HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-18 Leeward Exh C (Items 1 & 2)
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of KAUPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-SLU-
2021-000001 and PL-REZ-2021-000006) was called to order at 10:33 a.m. via live stream
online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco,
Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith “Faye” Yates
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement “CJ” Kanuha III
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission),
Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director),
Jessica Andrews (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay
(Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Eric Cook (Planner), and Noriko Sauer (Commission
Secretary)
APPLICANT: KAUPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-SLU-2021-000001)
Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 2.653
acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Māmalahoa Highway, approximately one
mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu‘ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i,
TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027.
APPLICANT: KAUPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-REZ-2021-000006)
Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district to a
Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet (CN-10) and Single-Family Residential-10,000
square feet (RS-10) zoning district for 5.349 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-
983 Māmalahoa Highway, approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road,
Pu‘ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027.
Secretary’s Note: “- - -” indicates indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or
simultaneous talk.
VITOUSEK: Moving into new business and with that all public testifiers can you please drop
off and watch the meeting on the YouTube live stream if that’s what you’d like to do.
Commission will take up the first two items together, I’ll read them both in. Applicant is
Kaupulehu Land, LLC. Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from
Agricultural to Urban for 2.653 acres of land. Subject property is located at 64-983 Māmalahoa
Highway approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, in Pu‘ukapu
Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:parcel 027. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural-5-acre (A-5a) zoning to Neighborhood
Commercial 10,000 square feet (CM-10) and Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet
1
EXHIBIT C
(RS-10) zoning for 5.349 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Māmalahoa
Highway again approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu‘ukapu
Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, same TMK parcel 6-4-024:parcel 027. At this time, we’ll
have a presentation from staff planner Jessica Andrews. Jessica, please proceed.
ANDREWS: Thank you, Chair Vitousek. Good morning, commissioners, I’m going to share
my screen and start the presentation. Okay, is the introduction screen visible to everybody?
Alright. As stated, this is actually for two (2) applications for the applicant Kaupulehu Land
LLC. It’s a State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and a Change of Zone
application. This screen shows the location map. The site is outlined red, it is just to the east of
Waimea on Māmalahoa Highway. The applicant’s request; the applicant is requesting a State
Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 2.653 acres of land and a
Change of Zone from Agricultural-5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet or
CN-10 and Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) for 5.349 acres of land. If the
request to land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant proposes to subdivide the
property into a total of nine (9) lots with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet each consisting of
three (3) commercial lots fronting Māmalahoa Highway and six (6) residential lots for the
development of single-family residences and ohana dwellings south of the commercial
development. The commercial lots are anticipated to have 3 one (1) and two (2) story mixed
retail and commercial office buildings, having a gross leasable floor area of approximately
18,600 square feet. The applicant would like to begin construction within six (6) months after
issuance of all permit approvals. Full build out of the proposed project is anticipated to be 2025.
This screen shows the County zoning map, as you can see the subject property is outlined in red,
and it is currently zone A-5a. Nearby zoning there’s quite a mix of nearby zoning. There is CV
which is Village Commercial on the opposite side of the highway there’s also Neighborhood
Commercial as well as RS-10, which is Single-Family dwelling, Family Agricultural just to the
north of that and to the west closer into Waimea town there is also Village Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial and Residential (RS-10) which is Single-Family Residential and
Multi-Family Residential further to the west. The State Land Use Boundary Map shows that this
site has a current mix of Urban which is pink and Agricultural designation which is green. And
the General Plan designates the site as a portion of it being MDU which is Medium Density
Urban and that’s the orange and the mustard color is Low Density Urban. So again, the site has
a mix of the 2 designations currently and further to the east is IAL which is Important Ag Lands.
Here you can see a conceptual map that was created as part of the South Kohala CDP the
Community Development Plan. The larger map is a broad overview of the town of Waimea and
the insert which is blown up on the right side of your screen shows the site outlined in red.
Again, it has a mixed designation which you can see the green is a Small Farms and Ranches
Preservation Program and the kind of yellow-beige color encompasses the town of Waimea.
Here you see an aerial map oh sorry an aerial photograph of the site showing the subject property
outlined in blue and Māmalahoa Highway just to the north of it. This is a master plan that was
provided by the applicant for the proposed build out of the site. It shows the commercial
properties to the left and the residential parcels to the right. And some site photographs show the
existing conditions. These are views from Māmalahoa Highway showing the site on the upper
left kind of direct on from the highway and then on the bottom right showing the site from the
2
EXHIBIT C
current access road. These are views of Māmalahoa Highway the top left is looking east, and the
bottom right is the view looking west on Māmalahoa Highway.
And finally, the Planning Director’s recommendation is a favorable recommendation be
forwarded to the County Council for the State Land Use which is 2021-000001, and the Rezone
2021-000006 and with that I conclude my presentation. I did just want to mention that there
have been numerous submittals of public testimony for this application as you’re well aware of.
To this date we have received at least 840 submittals of public testimony and to the best of our
knowledge all testimony is in opposition to the project. And with that I conclude again, and I’ll
pass the floor back to the Chair. Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. At this time, we’ll move on to the applicant’s presentation
and we’ll follow by questions from the commissioners. On the applicant, will the applicant and
their representatives, please join the meeting and actually would it be possible to stop sharing the
screen at this time. Thank you.
GARSON: Hi.
VITOUSEK: So, we’ve got Katherine Garson, John Metzler, Joni Metzler, Yen Wen Fang and
Randy Okaneku. Would you please raise your right hand, so I can swear you in. Thank you, do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the Leeward Planning
Commission?
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES: Yes.
VITOUSEK: Thank you. Okay, when you address the Commission, please state your name and
the town that you live in.
GARSON: Good morning, Chair Vitousek. This is Kathy Garson. I’m from Christmas Ball and
the attorney for the applicant, Kaupulehu Land. I’m from Hilo and I’ve spent quite a bit of time
out of Waimea growing up. Present as you introduced them is John Metzler I don’t know if Joni
Metzler is also on Zoom, and we also have Randall Okaneku he completed the Traffic Impact
Analysis Report (TIAR), so a TIAR was completed for this project. I think one of the public
testifiers asked that one be done, but we did do one, even though it wasn’t specifically required,
and Mr. Okaneku is here to answer some questions. Yen Wen Fang is the Project Engineer and
is also here to answer any questions that the commission would have. If you can indulge me for
a second, I would like Mr. Metzler to also introduce himself and there was some public
testimony that was addressed to Mr. Metzler, and I wanted him to talk about his involvement
with this property.
VITOUSEK: Please.
GARSON: John, I think you’re on mute.
METZLER: I think you’re right. I’m John Metzler. I’m local businessman. We have a
construction company, we have a small ranch in North Kohala where we live and I’ve heard a
3
EXHIBIT C
couple of people say that I’m a developer, which really might be a little bit of a stretch. We
bought this property in a fairly distressing situation or distressful situation. I bought my first
home in Waimea in a place called Puu Nani in 1973. One of the testifiers earlier said that I’m
not in or of the community, and I just want to take this opportunity to say that this is my home.
It has been my home for over 50 years, and I’m thoroughly involved and interested in the welfare
of the community.
The situation around our purchase of this property is that I was friends with the previous owner
who was a family by the name of Ishihara. The Ishihara family grew celery, daikon, won bok,
lettuce those types of farm vegetables. Mr. Ishihara was a friend of mine. I was also friends
with his neighbors the Wakiyama’s Genso and Kenya, the Oye family, some of the Kuwano’s,
quite a few of the farmers there were friends of mine. I was an ambitious young man that time. I
was able and willing to help them with their vegetable crops, some of the farmers I helped were
in loved with me though, but the majority of them were there in the Pu‘ukapu area. When
Tamao Ishihara died, we all knew him as Tom. When Tom died, excuse me, when Tom died, he
left the farm to his family and Tom’s wife and their children tried to farm the land for a few
years and it wasn’t for them.
Somehow, they got hooked up to a man of questionable integrity who came out of Hilo and this
man signed an agreement of sale with the Ishihara’s promising to pay them each year for the
purchase of their 20-acre farm. By doing that he essentially became the deeded landowner. The
Ishihara’s obviously had a lien on the property, but this gentleman this person subdivided 5 acres
off of the 20-acre farm and sold the 5-acre parcels and pocketed the money. And never paid the
Ishihara’s for the 5 acres. He also became over the years severely delinquent in his regular
payments to the Ishihara family and remember this is a family who was a subsistence farmer in
Waimea in the 1970’s.
