RA-15a, or RA-Sa would force Kohala to beaz the public burden of maintaining open space and viewplanes. If the people truly desire such public benefits, the people should be willing to compensate the landowner forced to provide such benefits. I. Zoning and the General Plan Today, as in 1997 when Ordinance No. 97-102 ("Ord. 97-102") was enacted, the. Subject Property is surrounded by properties zoned A-Sa. The azea's zoning designations have not changed. Therefore, the zoning authorized under Ord. 97-102 continues to be valid. The State granted the counties the power to zone land under HRS § 46-4, which:; states that "[z]oning in all counties shall be accomplished within the framework of a long-range comprehensive general plan prepared or being prepazed to guide the overall future development of the county." The proposed Downzoning is inconsistent with the General Plan and therefore exceeds the authority granted by the State to the County. Inconsistency with the General Plan means that if enacted, the Downzoning would amount to a violation of the County Charter and constitute illegal spot zoning. "Spot zoning is an azbitrary zoning action by which a small azea within a large azea is singled out and specially zoned for a use classification different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding azea and not in accord with comprehensive plan." Life of the Land, Inc. v. Ciry County of Ciry and County of Honolulu, 61 Haw. 390, 429 (1980). While the County has the power to zone, under no circumstances may the County engage in spot zoning. Lum Yip Kee, Ltd. v. Clty and County of Honolulu, 70 Haw.179, 190 (1989). When the County Council enacted Ordinance No. 97-102, development of 50 single family lots on the Subject Property was found to be in conformance with the General Plan. The LUPAG Map designation for the Subject Property in 1997 was Low Density Urban. In 2005 the General Plan was amended. However, the LUPAG designation for the Subject Property remained exactly the same. In fact, although property immediately to the north was redesignated from Extensive Agriculture to Conservation, the designations for the Subject Property were left completely intact. Therefore, the proposed Downzoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, and its enactment would contravene both the Hawaii County Charter and State law. Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair September 8, 2008 Page 3 In an intellectually dishonest effort to confuse law with halfhearted aspirations, some have pointed to certain Senate Resolutions to support the Downzoning. The defect in this line of reasoning is that Resolutions do not have the force and effect of law. In fact, under our State Constitution, every law must be introduced in the form of a bill. Therefore, these Senate Resolutions have absolutely no legal effect and therefore offer no support for the proposed Downzoning. Senate Concurrent Resolution 179 was passed in 1988, nine yeazs before Ord. 97- 102 was enacted. The policy expressed in the Resolution was a desire for State and County governments to work together to ensure the preservation of public view and open space makai of the Kawaihae-Mahukona-Hawi Road. When the County Council passed Ord. 97-102 in 1997 it was well awaze of Senate Concurrent Resolution 179. Perhaps the Resolution encouraged some of the conditions of approval imposed under Ord. 97-102. Whatever the case may be, Senate Concurrent Resolution 179 is not law and cannot now be used by the County Council as a sword to effect the proposed Downzoning. Similazly, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 146, passed in 2001, is not law and cannot be used to substantiate the proposed Downzoning. Not only is it a legal nullity, the concepts presented in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 149 did not even find their way into the 2005 amendment to the General Plan. Obviously any attempt to use either Senate Resolution to substantiate the proposed Downzoning must fail in light of the fact that the current zoning of the Subject Property remains consistent with the General Plan (which, unlike a Resolution, is law) : despite the 2005 amendment to the General Plan. Another shell game being played to further the proposed Downzoning is based on the goals and policies of the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan. This rationale fails because the goals and policies of the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan have remained the same since 1989, and Ord. 97-102 was enacted with the express finding that the SO lot subdivision was consistent with the General Plan. In 1997 the Planning Director made specific findings that the Kohala LLC proposed 50-lot RS-15 zoned residential subdivision complied with the General Plan: The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project does confonn to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates this area for Low Density Urban. Lot Density designation refers to single family residential in chazacter, ancillary community and public uses and convenience type commercial uses. This designation does not refer to density limitations however, this designation generally has been at a density of 4 units per acre. The average density relating to the proposed request (50 lots over 38+ acres) would amount to 1.5 units per acre. Therefore, it is determined that the request is consistent with the urban form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kohala. Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair September 8, 2008 Page 4 See SMA Permit No. 379 at 4. Therefore, it is impossible for the 2005 General Plan, with its identical goals and policies, to support the proposed Downzoning. Today, just like in 1997, the Subject Property is identified as an area of Natural Beauty under the General Plan. Obviously that designation is consistent with RS-15 zoning, otherwise Ord. 97-102 would never have been enacted. The General Plan's Natural Beauty goals aze exactly the same today as they were when Ord. 97-102 was enacted. See Table 1 enclosed herein. The Natural Beauty policies aze almost identical today as they were in 1997, and the minor changes cannot fairly be called significant, especially in light of the overall consistency of the entire Natural Beauty section. II. Taking Without Compensation Currently Kohala has the right to develop 50 single family lots on the Subject Property. Under the Downzoning, Kohala would be able to develop no more than 2 single family lots. In other words, by enacting the Downzoning the Council would make Kohala suffer a 96% reduction in the number of permitted lots, a catastrophic taking of Kohala's property interests. A regulatory taking that leaves the landowner with some economically viable use of his property still requires compensation. Such situations aze referred to as partial regulatory takings, and the government is obligated to pay the landowner for the property rights taken. "Compensation is due when this test indicates that plaintiffwas singled out to bear a burden which ought to be paid for by society as a whole." Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. U.S. 45 Fed. Cl. 21, 23 (1999). Dressing up the taking in the legislative gazb of a rezoning does nothing to eliminate the fact that under either RA-15a or RA-Sa zoning, Kohala would be forced to carry a burden that ought to be paid by the County as a whole. If the County believes the Subject Property should be left in open space, the County must compensate Kohala for its loss. III. Substantive Due Process Violations The right of substantive due process (protected under the U.S. and Hawaii State Constitutions) means that an individual is protected from unfair and azbitrary governmental action. Governments cannot be discriminatory and apply laws with an "evil eye" or "an unequal hand." The Downzoning smacks of bias; it is unfair, irrational and azbitrary, and if passed will give rise to Kohala's claim for denial of its rights of substantive due process. t Why is Kohala being targeted as the sole landowner to face such an involuntary downzoning? The County simply does not do this. In fact, over the past 8 years, the County has not processed any involuntary downzonings. According to the Planning Director, the last ~ Avery recent Ninth Circuit decision made clear that property owners have independent causes of action with respect to takings claims and due process claims. In other words, Kohala is free to file an action on its takings claim (taking of property without just compensation) separate from any due process claim (victim of irrational and arbitrary land use regulations). See Crown Point Development, LLC v. City of Sun Valley, 315 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007). Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair September 8, 2008 Page $ involuntarily downzonings occurred iii 1982, more than 25 years ago, and even those 1982 downzonings were in response to the Geheral.Plari amendment in 1979. This history is more . fully described in my letter of Mazch 18, 2008, to Chairman Rodney Watanabe, relevant portions of which are enclosed herein as Exhibit A. Since Kohala's first appeazance in front of the Planning Commission in July 2007, we have beeri asking "why Kohala LLC?" More than a year later, with the benefit of a lot more research into the Planning Department's files, we still do not know why Kohala has been selected for this azbitrary and irrational treatment. IV. Equal Protection Uneven application of County procedures and disregazd of Kohala's numerous attempts to find a workable solution to address the Planning Director's concerns, raise questions over whether Kohala is being provided equal protection under the laws. Despite its strong legal position, Kohala remains open to working with the County to find a legal and fair way of addressing the Planning Director's concems. To date, Kohala's attempts have been rebuffed, strengthening its belief that the Downzoning is not a fair and rational legislative action, but rather an irrational, isolated and tazgeted attack. V. Non-Compliance with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343 Requirements By the Planning Director's own words, an environmental assessment must be prepared poor to this proposed Downzoning. Therefore, the Downzoning cannot be enacted until an EA/EIS is conducted. The Planning Director's memorandum states that: [A] rezoning or a county council state land use boundary amendment is not the type of approval that will create the need for an EA, because state law defines the EA trigger as an "agency action", and the county council is not an "agency" under Chap. 343. It is not part of the executive branch of government. However, a rezoning is almost invariably followed by a subdivision or plan approval, which is an "agency action." Because Chap. 343 says that an EA should be done at the eazliest practicable time, if a rezoning has a "trigger" for an EA, and if it is not exempt, and if the rezoning is going to be followed bXa subdivision or plan approval, then the EA should be done prior to the rezonin¢. In the case of a rezoning that would not be followed by a subdivision or plan approval (which is probably rare), no EA will be required, even if there is a trigger. (Emphasis added.) Logically, it is anticipated that the Downzoning would be followed by a subdivision of the Subject Property into 2 lots. Therefore, an EA must be processed prior to the; Council enacting the proposed Downzoning. Failure to follow this stated County procedure with respect to rezonings and the preparation of an EA will only further Kohala's claims of substantive and procedural due process violations. Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair September 8, 2008 Page 6 VI. Conclusion We respectfully request that the County Couhcil take these serious issues into consideration and vote against the proposed Downzoning. The proposed Downzoning is illegal, unfair and unnecessary. Kohala has demonstrated a willingness to work in collaboration with the County to find acceptable development criteria foi• the Subject Property that will not require the County to pay just compensation to Kohala. However, if the County continues to resist Kohala's good faith attempts to collaborate, Kohala will have no choice but to bring legal action to protect its Constitutionally protected rights. Very truly yours, Steve SSL/jabl Attachment(s) cc: Kohala LLC A. Self, Esq., Attorney for the Planning Director C. Jarman, Esq., County Clerk L. Ashida, Esq., Corporation Counsel 4815-3663-7954.1.058825-00001 Table 1: General Plan Goals and Policies NATURAL 1989 General Plan 2005 General Plan BEAUTY GOALS Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty, including areas endowed with natural beauty, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. the quality of coastal scenic resources. Protect scenic vistas and view planes from Protect scenic vistas and view plans from becomin obstructed. becomin obstructed. Maximize opportunities for present and future Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beaut . and scenic beaut POLICIES Increase public pedestrian access Increase public pedestrian access 0 ortunities to scenic laces and vistas, o ortunities to scenic laces and vistas. The County of Hawaii shall establish view Develop and establish view plane regulations plane regulations to preserve and enhance to preserve and enhance views of scenic or views of scenic or prominent landscapes from prominent landscapes from specific locations, specific locations, and coastal aesthetic and coastal aesthetic values. t values. The County of Hawaii shall maintain a Maintain a continuing program to identify, continuing program to identify, acquire and acquire and develop viewing sites on the develo viewin sites on the island. island. Access easement to public or private lands Access easement to public or private, lands which have natural or scenic value shall be which have natural or scenic value shall be rovided or ac uired for the ublic. rovided or ac uired for the ublic. Standazd criteria for natural and scenic beauty Develop standazd criteria for natural sand shall be developed as part of design plans. scenic beauty shall be developed as part of desi n lans. The County shall. consider structural setback Consider structural setback from major from major thoroughfares and highways and thoroughfares and highways and establish shall establish development and design development and design guidelines to protect uidelines to rotect im ortant vie lanes. im ortant vie lanes. The County of Hawaii shall maintain a Maintain a continuing program to identify continuing program to identify exceptional exceptional trees or tree masses. trees or tree masses. Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by cazefully considering the effects of proposed construction during al] land use reviews. Do not allow incompatible construction in azeas of natural beau[ . W~ ~~ CARLSMITH BALL LLP A UMrtEO LuEn.rrr LAW PARTNERSHIP ~1 121 WAIANUENUE AVENUE P.O. Sox 686 Ii1LO, HAWAII 96721-0686 TELEPHONE 808.935.6644 FAx 808.935.7975 W W W.CARLSMICH.COM SLa16CARLSMmr.COM Mazch 18, 2008 Rodney Watanabe Chairman, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 n Cam) c_. "' -, ~ 3 .J _-~ F-J ~ ~-i ~ r., .. _- v -- ~ _. .r ~.. ,-. _ co Re: Kohala LLC Zoning Ordinance No. 97-102: Special Management Area Use Permit No. 379 Dear Chair Watanabe and Members: On behalf of the Applicant Kohala LLC, this will request that the Planning Commission approve our request to extend the time limits for completion of the project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (clean and redline versions), as it is obvious from the review of the facts that the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and revocation of the SMA Permit in this matter is manifestly unfair and illegal. Since our last hearing before the Planning Commission, we conducted further reseazch on the history of involuntary downzonings and SMA Permit revocations by the County of Hawaii. As previously discussed, in the last eight yeazs or so, the County of Hawaii has not processed any involuntary downzonings, and the only involuntary SMA permit revocation of which we aze awaze was for a project that subsequently obtained another SMA permit and is proceeding with development. In fact (as shown by the Planning Director's research) the County of Hawaii's last action to involuntarily downzone properties was 26 years ago in 1982, and those downzonings were initiated as an islandwide effort to conform with the then-recently amended July l6, 1979 General Plan. Pointedly, the proposed Kohala LLC downzoning is the only property under the threat of downzoning today. To further illustrate why the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and SMA Permit revocation is unfair and illegal, attached hereto aze documents that HONOLULU - KAPOLEI ~ HRO KONA MAN GUAM SAPAN LOS ANGELES EXHIBIT A o '~-~ ~ evcx xc t~ ' h~ ~ M CARLSMITH BALL ~+~(RflR ? 8 PPl `! 22' A C.