HomeMy WebLinkAboutBarney and Pam Elders4 COMMENTS RE CDP
1. May 19,2016
Hawai'i County Planning Department
Attri: Hamakua CDP / LeAna Gloor, Project Planner
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hi 10, HI 96720
FEEDBACK RE: Designation of Parcel 055 as Important Agricultural Land
(IAL) in the proposed CDP for Hamakua.
Aloha Ms. Gloor and CDP, County of Hawaii:
First, I would like to thank members of the Planning Department and CDP
committee members for their commitment to preserve the natural beauty and rural
character of the Hamakua Coast, goals I endorse. The Hamakua draft CDP reflects
the hard work and thoughtful planning of those who participated in its production.
When we purchased our 3.955 acre parcel in 2004 (TMK 3-5-004-055), it was as it
is now, designated Low Density Urban (LDU) with a paved, County -maintained
road as well as water and electrical service. At that time, the acreage had been
retired from cane sugar production since the early 1990s and was overtaken by
Guinea Grass. Three structures on the property had fallen into severe disrepair and
were a neighborhood eyesore. We have spent the last 12 years rehabilitating the
property to align with its LDU designation as well as the applicable Ag20
restrictions.
At present, approximately 2.3 acres of our property is used as pasture since it is
unsuitable for row crops due to its steepness, rocky soil and two swales which
prevent easy access front to back. The remaining approximately one and one-half
acres hosts two houses (separately metered), and their detached garages as well as a
small area of semi-levelland along a portion of its makai boundary which is
suitable for part-time, small-scale agriculture and gardening activities.
Needless to say, upon reviewing the CDP, I was surprised to note that it proposes a
change in our LUP AG designation from LDU to IAL (Important Agricultural
Land). I am writing to request that our parcel retain its LDU designation for
the reasons outlined below.
1
Applicability of IAL designation to Parcel 055
a. Potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate,
topography, or other factors: Parcel 005 has characteristics which should exclude
it from the IAL designation, as noted below.
1. Soil: the soil is V okala - a poor soil which requires amendment to achieve
productivity;
2. Slope: the gulch -side slope of the property is approximately 25% and the streetside
slope is approximately 16%;
3. Machine Tillability: without extensive and costly grading, tilling would be
dangerous without a large tractor on about half of property due to its slope and
rocky soil composition; the upper plots are tilled by hand;
4. Climate: heavy rains wash away the topsoil and deplete the soil of nutrients
which require heavy amendment to be productive.
5. Size: Parcel 055 is 3.955 acres, of which, approximately 1.5 acres is suitable for
small-scale/subsistence farming (not counting the back pasture). At a purchase cost
of over $63,000/acre, farming on such a small plot is marginal. In fact, from the
bottom of Kihalani Homestead Road to the crossover road, there are no properties
greater than 15 acres in size. Kihalani Homestead reflects the rural, homestead
nature of this area aptly described in CDP Policy 4 [1/ ... lands near urban areas
where an intermediate land use between residential and productive agricultural
areas is consistent with the surrounding uses and rural character'] and the Rural
District description ["... lands primarily comprised of small farms mixed with low
density residential lots that have a minimum lot size of one-half acre... 7- In fact,
the fragmentation of the land into homestead parcels along the length of Kihalani
Homestead Road does not accommodate the type of large-scale farming envisioned
by Act 183, the State IAL law?
b . Need for LD U.- The 2005 Hawaii County General Plan3lists 53,587 acres
designated for agriculture, of which 21,632 are IAL (12.4% of the total North Hilo
acreage). Only 617 acres (.0035 ofthe total North Hilo acreage) are reserved for
LDU development and a mere 71 acres designated Rural. When considering the
11.6% change in population from 1990-2000, one must question whether the
removal ofLDU acreage such as Parcel 055 is warranted.
i Generally, slopes of 15% to 25% are considered suitable only for limited agricultural uses.
2 Act 183: "Discourage the fragmentation of important agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands to nonagricultural uses."
3 Hawaii County General Plan LUPAG.
c. Current value of parcel: the CDP raises concern that rising land values threaten
viable agricultural endeavors,4 however in many areas, especially those with water
and electric service, the "affordability train" has already left the station: the current
and inherent value of parcels such as Parcel 055 has already reduced the economic
viability of agricultural production. The valuation of Parcel 055 supports the
parcel's current LDU designation (in addition to the presence of a paved, county
maintained road as well as infrastructure such as water & power, close proximity [.4
miles] to local services such as a school, restaurants, library, swimming pool, Belt
Road, etc.) while at the same time, making our agricultural work possible.
d. Parcel -specific designations which promote consistency between the State and
County designations and reduce arbitrariness: the CDP emphasizes LUP AG land
use designations will not alter State zoning or applicable restrictions. With that
being said, the "on -paper" change to IAL does not eliminate the "on -the -ground"
reality: Parcel 055 is too small to sustain high yields for export or local
consumption nor could it be considered vital for future self-sufficiency needs of the
island.s Considering the current approved uses, size, and unsuitability of Parcel 055
for prime agriculture, the logical action would be to retain the current LDU
designation which would do more to promote consistency and reduce arbitrariness.
If application of the IAL designation to our small property is meant to serve instead
as a transition area of small farm residential land uses between the urban LD U and
the larger lot agricultural areas" or simply, "to shrink the urban designations, " it is
being done by a mis-application of the IAL label. A more appropriate, less
arbitrary action would be to allow it to remain LDU or create a Rural zone. The
CDP states that homestead areas such as Kihalani Homestead Road "accommodate
an excess of rural development in the agricultural mauka areas "as a rational for
not using a Rural designation. It would seem more consistent to use the Rural
designation if in the opinion of the planners, these properties are already fulfilling
that function. Why characterize these lots as IAL if in fact, their actual function is
Rural? Or why not keep them as LDU, a designation which more aptly describes
their "homestead" character?
a Act 183: "Limit physical improvements on important agricultural lands to maintain affordability [my emphasis] of these lands for
agricultural purposes."
'Policy 29, Rationale, Criteria for the designation of State Important Agricultural Lands, Draft Hamakua CDP.
3
e. Creation of the urban growth boundary: the UGB would more appropriately be
applied to the upper boundary of Parcel 055 for all the reasons stated in this letter.
The State Ag20 uses already prevent growth and Parcel 055 does not meet IAL
requirements.
f. Reduced Property ValuefFairness: the CDP states "Development and
construction in agriculturally designated areas shall be limited to agriculture, or
via the Special Permit or Use Permit process (which allows for agriculturally
related economic infrastructure, cottage industries, renewable energy, open area
recreational uses, and community facilities) unless otherwise permitted by law. „6 If
one of the structures on Parcel 055 burned down, it appears with a IAL designation,
we would not be able to rebuild without going through the Special PermitlUse
process, an expensive, uncertain, and lengthy undertaking. Ifwe wanted to sell our
property, we believe its value would be significantly reduced with an IAL
designation. The reduction of our substantial investment due to an arbitrary use
designation constitutes a taking without compensation.
I request that our lot retain it's LDU designation or be designated a Rural area
which would serve as a barrier between LDU and agricultural areas.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
S/S
Pam Elders
PO Box 371, Laupahoehoe, HI 96764
/nflick@baymoon.com
6 Policy 24
0
2. June 1, 2016
Hawaii County Planning Department
Attn: Hamakua CDP; LeAna Gloor - Project Planner
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
cc: hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov
cc: Leana.Gloor@hawaiicounty.gov
cc: via Feedback Form
(808) 961-8308
final draft
May 28, 2016 [this version of this memo supersedes the draft delivered to Planning on 5-19-16
which is identical to the draft delivered 5-19-16 up to an added appendix about the 5-25-16 land
use meeting in Laupahoehoe followed by a "bullet point" list of IAL issues]
Aloha:
I am Barney Elders residing at";a!!wFer=emyyWwife , Laupahoehoe HI 96764 (TMK3-5-004-055) where my residence is ocate and I pursue small scale
commercial agriculture.