So, there wasn’t a lot of money to go around at that time. In addition to selling, I think illegally
certainly immorally selling the 5 acres this person allowed during the widening of the
Māmalahoa Highway. He allowed truckers, contractors I don’t know who all else to dump
thousands of tons of waste material from the demolition of the Māmalahoa widening onto the
Ishihara property. I did not know that when I purchased the property, but nonetheless I bought
the property out of distress directly from the Ishihara family. They were in jeopardy of losing
everything that they had at that time. I arranged for a note from the bank, I bought the land at a
fair market price, no negotiations, all cash to the Ishihara family got them out of that problem
and I think most of them still live in Waimea and are prosperous there.
That left me with a piece of property of 15 acres that I knew very little about what happened
after Tom died. So visually all a person could see was elephant grass or cane grass that was
probably 8 to 12 feet tall. You could not see anything else on the ground but this tall grass. So,
when I decided to explore what we had bought after a couple of years. We realized that this
dumping had occurred so, by hand and by myself and with friends, I cleaned up over 20,000 tons
of concrete, pipe, asphalt, you name it telephone poles, all of this garbage that was dumped on
Tom’s property that I now own. So, I just took exception of this person that said this guy’s is an
opportunist and he’s not in or of Waimea. I take offense to that because I spent almost a year on
weekends Saturdays and Sundays cleaning up that property.
4
EXHIBIT C
So fast forward till today I don’t know what isn’t and isn’t allowed in all these subdivisions and
rezoning’s and all these things. But when I look at a Google earth map, I see a lot of
development all around this property and many, many pieces of that development including the
Hawaiian Homes properties have little, tiny homes on little, tiny lots. I don’t think that looks
great, but I can tell you what we’ve done is going to be tastefully done, is going to be well built,
and it will be visually appealing. We will have lots of nice landscaping et cetera, et cetera, and I
think if you look at the two homes that are there now which Ms. Andrews had put up on the
screen. You’ll see those two homes were there on the property before and we completely rebuilt
them to the highest standards available and they’re totally in accord with all of the Parker Ranch
and other plantation style homes around that vicinity. So, we’re not building monstrosities. One
person came up and said nobody wants this, she hasn’t met one person who wants this
development. Well, I would ask Ms. Sauer if she is available to read a letter written by this other
person’s neighbor. Who wrote a nice letter saying he approves of the subdivision, so I’d like Ms.
Sauer to try to find that and if possible, put that into the record?
But nonetheless what we plan to do is to improve the neighborhood, create a few house lots for
maybe some of our employees. you know, maybe one of your employees from your entities on
the Big Island or in Waimea. I’ve had a lot of people ask me why can’t we find a house to rent,
why can’t we find that a reasonable place to buy so hopefully this will provide a few
opportunities for the local people and the benefits of the County are what they are. But that’s
about all I really need to say right now, if you guys have any questions, I’m totally open to
answer any of them.
VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Is there any other presentation from the applicant?
GARSON: Chair Vitousek? Sorry, I hear an echo. Just wanted to emphasize that the area that
is immediately fronting Māmalahoa Highway as the Planning Department indicated in their
presentation, it is already SLU urban designated. It has been that way since at least the 70’s.
Kaupulehu Lands plans are consistent with the General Plan which has this area designated
medium density urban and low density urban. So, this is the exact location where you would
want this type of development and I wanted to address that because I’m not sure that a lot of the
public testifiers realize that this is an area that has been planned for this urban development. And
with that we are here to answer any questions and like I said, we have our Project Engineer and
Traffic Consultant also available to answer any questions that you have.
VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners are there any questions for the applicant or the
County staff at this time? Commissioner Yates.
YATES: My question is based on all of what we’ve heard and hearing that there’s over 800
people who are not supporting this. So, if there are that many people who are not happy about it.
Why would this be something that you want to move forward on and the other question I had is
that was that property ever part of Hawaiian Homes or not?
GARSON: If I can answer that question, I do not believe that that property was part of Hawaiian
Homes in the past. As to 800 opposition I’m sorry, we haven’t seen that many and I’m not sure
5
EXHIBIT C
if that was the number that was given, Planning can clarify. But in this day and age with social
media, I’m not sure that all of those people necessarily live in the neighborhood when we don’t
have any reason to figure out where they’re all from. So, thank you.
YATES: Can you tell me where is this place in reference to Minit Stop I guess Minit Stock or
that hog restaurant or whatever you call it?
GARSON: I think Mr. Metzler wants to speak but I’ll tell you that this property is towards
Waimea from the Fish & the Hog.
YATES: I’m sorry from where?
ANDREWS: I’d be happy to, I could share an aerial photograph if that helps?
YATES: Okay.
ANDREWS: So, I can return us to first I’ll go to an aerial photograph. I think that will help.
Commissioner Yates, the subject property is outlined in blue here. I believe what you’re
referring to is this business here, which is to the west on the opposite side of the property.
Those who are more familiar, is that the property you were referring to? No, that’s Earl’s.
METZLER: That’s the old George's Service.
ANDREWS: Help me out here then which one are you referring to Commissioner Yates?
VITOUSEK: Further to the east is Minit Stop. The linear building there.
ANDREWS: It may not be on my map is it this one here that you’re referring to Commissioner
Yates?
METZLER: Right there.
VITOUSEK: That’s Minit Stop.
ANDREWS: So, just a little further to the east.
YATES: So, this is next to HPM. Is this HPM over here?
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
YATES: This HPM here?
VITOUSEK: The big one is HPM yeah.
YATES: Okay.
6
EXHIBIT C
ANDREWS: Is that this one here? Perhaps―
METZLER: That’s right.
ANDREWS: ― to the to the west of the property. Does that help to―
YATES: “―” So, that Hog Restaurant is further up then?
METZLER: It’s to the right.
YATES: Maybe here?
METZLER: It’s across from Minit Stop.
YATES: Over here?
ANDREWS: That would be this location.
YATES: All right, thank you.
VITOUSEK: Okay, Commissioner Armbruster?
ARMBRUSTER: Hi there, I just had a couple questions. One, I know a few people have
mentioned it now, and I believe I saw it in the report, the floodplains on this are actually quite
tricky it looks like you’ve got a lot of different things going on. Have you and your team looked
at this, are you pretty confident that the floodplains can be managed and there won’t be any
impact to off-site properties?
WEN FANG: Okay, so the way to manage the floodplain according to the County Code is we
don’t block it, we just let it flow through wherever it is flowing to it’s going to continue to flow
through. So most likely these buildings that’s going to be built, whether it’s a commercial or
residential buildings they are going to be on some kind of post and piers, raise foundation, and
allow water to flow through it, and could get out of it and just continues its path. We cannot
block it, we cannot channelize it to somewhere else, we cannot divert it anywhere because that’s
the County Code. So, wherever is getting flooded today will continue to get flooded and
whoever not getting flooded, you will get flooded.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay, I got that, but you’re not concerned about being able to build on this
property you’re quite confident that you can find a way?
WEN FANG: Yes, because the maturity of these floodplain according to the firm is one foot it’s
AO-1 foot. So, that means the water is one foot above the existing grade. So most likely all this
building will be raised probably the “- - -” about two or three feet. So, you won’t get flooded and
the water would just flow freely underneath.
7
EXHIBIT C
ARMBRUSTER: Gotcha, gotcha okay. And I also had a question for the Planning Department,
and I didn’t see anything in here asking for any sort of affordable housing offset for the rezone.
Could somebody explain to me why that wasn’t done?
JACKSON: Commissioner Armbruster can you give us a few minutes to research that because I
think there should have been an affordable housing condition.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay, I could have just missed it too, but I didn’t see anything, and I ―
JACKSON: Okay.
ARMBRUSTER: ―was just curious about that.
JACKSON: Just give us a few minutes.
GARSON: If I may, if there is an affordable housing condition, it is, I believe, Y of the rezoning
conditions it is that will comply with affordable housing allowance Chapter 11. So, it is
Condition Y.