(MI'IED LIAEfLnY LAW PAKRJERSHIP 121 WALWUENUE AVENUE P.O. Box 686 tin.D,liAwal %721-0666 'I1:LEPHONE 608.935.6644 FAX 808.935.797$ W W W.CAR[SM7rH.COM S1AfYCARLSMITH.COM Mazch 18, 2008 Rodney Watanabe Chairman, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 i~'~Al~ii~iiiiG ~:Ci"^,1=iTA4ENT CGUIJT•Y Gr HAVVAII Re: Kohala LLC Zonine Ordinance No. 97-102• Special Manaeement Area Use Permit No 379 Deaz Chair Watanabe and Members: On behalf of the Applicant Kohala LLC, this will request that the Planning Commission approve our request to extend the time limits for completion of the project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (clean and redline versions), as it is obvious from the review of the facts that the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and revocation of the SMA Permit in this matter is manifestly unfair and illegal. Since our last hearing before the Planning Commission, we conducted further research on the history of involuntary downzonings and SMA Permit revocations by the County of Hawaii. As previously discussed, in the last eight yeazs or so, the County of Hawaii has not processed involuntary downzonings, and the only involuntary SMA permit revocation of which we are awaze was for a project that subsequently obtained another SMA permit and is proceeding with development. In fact (as shown by the Planning Director's research) the County of Hawaii's last action to involuntarily downzone properties was 26 years ago in 1982, and those downzonings were initiated as an islandwide effort to conform with the then-recently amended July 16, 1979 General Plan. Pointedly, the proposed Kohala LLC downzoning is the only property under the threat of downzoning today. To fitrther illustrate why the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and SMA Pennit revocation is unfair and illegal, attached hereto aze documents that HONOLULU KAPOLEI HILO KONA MAN ~ CVAM BAPAN LOS ANGELES M ~ ~ ~ ti~IL~ CARLSMITH.BALL LLP A I.omeo t.uenm uw PAR•MertsHm I21 WAUMJENUE AV8MU8 P.O. Box 656 Hn.o, HAwAa 96711-0686 7ti,evHON8808.935.6614 FAX 80&935.7975 W W W.CAR(ShnrFI.COM sIA4~C~R15M(f ti.COtN March 18, 2008 Rodney Watanabe Chairman, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members, Planning Commission County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RECEIVED 2008 ~IflR 18 P(~ 4 23 CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTI' OF HAWAII Re: Kohala LLC 4 Zoning Ordinance No. 97-102: Special Management Atea Use Permit No. 379 !'• Dear Chao Watanabe and Members: On behalf of the Applicant Kohala LLC, this will request that the Planning Commission approve our request to extend the time limits for completion of the project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (clean and redline versions), as it is obvious from the review of the facts that the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and revocation of the SMA Permit in this matter is manifestly unfair and illegal. Since our last hearing before the Planning Commission, we conducted further research on the history of involuntary downzonings and SMA Permit revocations by the County of Hawaii. '' As previously discussed, in the last eight years or so, the County of Hawaii has not processed any involuntary downzonings, and the only involuntary SMA permit revocation of which we ate awaze was for a project that subsequently obtained another SMA permit and is proceeding with development. In fact (as shown by the Planning Director's research) the County of Hawaii's last action to involuntarily downzone properties was 26 years ago in 1982, and those downzonings were initiated as an islandwide effort to conform with the then-recently amended July 16, 1979 General Ptan. Pointedly, the proposed Kohala LLC downzoning is the onl y property under the threat of downzoning today. To further illustrate why the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and SMA Permit revocation is unfair and illegal, attached hereto are documents that HONOIUIU KAPO1it Hn0 KONA MAN CUAM sAOAN Coe ANCiL&1 Rodney Watanabe Members, Planning Commission March 18, 2008 j Page 2 resulted in the 1982 downzoning ordinances. These documents demonstrate the proper procedure that the County of Hawaii must follow in processing downzoning ordinances, especially when done against the wishes of the property owner. Tn the example of the Keaukaha, Hilo downzonings, the following occurred: First, the County of Hawaii General Plan was amended on July 16, 1979 to change the General Plan LUPAG designation for the three Keaukaha properties from Resort to Industrial, Open and Low Density Urban development. Second, on May 7, 1981, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the "change of zone amendments being initiated by the Planning Director as a result of conflicts between the General Plan and land use designation and the current zoning designations ..." . Third, on May 5, 1982, the County Council approved downzoning Ordinance Nos. 784, 785 and 786. As demonstrated in the Kesulcaha downzonings, a General Plan amendment is the proper procedure for the enactment of any downzoning ordinance. No such amendment has been enacted for the Kohala LLC property. I In contrast to the Keaukaha properties, the Kohala LLC downzoning is being processed by the Planning Director without any General Plan LUPAG or text amendments that require the; downzoning of the Kohala LLC property. The General Plan that existed at the time of the 199T; approval of the Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-102 and SMA No. 379 remained essentially the same. In fact, in the 1997 Zoning and SMA approvals for the Kohala LLC project, the Planning Director made specific findings that the proposed 50-lot RS-15 zoned residential subdivision complied with the General Plan. On behalf of Kohala LLC, we request that the Planning Commission recognize the patent unfairness of the Planning Director's proposed downzoning and revocation of the SMA Permit. ~^ Kohala LLC requests that the Planning Commission adopt the Applicant's proposal to voluntarily downsize the number of proposed lots from SO lots to 251ots fot this 37.88 acre property, by granting the requested time extensions to Zoning Ordinance No. 97-102 and SMA No. 379, subject to the Applicant's proposed Conditions of Approval attached hereto. Very truly yours, CARLSMITH BALL LLP Steven S. . Li SSLAny Enclosures cc: Christopher Yuen, Planning Director / Amy G. Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel / Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel / Angel Pilago, Chair, Planning Committee -County Council ~ 4840fi930.3346.1 ~lic~t~g • t;ILL ere. 4s~ 1 InHr.•Nnfsfi) COUlITY OF AAI9AII - STATE OP IEAWAII ORDINANCE N0. '''r AN ORDINANCE AMENDItd+ THE CU(IIJTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN ORDINANCE N0. 