I am writing to ask that the CDP "County General Plan Proposed Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide for Laupahoehoe/Papaaloa" (map) and related CDP materials be revised to include TMK
3-5-004-055 (hereinafter referred to as parcel 055) in the Low Density Urban (LDU)
designation based on, among other things, that:
*parcel 055 is currently designated LDU
*I submit herein new information and conditions supporting this request
*my wife and I purchased parcel 055 relying on the fact that the property was designated LDU
I ask that the draft and final Hamakua CDP, and related CDP materials, be submitted to the
County with such a LDU designation for parcel 055; and that the CDP, and related CDP
materials, be approved by the County with such a LDU designation. I suggest that a Rural
designation, or the "homestead" designation explained in the conclusion to this communication,
might be an appropriate alternative for parcel 055 (and for the homestead lands). An
"Important Agricultural Lands" designation (County or State) is incorrect for parcel 055 (and
for the homestead lands) as discussed below.
1. TMK 3-5-004-055 & HISTORY: PARCEL 055 SHOULD BE RETAINED IN A LDU
DESIGNATION
Parcel 055 is currently designated LDU along with other Laupahoehoe parcels at our apx.
elevation. But the proposed LUPAG places parcel 055 in an "Important Agricultural
Lands" designation due to an LDU boundary change proposed by the CDP. In addition to the
other comments in this communication, please note that the parcel (TMK 3-5-4-86) directly
across the road from our parcel is designated LDU. (see the map below showing the parcels
proposed to be continued in the LDU by the CDP [outlined in yellow]; and the parcels
proposed to have their current and long standing LDU designations revoked by the CDP
[shaded in orange including parcel 055 with a turquoise inset]). As a threshold matter,
1) parcel 055 has been characterized LDU by the County traditionally; 2) parcel 055 is at the
same apx. elevation as parcel 086 across the street that is remaining LDU; 3) parcel 055 is on
the same road as parcel 086 that serves the Laupahoehoe school and the commercial businesses
in Laupahoehoe; 4) parcel 055 is not near "large productive agricultural" parcels; 5) parcel 055
supports commercial and small scale crops on less than 2 acres of poor soils and steep slopes;
and 6) there is no reason parcel 055 should not be treated the same as our neighbor across the
street at parcel 086 by designating and retaining 055 as LDU.
10
3150050010000
_10uX0290000
35
0
00250040
b dr
10870061ir.
04
TM4�
3500"050000
Terms of Use Report a map error
LDU is also appropriate for parcel 054 due to its location and to the fact that parcel 054 (to be
taken OUT of LDU by the CDP) is owned by the owner of adjacent parcel 043 (that is being
retained in LDU). These two parcels are the same for all purposes but the CDP proposes to
treat them differently. As for parcel 055, there are many other characteristics, besides those
mentioned above, that tie parcel 055 to the makai urban areas rather than the large parcels
mauka. More detail is offered in the comments below about parcel 055's proper designations.
The draft CDP describes LDU as follows: "LUPAG LDU, or Low Density Urban: this category
is defined as:
"Residential, with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial
uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre." The urban zones in the County Code that
correspond to the LDU designation allow for parks, community uses, residences, boarding and group living
facilities, home occupations, small scale commercial or personal services, convenience stores, medical clinics,
and restaurants.'
Parcel 055 has been residential/commercial in nature for many years. In fact parcel 055 was
the only residential use on Kihalani Homestead Rd. for many years after the homestead was
subdivided. Parcel 055 was occupied by the plantation's chemist who worked on Parcel 055 ;
and a large two story home was built on Parcel 055 by him, as well as a small cottage built in
1950. The family that lived on Parcel 055 left Hawaii Island to get work on Oahu after the
plantation shut down because they could not make a living farming after sugar cane phased out.
A decade or so after the plantations shut down, Kihalani Homestead Rd. became a magnet for
people who worked in Hilo or off -Island and who wanted a rural lifestyle. That rural lifestyle
commonly involved and still involves micro or small agricultural projects for commercial or
subsistence purposes along with increasingly upscale housing. Over the years the parcels
between parcel 055 and the Belt Road in -filled with these residential/commercial (LDU) uses.
Parcel 055 is a integral part of this trend and therefore part of (or the leader of) LDU land use
in Laupahoehoe. The current LUPAG designation... LDU... accurately reflects the uses of
parcel 055.
2. APPLICABILITY OF Important Agricultural Lands DESIGNATION FOR TMK
35004055 (2A. Introduction; 2B. State vs. County IAL; 2C. IAL Criteria; 2D. IAL Criteria
applied parcel 055; 2E. Burdens of IAL; 2F. IAL Can Affect Land Values:)
2A. Introduction: An 'Important Agricultural Lands" designation for TMK 3-5-004-055 is not
accurate or appropriate. In addition to the fact that parcel 055 was a early adopter of
residential/commercial uses (that is, LDU uses and should stay LDU for that reason), there are
other reasons why parcel 055 will never qualify as 'Important Agricultural Lands" (IAL) (the
new designation that the Laupahoehoe LUPAG proposes for parcel 055). ALSO SEE THE
APPENDIX AT THE END OF THIS MEMO FOR A BULLET POINT OUTLINE OF THE
IAL ISSUES INCLUDING INFORMATION FIRST PUBLISHED AT THE CDP MEETING
ON 5-25-16 & RELATED COMMENTS
2B. State vs. County IAL: The CDP differentiates County IAL (which would govern land use
changes requested in the future); vs. State IAL which is a program that governs IAL parcels
more broadly. Regardless of differences, there will come a time when 1) all or some of the IAL
parcels included in the CDP will become part of the General Plan; and 2) when Hawaii County
will have to submit a list of IAL parcels to the State Land Use Commission (LUC) as the state
program progresses. Once the IAL parcels and LUPAG maps are part of the General Plan, any
change to the IAL in the General Plan will require a Environmental Assessment (EA) which
may cost as much as $100,000 to procure. And if the County uses the list of County IAL
parcels to report to the LUC, the County IAL parcels will be in the State program. At that point
any changes that are requested in the State designation will be equally expensive and time
consuming to change. Also, given the nature of the IAL program, once a parcel is in IAL, it is
unlikely that changes will be approved. Once in the State program, the allowed uses for any
parcel designated IAL will be limited by the State (and likely by County zoning) to strict
agricultural uses: an example of the uses that might be allowed for IAL when the program is
operational is found in haps://legiscan.com/Hl/text/HB1361/id/919216.
Therefore, before any parcels are designated IAL by the County, it would behoove the County
to conduct a parcel -specific "on the ground study" such as has been done by Kauai
(http:Hl)lankauai.conVwp-content/uploads/IAL-FINAL-AUG-2015-combined-small.pdf) to
determine lands that are legitimately IAL lands. As it stands no such study has been done for
Hawaii Island. Only parcels that are capable of sustained high agricultural yields and that are
referred to by the CDP as "large agricultural lots" and "large productive agricultural
lands" (which would be at least 20 acres because that is the smallest confirming parcel that can
be created in Laupahoehoe mauka) should be considered for IAL designations. There are no
large or core (20 acres or more) agricultural lots along Kihalani Homestead Road which is Rural
the entire way to the top of the road. After the road terminates the large/core agricultural lands
spread out for many miles up the mountain. This should alleviate concerns that the "de facto
rural" parcels on Kihalani Homestead Road will clash with IAL agriculture.
compare "Factor 2: Minimize encroachment onto core agricultural lands. This second factor used in evaluating
LUPAG designations is based on Community Objective #2 which states: "Protect and restore viable
agricultural lands and resources,"
2C. IAL Criteria: According to the County, the criteria for IAL includes:
1. parcels with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type,
climate, topography, or other factors [for sustained high agricultural yields]
2. parcels that qualify as prime or unique (not usually applied to small or micro agriculture)
3. class B "good" soils (parcel 055 has a "C" rating along with most of Kihalani Homestead
Road)
4. USDA "fair" for two or more crops on an irrigated basis
The County recommends "the location of these lands should be verified by more detailed
mapping when considering specific land use decisions."
Additional State statutory and administrative criteria include:
1. lands that are producing sustained high agricultural yields (including soil quality, growing
conditions, productivity rating systems, adequate water, Hawaiian agriculture, lot size (critical
land mass), and proximity to markets, water, power
2. land that contributes to the State's economic base and produces agricultural commodities for
export or local consumption
3. such land that is fallow
None of these criteria match parcel 055 (see 2D IAL Criteria applied)
2D. IAL Criteria applied to parcel 055: Applying the IAL criteria for County and State that
pertains to parcel 055, a change of LUPAG designation and a change from LUP to IAL is not
warranted.