KERN: That’s correct.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay, okay, and could somebody explain to me a little bit what that will be
asking for do we know yet?
KERN: That will be the exclusionary zoning of 20% per Chapter 11.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay, okay, thank you.
VITOUSEK: Okay, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte?
PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were a few oral testimonies that voice their
concern regarding vehicular congestion. I do see that there’s been some recent study conducted.
Can you please help me understand what’s being done to help mitigate vehicular congestion?
From the applicant please I’m addressing the question to the applicant.
VITOUSEK: Thank you, yes, I think that’d be best addressed by Mr. Okaneku.
GARSON: Mr. Okaneku, if you can assist in ―
OKANEKU: I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?
PAISHON-DURATE: I want to understand how the applicant is helping to mitigate some of the
vehicular congestion concerns that were brought forth?
OKANEKU: Okay, are you familiar with the project site frontage?
8
EXHIBIT C
PAISHON-DUARTE: I am, yes.
OKANEKU: Okay, the County had widened Māmalahoa Highway to provide a median storage
lane, a median left turn lane basically around that entire stretch of the roadway. Now, the
purpose of this is so that left turn traffic can pull off the two lanes and then turn in to the
driveways. Similarly, a vehicle exiting the site will be able to turn left and basically store in this
median lane until the traffic into Waimea bound direction when there’s a gap in Waimea bound
direction traffic and they can enter this entry safely. So, basically, this mitigates all the driveway
type of access along the stretch where, in particular where you have a lot of driveways. “- - -” a
protected lane basically for traffic going in and out.
KERN: And Commissioner Paishon-Duarte I’ll add Condition J of the background report and
recommendations spells out those traffic mitigation measures per the TIAR consultation with
DPW.
PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Quick follow up question. So, I wish I’m sorry I need to go
and look at maybe some of the drawings and diagrams that were submitted. So, please restate
Mr. Okaneku what is that it’s a safety area?
OKANEKU: It’s a median, it’s a 2-way left turn median lane.
PAISHON-DUARTE: Median lane.
OKANEKU: Yellow stripes on both sides, you can see it in the center of the highway and so
like I said, basically, that for left turn traffic going in and out of any driveway along that
stretched in lieu of an exclusive left turn lane.
PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Do you happen to know if that type of situation replicated or
does it currently exist near the vicinity of this property? The reason why I ask is I am very
familiar with that area, it is highly congested, there’s a lot of big rigs that are going in between,
back, and forth, and so I just want to understand, are there other safety situations like this that are
already in place, and does it actually mitigate some of the safety concerns that the public has
raised. I’m not sure if that’s best addressed by the applicant or by County staff, I apologize I
don’t know who to address it to.
OKANEKU: This is relatively common throughout the State. I’m not sure I can give you a
specific site. I believe on the west side of Waimea also there’s this type of setup along one of the
schools on the west side of town. Let’s see, but like I said it’s quite common I mean throughout
the State, throughout the nation, it’s a common practice.
ANDREWS: I’d like to share my screen again to show the photograph of the road, because it
could illustrate what you’re talking about Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. These images show
the highway directly in front of the subject property so on the upper left photograph the property
is on the right side, so you can see the median strip here. And then on the lower right, the subject
property is here on the left so you’re facing towards Waimea here. You can see that median strip
that was being discussed.
9
EXHIBIT C
PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you that’s very helpful, no further questions. Mahalo.
VITOUSEK: Okay, stop sharing the screen, so we can see if there’s any other Commissioners
with questions. Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Hi, thank you. First, I want to thank the applicant, Mr. Metzler for sharing with
us the history and your history here. I found that quite informative didn’t realize all the
connections and thank you for cleaning up all of that waste. I was hoping that the County would
pull up where the CDP plans were that show where development was then looking at by the CDP
and by the State, so I can understand. It looked to me, will you pull it up and thanks.
ANDREWS: Yes, just give me a minute I’ll share the screen.
DEFRANCO: Because it seemed to me that what the State and the CDP where this plan for part
for the portion that they want to go commercial on is sort of in alignment with what the State
said, and the CDP had said. So, I just want to make sure I’m reading this right. So, the yellow
part is showing Commercial? What is that showing when it’s yellow?
ANDREWS: I will address this the best I can. The yellow part it doesn’t appear to have a
specific title in the legend, but it does show the town of Waimea. The kind of developed area of
Waimea.
DEFRANCO: Right.
ANDREWS: Whereas the green as you’ll see is designated Small Farms and Ranches
Preservation Program, and so the larger area here shows the subject property yeah.
DEFRANCO: So, they’re looking at that as an extension with walkways, and bikeways that
would get you into town and shopping and is that the idea?
ANDREWS: It looks like that’s the concept.
DEFRANCO: Right and so, then the back portion of the lot that is still green is where you
would build homes or small farms. Small farms meaning an acre. What’s a small farm?
ANDREWS: Right, so―
VITOUSEK: This is―
ANDREWS: ―sorry, go-ahead Chair Vitousek.
VITOUSEK: Go ahead, go ahead.
ANDREWS: The designation on the subject property aligns fairly well with the current zoning.
10
EXHIBIT C
DEFRANCO: Okay.
ANDREWS: Sorry I meant to say the State Land Use designation where you have ag that the
site itself is split between the urban designations and the ag zoning.
DEFRANCO: So right. So, in the applicant’s proposal where the pink area is, is where he’s
looking to do the commercial use?
ANDREWS: Correct.
DEFRANCO: And in the back he’s looking to do, build some homes. Is that right?
ANDREWS: That’s correct. That’s the proposal.
DEFRANCO: And in the CDP it was sort of looked at in this area that there would be sidewalks
here, so people can bike into town to go shopping and then go home. Is that right? But right
now, there’s no sidewalks. Right, there’s no sidewalks there now?
ANDREWS: Not currently. Although DPW did request that, and it is part of the conditions.
DEFRANCO: So, if this was to go forwards and they would be putting in the sidewalks. Is that
right?
ANDREWS: Yes, so if you if you look at the rezone Condition number G.
DEFRANCO: Yes.
ANDREWS: Prior to issuance of final subdivision approval/final plan approval for the CN
zoned area that’s the commercial area. The applicant would be required to pavement widening
with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvement, signs, and markings, and so
forth, so that’s part of the condition.
DEFRANCO: Alright and then that brings up my question and I think other people’s drainage
and flooding. So, you put in these sidewalks and it’s in a flood zone. What happens when it
floods? What happens is there gutters or drains or culverts.
ANDREWS: Yes, some of those design questions could probably be addressed better by the
engineers, but there are conditions that do require the applicant to comply with Flood Code
compliance.
DEFRANCO: Right.
ANDREWS: So, it will have to comply with County, sorry I’m trying to find the condition, but
yeah, it’ll have―
KERN: Chapter 27.
11
EXHIBIT C
ANDREWS: ―Chapter, right. It’s Condition L, so it requires all construction shall comply with
Chapter 27, Floodplain Management of the Hawai‘i County Code, so.
DEFRANCO: Okay. Well, thank you for that and I can see why there’s some expectation on the
part of Mr. Metzler to look at what is laid out here, and then to present a plan to us that could
conform to the CDP Plan. Thank you.
VITOUSEK: One thing I would like to add on that while we’re looking at the CDP map there to
address it. The CDP map splits it into those two categories, the yellow which is described as
being part of the town and then the green being the Small Farms and Ranches Preservation
Program and that boundary falls along the lines of the State Land Use urban district. So, it’s
because of that existing State Land Use Boundary classifying that as urban district, which is why
you have that split on this one property were part of it within the yellow and part of it’s with the
green.
DEFRANCO: Thank you.
KERN: Just to add further to that conversation, if you look at the, can you pull up the LUPAG
map?
ANDREWS: Yes.
KERN: So, the LUPAG map, which is this, which is the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
Map, or the General Plan shows the medium density urban and the low density urban and so
there’s a little bit of a conflict with that low density urban component. Per the CDP with the
preservation area and per the General Plan when there’s a conflict between the General Plan and
the CDP the General Plan is the overriding document. So, that’s why we ended up supporting it
for this, when there was the crossover of the General Plan had not, then we would probably have
not supported the backside of it would only looked at the front side of it. So, you’re seeing 3
different areas there that all kind of come together and it’s really close just some history there.