439, DY A IN HE SIXTY-FIVE 5 AM .t OF NT TO THE GEt7ERAL PLA:q LAND 11SE PATTERN ALLOCATION MAP AND SIX (6) ANENDt4ENTu^ TOi TtlP. GENERAL PLAN POLICY UOCUMI:NT INITIATED BY THE PLANNItdG DIRECTOR, AS REFLECTED IN EEIS REPORT ENTITLED, "COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL FLAN REVISION PROGRAM, t70VE11HER 1578." '. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. The County of Hawaii General Plan, Ordinance ~'~ No. 439, is hereby amended by incorporating the sixty.five (651 amendments to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation map ahd I • the six (61 amendments ti tha General Plan policy document initiated by the Planning Director as reflected in his report entitled, "County of Hawaii General Plan Revision Program, November 1478."" The specific amendments to the General Plan Land Uae Pattern Allocation map are: A. Puna District ! y r • 1. Add Alternate Urban Exoansion: Kea'au - surrounding the existing urban area 2. Orchards/Alternate Urban E ansion to Low Density urban Develonment: Hawaiian Beaches/Parka/Shores Subdivision - • within and aur.roundinq the existing subdivisions 3. Alternate Urban Exnansion to Medium Density Urban Develonment: Hawaiian ©eaches'Subdivision - within the subdivision closer towards the ocean • 4. Shift Alternate Urban Exnansion: Pahoa - shift the designate along Pahoa-Ka~oho Road to around the village core 5. Orchards to Industrial: Kea'au - mauka of the Volcano Highway adjacent to the Puna-South Hilo district boundary : 6. Alternate Urban Exnansion to Resort: Papai Bay - within the Papai Bay area a ~.: i ~i D, So~.ith Fiilo 1)i .Prict: ~ 7. Resort. t-o Indur.•tri_al: Hilo - on both sides of I:alanianaol~ Avenue in the vicinity of Aa!;er's Drach 8. Resort to Open: Hilo - Leleiwi Beach Park and Richardson Estate areas 9. Resort to Law Density Urban Development: Hilo .. Hilo Yacht Club%Leleiwi Beach Park/Richardson Estates areas 10, Industrial to ones: Fiilo - surrounding the pond located on the rnauka aide of Kalanianaole Avenue and James Kealoha Park ,~ 11. Alternate Urban Expansion to Medium Denaity Urban Developmer H1).o - mauka of Komohana Street in the vicinity of the Ponahawai. Street extension 12. Intensive Aariculture/Alternate Urban Expansion to Low Denaity Urban Development: Kulaimano - on the mauka and makai sides of the Hawaii Belt Highway surrounding the existing urban area. 13. Low Denaity Urban Development to Medium Density Urban Development: Kulaimano - along the mauka aide of the Hawaii Belt Highway 14. Delete Alternate Urban Expansion: Kaumana - mauka of the existing Park Hokulani development (Hilo Country Club Eatatea) 15. Alternate Urban Expansion to•Low Density Urban Development: Kaumana - within the Park Hokulani development 16. Alternate Urban Expansion to Medium Denaity Urban Development: Kaumana - within the Park Hokulani development 17, en to Intensive Aariculture: Kaumana - site of the former Hilo Country Club Golf Course C, North Hilo District 18. Intensive/Extensive Aariculture to Low Density Urban Development: Laupahoehoe - Adjacent to and on the Hilo aide of Laupahoehoe High 6 Elementary School 19, Low Denaity Urban Development to Medium Density Urban Development: Laupahoehoe - Adjacent to and on the Hilo side of Laupahoehoe Hiqh 6 Elementary School 20, Intensive/Extensive Aariculture to Low Density Urban;, Development: O'okala - makai of the Hawaii Delt Highway 21. Low Density Urhan Uevelopment to Conservation: Laupahoehoe Gulch - within the gulch area mauka of the Laupahoehoe Point Desch Park -2- ~. D. Hamal:ua Dini'r.ict_ 21.. Intensive floriculture to Industrial: Honoka'a - area of the existing macrdaraia nuti~ processing coreplex 23, Alternate Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban Develonment; Honoka'a - mauka oof the Hawaii Belt Highway in the vicinity • of the Hawaii Belt Highway - Old Mamalahoa Highway junction 24. Add Alternate Urban Expansion: Honoka'a - mauka of the Hawaii Belt Highway and above item no: 23. 25. Low DenaitV Urban Develonment to Medium Density Urban Develonment: Honoka'a - adjacent and mauka of the ., existing ltediurn Density area (commercial core) 26. intensive Aartculture to Low Density Urban Develonment: Pa'auilo - adjacent to and mauka of the existing urban area 27. Add Alternate Urban Exnaneion: adjacent to and makai of the existing urban area 2B. Delete Alternate Urban Exnaneion: Pa'auilo - Hilo side of the existing urban area E. North/South Kohala Districts 29. Alternate Urban Expansion to Low•Density Urban Development: ! Hawi - area of the Hahei Houaelots Subdivision 30. Delote Alternate Urban Exnaneion: Waimea - on the south aide of Mamalahoa Highway and on the Hilo aide of Waimea Village 31. Delete Alternate Urban Exnaneion: Waimea -. on the north aide of Hamalahoa Highway and on the Hilo side of Waimea Village 32. Alternate Urban Exnaneion to Low Density Urban Development: Waimea - along both aides of the Kawaihae Road 33. Delete Alternate Urban Exoanaion: Kawaihae - northw~eet of Kawaihae Harbor and on the mauka side of the highway 34. Add Alternate Urban Exoanaion: Kawaihae adjacent and to the north of the Kawaihae Village housing development 35. Delete Alternate Urban Exoanaion: Kawaihae - mauka of the Queen Ka'ahumanu lfighway and the Hapuna Beach Park 36. Add Alternate Urban Expansion: Kawaihae - along the south or Kona side of the Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Kawaihae Road-Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway junction -3- i t r 37. Medium J7~~r.;+i_L•y_.urhin Dt^vr_1r7 ror~:P. IOW Drncil-~ Iirb;~ Dc~^.Lon,y!=nl- ur,._i In l:ct~n ive ir_i.rultcrr/Iat~rn:~ U=bon l::.pnr:_inn: Y.awailr:r~r - mauka of Lhe Queen K»'ohumanu Ui9lnray and at the.southeauf•. corner of i•I:e (lucen Ka'ahumanu-1<aw.ii2rae Road junction. 