Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 008 2019/02/19 2018-2020 Hawaii County Council-8 March 28,2019 Bill 16: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 92-122, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM RESORT-HOTEL, SAFETY(V-S-.75) TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (ML-20)AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP j KEYS: 2-2-033:011, 012, 019, AND 020 (Applicant: Piilani Partners LLQ (Area-. approx. 2.5712 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which would allow a five-year time extension to comply with Condition C (Final Plan Approval) and Condition D (Complete Construction). The applicant pp ant is requesting the extension to develop a potable water well and bottling facility and related improvements on the approximately 31,000 square feet portion of this property. The property is located at 525 Pi`ilani Street, at the northeastern corner of Pi`ilani Street-Mililani Street intersection. Reference: Comm. 64 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz(B/R) Approve: PC-8 POSTPONED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR: Ayes: Council Members Chung,David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Acting Chair Eoff—8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. Page 10 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: February 19, 2019 Re: Comm. No. 64/Bill No. 16 PLACE: Council Chambers Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i TIME: 10:16 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawai`i County Council Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 16, reports as follows: Bill No. 16, transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim via Communication No. 64, dated January 4, 2019, amends Ordinance No. 92-122, which reclassified lands from Resort-Hotel, Safety (V-S-.75)to Limited Industrial (ML-20) at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, covered by Tax Map Keys: 2-2-033:011, 012, 019, and 020 (Applicant: Piilani Partners, LLC) (Area: approx. 2.5712 acres). The property is located at 525 Pi`ilani Street, at the northeastern corner of Pi`ilani Street-Mililani Street intersection. Mayor Kim forwarded the Windward Planning Commission's favorable recommendation from the public hearing held on December 6, 2018, for an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92 122 by requesting a 5-year time extension to comply with Condition C (Final Plan Approval) and Condition D (Complete Construction). Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke appeared before the Council and provided a brief history about the project. He explained that the State of Hawai`i and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands owned most of the industrial zones on the island, so in the early 1990s the Hilo Community Development Plan wanted to target approximately 175,000 acres of private land for industrial zoning as well. It was during this time that landowner Matsuno Enterprise acquired the property and submitted a General Plan amendment as well as a rezone request from Resort-Hotel to Limited Industrial in order to build a fish processing plant, which ultimately never materialized. Mr. Fuke went on to explain that while the landowner remains the same,the applicant for the rezone time extension is Piilani Partners, LLC, which hopes to utilize the ground water from the property in order to build a water bottling facility. At this time, they are currently involved in the Special Management Area(SMA)permitting process with the Windward Planning Commission(WPC) and well permit request from the State Commission on Water Resource Management(SCWRM)to determine whether or not the water bottling project is achievable. If the SMA and well permits are granted, Piilani Partners, LLC would then purchase the property from Matsuno Enterprises. Mr. Fuke wanted to make clear that should the Piilani Partners' SMA permit be denied, the rezoning issue before the Council would still need to be addressed so that the landowner could engage in any of the uses permitted under Limited Industrial zoning. He added that the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Survey (EAS) had concluded no environmental impacts thus far. Planning Committee PC Report No.: 8 PC-8 Page 2 February 19, 2019 Vice-Chair Susan Lee Loy thanked Mr. Fuke for his presentation and for "divorcing the two issues" of the rezone time extension request, which was under Council purview, from the approval and construction of a water bottling facility, which is before WPC and SCWRM. She noted that the rezone provides the landowner with a"suite of options" and creates more opportunities for the property. She asked Mr. Fuke if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval as outlined in the Windward Planning Commission's report,to which Mr. Fuke replied in the affirmative on behalf of both the landowner and the applicant. Council Member Valerie Poindexter wanted clarification on what would occur if the time-extension for the rezoning did not occur. Mr. Fuke explained that without the extension the landowner would not be able to utilize the property as Limited Industrial and would have to reapply for a new change of zone. Council Member Poindexter further noted that she was not comfortable approving the extension with the SMA permitting process for the water bottling plant pending. Council Member Karen Eoff stated that it was confusing that the SMA permitting process was occurring at the same time as the time extension request. She noted that Bill No. 16 had conditions specific to the bottling plant and believed it was premature to approve the time extension when the project itself had not yet been approved. She explained that 27 years had gone by since the original rezone request by Matsuno Enterprises and that it could be inappropriate to continue zoning the area as Limited Industrial as testimonyfrom constituents identified