DEFRANCO: Mike if I could just ask one more question. I’m also glad that you clarify this
idea of monster homes being made there, and so I’m assuming, and this is just a question for Mr.
Metzler. You’re looking at this as part of building the community up, not a speculation on your
part of some kind of fast turnover?
METZLER: No. Barbara, can you hear me?
DEFRANCO: Yes, I can hear you.
METZLER: No. I think fast turnover on this property is not an inoperable situation, but the plan
is to create a few house lots. Keep them as affordable as possible and sell them as vacant lots so
our community can build a house there to their liking. We are in the process of creating some
CC&R’s or covenants, if you will, that will require a tasteful architecture there in keeping with
the local community.
12
EXHIBIT C
DEFRANCO: Thank you.
METZLER: They will just be house lots; I’m not going to build houses there. Now, I guess, I
should say, there are the 2 ranch homes there now, and those are each going to have their own lot
according to our plan and we will sell those 2 houses upon the approval and hopefully we have
enough to from that to develop the infrastructure for the commercial and other residential lots.
DEFRANCO: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates?
YATES: There is a 2-story building like a commercial building that you’re doing there?
METZLER: Well, those are concepts, Mrs. Yates. And you’ll see we fashioned those 3
concepts. One to look like the Spencer house in Waimea right there by the center of town and
we use George’s Service across the street, which is now Earl’s as a template for another one and
I can’t remember what we use for the third, but we really just fashioned those after something
that wasn’t a big metal warehouse and already exists in town.
YATES: So, there’s no parking on the property there were the building will be?
METZLER: Well, if you see the plan and maybe Ms. Andrews can put that up. What we’ve
done is we’ve put all the parking behind the buildings sort of like old style where the street, the
buildings were on the street and the cars will be parked behind.
YATES: Okay, because I was looking at the street map that showed that the middle turn and I
was just trying to visualize. Is the place that you’re building directly across the street from Earl’s
or is it further?
METZLER: It’s pretty much right across from Earl’s.
YATES: Because that turn thing, that middle median where you turn. It seems it doesn’t go as
far as Earl’s. It kind of stops before that, so I was just wondering if you still going to have that
area where you would have that median that middle area where people would be out of traffic.
METZLER: Well―
YATES: To turn into your parking lot that is.
METZLER: Okay, so on the left side of the drawing you see Māmalahoa Highway. And if you
look in the upper left corner there’s a driveway across the street that says, I believe it says Earl’s
Store. So that’s Earl’s right there.
YATES: Okay.
13
EXHIBIT C
METZLER: So, their driveway is on the street and ours are down a little bit further toward
Waimea.
YATES: So, you don’t have a problem with the traffic. So, they’ll be okay in other words they
would be in the middle where they can make that left turn?
METZLER: Right.
YATES: Or the right, however.
METZLER: Right and you see the 2 directional road between the highway and the buildings.
That’s going to allow for cars to take it easy, they’re not going to be rushing in and out. Plenty
of storage right there for people coming in and out of the property.
YATES: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Okay, are there any other questions from Commissioners.
METZLER: I just have a couple of comments if that’s okay Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK: Actually, I have some questions first and then after that then maybe you could do
your comments.
METZLER: Okay.
VITOUSEK: Cool. So, in one of the pictures that we saw in the application look like there’s a
for sale sign on the property. Is that for this lot?
METZLER: No, that picture was taken a couple of years ago and it’s not for sale now.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
METZLER: It wasn’t sold and it’s not for sale. We put one of the houses on the market, but it
didn’t sell.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Let’s see, can the applicant or County provide a little bit of history for us
on the previous Change of Zone and then the relinquishing of that zoning. When had that
occurred and by whom?
ANDREWS: Yeah, I can summarize essentially drawing from what we have in the background
report. There was a Change of Zone ordinance effective on June 22, 1993 for this property.
Which rezoned the subject property from an Agricultural 5-acres zone to a Neighborhood
Commercial (CN 7.5) zoning district for the northern half of the subject parcel that would be the
closest to the highway portion of the property.
VITOUSEK: Who initiated that?
14
EXHIBIT C
ANDREWS: The Applicant I’d have to look that up I don’t have that.
VITOUSEK: Was that you Mr. Metzler?
METZLER: No, I can give you a little bit of background. Earlier I mentioned an unscrupulous
purchaser tied up the property, he is the person who instituted that ordinance and when we
purchased the property, we I think petitioned to and received one of them were the call voiding
that ordinance.
VITOUSEK: So, it was that previous owner, or the interim “- - -“.
METZLER: Yeah, he was the owner of record of the property, yes.
VITOUSEK: Okay. So, he received the Neighborhood Commercial zoning which only applied
to the portion of the property that is under the State Land Use urban district. Is that correct?
ANDREWS: Correct.
VITOUSEK: Okay, and then so Mr. Metzler after you purchased it you initiated the rezone back
to Ag zoning?
METZLER: Yes.
VITOUSEK: And what year was that?
METZLER: Well, I don’t know must have been in the late 90’s, I really don’t know.
ANDREWS: Oh, I can jump in because the official record is September 12, 2012 is the effective
date of the Change of Zone Ordinance Number 02 10 which was initiated by the Planning
Director.
VITOUSEK: Our background report indicates that was initiated by the Planning Director for
lack of compliance.
ANDREWS: And it reverted the previously zoned the CN zone area back to the original A-5a
zoning.
VITOUSEK: And so that that is sort of a discrepancy there, whether it was initiated by the
applicant in the late 90’s or whether it was a result of noncompliance by the applicant. Maija?
JACKSON: Yeah, Chair Vitousek I think our background report has an error, because it says
September 2012, but the ordinance is a 02 ordinance. So, I believe what probably happened was
the owner at the time I’m not sure if Mr. Metzler owned the property at the time but back in 2002
the owner probably wrote in requesting that the ordinance be repealed and then the Planning
Director initiated that action.
15
EXHIBIT C
METZLER: That’s what I recall happening, I’m not very good on the dates. I think that what
happened. I know we requested that the ordinance be rescinded.
GARSON: If I may, it is September 14, 2002 when the ordinance was repealed. Mr. Metzler
bought the property in about April of 2002. The request from the owner to revert the rezoning
was about January. So it was during that year that Mr. Metzler purchase the property. I will say
that it was a prior owner’s noncompliance with all of the prior rezoning conditions that led to
that. Not anything that Mr. Metzler had done, he was just purchasing the property and they were
again all the noncompliance with all of the conditions at that time. Nothing that he did.
VITOUSEK: I guess this is a question for the Planning Department and kind of got an indication
from the last one, but the South Kohala Community Development Plan establishes the Small
Farms and Ranches Preservation Program where any lot it’s supposed to be Ag-5 is not supposed
to be rezoned. And the list of few exemption criteria and this doesn’t appear meet any of those.
So, why is it that we are supporting the rezone of this?
KERN: I’ll take that question. As I mentioned before, when you look at the LUPAG map the
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map that is the General Plan it shows a medium density
urban and low density urban. Low density urban supports single family residential of RS-7.5 or
RS-10 or RS-15, so, residential size lots. And per the General Plan when there’s a conflict
between the General Plan and the CDP the General Plan is the overriding document so in this
case, the low-density urban was applied to the remainder of that parcel. It can be found in the
General Plan under 15-2.
VITOUSEK: What is the plan as far as is there any plans indicated from County level about
providing sewer in this area?
KERN: I will have to defer to staff on that one.
JACKSON: I’m not aware of any plans for sewer in the area Chair Vitousek.
KERN: You’re mute Mike.
VITOUSEK: It seems like something that we’re going to have to start thinking about because
continuing growth and on individual wastewater systems doesn’t seem like the sustainable thing
to do. So, hopefully we can try to get together a regional plan for sewer for Waimea.
METZLER: I think everyone agrees with that.
VITOUSEK: Could you please give us a quick rundown of what the proposed CC&Rs would
be? For the lots in the back.
METZLER: Well, Chair. As I mentioned earlier, we’re just conceptualizing those now, but they
would be centered around the existing ranch style homes that are in the area. So for instance, the
exteriors would probably consist of corrugated metal roofs, actual real board and baton siding
and a little bit of gingerbread here and there, and some offsetting paint colors in greens and reds.