1. TOPOGRAPHY: 3.955 acre parcel; about half of it (2.328 acres) is a steep part that falls to
the gulch; CTAHR evaluates the steep part as possibly suitable for timber or grazing which may
not be feasible on 2.328 acres). Also the County is proposing a 10 acre parcel size to qualify
for an agricultural exemption for timber or grazing. Setting up timber or grazing would require
fences, grading and other supplies and labor which would require an investment of $20K or
more.
2. LOT SIZE (CRITICAL LAND MASS): The CDP Rationale refers to large agricultural lots
("preserve large productive agricultural lands") which would be at least 20 acres because
that is the smallest confirming parcel that can be created in Laupahoehoe mauka; 1.627 acres
for crops plus the marginal 2.328 acres in the back of the parcel is not "large".
3. POTENTIAL FOR SUSTAINED HIGH AGRICULTURAL YIELDS: parcel 055 has good
harvests given the slope and soil and growing seasons; but the size of the growing area does not
allow HIGH YIELDS since parcel 055 currently has 1.627 acres suitable for crops; the slope
and soil is marginal; and the growing season is not "sustained".
4. CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE'S ECONOMIC BASE: this appears to apply to large
farms
5. ADEQUATE WATER: 1/a inch line (vs. 2 which is commercial grade)
6. PROXIMITY TO MARKETS, WATER, POWER: Hilo (50 miles round trip)
7. SOIL TYPE on parcel 055 -difficult soil; in the "C" category. See Ookala Series below.
Location:
This wet, volcanic -ash soil extends across the lowlands of the Hamakua and Hilo
coasts on Hawaii island. Historically important for sugarcane production, this soil now
supports eucalyptus tree plantations and pasture lands.
Climate:
Mean annual rainfall is 122 inches (mean January = 11.8 inches, mean July = 9.5
inches). Mean annual temperature is 71 °F (mean January = 68.8°F, mean July =
73.5 °F).
Water:
High water holding capacity. Fast permeability. Soil is moist for majority of the year.
Little chance for runoff and erosion, but both increase as slope increases in steepness.
Fertility:
Naturally infertile (Fertility Class=Infertile Andisols). Low nutrient holding capacity.
Often deficient in calcium, magnesium, and potassium. However, with proper nutrient
amendment, it can be productive. Surface layers are rich in organic matter.
Phosphorous:
Very high phosphorus reactivity. Strongly "fixes" phosphorus, making added
phosphorus initially unavailable to plants. Requires very high phosphorus additions to
compensate.
Acidity:
Strongly acidic to near neutral (pH = 5.1 - 6.5) Acidity expected to increase if have
history of plantation agriculture (i.e. sugarcane, pineapple). May require liming when
intensively farmed.
Structure:
Weak physical structure provides fluffy texture, making cultivation easy, but provides
unsuitable conditions for engineering and construction. Engineering and cultivation
also unsuitable on steeper slopes. (class C even on level land)
Medial over hydrous, amorphic, isohyperthermic Acrudoxic Hydrudands
http://2is.ctahr.hawaii.edu/SoilAtlas
2E. Burdens of IAL: A change to IAL for parcel 055 comes with increased land use burdens
imposed retroactively; and a likely loss of property value due to the strict regulation (note that
this would be in addition to the current County effort to repeal non -dedicated agricultural
exemptions and to impose acreage minimums). A change to IAL would therefore cause Parcel
055 an "unreasonable economic hardship" which cannot be prevented. Thus parcel 055 should
be continued in a LDU designation. An alternative would be to change the LUPAG for parcel
055 to "Rural" (see also the conclusion of these comments for another possible land use
category). Designating a small farm for IAL could actually hurt the chances of anv kind of
agriculture being conducted. Although incentives are supposed to support the IAL program,
these incentives are may not apply to micro or small farms. The regulations of IAL might result
in long fallow periods. The burdens might be offset to some extent from having pre -IAL
grandfathered uses.
2F. IAL Can Affect Land Values: Using parcel 055 as an example: with a $250,000 purchase
price for 3.9 acres of land, the cost per acre is apx. $64,000 per acre (not counting the farming
expenses of supplies, machinery, overhead, etc.) The Institute for Local Self Government
(California) reported six years ago that even the most lucrative fruit and nut crops would only
support land values of $5,500 per acre. So the break-even in the best of circumstances would be
015 years or more. Many parcels nearby parcel 055 were purchased at even higher per acre
amounts and have been improved with more elaborate and expensive homes which makes
agriculture even less feasible. In Hamakua even seasoned large farms are finding it difficult to
stay in business: one example is Richard Ha who closed his Hamakua Springs Farms because it
was no longer profitable, http://www.biziournals.conV acific/news/2016/01/06/big-islands-
hamakua-springs-country-farms -shuttin�.ht. The 2005 General Plan at section 14.2.1 Land
Use Agriculture states: "Agricultural land values have risen beyond their value for agricultural
purposes.... One of the key factors in adjusting to changing socio-economic conditions is the
restructuring of our land use regulatory system to distinguish between important and
other agricultural land." Land where agriculture cannot support a living wage can never be
IAL. Lumping all the parcels higher than some arbitrary elevation into IAL without considering
productivity does not properly characterize "Important Agricultural Land" or mean that any
agriculture will be feasible. It does risk many unintended consequences and hardship for the
owners of such parcels. The 2005 General Plan at section 14.3.5.3 North Hilo states:
"Commercial development is limited in the North Hilo district.... Population in the district
has been declining over the past thirty years." North Hilo and particularly Laupahoehoe
needs the County to help them: not to restrict their options by imposing the burdens of IAL. As
the 2005 General Plan section 15.1 states: "Regulations rely on government's police power
to control what people can do or not do ... Regulation can be restrictive, reactive, and
divisive. Incentive measures, on the other hand, can invite creative "win-win" solutions.
Examples of incentive measures include property tax exemptions such as for
agriculture.... Community Development Plans shall consider appropriate incentive
measures to achieve various objectives...." The CDP should be opting to give micro or small
farms and the rural homestead lands support and flexibility of how to operate so there is some
incentive to engage in agriculture. Even without any "support", the property owners on
Kihalani Homestead Road still try to contribute by helping to "keep the country, country" and
by making a small but helpful contribution to agriculture.
3. The CDP rationales for: 3A. taking TMK 35004055 out of LUP; 3B. putting TMK
35004055 into IAL; 3C. not considering a Rural designation for TMK 35004055
are not convincing and should be revised.
In this section 3., excerpts of "rationales" from the CDP are shown in blue in 12 point Calibri
with a 1 point borde ; and COMMENTS are shown in black print. Relevant text in the CDP
and in the comments is highlighted in yellow with particularly relevant wording in bold.
References to the "CDP" are to the Hamakua CDP.
3A. Taking TMK 35004055 out of LUP
COMMENT: The CDP removes LUP designations for parcel 055 and other parcels on
Kihalani Road. The rationales regarding the CDP proposals to remove LUP on some
Laupahoehoe parcels and to put other parcels into LUP is stated in "Future Addendum to
Appendix, Draft CDP Rationale, January 2016" page 36: see text of the rationales in blue
below.
The CDP had 2 choices.
1) To use the 2005 LUPAG map; and the listing of parcels in LDU in the County computers
(which I confirmed for parcel 055 several times over the counter at Planning between 2004 to
2016) that clearly designated and included parcel 055 designated as LDU; or
2) To disregard the County designation that was clearly the product of a rational plan; and adopt
the Land Use Commission (LUC) map. Thus even if the 2005 LUPAG map might have been
"blob" mapping, the County had a list of LDU properties in their computers so there was no
confusion about what was LDU.
The current designation of parcel 055 as LDU confirms that the County has the discretion to
designate and zone property outside of the LUC Districts as "Urban" since Urban is a
designation that is typically left to the discretion of the County.
The CDP decided that the LDU designation should be reduced and chose to align with the LUC
map. This resulted in an irrational LDU pattern where two parcels that were comparable
(parcel 055 and parcel 086) are being treated differently in the CDP draft.
Also, the decision to align with the LUC ignores the fact that the County, as the agency that is
responsible for the administration of Urban lands, should default to align with the LDU
designations the County adopted in the 2005 General Plan as a matter of policy rather than
resorting to the State Districts that are outdated and less informed. For instance, the large Land
Commission Urban District in Papaaloa is based on the plans of Hamakua Sugar to build a very
large residential development in Papaaloa including large public parks and other amenities.
Although a small amount of the Hamakua Sugar residential development was actually
constructed, the majority of the development was never completed due to the closing of the
plantations: but the Urban district based on the Hamakua Sugar plan remains on the maps.
The rationale the CDP used for the decision to shrink the LUC designation for Laupahoehoe is
found at page 36 of the FUTURE ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX Draft CDP Rationale, January
2016 "Figure 16: Lau ahoehoe/Pa aaloa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map".
The proposedLUPAG changes -to Lakipalhoelhoe are to lengthen the IMDU airea along the Old I airn«SIIalhoa
ffii hway to allow for l ncireased flexffililllity lien revlitafizlng the coirnirneird SII wire of the town and in response 'to
recent v Ilo n't tr n s in t1hat area, and ;!o IIS n 'tlh lk i andqlk LQUIbogn iri s 'to The more
consis'ten't with the S'ta'te Lamed Use Urban dis'tinc't (whille accokinting(hill'foir topography isski s skich as , aAldh s).
*COMMENT: As stated above, the logical alignment would be with the County as expressed
by the decisions made by the County for the 2005 General Plan that included the parcels in
LDU that the CDP wants to delete including parcel 055.
*What are the "recent development trends" in Laupahoehoe? The only "trends" that have
affected Kihalani Homestead Road in the past 10 years have been more residential construction.
Otherwise the reasons for LDU designations that existed when the LDU parcels were
designated for the 2005 General Plan still exist.
The CDP states to support "Taking parcel 055 out of LUP":
In a 'few areas, the LDU is expanded lbeyond the S'ta'te Lamed Use Urban district -to allow 'foir infiIIII growth allong
the Ilower portion of KiIh II ni Homestead Road.
*COMMENT: The fact that the CDP chose to expand LDU beyond the State Urban district for
some Laupahoehoe parcels confirms that the County may decide about urban land use
regardless of the State districts. This validates the current LDU designations for Kihalani
Homestead Road which includes parcel 055 in LDU.
*What is the "infill growth" that would justify departing from alignment with the State Urban
District? How would the "infill" rationale apply to the LDU "expansion" while LDU is being
deleted from other parcels? If infill is a criterion for being LDU all the parcels between
Mamalahoa and parcel 056 should be LDU based on any rationale regarding "infill".
The CDP states to support "Taking parcel 055 out of LUP":
In skimmm ary, the proposed changes 'to the LDU areas add consistency Ibetween the S'ta'te and the Cokinty
designations, they II 'to an overall redkiced LDU area that is (less arbitrary and more arc ll -s cific,
*COMMENT: Why is the 2005 LUPAG LDU area arbitrary? Exercising discretion, as the
2005 General Plan did when the current LDU designations were made, is not "arbitrary". The
proposed CDP changes to LDU appear to be based on CDP wanting more land in IAL which is
not warranted based on current and long standing land use in Kihalani Homestead.
*COMMENT: Also, there are two "factors" that are used by the CDP to justify the proposed
Laupahoehoe LDU decisions. Interestingly, these factors may be diametrically opposed in
terms of but each factor seeks to attain the same objectives. How were the objectives
implemented to align with the State rather aligning with the County? The true goal is whether
the certain "patterns" are "sustainable". Parcel 055 is a mere half mile or less from the urban
core to the extent it exists. I can testify that the "sustainable patterns" extend at least as far as
Parcel 055 based on usages on Kihalani Homestead Road (see the next comment); and have
been observed under the 2005 urban designations. So there must be some other motivation to
eliminate LDU and at the same time create the corresponding number of IAL designations that
have never been applied in the Kihalani Homestead before.
'I'he LDP cites Factors 3 and 4 to SUDDort " I'akmQ parcel 055 out oI LUP":
Factor 3: Alun with State Land Use District Boundary. The third factor in developing L UPAG
recommendations is BASER ON THE C",OMMUNITY'S OBJECTIVE #5, which states: "Direct future
settlement patterns that erre sustainable and connected. Honor Hainakua's historic and cultural assets by
concentrating new development in existing, walkable, infixed -use town centers while limiting rural sprawl."
Factor 4: Alun with County zoning [land use]. The fourth factor in developing L UPAG recommendations is
BASER ON THE COMMUNITY'S UNITY'S O JEC",TIVE #5, which states: "Dorset future settlement patterns that
erre sustainable and connected. Honor Hr tndkua's historic and cultural assets by concentrating new
development in existing, walkable, infixed -use town craters while linliti g rural sprawl."
*COMMENT: If you visit Kihalani Homestead Road (depending on weather) you will see
people walking, pushing strollers, running, biking and doing other "walkable" and other
sustainable and connected activities on the road far above Parcel 055 (Parcel 055 is only 4/10
of a mile from the Laupahoehoe "town center". And the road connects with our commercial
district and high school.
*COMMENT: As for "rural sprawl" in Kihalani Homestead, in my 12 years in Laupahoehoe I
have never heard the word "sprawl" or anything like it applied to Laupahoehoe. If the
Laupahoehoe community is not concerned with "sprawl", who is? If sprawl exists in
Laupahoehoe it is in a form that has been part of the homestead for decades as far as to the top
of Kihalani Homestead Road which people here just call "home". Any "sprawl" in
Laupahoehoe, be it peoples' homes or their gardens, has also been present for decades; so it is a
little late to be "limiting" it.
*COMMENT: What "parcel specific" considerations were used? What "parcel specific" data
was used? If the "parcel specific" considerations were based on aerial photography kindly
consider that Google Earth only updates images every two or three years. All the LDU parcels
on Kihalani Homestead Road currently designated LDU have been, and still are, serving LDU
functions. There is no reason to change the current LDU designations on Kihalani Homestead
Road.
*COMMENT: The rest of the policies cited do not appear to be relevant to LDU in
Laupahoehoe on Kihalani Homestead Road but are listed as part of the LDU issue in order to
respond to each "rationale".
The rationale cites Policy 2 to support "Taking parcel 055 out of LUP":
P Ilicy 2
New urlban d v llopment slhallll The located away -from coast:dll aureas and the 5peclildll Mainageiiii �tein't Airea. This i
reflected in -the l cation of "Lou Density Urban" (LDU) areas on -the officiall Land Use P Ilicy Map. Rationale::
To fuirtheir Coirrurnuinity Objectives #1 and #2 in guiding developirneint, a review of the current Iland uses and
designations in co stall areas was performed and Chain es acre recoirrurneinded in aireas snot yet developed but
have LUIPAG designations that guide future developirneint to this coastalI airea., IRecolrrurneindatiiolrns acre irnade in
these undeveloped coastWl aireas -to protect the shoreline as open space and priority viewslheds w1heineveir
possible. The exceptions to this acre w1hein coastalI aireas acre already designated within the State Land Use
Urban District and/oir acre already County-zoined for iresideirrtialI or coirnirneircialI uses., See Factor I firoirn PoIli cy 1,
above., This 1pollicy is consistent with existing GeineiralI ILII«ern Policy 83 (d), "Flirotect the slioire]Hriie firoirn the
einciroadhirneint of irnain -irnade irnpiroveirneints and structures" and (HIRS 205A-2(c)(3(D)), "Encourage those
developirneints that acre inot coastalI delpenage nt to locate in inland aireas." Examples of ffiis (,all be seen all ffie
proposed changes m Pdpa'ikou and 0'6ka1a.
*COMMENT: These considerations are not relevant to the changes in the Laupahoehoe LDU
because none of the Laupahoehoe LDU is "coastal".