the area as beingused recreationally. She also wanted more Y clarification about time extension requests, the Council's role, and what occurs if extensions are not approved. Mr. Fuke responded that contract zoning, also known as spot zoning and involves "cherry picking" specific uses as the only allowable use for a property, has been ruled illegal by the courts and reiterated that the request before the Council was consistent with the community development plan. Planning Department Program Manager Jeff Darrow addressed time extension requests, acknowledging that more of them had been coming before both the County Council and the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Department reviews time extension requests against the General Plan, current zoning codes, and if the request is consistent with the original reasons for approval; conditions are updated to reflect current code and standards. He explained this was done with Bill No. 16, and although the project had changed it was still a similar industrial use allowed under the Limited Industrial zoning. Mr. Darrow noted that if a time extension was not approved the rezoning would be revoked and a new application would have to be submitted. Council Member Maile David asked if there was a timeline available for the SMA permitting process. Mr. Fuke stated that there was not as the scope of this project required multiple bodies' involvement, including the SCWRM, which would set public hearings and review state water needs and resources to evaluate whether or not the bottling plant was feasible. Council Member David noted she hoped that the Commission would be thorough in their review as water is a public trust resource. She stated that although the zoning of the property and the bottling plant were two separate matters, they are connected. Mr. Darrow clarified that the rezone and the permits for SMA and water well were independent of one another, but that without time extension approval on the rezoning the water bottling permitting processes, or any industrial project, could not move forward. Mr. Fuke stated that the Council had a right to defer voting on Bill No. 16, but that it would send a message to the Planning Commission, thereby possibly influencing the decision-making of what is supposed to be an independent body. PC Report No.: 8 PC-8 Page 3 February 19, 2019 Council Member Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, thanked everyone for the conversation and stated that the issue the Council needed to focus on was the landowner and their right to request the time extension. He noted that the Council has an obligation to the landowner to move forward on their request and that the bottling plant is a separate issue that will still need to be addressed by other processes. Council Member Rebecca Villegas noted that separating the time extension request from the bottling plant was "a game"that disempowers the Council and loses the public's trust in them. She felt there was wisdom to wait and revisit the zoning at a later date. She questioned the wisdom of the landowner_and why the applicant for this request was listed as Piilani Partners, LLC. Mr. Fuke noted that anyone could be the applicant, including himself. Council Chair Aaron S.Y. Chung explained that he understood how individuals could confuse and connect the two issues, but that they were two separate issues nonetheless and it was the responsibility of the Council to vote on the matter before them. He went on to say that voting against or voting to defer the time extension was a backhanded way of downgrading the project and the Council cannot engage in spot zoning. He noted that the proposed project was in his district and that his mother lived near the property since 1970. He reiterated the need for private landowners to have access to industrial zoning in Hilo and stated he strongly supported the extension. Council Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder wanted to make sure guidelines within the bill itself were being adhered to,particularly in the areas of public health and safety. Mr. Fuke explained again that the zoning was consistent with the General Plan and that any public health and safety matters would be addressed through conditions of approval at a later date. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder wondered what was stopping the landowner from development and received clarification that rezoning is done by ordinance only, and at no time does zoning automatically revert back to what it once may have been. Planning Chair Ashley L. Kierkiewicz clarified that the landowner was not Suisan Company, Ltd., but rather Matsuno Enterprises, LTD. She reiterated that before the Council was a request for a time extension on a rezone and was hopeful that the WPC and the SCWRM would do a thorough investigation of the public trust doctrine as it relates to creating a water well and a water bottling facility. She went over the Council's possible options as discussed to handle Bill No. 16, urging against deferring the vote and creating a"zone in limbo" situation,which had been described earlier by Mr. Fuke,that would prevent the landowner from doing anything with the property other than pay an industrial property tax rate. Council Member Villegas pointed out that Suisan, LTD and Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd., included some of the same owners. The vote was then taken on the motion to move this measure to council with a positive recommendation and passed with seven"ayes"and two "noes." PC Report No.: 8 PC-8 Page 4 February 19, 2019 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 16, and recommends its passage on first reading. ck AYES NOES ABS EX Respectfully submitted, CHUNG X DAVID x COMMITTEE ON PLANNING EOFF X KIERKIEWICZ X KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER X LEE LOY X POINDEXTER x ASHLEY L. KIERKIEWICZ, CHAIR RICHARDS X PC REPORT NO.: 8 VILLEGAS X ADOPTED: