City panel to consider 3 Haseko measures

More than a year after three controversial measures tied to the last undeveloped phase of Haseko’s 1,100-acre Ewa Beach development were introduced, the City Council is still trying to reach a resolution on certain issues.

The Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee will hold a special meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday at Honolulu Hale to discuss Bills 62 and 63 and Resolution 16-180.

Bill 62 would rezone about 62 acres of land between Oneula Beach Park and White Plains Beach to allow for a mix of resort, apartment, industrial, business and preservation uses around a recreational lagoon, instead of a marina that was scrapped by the developer. Bill 63 would amend the boundary of the special management area to reflect a lagoon with no direct ocean access. Both bills passed second reading in April. Once the bills pass out of committee, they would go up for a final Council vote.

Resolution 16-180 would grant a special management area use permit and shoreline setback variance to allow for covered pavilions, boardwalks and a pedestrian walkway, among other things, within the 60-foot shoreline setback area. The resolution, previously 15-206, was reintroduced because resolutions expire one year after introduction.

All three measures were deferred at a June Zoning and Planning meeting after then-Committee Chairman Ikaika Anderson said possible legal concerns from imposing changes to the developer’s unilateral agreement needed to be further vetted. Anderson was replaced as chairman in July by Councilman Trevor Ozawa, who had served as committee vice chairman, under a new committee assignment lineup.

Councilwoman Kymberly Pine, who represents the Leeward Coast and is a Haseko homeowner, said she was not given ample time to notify her community about the meeting. She sent an email blast Friday criticizing Ozawa for “catering to a developer by holding a special meeting to swiftly pass rezoning bills,” adding, “I am against giving any developer special treatment.

“We’re very close to negotiating a lot of things and having this last-minute meeting really upset a lot of people,” she said. “We have to defer (the measures) because I can’t guarantee that my community has been given enough notice to pass anything that day.”

But Ozawa said he gave Pine three weeks’ notice when scheduling the meeting, saying the community has been given many opportunities to offer input at several hearings. He described Pine’s email as conniving, false and misleading, adding that “there’s no promises that anything’s going to pass out (of committee).”

“I’m not giving a developer any special treatment. She’s (Pine) the one getting special treatment. We’ve given her a special meeting,” he said. “I’m hoping that this hearing will clarify a lot of their (community) concerns.”

Proposed changes to Bill 62 include Pine’s amendment to deny the rezoning of four parcels. That includes 11 acres slated for resort zoning mauka of the lagoon that would remain at business mixed use due to a federal easement that she said prohibits overnight accommodations in that area. Additionally, 7.5 acres mauka of Keoneula Boulevard would remain as resort zoning instead of medium-density apartment, and 5 acres near the Hoakalei Country Club would remain as preservation and not be changed to medium-density apartment zoning.

Pine also proposed new changes to the developer’s unilateral agreement, including a section requiring Haseko to build a gradual slope from the edges of the lagoon, which is 19 feet deep.

Another change to the unilateral agreement proposed by Council Chairman Ernie Martin would delete a condition requiring Haseko to uphold representations made, such as allowing users to bring their own watercraft and equipment.

Sharene Saito Tam, Haseko’s vice president, said in an email that Pine’s proposed zone changes “came as a complete surprise.” She said they have been working with Pine, the committee and the community on a compromise.

Haseko’s Ocean Pointe and Hoakalei developments have been under construction for nearly two decades and have been riddled with ongoing legal challenges and other issues. The developments have created a divide in the community, where some residents support Haseko’s vision while others oppose building near the shoreline.

Some homeowners sued Haseko in 2013, maintaining that they suffered economic loss from the decision to forgo a marina. But a circuit judge set aside a $27 million jury award, saying that homeowners did not provide enough evidence that they sustained losses.

The homeowners’ lawyers filed a motion for a new trial on damages and are awaiting the judge’s order. Homeowners are also slated to appear before a different judge for additional claims this month.

State Rep. Matt LoPresti, lead plaintiff in the class-action suit against Haseko, maintained that it would be premature for the Council to approve any of the measures given the ongoing litigation.

For more information on the proposed changes and to view Tuesday’s meeting agenda, visit 808ne.ws/2bZDdSO.