16
EXHIBIT C
VITOUSEK: Is there going to be a square footage requirement?
METZLER: At this time, no.
VITOUSEK: And ―
METZLER: And I might mention that these lots are let me see if I can pull up that PDF. The
house lots 6 thru 9 are 21,000 feet, 18,000 feet, 35,000 feet and 29,000 feet. So, they’re
generously sized and I think lend themselves to some adequate architecture.
VITOUSEK: It’s just me trying to understand your vision for the place is it with the CC&Rs are
they kind of maintain the value of the neighborhoods or?
METZLER: Well, I’m interested in keeping Waimea looking like Waimea and feeling like
Waimea and we had one of the Lindsey family opine earlier in his forebears who I know Andy
and Glenn Lindsey. Their old timers like me now, but their parents subdivided the place that’s
called Lindsey Road. Right there by the park in the middle of Waimea. They chose to make lots
that were fairly large generous lots and that’s become one of the most attractive parts of the town
Waimea of their own Lindsey Road. Pu‘u Hoku‘ula I think a lot of people call it Buster Brown
Hill. And that’s what we envisioned for these properties for some large lots not necessarily with
large houses on them, good for people to have a chicken coop and maybe raise a calf or
something like that.
VITOUSEK: That wouldn’t be allowed in the residential district.
METZLER: Okay, well, whatever they want to do, but maybe they want to raise avocados,
how’s that?
VITOUSEK: So, the area that you mentioned as the model will be Hoku‘ula and Lindsey Road
area is obviously the most expensive real estate in Waimea and the people that are being
attracted to that area are not the people who grew up in that area.
METZLER: I disagree, Sir. My son just built a house there. He was born here and went to HPA
and his wife was born here and my grandsons are born here and they live there.
VITOUSEK: Congrats to them for being able to afford it. Hats off to you for setting them up in
the way.
METZLER: I don’t want you to make a statement that―
VITOUSEK: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I believe that my statement is accurate that
properties is the most the most expensive and among the most attractive to the recent folks who
are moving in.
METZLER: You also said that the local people can’t afford it.
17
EXHIBIT C
VITOUSEK: Please, if you have to mute yourself, otherwise I will mute you. Thank you. So,
what my concern being that if we are identifying CC&Rs in order to make that be the idea of
what Waimea is then we need to in my opinion take a harder look to me Waimea is having a dog
cage, have been dog kennels look like right next door at the Parker Ranch homes. That’s
Waimea the open space and is also Waimea. So, thank you for providing your information on
what the goal is for the property.
Just again question for the County Planning Department. The soil classification for this area.
What is the soil classification?
ANDREWS: Sorry, Commissioner. So, the Land Study Bureau (LSB) classifies this as “B”
unclassified sorry it's 50% of the properties designated as unclassified and the remainder is
classified as “B”.
VITOUSEK: So―
JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, I’m sorry. Can I correct that. The ALISH classification for the
property is Prime Ag Land in the southern portion, unclassified near the highway and the Land
Study Bureau is unclassified near the highways and “B” soils which are good in the rear portion
of the property.
VITOUSEK: So again, the following along the lines of the existing land use urban district being
unclassified as it’s Land Use urban and then the portion that’s classified within the agricultural
district is classified its prime right?
JACKSON: That’s correct.
VITOUSEK: Does any other Commissioners have any questions? Would any one like to―
GARSON: Chair Vitousek, Chair Vitousek. I’m so sorry to interrupt you, I forgot to mention
that the applicant wanted to propose some edits to Condition J and it is to be consistent with what
our traffic consultant intended with the recommendations. I think you received a copy via email
of the proposed edits. I can read the whole thing to you or let you know what the edits are.
VITOUSEK: Please, go ahead.
GARSON: Okay, so Condition J states prior to issuance of final plan approval for any use in the
CN zoned area, the applicant shall provide traffic mitigation measures, as recommended by the
traffic impact analysis report dated November 5, 2020 to include and we wanted to add the
following, if required by the Department of Public Works. So additional languages, the
following, if required by Public Works. We added that a qualification in there, so that if Public
Works wanted something different, they wouldn't necessarily be bound by these requirements.
So, I’ll go on the condition further states 1) the median taper on the left turn lane on eastbound
Māmalahoa Highway at Keaka Kea Place should be restriped to extend the two-way, left turn
18
EXHIBIT C
lane from Earl’s Pa‘auilo Store driveway to the beginning of the left-turn lane at Keaka Kea
Place 2) minimum 100-foot spacing should be provided between the intersections on Māmalahoa
Highway at Waikelehua Place, and West and Center Driveways, and Earl’s Pa‘auilo Store
Driveway/Ishihara Farm Road. We wanted to add “and” and then 3) a minimum of and our
change is to 20 feet distance should be provided between the edge of the circular roadway and
the future widening of its travelway on Māmalahoa Highway. And we wanted to add “at both
commercial zone driveways”. So previously the condition said that there should be a minimum
of 25 feet between the edge of the circular road widening from Māmalahoa Highway to the
internal road.
But upon further consultant with our traffic consultant, what happened was he had based the
figures on a 10-foot road widening extension from Māmalahoa Highway and there’s a condition
in the rezoning ordinance that it should be 15. So hence we’re going from a minimum of 25 to a
minimum of 20 feet distance from the edge of the circulatory road and the future road widening
and again the clarification is that those are just at the driveways. The driveway entrances, which
was the intent of the traffic consultant.
And lastly, we were going to delete number 4 of Condition J. This is traffic signal warrant
analysis should be considered at the Māmalahoa Highway intersections at Waikelehua and at
Keaka Kea Place by the Year 2040. The reason for the request of that be deleted is because is
again in consulting with our traffic consultant, that was not a recommendation for this applicant
per se, because the development period for this project is 5 years. The recommendation of traffic
single warrant analysis should be considered by 2040 was really just a generalized
recommendation not specific to this application. So again, I believe you were emailed these
changes and we request that Condition J be amended accordingly.
VITOUSEK: Thank you. Okay, Commissioners anybody would like to make a motion, if only
for the purpose of discussion? Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: For the purpose of discussion, I’m giving a favorable recommendation. I move
that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for the
State Land Use Boundary Docket PL-SLU-2021-000001 based on the Planning Director’s
recommendation. Do I do one for the second one too, so we can talk about both at the same
time?
VITOUSEK: Dalilah what do you say?
SCHLUETER: We are going to need motion for each. Each one is going to have a separate
motion. So, I don’t think that there’s going to be, I think we all understand that this entire
project crosses over it in discussion. So, I don’t think there’s a problem and having a group
discussion over the entire project, but they’ll have to be a separate motion for that second
application agenda item 2.
DEFRANCO: So, I would wait to do that then? Yeah, okay.
SCHLUETER: That’s correct.
19
EXHIBIT C
DEFRANCO: Alright.
VITOUSEK: We have a motion on the floor is there a second? Second by Commissioner
Armbruster. Now we―
KERN: Mr. Chair?
VITOUSEK: Go ahead.
KERN: If I may request maybe a 5-minute recess before we get into discussion.
VITOUSEK: Sure, no problem.
KERN: Thanks.
VITOUSEK: We’ll take a quick 5-minute recess.
Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 11:42 a.m. He called the hearing back to order at
11:49 a.m.
VITOUSEK: So, we have a motion on the floor moved and seconded to send a favorable
recommendation and this is on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Is that correct?
Okay, so at this time, Commissioners, we can open it up to discussion.
DEFRANCO: Um’ Mike?
VITOUSEK: Yes.
DEFRANCO: Before we do, do we make now the recommendation for the second part, so we
talked about both at the same time, are we wait?
VITOUSEK: I think it’s okay for us to discuss everything on this one motion, and then we can
make a secondary motion actually another motion at the conclusion of this one. So, I think it’s
okay for us to have our discussion now, so you could vote on this one, and then do another
motion for the second part of the agenda. Okay. Discussion.
PAISHON-DUARTE: I appreciate the thoughts that were shared by the applicant, however,
with an overwhelming amount of testimony in opposition to this project and in review of the
CDP with Waimea Policy Number 1. Stating Preservation of Waimea‘s Sense of Place shall be
the principal, overarching land use policy for Waimea. I am not in favor.
VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: I know that we have more letters from the office showing opposition. But it felt a
bit to me like it was, and I don’t know but maybe it was motivated by one person who had a
20
EXHIBIT C
grudge and don’t know if it was really community generated. I don’t know, I don't know but it
just felt sort of strange to me. So, I know that there’s probably people that support this project
and there’s probably people against this project, but I would hope that in the future we had some
kind of filter to understand what we’re reading when we’re getting it. I don’t know if anybody
else felt like that, but I did
VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates?
YATES: That was part of the reason why I brought up about that 800 plus because I got an
email from our representative from, what’s his name, I’m having a senior minute right now. A
Tarnas that he had gotten a lot of opposition regarding this particular project in Waimea. So, this
is why I had brought that up because I read that and so and then and I’ve talked to some of the
people who are for it. But it just seemed like there was a lot of opposition going to our
representative on Oahu. So, this is why I brought it up when I did earlier. I really think that I’m
sorry. I really―
VITOUSEK: That’s my fault.
YATES: I think that I guess it’s a dozen or a half dozen or whatever they say so I guess we just
do the best we can.
VITOUSEK: Commissioner Armbruster?
ARMBRUSTER: Yeah, I kind of got a similar feeling about like I looked at some of the zip
codes for the people that were submitting that, and they were from all over the place, and I don’t
have any way to understand if they are people that were from here, or if they’re people that just
we’re on like an Instagram. Like it just felt sort of out of context to me, so I don’t know that
those numbers are like terribly accurate reflections of what they were. I live down the street and
I don’t know that any of my neighbor’s care either way. The traffic’s kind of a bummer but I
don’t know if Mr. Metzler’s little project is really going to be the thing that triggers a bit you
know, a big change. I think it’s certainly an infrastructure that needs to be developed and then
evolved over time, but I don’t know that the project of this size is something that is the trigger
for that.
VITOUSEK: So, for me I grew up in Waimea. My parents still live in Waimea. I tried to read
as many of the 800 letters, as we possibly could in the time and in the format that they came in
which proves to be very difficult given the amount of stuff we have to read. That being said.
The names on that list are people that I grew up with, they are the community members that I
know and the family names Alapai’s, the Lau, Lindsey, Ahio, Kaniho. Those names are the
names of Waimea, Bertelmann . To me it’s remarkable the amount of opposition that was
generated from the people of Waimea to this somewhat small project. To me it gives an
indication through the testimony where they’re very clear that they feel as though the way of life
in the town is being invaded their words, not mine by the wealth that has moved up into town
from places like Kaupulehu.
21
EXHIBIT C
During the pandemic, especially where the goals of owning a home of living in Waimea have
never been less attainable to the people of Waimea. And so, I think that’s why we are seeing this
dramatic shift where a project like this in years past wouldn’t have gotten a lot of attention, most
likely but, today given everything that’s happening in the town, given the changes in the town
that people see as adverse to the lifestyle that they know and grew up in that personally I can
understand, having grown up there and seeing the changes now. So, I find the results of the
testimony to be very indicative of what the people of Waimea think. I also think that this is
prime agricultural land. I can understand wanting to do something within the urban designation
along the highway. But with something designated as prime agricultural land that should mean
something. And being part of a Small Farms and Ranches Preservation Program that should
mean something.
So, to me, I can’t support the project, because I think it goes against the South Kohala
Community Development Plan. I think that the people of Waimea have made it very clear that
they are in opposition to it. I think that the creation of the CC&Rs exists to promote higher
property values to increase development building standards, making it less likely that people
from Waimea we’ll be able to afford and build on those lots. I don’t see this as adding attainable
housing, I see it as adding to the unaffordable housing problem. For me, I can’t support a
favorable recommendation on this. Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: So, Mike the way that this is now part of the lower piece along the road has an
urban designation, does it?
VITOUSEK: Correct.
DEFRANCO: So that could be developed into a commercial, a storefront, is that right?
VITOUSEK: Not under the under the current zoning. The current zoning is for Agricultural-5
acres so zoning would have to be amended for that portion of the property in order to allow for it.
DEFRANCO: So, it seems to me though, is that the portion that all of this debris was dumped
on that couldn’t be considered good soil anymore right. I mean if it has been contaminated. I’m
just wondering how that―
VITOUSEK: We don’t have the information to make the call on what the soil is other than the
soil classifications that are provided to us. It could be some sort of an environmental report, an
engineering report that would accompany that would indicate that because of previous dumping,
the soil is no longer viable for agriculture or something. That would have to be a separate issue
other than what we have now, knowing that this is classified as prime agricultural land.
DEFRANCO: Okay, and so thank you, I’m sort of looking at all of this also because I didn’t see
that the way that the CDP map was drawn. In putting in sidewalks and connectiveness that that
portion of the land to do something else so that would probably be okay. It’s the idea, the part
that’s not okay is that because it is important ag land and part of the farming program that to
allow this to go forward would set a precedent for or something, but, like you said, if this were a
few years ago it would be okay for this to happen.
22
EXHIBIT C
VITOUSEK: Well, what I said―
DEFRANCO: “- - -“
VITOUSEK: What I said was a few years ago I don’t think this would have necessarily
generated the same amount of community opposition. Which is different than whether a few
years ago this would be an okay. I think that this―
DEFRANCO: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: ―I believe this is contrary to the South Kohala Community Development Plan and
as Director Kern said that when there’s a conflict, the General Plan can be used. But I feel like
the purpose of a Community Plan is to refine the General Plan and to indicate that there are areas
we need to take a closer look. This is one of the areas that the Community Plan took a closer
look at and decided that these areas should be preserved in agriculture, because their prime
agricultural lands and because it benefits the overall way of life in the community to have this
land be open for agriculture.
DEFRANCO: So, HPM and those other places right across the street Earl’s and all those places
that are surrounding this piece. That’s okay because it happened before, is that right?
VITOUSEK: Yeah, there within the Waimea Town Center and within the urban district.
DEFRANCO: Okay, but the yellow portion is in the urban district, right?
VITOUSEK: Correct.
DEFRANCO: Okay, so doesn’t that sort of mean that the CDP in looking at it thought that this
would be a place where you would expand and put in the sidewalks and possibly maybe an ice
cream store. I don’t know what they were thinking because I didn’t go to those meetings. But
looking at the map, it looks like they thought that it would go down to Earl’s and this might be
where you would do that.
VITOUSEK: It looks like that they intended to have Waimea Town Center uses on the road
portion of this property and not on the back portion of this property that’s what the South Kohala
Community Development Plan indicates.
DEFRANCO: Okay, so then if this project were redesigned somehow where the back portion
was presented differently in the front portion presented the way it is and, unlike you I’m not sure
where all of the all the opposition is. So, I’m still unsure of that, I did recognize a lot of names,
but I also noticed a lot of repetitive things and it just felt a little funny to me. So, I’m not saying
that I condone this but I’m saying that I’m glad we’re having this discussion about it. So, I’m
wondering if in this discussion is Mr. Metzler part of the discussion or no, this is just between us,
right?
23
EXHIBIT C
VITOUSEK: Right now, yes, this is between the Commission, but if someone would like to ask
further questions, I’m totally okay that.
DEFRANCO: So are we allowed to ask is there a way for him to look at the project again
because of the opposition that we’re encountering with people and with land designation of the
type of land it is if they would reconsider the design of this project. Do we ask that kind of a
question?
VITOUSEK: Of course, you can ask that.
DEFRANCO: Okay, so, are you there Mr. Metzler? He’s not there is somebody there from. Hi,
you would have to unmute your thing. But Mr. Metzler I’m just asking if looking at everything
that’s before us in an understanding that you’ve met with a lot of the traffic things and the
discussion of the flood thing. But the question is not of course wanting to change the character
of Waimea and that the CC&Rs are not developed enough for us to understand what your
proposals are. I mean is your way to re-look at this project with you a little bit.
METZLER: Well Ms. DeFranco, I don’t know, I’m not a Land Planner. I’m depending on my
counsel to advise me. I think my intent is being either misread or misunderstood. The message
that I have always received from the neighborhood is a little bit larger lots could be used for ag,
and everybody wants to keep Waimea, Waimea. So, I think if I was giving instructions to my
counsel, who is helping me plan the project I probably would have given those instructions to
them. If, on the other hand the Chair or the Committee or anybody else would rather see 7,500
square-foot lots and small houses then that’s fine. I wouldn’t want to do it that way, I wouldn’t
want to live in a neighborhood that was like that, but if that’s what it takes to create housing for
people in Waimea that’s what we’ll do.