The rationale cites Policy 4 to support "Taking parcel 055 out of LUP":
Policy 4 In order -to pr s lry Ilarger Ilot agricull-turall Ilands -for productive agricull-turall use, allow nisi Tulle
dev6opin'tein't on Iles near kirlban areas where an int r° i 't IIand us IWaetween residentiall and
productive agricull-turall areas is consistent with the surrounding uses and rurall character. This is Irefllected in
the location of "Ruiral" (R) aireas on the officialI Land Use IPolllicy IMalp, w1hich is intended to facilitate Chain gesof
zone to "ResideintialI and AgiriculltuiralI District" (IRA) or the "Fairnily AgiriculltuiralI District" (FA). The irnaxiirnuirn
density for the IRuiralI designation in the ILIIainrnlirng Airea s1hall be I unit 1peir I acire., Rationale:: The Ireceint girowth
within the H5irnRua ILIIainrnlirng Airea Ihas piriirnairily occurred on irnaulka agiriculltuiralI lands and in the hoirnestead
aireas., Flaiirt�icWaiirly iiii i t h e h co iii nestead aireas,'11he pairc6s aiire cofteiii i allliiready siii nalHleiir s�izestlhaiii i t h e i iir u iii ideirlyfii i g
zcpiii i i iii ig desmgiii i a,t i co iii i;fcPir ex�aiii npllle,tlheiire aiire iii naiii iy hcpiii nestead aiireas w�itlh agiir�icWtuii4l kots s�ized lesstllaiii I
tweiii ity aiciires desp�itetlh6iiir Ag -21" 11 zcpiii i i iii ig. These pireexistiiii m Illa.mss have cireated a dhalHleiii igmiii m III«mmmd use sceiii i a iir i co
because iiii i piiraictmce, the in,iajoiilty of,these aireas am "defalicto"' ruii,Wl sWWlVisukpiii ms w i't h i iii i a State a iii id co u iii ity
III a iii id use systeiii n1lia't hmsupiirlicaIHIy uiii State Lammd t A'Ise Ftuii4I District aiii id Ftuii4I U H
desligiii i a,t i co iii is. This 1pollicy is intended to set appirolpiriate ciriteiria for w1hein this IRuiralI designation can be used.,
Note the GeineiralI Plain's LUIPAG description for IRuiralI desciribes the category as including existing subdivisions
in the State Land AgiriculltuiralI and IRuiralI districts that lamas a significant iresideintialI coirnpoineint., While Irrulr«SII llot
sizes can vairy firoirn 9,000-squaire feet to five acires, inew recoirrurneinded IRuiralI designations in the H5irnRua CUP
have conrespoinding County zoining densities of a irnaxiirnuirn of I unit 1peir I acire., As noted in the GeineiralI Plain,
the allowable uses within these aireas (with appirolpiriate zoining) irnay include coirnirneircialI facilities that seirve
the iresideintialI and agiriculltuiralI uses in the airea, and coirrurnuinity and Ipubllic facilities. The IRuiralI designation
does snot inecessairily irnean that these aireas should be fuirtheir subdivided to sirnalleir hots as irnost lack the
infrastructure inecessairy to allow fuirtheir subdivision. The GeineiralI ILII«ern desciribes iruiralI developirneint t1hisway::
"RuiralI -style iresideintialI -agiriculltuiralI developirneints irnay include eitheir inew sirnall -scale iruiralI coirrurnuinities or
extensions of existing iruiralI coirrurnuinities., Such developirneint provides opportunities for a irnix of iresideintialI
and sirnall-scale agiriculltuiralI activities. However, the piriirnairy intent of these developirneintswould be to 1plroviide
ain added Irainge to housing opportunities. Ahoing with this housing, the lairge hots of these iruiralI aireas will
pirovide opportunities for pairt-dirne agriculture, gairdening activities and the Iraiislirng of livestock on a sirnall
scale., By providing opportunities to satisfy the deirnaind for a iruiralI lifestyle on irnairgiinalI agiriculltuiralI land, the
piressuires to develop irnpoirtaint agiriculltuiralI land for these 1prulrposes woulld be decireased.." (GeineiralI ILII«ern
14.2.1) This GeineiralI ILII«ern description of iruiralI -style IreslidentiA -agriculture developirneints 1plresents soirne
airnbiguity, particularly about what constitutes "irnairgiinalI agiriculltuiralI lands" that acre appirolpiriate for this style
of iruiralI iresideintialI developirneint., For the Iprulrposes of the H5irnRua CUP, the intent of recoirrurneinding LUPAG
Ruirall designations in soirne aireas is to accoirrurnodate existing land uses, to circ ate a transition airea of sirnall
fairirnhresideintialI land uses betweein the uirbain LDU and the lairgeir llot agiriculltuiralI (oftein Ag -20) aireas, and to
accoirrurnodate a flexibility in housing options to 1plrovlide ain incentive to develop iruiralI 1paircells doseir to
ireslde nfl«SII coirnirnuiarnl les unrli h adequate lirnfirastiruictuire lirnstead of devellolplirn iruir«SII- iresli e nfl«SII uses on lair e,
Ipote nflallly Ipiroduiacdve a ikuialltuiair«SII lands. See alIso Factor 3, firoirn Polllicy I., The coirnirnurnlity of IN irnolle lis a good
auxa rrrnplle of a coirnirnurnlity unrli h exsflng LUFIAG IRuir«SII based on lies undeirlyling state Land Use IRuir«SII Dstirlict and
lies Ipiredoirnlirna nce of the conrespoin&ng County zonling of IResli enflalI -Agirlicultuire (IIIA)„ For rnoire lirnfoirirna Born on
Ilhoirnestead and iruir«SII settlleirne nts" see Ipages 174-176 of Ajpjp ern&x V4B„
No LUPAG Rkir ll areas are proposed -for these it s dkietothe prevallenceof the surrokinding existingirkirall-
stylle parcells in the homestead areas (e.g., airnouvraojpae Hoirnestead (Road, Holkuirrrnalhoe (Road, and IKlilh SIIairnl
Hoirnestead Road).
*COMMENT: This policy that addresses Rural uses does not directly address the issue of
taking TMK 35004055 out of LDU. However both LDU and Rural can provide an intermediate
land use or buffer between more intensive uses and agriculture. Policy 4 begs the question in
part 3CI of why the CDP rules out a Rural designation for the homesteads including Kihalani
Homestead and parcel 055; when even the CDP admits the homesteads are "defacto rural"
*COMMENT: On Kihalani Homestead Road the only parcels that might qualify as "Important
Agriculture Land" or "Extensive Agriculture" would be the parcels mauka starting at the end of
Kihalani Homestead Road. Otherwise Kihalani Homestead Road is basically "de facto" rural
(vs. agricultural "anything") as the CDP states (see the green font in Policy 4, above). This
begs the question "why are the Kihalani Homestead Road parcels being characterized as IAL by
the CDP when they are de facto Rural land?"
The rationale for "Taking TMK 35004055 out of LDU" cites Policy 5 and 4:
IPolliicy 5
In the offici II Laud Use Pollicy Map" the urba in girowtli l o uindairy Ibetween develloped areas (designated
"Low/Medikim Density Urban") and lands signal s agirlkWtuii,Wl or ur uui Wl (designated "Important
grickAll-Wr Land" or "Extensive grickAll-Wr "° or " kir ll") is in -tended 'to The parcell-specific in the H5m51kkj
CDP planning area. Areas that are clearly lbeyond the signal kirl an growth lbokindari s slhllll Th
preserved s rkir II or grickAll'wrall Ilands 'to maintain opsin space" scenic view planes, and natkirall Ibeakity
areas., Note:: gee Pollicy 6 for rnoire lirnfoirirna Born on hndustirl SII aireas„ TINs Ipolllicy SIIairffiies that the urban growth
boundary asstabIllislhed unrli h the H5m51kkja CDP Land Use Pollicy Map establishes rcell-specific UGBs
whenever practicall at the intersection Ibetween Urban and Rkirall/Agrickill-wrall land kis s.1Fhe CDF1 strategy of
desli rna lirn Ipaircell -spa cffiic Urban desli rna Borns adds SIIairlity and sjpecfficlity" lirncireases lira nspaire ncy lirnto the land
use desli rna Born process, and rnoire accurately ireflects the County's and the Coirnirnurnlity"s land use goalls and
lirnte nflorns„ Rationale:: ThUrban Growth Bokindary (UGB) identifies areas where growth wilill The encokiraged
and areas that are 'to The protected'foir grickAll'Wre. UGBs acre lirnte nded to a ccoirrurnodate a nflclilpated growth
and to selpairate aireas appirolpirlate for fug tuire ireslde nfl«SII devellopirne nt firoirn aireas lirnte nded foir a ikulltuir«SII use.