3A, Re!:ort/fledtum Density Ilrban Dc!velopment/Low Densil n: Nuako - between the Nual;o Dcach on and the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway 39. In tengive/F.xten^ivP Agriculture to Industrial: I•Jaimea - Wairrea-Kohala Airport area, including the airport 40, industrial to Extensive Agr•i.culture: Waimea - makai of the Namalahoa Highway and towards the south of [9aimea Village 41. Extensive Agriculture to Industrial: Waimea - makai of the Mamalahoa highway across from the Waimoa-Kohala Airport 42, en to Zndustrial: Towards the Kona side of the'.. Waikoloa Village Road 43. Extensive Agriculture to Onen: Waikoloa - Towards the Kona side of the Waikoloa Villaga Road along the South Kohala/North Kona district boundary 44. Oaen to Extensive Agriculture/Alternate Urban Exnansio^: Waikoloa - along the Kona aide of the Waikoloa Village Road and makai of tha village F. North/South Kona Districts 45. .Add Alternate Urban Expansion. also Expansion: Keauhou - mauka of the new•Alii Highway and the Keauhou Golf & Country Club 46. Add Alternate Urban Expansion: Keauhou - mauka of Kahalu'u Beach Nark between Alii Drive and Kuakini , Highway 47. :silos - along Palan 'shopping center 48. Industrial to Medium Density Uzban Development: Kailua - adjacent and on the Kawaihae aide of the King Kamehameha Hotel 49. Alternate Uzban Expansion to Industrial: Kailua - adjacent and to the Kawaihae side of the exiating Industrial Subdivision 50, Conservation to Industrial: Kealakehe - mauka of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in the area of rho Kealakehe. Rubbish Dump 1 -4- ~ Si. 7ndu:ctri::1. to Con:;r•r~_.?ta.on: l:e-•nhole - around thr~ ~~ Ac:-;ih!ilr• i~irrort along Lhe •:?ueen Ka'ahumauu Ilighway G2. Low Den:?ilV Urb,in D',velonment to Medium D?:nsity tJrbair D!_vi:)oh?uc_nt: Kualak«~he - do the vicinity oL' the Kealakehe school 53. Add Alternate Urban Expansion: Kalaoa/Kaloko mauka area - along both sides of the IFawaii Belt Highway in the vicinity of the Kona Palisades/Kong Coastview Subdivisions 54. Delete Alternate Urban Expanaion: Keahuolu/Keopu area - above Kailua and on the mauka and makai aides of the Old Mamalahoa Highway 55. Low Density Urban Development to Orchards: Mauka Honokohau - at the Palani Road-Old Mamalahoa Highway junction 56. Conservation to Extensive Agriculture: Xe-ahole - along the mauka aide of the Queen Ka~ahumanu Highway and Ke-ahole Airport 57. Delete Alternate Urban Expanaion:' Kealakekua - makai of the Kealakekua urban area and above the Kealakekua Bay 58. Add'Alternate Urban Expanaion: Kealakekua - makai, of the Kealakekua urban area ' S9. Low Density Urban Development to Orchards: Honaunau - along the City of Rofuge Road 60. Alternate Urban Expanaion/Orchards to Conservation: Miloli'i - within the existing Miloli'i Village and aurroundinq area O. Ka'u District 61. Add Alternate Urban Expansion: Pahala - surrounding the mauka aide of the urban area 62. Low Density Urban Development to Medium Density Urban Development: Pahala - adjacent to and on the makai aide of the existing commercial core 63. Low Density Urban Development to Orchards: Pahala - along the makai of Hawaii Belt Highway ' 64. Resort to Medium Density Urban Development: Waiohinu - aite of the existing Shirakawa Hotel 65. Extensive Agriculture/Orchards to Conservation: Hawaii Volcanoes National Yark - makai of the Volcano Flouse Hotel i ~ _5_ 1 '1'he specific amendments to L-hc Generz]. Plan polity document are: ].. Add a new section called tha F.nergy Element. 2. Amend the criteria for Low Density Urban Develornnent. 3.. Amend Lhc Papai Resort designation from Minor Resort to Intertnedlato Re .or t. ' 4. Amend the Kaupulehu (Kona Village) Resort designation from Retreat Resort to Intermediate Resort. 5. Amend one of the Transoortati.on Element Courses of • Action for the South Hilo district. T ' 6. Add a definition for the term Alternate Urban Expansion. 1 t SECTION 7.. Severabillty. If any provisions of title ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held . invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other praviaions or applica- tions of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. -' SECTION 3. This ordinance•ehall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: ~"'G~~ AJ~J'j V COUNCILMAN, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Hatch 7, 1979 Date of Adoption: July St 1979 Date Effective: July 16, 1979 - 6- ~ .. Pl•ANNING COMMISSION Planning Department County o! 8nwa11 BEARING TRANSCRIPT Nay 7, 1981 A regularly advertised public hearing oa the than a of none amead- mente bein initiated by the Planning Dire non c s e en a c.anera ~ .., 1~~_ . Curren zon na a^ gnat -- _ the Count boom, County Buildiag,~SOUth Bilo~ Bawaii,lwith Chairman Bert H. Nakano presiding, PRESENT: Bert 8. Nakano A888NT: Ge Glenn Fries orge Poets Clyde Imada Ez-oftieio Member Bay Hagawa Fred Orite H. tvilliam Sewake Nllliam J. Paris, Jr, Charles B. 6akamoto Tina Nhitmarsh AA~ Sidney M. Fuka, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Brian Nishimura, Staf! Planner Donald Tonq, Staff Planner Galan Euba, rePreaantlag SxroflSalo Member Edward Barade Thomas Yeh, Deputy Corporation Counsel and approximately 60 people were in attendance CHAIRNAti: Next on the agenda is a public hearing on the following change o! none amendments being initiated by the Planning Director as a result of conflicts between the General Plan land use designations ane the currant zonlag,designations: A• Naiohinu, Ra'u - Shirakawa Hotel Chnngas Resort-Hotel (V-1.5) to Village Commercial (CV-20) Area: 3.86+ Acres TAO 9-5-d1:25lpor-), 30 c 11(por.) 8. Laapahoehoe Gulch Area, North Hilo Change: Agricultural (A-20a) to Open (0) Area: 30.75 Acres TMR: 3-6-02:32 end 3-6-01:1 c 5 C. Reeds Bay Area, South Hilo Change: Resort-Hotel (V-S-, 75) to General Znduatrial (MG-20) Area: 7,83+ Acres T+~i 2-1-36:2 3 l7(por.), 18-2{ and 12, 13(por.), 1/, 16(por.), 2-1-07:5 i 9 (` I ~L D. Aeaukaha Area, South Hilo 1. Change: Resort-Hotel (V-S-. 