DEFRANCO: That’s my―
METZLER: Please, I just want to note two quick things. I started getting opposition letters from
the Planning Department and I got about maybe 30. All of them were from the TMT opposition
people. So, I went on the Instagram site, I think your instincts and other instincts here are
absolutely correct. I went on to the Instagram website and I took the time to read every one of
them, and then I thought well I‘ll try to offer some positive comments. So, all of those
checkboxes that you see on every one of those opposition Instagram posts. Every one of those
are part of their choice. So, they can choose or not choose any of them. Most of the people
chose all of the bad things or the things that they think are bad about the project. And after you
do that and you get ready to sign out, you can actually go to the bottom, and say these are my
other comments.
So, I tried to put a positive comment on the TMT website and guess what? Unless you click one
or more of the oppositions points the site won’t let you offer anything positive. Nothing! So, if
Mr. Vitousek or Mr. Bertelmann, or Mr. Lindsey or any of the old family people that we all
know from Waimea and we’re all friends with. If they tried to do anything positive it wouldn’t
let them, so all you’re seeing there is, as you said just some group of various members from all
over the place in opposition. And lastly, I’m sorry to take up so much time, I asked if Ms. Sauer
24
EXHIBIT C
would read or put into the record at least one letter that I know of, so if that’s available I’d love
to see it. Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Thank you.
DEFRANCO: So, just to finish my question. So, Mr. Metzler your intention in this project has
to do with something that would improve the community and I’m just sorry that somehow that
that wasn’t presented in a way that we saw that.
METZLER: Well, if I have to get down to giving you the CC&Rs before we even have an
approval. We put in lots of money and time to get where we are today, and I think our intent was
to get something that we thought would be appropriate and useful and beneficial to the town.
And then the details can follow, but if we have to have CC&Rs to get an approval, then that’s
something we can do.
MRS. METZLER: Ask if you can share your screen and show that ―
MR. METZLER: I don’t have that.
MRS. METZLER: Ask if I can share.
MR. METZLER: Can we share our screen and show you the type of house we envision there?
VITOUSEK: Yes, absolutely.
MR. METZLER: Okay, my wife Joni is going to put it on her screen.
MRS. METZLER: Unmute myself and then I’m going to share my screen. Okay hold on. Let’s
see, can you see my screen?
MR. METZLER: No.
MRS. METZLER: Okay, let me try it again. Share screen, desktop, oh shoot, it’s on my
desktop. Let’s see.
DEFRANCO: Maybe you could send it to someone in the County and they can get it up for you.
MRS. METZLER: Okay. Let’s see give me the email address and I’ll send it to you right now.
I sent it to John but we’re not that tech savvy go ahead.
JACKSON: You can send it to Jessica dot―
MRS. METZLER: Jessica dot.
JACKSON: Dot Andrews A N D R E W S
25
EXHIBIT C
MRS. METZLER: Okay.
JACKSON: At Hawaii county.gov.
MRS. METZLER: At Hawaii county dot gov. Jessica.andrews@hawaiicounty.gov
JACKSON: Yep.
MRS. METZLER: Okay, before you receive them, these are the 2 houses that John when we
found the property were completely overgrown with weeds and about ready to fall down. He
took them back down to the studs and down to the ground and he rebuilt these houses in the time
period of the existing properties in Waimea. Let’s see, I’ll quit sharing my screen. And this is
what we envision is to have. We paved that Ishihara roadway and left it to look like an ag
subdivision, and these are what we envision as far as the type of homes that would be built here.
And one of our employees, we sold him one of the lots and he actually built his house there and
has lived there and help John clean up all the debris off the lot. Did you get it g Jessica? It just
went through.
ANDREWS: Not yet sorry.
VITOUSEK: While we’re waiting maybe Commissioner Armbruster you’ve had your hand up
for a while.
ARMBRUSTER: Thank you, I had a question for my fellow Commissioners that have maybe
done this a little bit longer than I have. I know in the maps it’s very common that parcels are
split right, 2 different uses there’s a line down the middle. Is there precedent for what y’all have
done before with those properties like which one takes precedence, or how we deal with that or,
if you look at something like this recently?
VITOUSEK: We haven’t seen a lot where they’re split. But typically, the usage has to follow
within the zoning of the split. So, one would have to be compliant. The use has to be compliant
with the zoning in the area of the split. Maybe Maija you might be the best person to answer that
as far as a programmatic treatment of those split zoned properties.
JACKSON: Commissioner Armbruster I’m sorry I caught the tail end of your question.
ARMBRUSTER: Oh sure, so how we have both which was it medium urban and light urban or
something like that, and I know I’ve seen this in plans with the larger parcels, the limestone
follows property lines they fairly regularly split down the middle or part of one. Is there
precedent for which one of those we should be looking at?
JACKSON: So, we do have some situations where we’ll have like a split LUPAG General Plan
designation, and the General Plan does kind of offer some guidance about how to interpret those
lines. It does say that it’s not parcel specific that it’s a general broad-brush approach to
designating lands for development. So, in the past, we have had prior Planning Directors, that
will do like a map interpretation, and they’ll call for example in this situation with this property.
26
EXHIBIT C
They will say I designate the entire property as medium density urban or I’ll designate the entire
properties low density urban because both are on the property. So that’s kind of why Director
Kern went with his approach in this case. There is no IAL - Important Ag Land designation on
the property, which is why he felt that the urban uses the commercial zoning, and the residential
zoning would be appropriate for this property.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay, so generally, it would be Planning Director decision, not a not a
Commission decision?
JACKSON: That’s correct.
ARMBRUSTER: Okay.
JACKSON: Of course, the Commission can always disagree, right. So, you have your own
recommendation. If you’re interested, I can also speak to other options for the property if the
Commission wants to consider other options, I can offer that planning perspective, if you would
like.
VITOUSEK: That would be great I think it’s also just important to know that even the Planning
Commission in this instance is a recommending body that the decision on the land use guideline
and the rezoning will be made by the County Council so we’re just a recommendation. But yeah
absolutely, Maija would you mind taking us through some alternatives?
JACKSON: Sure. So, I think it really depends on what your intent or purpose is if your purpose
is to preserve ag land. Then one option would be to keep the southern portion of the property in
AG-5a and State Land Use Agricultural. Another option which would allow a little bit more
density would be to keep the rear portion of the property in State Land Use AG, and to approve a
FA-1 acre zoning. And I think that would allow for 2 lots so the 2 existing dwellings could each
have their own separate lots. Then getting a little bit more urban than that you can approve a
change to the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to urban for the rear portion and allow RA-
1/2-acre zoning. Which would give a total of 4 lots instead of the 6 that are proposed with their
urban single-family residential zoning. So, you really have 3 alternatives to the applicant’s
request.
KERN: Real quick Maija just to add, the third option could be State Land Use rural. So, it’s not
urban it could be State Land Use rural which would allow for a residential Ag-1/2 acre minimum
lot size of a half an acre. So, you wouldn’t be doing a State Land Use urban, which would then
potentially allow for other things in the future. So, the rural would cap it at the half acre lots.
JACKSON: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: : That make more sense to me the State Land Use rural designation or the family
agriculture designation. To me, those seem like more appropriate designations for Waimea.
Again, we don’t control what happens in the future with the project, but the urban designation
would allow for higher density, and we don’t control the subdivision, we don’t control what gets
27
EXHIBIT C
done is just the zoning and the land use boundary. So, I think we could solve some of those
problems by eliminating the urban designation. I see Kathy has her hand up, Kathy go ahead.
GARSON: Yes, Chair Vitousek I haven’t been able to discuss any of this with my client I was
wondering if we could take a short five-minute break? So, I can explain to him what just
happened.
VITOUSEK: Of course.
GARSON: Okay.
VITOUSEK: We’ll take a five-minute break; we’ll be back at 12:26.
Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 12:21 p.m. He called the hearing back to order at
12:27 p.m.
VITOUSEK: Okay, everybody ready to come back together? Okay, I don’t see the applicant
yet.