1FHs lis soirnedirnes irefenred to as "Town and Country" zornlirn " unrNdh irequares that devellopirne nt occuir ornlly lin
towns and v llllages" unrli h the sunroun&ng iruir«SII aireas ireirnanling undeveloped and available for fairirrnliirn ,
forestry, irnatuir«SII airea Ipireseirvadorn" and irecirea Born„ The LUPAG wasp inclikides land kise categories that
ffec welly establish an UGB between the grickAll'wrall categories (Orchard, Extensive grickAll'wre, and
Important grickAll-wr )" the rkir ll category, and the kirlban categories (Low, IMe&uirn" and ffii h Ike nstl$y Urban,
hnduiastirl SII" Urban Exjpa nsliorn" and Resort). TINs Ipolky SIIairffiies that the UGB asstabIllislhed unrli h the H5irnRuia CDF1
Land Use Flolky Iliialp asst« blushes Ipaircell spa cffiic UGBs uv 1heirneveir IpiracdcSII„ TINs strategy of rnovling toward
Ipaircell -spa cffiic rnajpjpling for the H5irnRuia CDF1 Land Use Flolllicy Iliialp ireflects a sl fft firoirn the 2005 Ge near«SII
ILII«ern"s LUFIAG &rec Born of b6ing geneirahzed uialida nce. (See the ira liornale for Pollicy 1 for a fuirtheir &scussk) n of
the Ge near«SII ILII«ern LUIII G„) As noted, the LUFIAG iron« Ips weire oirli lirnallly broad, flexffille loons lirnte nded to &de the
&rec Born and types of desliir«able growth for eadh airea of the County. TINs geneiralI appiroadh to gu6ng land use
and growth allowed for lirnteirpiredve flexliblilllity and was based, at least lin paint, on the challenges of careading
detailed irrrn«cps specffiic enough to deirrrnornstir«ate land use desligrna Borns at a paircell level. However, lby allowing
gemuer ll, lbllolb' s'tylle LUPAG maps, p ircells were o'f'ten split in -to various LUPAG designations in ways -tlh 't
were more arbitrary -tlh n -they were in'ten'tion ll. TINS, at dirrrnes, led to property ow nears desliirlirng clleareir
&rectliorn about tllheliir land use deslgrna Borns and future devellopirrrnernt optliorns and led some property ow nears to
seelk fuirtheir ILIIa nnl ng Depairtirrrnernt lirnteirpireta Borns of tllheliir property lin hella lion to the gerneir«SII CUIN G
deslgrna Borns„ INow that the CUP's Ihave the oppoirtunity and the technology to easlilly and a ffiickmtlly care«ate
paircell-specffiic CUIN G maps, lit lis a irrrnoire piroacdve plla nnl ng strategy to clearly airtlicull«ate LUPAG deslgrla lions
lin the l-l5rrrn51ku a CUP at a paircell Ileo( ll and decirease than prevalence of sphtfling LUPAG deslg na to ns airNtirairlilly„
compellfiirng reason for an exceptlion to thus approach wound be unrllhern pairt of a paircell lis lin an Open JUIN G
deslgrna Born (such as unrllhern p«girt of a paircell lis unrlithlirn the State Land Use Cornseirvadorn &stikt — e.g.,along the
coastfiirne or lin irrrn«sulka forests). Any p«girt of a paircell that lis deslgrn« ted as LUPAG Open wound ireirrrn«Minn Open for
that specffiic «sirea of the paircell„ Otheir exceptliorns to thus paircell-specffiic strategy wound be unrllhern'the paircell lis
lairge and irrrnay meed to ireflect two (or irrrnoire) d0eirernt'types of LUPAG deslgrna Borns„ For exarrrnplle, unrllhern'the
paircell borders a town unrllheire pairs of lit wound be unrlithlirn the urban growth boundary, and yet the lairge paircell
stretches fairtheir lirnto agikulltuir«SII «sireas unrllheire an AgirlculltuiralI deslgrna Born lis appiropirl ate„ The CUP stirategy of
irrrn« lding paircell-specffiic LUPAG deslgrna Borns adds cllarlty, specffiiclty, and lirncire«uses transparency lirnto'the land
use deslgrna Born process and irrrnoire accurately ireflects the County's and the Coirrrnirrrnurnity"s land use goalIs and
16,01111cy 4
"In carder to preserve larger lot agricultural lands for productive agricultural use, allow rural development can lands near
urban areas where an intermediate land use between residential and productive agricultural areas is consistent with the
surrounding uses and rural character
*COMMENTS: Both LDU and Rural can provide an intermediate land use or buffer between
more intensive uses and agriculture as stated by the CDP in Policy 5 above and Policy 4 below.
There are several ways the entire Kihalani Homestead can serve as an UGB (non -conforming
Ag 20; Urban; Rural) without having to be designated IAL.
The rationale cites General Plan Policy 14.1.30) to support "Taking parcel 055 out of LUP":
(D) Encourage urlb n develloprnen't within existing zoned areas allready served lby lb sic infrastructure, or chose
'to such areas, instead of scattered develloprnen't.
*COMMENT: The 2005 Laupahoehoe LUPAG which included parcel 055 in the LDU
designation was not "scattered" and reflected a rational land use designation for Kihalani
Homestead Road. Like parcels were treated equally; and there was a clear boundary for the
LDU (even though the IAL designation is not appropriate IN Kihalani Homestead but applies to
only the large agricultural parcels ABOVE THE TOP of Kihalani Homestead Road).
3B. putting TMK 35004055 into IAL: see part 2., above: "Applicability Of Important
Agricultural Lands Designation For TMK 35004055". Parcel 055 does not qualify as IAL
and should not be designated as such.
3C. The CDP declines to consider a Rural designation for the homestead lands: 3CI: CDP
Says: No Rural Is Proposed Because Kihalani Homestead Is Rural De Facto; 3C2: CDP
Says: There Is An Excess Of Rural Development In Mauka Agriculture; 3C3: The CDP
Cites Various Policies To Justify Not Considering A Rural Designation For Homestead
Parcels Including Kihalani Homestead
*The rationale for not considering a Rural designation for Kihalani Homesteads (and
Laupahoehoe generally) is stated in "Future Addendum to Appendix, Draft CDP Rationale,
January 2016" page 36: In the rationales at part "Figure 16" the Laupahoehoe/Papaaloa
Proposed LUPAG map is discussed. With regard to Laupahoehoe and Kihalani Homestead
Road specifically, the CDP "Future Addendum to Appendix, Draft CDP Rationale, January
2uio the riaure 16" the UUF states:
Figure 16: ILa up�hoehoe/Pl pa"aloes 2015 Proposed ILUI AGS IMap Rationale: The coastal communities of
ILL up�hoel oe, Pl pa'aloa, and IKapehu camp are inexorably linked with each other, each community is a former
plantation village surrounded by open pastures and working agriculture ire clause proximity to each other.,
L up h h is -the largest -town in -the North IHilo District and contains a strip of commercial ins along the Old
Wrm alahoa II-ighwayjust ma uka of II-Nighway 19„ Pl pa"aloes Inas a parcel with commercial zoning located makai of
the II-Nighway 19 and three parcels with Industrial zoning in clause proximity to the shoreline., IKapehu is a small
coastal subdivision with no commercial components but does have its own independent wastewater systema„ .The
proposed ILUI AGS changes to IKapehu are to shrink the ILUI AGS ILIDU to be more parcel specific (this area is designated
State ILand Use Urban District)„ This subdivision is a built -out neighborhood surrounded tied by agricultural lands in
clause proximity to the shoreline, therefore, further expansion of the residential .uses into the surrounding
agricultural lands or toward the shoreline are not preferred growth scenarios., The proposed ILUI AGS changes to
Il 4a'aloa are to make the ILUI AGS ILow Density Urban a esigna ons ma uka of the II-Nighway 19 more parcel -specific
and consistent with the State ILand Use Urban District. It is proposed to remove the ILUI AGS Ililiedi urmn Density Urban
designation since the necessary services and commercial .uses could be accommodated .under the LUAPG [sic] ILIDU
designation and the increased density that the ILUI AGS IMIDU allows for is not appropriate in this small coastal
community (see Policy 2 and Policy 3)„ .The makai parcels of Pl pa"aloes with County Industrial zoning are
recommended to be designated as ILUI AGS ILIDU, or for the County -owned site, ILUI AGS Open since this would be
consistent with the neighboring park parcel and since Industrial .uses are no longer desirable in such clause proximity
to the shoreline„ See the INote below for more information on ILUI AGS and County Zoning., The proposed LLP 4
changes -to Laup5hoehoe are to lengthen the IMIDU area along the Old IWrm alahoa II-Nighway to allow for increased
Flexibility in revitalizing the commercial care of the town and in response to recent development trends in that
area, and to align the makai and ma uka ILIDU boundaries to be more consistent with the State (Land Use Urban
district (while accounting for topography issues such asgulches). In a Feu areas, the ILIDU is expanded beyond the
State (Land Use Urban district to allow for infill growth along the lower portion of IKihalani Homestead IRoad. Iln
summary, the proposed changes to the ILIDU areas add consistency between the State and the County designations,
they lead to an overall reduced ILIDU area that is less arbitrary and more parcel -specific, they remove the IMIDU area
from Il 4a'aloa to ensure that commercial development is consistent with the rural character of the area, and they
remove obsolete Industrial designations on coastal parcels„ No LLP G Rural areas are proposed -fair -th s it s
due -t -the prevalence of -the surrounding existing rural -style parcels in -the (homestead areas (enigma ManowaVopae
Homestead Road, IHokumahoe Road, and IKilh i ni Homestead ). These homestead areas contain previous
lasts of record that were created prior to statehood, and they accommodate an EXCESS of rural development in the
agricultural ma uka areas along the homestead roads., See the rationale for policies: Policy 2, Policy 4 and Policy
and -the existing Genesi (Pian Policy 14.1.3 0).