75) to Agricultural (A-Sa) Area: 1.7+ Acres TMR: 2-1=13:146(por.) and 2-1-15:3(por.), 1, 6(por,) i 7(por.) 2.. Change: Resort-Hotel (V-S-.75) to Open (0)' Area: 11.8+ Acre• ~ ' Ttgt: 2-1-17+19, 21, 22, 51, 58 i 59 sad 2-1-19:10 i 15 3. Change: Resort-HOtei (V-8-. 75) to Single Family Residential (RS-B-10) Area: 31.26+ Acraa TlIIC: 2-1-13:2, 29, 31-I1, 42(por.), 43. 41, 46, 17, 19, 50, 52, 53 i 51~ 2-1-17:20, 23-35, 52, 56, 61, 62 i 63: 2-1-18:27, 28 i 35~ and 2-1-19:11 Don, you want to etert7 TONG: Mr. Chairman, the background report Mas given to you at the preliminary hearing. I'll proceed into the recommenda- tiona: and I'll qo into them beginning rith the iPdiohinu, Ra'u - Shirakawa Hotel re:oninq, unless you have any particular questions you aould like on the background. FDRE: Donald. TONG: Yea. the back sound rNehat you should do is just provide a summary oP . g port for the benefit of the public. The Com- miesionere already have a copy of the recommendations end our positions have been rather articulated !n previous •itustions. TONG: All right. Concerning the first item on the agenda, the aaiohinu rezoning, it iavolvee land located in i7aiohinu, as shown on the map. Basically, !t's the Shirakaaa hotel property, which comprises of 3.8 acres, and it's abont 500 -. CHAIRMAN: Don, will you use the mike, please. TONG: And it's located about, oh, about 500 fast east of the park and about the name distance from the sharp junction at Hamalahoa Highway. Basically, the Cennral Plen had recommended; in 1978, that the ` arse be changed to medium density urban, due basically to the reason that the area, 3.86 acres,. is much too small for the type ~ of resort development that was being sought. The feet that Punnluu, a nearby sea coast retort development, ass coming up and also that this particular area, by granting it commercial village 20 (CV-20) zoning, could still permit the desired hotel " uto to be situated on the premises. So with these factor in mind, the Commission, excuse me, the Director is proposing that the zoning be changed to CV=20 from its present resort 1.5. Basically, this ie the background of the situation. ~- ~ -2- sl sl $a HILL N0. 772 COUNTY OF HAWAII -STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. 784 AN OADINANCS AMENDING 9ECTION 7.29 (TAH CITY OP HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER B (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAfPAII COUNTY CODE, A8 AMENDED, TD CONFORM WITH THS COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN, AS AMENDED ON JULY 5, 1979, SY CHANGING TH8 DISTRICT CLASSIFIGTION FROM R880RT-HOTEL-SAFETY (V-8 -. 75) TO OPEN (0) AT WAIAREA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII. BE IT ORDAINED HY THE COUNCIL OP TH8 COUNTY OF HAWAIIt SECTION 1. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 8 (Zoning Code) oP the Aawaii County Code, as amended, is further amended to add a new subsection, to reed as Pollowet "7.29 (zzzz )• The district claselfication of the approximately 6.92 acres of land eltuated et Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Raye 2-1-17:19, 21, 22, 51, 58 i 59 shall be Open (O). The area ie further described as being along the north aide (makai) of Ralanianaole Avenue between Reaukaha Road on the west and Lokoaka Street on the asst. All es shown on the nap marked 8xhibit •A• and by reference made s part hereof." i( ~ SECTION 2. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declsred invalid, such invalidity shall not effect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance ehail take effect upon its approval. IN~TRODU,CE,D lH~YYi _ COUNCIL MEdl88R, TY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introductions April 21, 1982 Date of Adoptions May 5, 1982 Etfectiva Data May 5, 1982 , 1 , '2' RE°joRl' -HOTEL -sAF~TY A(~EA 6.QJ"'c ACRES yrAll71-~ p ~ ` AM- M ~NO. 104 TO SECTION 7.29 ~`f'HE CITE' OF~ HILO ZONE P) ARTIGI.E z, CHAPTER B (ZONING Ct>DE) OP THE HAWAII NT7r CODE, As AMENDED, 97' CHANQINC3 THE DISTRI A°351I'IGA-riON -'ROM ResoleT-HoTeL-sAFeTr (V s :75 To opoN (o) AT WAIAKEA, SoUTl1 I"IILO, HAWAII. DAT2 O PU9LIC McARINp + MAy ~ 1991 $ JUNe .9, I~el EPPC IVC DATC + MAY 3 19BB ~ I ORDIN CE NUMl9CR ~ 7B4 PREP~R eY ' PLANNINQ DHPARTMGNT COUNTY OP tYAWAq TAX MAP EY + 2•I-17+10, EI, L2, 51, Se eS9 EXh}IE~IT '~' Hilo, Hawaii Date: A ri1 FIAST 21 1982 AEADING Hilo, Hawaii Date: May 5, SECOND 1982 i FINAL READING Dahlberg AYES NOES A/E X Dahlberg AYES NOES A/E X Da Lua X De Lua X Domingo g Domingo g Fujii X Fujii g Hale X Nale X Xawahsra X Xawahara g Lai Schutte Chz. Yamaahiro X X X Lai Schutte Chr. Yamashiro g X X Publication Date ~ 8 ~ 1 ~ 0 _I Publication Date: JUN 8 t0Q'J We do hereby certify that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council and published as indicated above. APPROVED ns to F $ and lEl3a1t1TY ,.. ___. . ~... .. ..... , COUNTY OF IdY!%~~ ~ na..--•._._.._MAY......5_1.~....... I Approved/Di~ps~ this~dey of ~ i r, ount o awa uncd a rman !~. ~. % ounty er Bill No. 772 Reference: PC-104 M.B. NO. Ord. No. ,~ _ ~ - slslsz EILL N0. 773 COUNTY OF HAWAII - 6TATS OF HANAII ORDINANCE N0. 7SS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7. Z9 (T88 CITY OF BIZA 2ON8 MAP), ARTICLB T, CHAPTER S (EONING CODE) OP T86 HANAII CODNTY CODE, AS AMENDED, TO CONFORM NITB TBB COUNTY OP AANATI GENERAL PLAN, AS AMENDED ON JDLY~S, 1979, BY CHANCING T88 DISTRICT CLA88IPICATION IROM RESORT-HOTEL-SAFETY (V-S-. 75) TO OPEN (0) AT NAIAREA, SOOTA 82L0, HAWAII. BB IT ORDAINED BY TB8 COUNCIL OP TH8 COONTY 08 BANAII~ SECTION 1. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter B (toning Code) of the Hewali County Code, ae emended, is Further amended to add a new subsection, to reed as follows: I "7.29 (eases ). The district claaeification oP the approximately x.58 acres of land situated at Nalakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, coveted by Tax Map Reyt 2-1-19110 i 15 shall be Open (0). The eras ie further described ae being along the north aide (makai) oP Ralanlanaole Avenue between the northerly extension of Oeoe Street on the west end Laleiwi Street on the seat. All as shown on the map marked Exhibit •A' and by reference made a part hereof." SECTION 2. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not effect the other parts oP this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BYi COONCIL N ~~~TY 08 RANAII Nilo, Bawaii Date oP Introductionr ~ Date oP Adoptiont Effective Dates April 21, 1982 May 5, 1982 May 5, 1982 -2- W pllSl-l .~ RESORT-HOTEL - St (V-s-.75) TO OPEN ~, j AREA= 4.eB ACRe AME:NDME:NT NO. 105 TO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE' ~, C HAWAII COUNT? CODB, AS (Y 5-.75) TO OPeN (0) AT 7-zJ (Tt'~ CIT7' OP rn~ B (zoNlNe COpE) OP THE B7 CHANGING 'fHE +1 I~ -HoTE:I.-sAl°L=Ty htAWAlI. Or1TC OP PUBLIC M6~1RIN0 ~ Y 7, I 1 ~ Jt 1'. ~ trF~=cTlve DATe ~ MA7 .°l, 1.9C'e ORDINANCE NUMBER +7 .°1 PRePARED BY = PlM1NIN Depp,/~TM CNT COUNTY P MAW.°JI s l0, l5 ' 9, 1991 :XHIBIT 'A' Hilo, Nawaii Dahlberg De Lua Domingo Pujii Hale Kawehere Lai rchutte Chr. Yamaehiro X x X X x X X Hilo, Hawaii Date: May 5, 1982 SECOND 6 FINAL READING AYES NOES A/E Dahlberg X X De LuL Domingo Fujii Hale xawahara Lei Schutte X Ch r. Yamaehiro X X X X X X K X I 7 2 0 8 1 0 _I Publication Date: Publication Dace: JUN Q ~ We do hereby certify that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council end published ae indicated above. APPROVED at ro ~~ FO^ ! ~~~! tFr:;,~,1~ unc rman ~ L~- ~ . . GC 3. MAY ~ 1982 ounty er ....... i 8111 No. 773 Reference: PC-104 M.B. No. Ord. No. 'z~ Approved/0}aappserrtd this~~day of BILL N0. 774 COUNTY OF RAwAII - STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCB N0 786 51s18v AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7.29 (THE CITY OF HILO ZONE NAP), ARTICLI3 2, CHAPTER 8 (ZONING CODE) OF T88 BANAII COUNTY CODS, AS AMENDED, TO CONFOAN wITB THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GSNBRAL PLAN, AS ,.._ ..,.. AMENDED ON QULY 5, 1979, HY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLABSIPICATION FROM RESORT-HOTEL-SAPBTY (V-S-.75) TO 82NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- SAFETY(RS-S-10) AT wAIABBA, SOUTH HILO, AANAII. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THB COUNTY OF NAwAIIi , SBCTION 1. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 8 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, as nmended, !a further amended c to add a new subsection, to read as follower '7.29(bbbbb-i).The district classification of the approximately 43,836 square feet of land situated et waiakes, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Nap Bey: 2-1-19114 shall be Single Pamily Residential-Safety ~ (RS-S-10), i The Brea ie further described ae being along the north side (makai) of Balanienaole #venue between the northerly extension of Uwau Street on the west end Lelaiwi Street on the east.' SECTION 2. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 6 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, as amended, is Further amended i to add a new subsectiop, to reed es follows: '7.29(bbbbb-2 ).The district claeaificatlon of the approximately 35,800 square feet of land situated at I, waiakes, South 8ll0, Hawaii, covered by Tax Nap Bey, 2-1-17e24 shall be Single Pamily Residential-Safety (RS-S-10). The area la further described as being slong the north aide (makai) of Balanianaole Avenue between Lokoaka j Street on the west end Akepa Street on the east.' ~. t SECTION 3. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter B (toning Code) of"the NawaiL County Code, ae amended, is further amended to add a, new subsection, to read ae folloase "7.29(bbbbb-3).The district clataification of the approximately 63,470 square feet of land situated at Naiakea, Bouth Ai1o, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Rey: 2-1-17:20 shall be 8ingle Family Residential-Safety (RS-S-10). The area is further described as being along the north aide (makai) o! Ralanianaole Avenue between Reaukaha Road on the asst and Lokoaka Street on the east. All as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A• and by reference made a pert hereof.' SECTION 4. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shell not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. N RODO C ED BYt I T { L D p~ ` ~ COUNCIL !I , D ~7T-O~AANAIY Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of Adoption: Effective Date: April 21, 1982 May 5, 1982 May 5, 1982 -2- SUB9t°GTION 7•L°9 /66666-IZ ~ I?L'SORT-I-IOTEI. -SAPET)' tY-s-,75) "ro SINGLE FAMII.y ~ RC-51DENTIAI.-sAPETy (RS-s~ AIWA= 43, B3G sQ.FT. I SUBStcTtON 7e9 Cbbbbb-2) I RCSORT-FtOTeL -3A1=ETy ~z9.-,75) TO 91NBLE FAMiIy GSIDENTIAI--SAI'E'Ty Rs, eepw,~ ~ . ~,. i LateNt/. ~ run roan SUt95 cT1oN 7• bb -3 f2E50RT-NOTCL- + ~1/-5-,75) T1~ 91NOl.E FA Ly . REsIDENTIAI.-BAPET S-S-IC ' AREA = 35, BOO 54. FT. NDMEN7' N0: 106 Tc SECTION 7.29 (TFtE G of ILO ___ MAP ARTICLE 2, CF1AI'TER 9 (ZONiNQ CODE O THE II CoUNTy CODE, As gMENDED, By CH I O THE IGT CI.ASSIFICATiON FROM RESORT-HOTZ -sAFE1'y -S-.75) To SINS ILy RESIDENTIAL- -S FETy - - T WAIAKEA, I o, f-IAy~p~ll. ~ DATC OP PUBLIC NcARIN®+ MAY 7, ID91 K DUNE ~, 1.991 zPP~TIVe Dq'TE + MAr 5, Inez ORDiI IgNCE NUMBER ~ 786 PRCPHR ED ~' a C,oUNTY~OpeMAwNMeNT TAx MAP ICEY + H-1-17 • z0, z4 # z-I-I~ ~ 14 EXh11Bl Ar Hilo, Hawaii Dater April 21, 1982 DMlberg De Luz Domingo Fujii Hale Xawahara Lai Schutte Ch r. Yamaehiro x X x x X X X x Hilo, Hawaii Date• Ma 5, 1952 ... SECOND b FI Dahlberg X De Luz Domingo Fujis Hale Kawahara Lai Sohutte I 1 7 1 z l o l Publication Date: cR~r Yamashi AYES X X X x X x X X READING • rc x I e 1 0 Publication Dater JIIN 8 L41+7 Ne do hereby certify that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council and published as indicated above. APPROVED as fo FORM and LEf3AU;Y y,~ , ...... .. ....... .... ........' unc rman C -..:.., .. ..~ MAY 5,1982...... ~ ~j, ' Dols .._.. _ ............. . oun y er Approved/Dd thie~day of r_ 19~~. Bill No. 774 Reference: PC-104 or, unty o Hawa ' M.B. No. _ Ord. No.:' 7~