DEFRANCO: Did we get the email Mike with the pictures yet? Did Jessica get the email yet?
ANDREWS: Yeah, I can certainly share those if the Commission would like to do that.
VITOUSEK: Sure.
ANDREWS : I’m sharing 2 photos that were provided by the applicant just now. Can
everybody see the screen? This is the first photo that was provided, and this is the second photo
that was provided.
VITOUSEK: Are those the existing structures?
ANDREWS: I’ll have to ask the applicant to address, I’m not sure.
METZLER: Is that question directed at me?
VITOUSEK: Sure.
METZLER: The green house was the Ishihara home. That house there it’s a 2-bedroom, 2-bath
house and we completely rebuilt it, but in the same motif and footprint. The red house was up on
close to Māmalahoa Highway was a farm dwelling and we relocated it so that it’s off of the
highway and we put a new foundation under it. Then redid the entire house, but with same floor
plan and added a carport. These are what we envisioned for the agricultural subdivision portion.
VITOUSEK: And what is the square footage on these?
28
EXHIBIT C
METZLER: Well, the red house is a 2-bedroom and 1-bath and it’s about 960 square feet. And
the green house is 2-bedrooms and 2-baths and it’s about 1,100 square feet. I see these as a
template and we would allow things like this, I don’t think there’s any argument that this looks
better in Waimea than a kit house that maybe somebody else would want to put up. But this is
what we envision as our CC&R template.
VITOUSEK: And how restrictive to something like this will the CC&R template be? I mean
would you be, let’s say someone wants to come in and build a big custom home on their lot
5,000 square feet. But they’re using a similar rail pattern and roof line. Is that ―
METZLER: I would answer that by saying this, and I hesitate to, but the Kristin Counter
testimony. Where she said that she was running away from these big houses on Oahu. She and
her husband just built a huge house on the neighboring property which they bought from us.
They put a probably a 5,000 or 6,000 square foot house on that, so I don’t know how Mr.
Vitousek other than making small lots. I guess the only way we could do it if you would, if you
would approve our deal we can put in a CC&R limitation on square footage. I think it would
probably be probably 2,500 or 2,000 feet or less. Because ―
VITOUSEK: Again, it’s something that we approve or disapprove of we’re just a
recommendation body here that decisions on something like that is done by the County Council.
METZLER: Yeah, but we’re going down in flames here pretty quick right now, so I’m confused
because on the one hand the statements have been made that we want to have bigger lots and
more urban look. And on the other hand, if the lots are too big then the only people that can
afford them are outsiders which apparently there’s some contempt for them, so what’s going to
make you guys happy I don’t know.
VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners. I guess we can ask the, go ahead Faith sorry, go
ahead Commissioner Yates.
YATES: I just wanted to know how big of a property is this that we’re talking about?
METZLER: It’s about 5 acres ma’am.
YATES: Okay, so your proposal, if I’m understanding it correctly, the front section is where
you are thinking of doing commercial and then the back section, you’re looking to do 5 lots or
something like that.
METZLER: Yes, ma’am.
YATES: And so, the lots would be what minimum of 5,000, 10,000?
METZLER: Oh no, these are big lots, as I said earlier. The biggest one is 23,000 square feet
over about a half an acre or more and the smallest one what was it 13 - 16,000 square feet,
13,000 so they’re all generous lots.
29
EXHIBIT C
YATES: And so, how much of that is that commercial area? The size of your commercial area?
METZLER: It’s about 2 acres.
YATES: And then the commercial area?
METZLER: It’s about 2 acres.
YATES: And just out of curiosity all it says is what you call commercial, but do you have any
ideas of what kind of commercial?
METZLER: Well ma’am it’s a, we would like to have a professional center there for dentists
and doctors and businesses. But I’m not sure we can control that. Some of it is market driven,
but we would prefer something with kind of a not a lot of in and out traffic.
YATES: So, we’re not looking so that you wouldn’t be able to I’m not saying make a living and
I don’t even mean make a living. We’re not trying to make it difficult, at least I’m not making it
difficult for you, but I guess like Chairman Vitousek said there is some concern for our local
people. So that’s what makes this kind of difficult because it is really important to our families,
because I like Mike, we know quite a few people from that area there. And there are those who
want and those who don’t want so.
METZLER: Well, I mean everybody support this cultural card of how long we have been here
and whatnot you know it’s my kids great, great grandfather worked and lived in Hilo, and he
drove a wagon from Hilo to Waimea every week. So, I’m a little bit tired of this family is this
okay, and that one is not okay. I beg your pardon for making that statement, but it’s I think it’s
not the argument we really should be having here. If people in Waimea need to have house lots,
we should make some house lots and the Community Development Plan has said, we want
houses here in this area, we need help, we need housing. So, I’m just really trying to follow the
footprint that the government has set out by putting commercial on the front and a good
Ag residential component in the back. Ms. Paishon-Duarte has ulu trees in the background.
Well, why can’t we grow up avocados and ulu there.
YATES: That’s right, that’s right, yep.
VITOUEK: Okay. We’ve got a bunch of hands up. Director Kern would you’d like to respond?
KERN: Just real briefly maybe to help. It seems that there’s a lot less challenge around the front
portion of the property that’s zoned urban. It’s very consistent with the CDP et cetera. It seems
to be a lot of the conversation around the back end of it and I think there’s also maybe a little bit
of confusion, because we are hearing ag, but yet the zoning and the State Land Use Boundary
Amendment doesn’t necessarily support the full range of ag. So there again there may be some
confusion I don’t think there’s, I don’t see any intention of trying to miss something. But maybe
that’s where we could get some clarity on because if that is there maybe that would open that
conversation up and find a balance between what the General Plan and what the CDP has there.
30
EXHIBIT C
I think the goal right now especially with the demand and push for housing and the challenge is
how do we open up some availability to the residents or at least attainable for them. We can’t
control where it’s going but attainable in a manner that could still promote the ag component of
it as we kind of talked about earlier. So, it seems like a lot of the conversation is really around
that 2.6-ish acres on the backside as kind of as the point of contention. So just want to separate
those 2 areas out if that helps at all medics confused that one but I’ll hold off for now, thanks.
VITOUSEK: Kathy you’ve got your hand up?
GARSON: Sorry, I got lost there for a second and thank you for all of your comments and thank
you for allowing us to have that 5-minute break. It wasn’t nearly enough time that I need to
discuss with Mr. Metzler everything with all of the discussion that has happened today, and I
think at this point, if you would like to defer the matter, we can have further discussions also
with the Planning Department. That would probably be the best for this as well as the rezoning
just give us a little bit more time to have a more in-depth discussion of everything that’s
happened today, so that would be a request.
VITOUSEK: I would agree with that, I think that would be appropriate Commissioners? Okay,
in that case could somebody make a motion to defer the motion on the on the floor.
YATES: So, moved.
VITOUSEK: Moved by Commissioner Yates, second by Commissioner DeFranco. All those in
favor?
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Aye by raising hand.
VITOUSEK: Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Thank you very much, thank you to the
applicant and I hope that you guys can get together with the Planning Department and work out a
good solution.
SCHLUETER: Chair, would you also like essentially to address by motion agenda Item number
2 if you’re going to defer it to agenda Item number 1?
VITOUSEK: Sure, why don’t we also make a motion to defer agenda Item 2.
PAISHON-DUARTE: So, moved.
VITOUSEK: Moved by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte and seconded by Commissioner Yates.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Aye by raising hand.
VITOUSEK: Any opposed? Motion carries.
GARSON: Thank you for your time.
31
EXHIBIT C
ANDREWS: Can I have a question?
JACKSON: Sorry, I think this is what you’re going to ask Jessica. Our agenda for next meeting
is due tomorrow to the newspaper, so could we get some clarity on how far in the future you
would like to defer the matter to?
VITOUSEK: I would leave that up to the discretion of the applicant.
JACKSON: Okay, Ms. Garson, do you just want to contact the Planning Department when
you’re ready so most likely skip December and have something ready in January?
GARSON: Sure, let me confer I will let you know today.
JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
GARSON: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Thank you.
ANDREWS: Thank you.
The hearing adjourned at 12:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador
Secretary to Boards and Commissions
32
EXHIBIT C