*COMMENT: Policy 4 begs the question in part 3C1 of why the CDP rules out a Rural
designation for the homesteads including Kihalani Homestead and parcel 055; when even the
CDP admits the homesteads are "defacto rural" On Kihalani Homestead Road the only parcels
that might qualify as "Important Agriculture Land" or "Extensive Agriculture" would be the
parcels mauka starting at the end of Kihalani Homestead Road. Otherwise Kihalani Homestead
Road is basically "de facto" rural (vs. agricultural "anything") as the CDP states (see the green
font in Policy 4, above). This begs the question "why are the Kihalani Homestead Road parcels
being characterized as IAL by the CDP when they are de facto Rural land?" Both LDU and
Rural can provide an intermediate land use or buffer between more intensive uses and
agriculture as stated by the CDP in Policy 5 above and Policy 4 below. There are several ways
the entire Kihalani Homestead can serve as an UGB (non -conforming Ag 20; Urban; Rural)
without having to be designated IAL.
3CI: THE CDP SAYS: NO RURAL IS PROPOSED BECAUSE KIHALANI
HOMESTEAD IS RURAL DE FACTO
The Hamakua Community Development Plan: Rationale Future Addendum To
dix Draft CDP Rationale, January 2016 states at page 37:
No LUPAG R uir ll aireas wire proposed -fair these it a,u t the pirevalleince of the a,uirr a,und in ist ing ruirall-
stylle paircellsfirm the homestead it (e.g., ainouvrali°olpae Hoirnestead IlIoad, HolkuirnaIhoe IlIoad, and IKlilhSIIainl
Hoirnestead IlIoad)„
*COMMENT: This rationale seems to say that Kihalani Homestead cannot be considered for a
rural designation because it is de facto rural already. There are many reasons why Kihalani
Homestead and a rational land use policy would benefit from an official Rural designation for
Kihalani Homestead and the other homesteads on Hawaii Island. To begin with, Kihalani
Homestead is conceded to be rural by both the County and the CDP. The major issue with a
rural designation is that it might encourage 1 acre subdivisions of Kihalani Homestead which no
one on Kihalani Homestead Road would welcome. This possibility might be mitigated by
layering Ag -20 zoning over a Rural LUPAG; or by creating a new Agriculture sub -category:
see the idea at the conclusion to these comments. Regardless, it would make more sense to
apply the Rural designation to Kihalani Homesteads rather than an IAL designation which is
entirely inappropriate for the properties on Kihalani Homestead Road. The County's and CDP's
concession that Kihalani Homestead is rural should be the last nail in the coffin for the idea that
Kihalani Homestead should be designated IAL.
The 2005 General Plan states at sec. 14.1.1
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS that have ea significant residential component. TYPICAL lot sizes wary from 9,000 -
square feet to two acres. These subdivisions may contain small formas, wood areas, and open fields as well as
residences. Allowable uses within these areas ... may include commercialcommunity and public facilities,"
(emphasis added)
*COMMENT: This description makes it clear that the County has the authority to approve
Rural designations in agricultural zones; that existing subdivisions (like Kihalani Homestead)
that have rural uses are eligible to be designated rural; and that rural uses can be on State
Agricultural Districts as well as on Rural Districts.
3C2: CDP SAYS: THERE IS AN EXCESS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN MAUKA
AGRICULTURE
*the CDP continues:
These hornes't a alms coi ntahn previous lots of record that weire cIreated p1oir to statellhood, and they accor irnoda-t
an excess of Irulrall v llopir ein-t ilia the a Irilcull'tulrall Ir a ulka alms alloing the homestead brads. See the Iraboi nalle for
Ipoliides:
*COMMENT:
*Agriculture is a conforming use for both Agricultural and Rural land: as long as appropriate
agriculture is being practiced and agriculture benefits are realized. Is the CDP saying that the
relatively small parcels on Kihalani Homestead Road cannot pursue a rural lifestyle and that
they must be made to revert to 100% agriculture on the Homestead parcels? What does it mean
that the homesteads have an "excess of rural development" in agriculture? The homesteads are
being used in the way that was contemplated when the homesteads were created.
*The homesteads were created under Territory (State) law almost 100 years ago to address a
particular need: to attract small scale farmers and HOMEsteaders to settle in the remote parts of
the island and to use the homestead for subsistence and for whatever other benefits, including
residential and commercial uses, that might be possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesteading).
It ignores history to say that Kihalani Homestead has an "excess" or rural development: the
homesteads were designed to meld agriculture and rural features even though those terms were
not used 100 years ago. Although the citizens of Hawaii 100 years ago understood small vs.
large agriculture, a decision was made to right -size the homestead lots for the complementary
purposes of:
1) providing land of a size that a family could manage;
2) where a home could be built; and
3) where the price of the land would be manageable for the homesteaders.
The Hawaii homestead movement provided the desired beneficial effects which can still be seen
in action in the homesteads today. While the homestead lots may seem "non -conforming" with
regard to the modern zoning code, the homestead was authorized before there was a "county" or
a "zoning code" or a "LUPAG": and therefore have precedence over the current regulations
legally or at least on principle. Homesteads are not some awful mistake of land use planning.
They are a separate land use that has served and still serves a needed purpose. Kihalani
Homesteads should not be expected to fit into any uses or restrictions other than those that were
contemplated when the homestead were established 100 years ago. To change the use of the
homestead lands to some other use such as IAL is a misunderstanding of what the homesteads
were intended to be and what they contribute to currently. Also, there are still thousands of
acres of large agricultural land above the homesteads that are parcels of a size of more than 20
acres+ and which are truly IAL whose owners would probably welcome an IAL designation
3C3: THE CDP CITES VARIOUS POLICIES TO JUSTIFY NOT CONSIDERING A
RURAL DESIGNATION FOR HOMESTEAD PARCELS INCLUDING KIHALANI
HOMESTEAD
*The rationale cites Policy 2
IPollficy 2 New u irlbain a evellopirnein-t shalIII The Iloca-ted away 'fflrorn co s'trcall acre s and the Speciall I ainager ein-t Abeam This ils
Ir floc -ted fin the Roca -tion of "Low Densfil'ty Urban" (ILDU) abase on the off�IIciall Land Use IPollficy Malp.IRa-tionall : IFo'f ulr'their
GMG1rnrnuIrBIty 01b1 ecIL'ves #1 and #2 illy ,VUIIdhng development, a review of the current land uses and designations fin coast ll
bees was peirfoirrned and G:Ihain es airs IrecomImeI ded illy aireas IrBot yet developed lb u't Ih ave ILUIPAG desi gIrBa'bG ins that
amide future d'evellopme nt to LINs coasta11 alrea. Recomlmelrod'aboins alre lmade hn'these u: ndev lloped co stall aireasto
Ipirotedthe shoir llulne as open space ndIPlrilolriltviewsheds whenever Ipossflbl1e. IFIh e excepboins to LINs alre w1lhein coasta11
aireas alre already desiginated wMlhh n the State Land Use Urban n II:Diistldct alrnd/oir alre already GMoui my -zoo nee forlresHei nhala oir
coimlmeirdali 1 uses. See Factor 1 Flrom IPollilnby 1, above. IFINis Ipolicy its s.onsMe nt wMlh eAsthng G ei neira11 IPlain II)oll cy 8.:3 (d'),
"Pliro'tect'the shoir ll`olne'FIrom the eincIrG1adhimelrnt of lmai n-Imade IIImpiroveimelrnts and structures" and (IHIRS 205A-2(c)(3(II:D)),
"IElrnco ulrage those developments that alre lrnot co stall dependent to Roosts h n iilrollalnd aireas."I-Examples of LINs s.alro The seen
hn the proposed s.11halro es to IP51pa'ilko a and 0'61ka11a.
*COMMENT: policy 2 does not pertain to Kihalani Homestead because it is not coastal
*The rationale cites Policv 4
IPollilnby 4
IIn oirdeir to 1pireseirve Ilairgeir IIot Irlicull-tuir ll Ilands -for productive Irlicull-tuir ll use, ALLOW IRUIR IL DEVELOPMENT on
IL INNS INE IR UIRIR IN AREAS wheire an fin-teirrviedfia-te lea use betweein Ir "slid ntIlall and productive a Irilcull'tulrall aireas IIs
consistent with'tip sunroundfing uses and Irulrall character. This IIs Ir 'deet d fin the location of °"Rulrall" (IR) aireas on the
S9'FFll�llrall Land Use IPollllcy Malp, ChIlch lls fint inded -to fadillll'trat chainges of zoo -to "R "sfid ntllall andIrilcull'tulrall District"
(IRA) or the "IFarnllllyIrilcull'tulrall District" (IFA). The rnraAr'I urn densilty'for'the IRulrall desil rnration fin the IPlIani fin Abse
shaIIII The I unfit IP Ir I anblr . IRationall : THE RECENT GIROWTIH WIITIHIIIIN THE IHAMAIKUA IPLAININIIING AREAIHAS IPIRIIM IRIIILY
occurred on rna ulka a Irilnbull'tulrall lands and IIID THE IHIOInf61E TE D AREAS. II)aIr6c ullalrlly h n the homestead aireas, the Ipalrcells
alre often already sima1111s it sizes than n thehr undeirlyhng zoinhng des i lrnaboi n; for example, theire wire many homestead aireas
wn tllh agi1.aulltaulrall hots sized lless than twenty as.lres deslpirtsy thehr A -20 zoo nh n .
*COMMENT: The homestead lands were supposed to be rural, residential, sized less than 20
acres, used for HOMEsteads, not exclusively agriculture, etc. from the beginning... almost 100
years ago. The residents of the Homesteads have relied on these uses for when purchasing and
developing the homestead lands. A radical change such as an IAL designation for most of the
homesteads would be a taking; and the development that has hereto been permitted by the
County in the homesteads would be grandfathered in any event (see Sierra Club v, Castle & Coope
Homes Hawaii hic., No. SCAP-13-0000765 (Haw. Apr. 6, 2016) (unpub. memorandum)). Please note that for many
parcels on Kihalani Homestead Road the house you see could be the second or third house built
on the property over the last 100 years. In that regard referring to "recent growth" is misleading
if the newer homes are replacements for housing that that reached their useful life once or more
in the last 100 years. (for instance many families abandoned homes in search of work elsewhere
when the plantations left the island).
*The CDP states:
IFIh yse pireeAshing hots Ilhave created a chall1leingfing (land use ss.einai10 Ibs cause h n 1plras.tice, the lmaUoi irty of these aireas alre
"de Facto" Irulr ll subdivisions Mrfllhh n a State and County (land use system that Nstolriis.a1111y undeiru tillluzed the State Land
Use IRulrall District and IRulrall LUPAG designations.
*COMMENT: The homestead parcels are too big to be rural; too small to be productive
agricultural ---but can still be ZONED agriculture (and LUPAG could be Rural) ---see
conclusion of these comments below for a suggestion to deal with the homestead lands
*The CDP states:
IFIHIIS 111'01LIIG:X IIS IIII TEII DED IFO SELF A11)l1"111011)llilIAIFIE CllllIIIFIEIlllIA II -0111 CIHll---N IFIHIIS 111UJIIIAII_ II:DIESIIG NAIFIION CAN 1131E USED. Note Llhe
G3eineirall 1111Ilalrn"s ILU.U11)AG3 desci1lpUioin for Rulrall desciriil es the cafe oiry as hncluffling EXIISTIING SU.0 DIIVIISIIONS h n the State
Land A IriiG.ultulrall and Rulrall fflsUlri is that Ihave a SIIGNIIFIICANT RESIIDENTII IL COMPONENT. WhHe Irulrall lIot sizes Gain vairy
firom 9,000-squalre feet to five aches, new recommended Rulrall desiginaUioins hn the IH5im5lkaua G:II:DII) Ihave G.onrespoind'hn
County zoinhng d'ensffiies of a Imaxhmulm of 1 uino t 1peir 1 ache. As inoted h n the G ei neirall 1111Ilaln, the allowable uses wirUllhhn these
aireas (wir h approlpIr ate zoo nh n ) Imay ii ncllude COMMERCIAL FACIILIITIIES THAT SERVE THE RESIIDENTII IL AND
AGRICULTURAL IL U.USES h n the airea, and coimlmuino ty and 1p ulblk facfllirhes. lFlhe Rulrall desiginaUioin does inot Iroecessalriilly mean
that these aireas should Ike fulrtlheir sulbd'Mded to slmalllleir lIots as (most lack the h nfirastiructulre Iroecessalry to allow fulrtlheir
s ulbd'Msioirn. lFlh e Geineirall 1111Ilalrn d'esciriil es Iraulrall development tlhh s way: "R ulrall -stype IresHei nhall -a Ikaullt ulrall developments
Imay iincllude eirUheir Irnew slmallll -scans Irulrall coimlmulroirhes oir exteinsii ins of eAshing Irulrall comlmul roues. Such development
lgIroves o1plpoirtuIr�he
s for a mN of resHei nhall and slmall-scans ai1 ulltulrall aGUMrhes. However, U"I°UPII`IIIflHIWAIIIIY IIUI (XIII
VIII UE,.mE DEVEL(XII`IIWBIMTS WOLILD BE TO III IIIK3IIIDE AIIM ADDED IIIIIIIGE TO III K3U.Um,mIIIIIIG &llong with this
housing, the Ilairge lots of these Iru it ll air silllll provide opportunities -for 1pairt-tillrne agirlicull-tuir , gairdening activities
and the Iraising of Ilivestoclk on a sire llll sc IIe. By 1pirovHhng olplpoirtulroirhes to sabsfy the demand for a Irulrall Ilffestylle on
LIII II1 uIIINXII.. a Ikaullt ulrall land, the pressures -to devellolP ulrnpoirtaintIrflcusll'tu it ll hand -for these purposes woulld Th
decir sed." (G3eineirall 1111Ilalrn 14.2.1)
*COMMENT: The CDP text quoted immediately above exactly describes Kihalani
Homestead. There are housing opportunities on all the parcels: most of which already have
housing and the other rural uses.
*The CDP states:
lFlhh s G3eineirall 1111Ilalrn desci1lpUioin of Irulrall -stype IresHei nhall-agi1.ul tulre developments presents some AMBIGUITY, 1pair6cullalrlly
albout what ago nsbtu tes "irnalrgh nA agIku ltu irA lands" that wire approlpIr ate for Ulhh s stype of IraulrA IresHei nUiA development.
*COMMENT: "Marginal lands" describes parcel 055 and the other homestead parcels. Most
or all of the homestead parcels are deficient in one way or other regarding agricultural
suitability (see part 2C. IAL Criteria above). This does not mean the homestead parcels
cannot provide benefits to our community. Only to say they are not candidates for IAL.
*The CDP states:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IIHAMAIKUA CDP, the intent of recornirnending LUPAG Ru it ll designations in some abase is
'to accornirnodate existing land uses, 'to cireat tIr nsutilon airea of sirn llll 'Fa rirn/ire"sidentiliall land Uses between the uirlban
ILDU.0 and the Ilairgeir IlotIrilcusll'tu it ll (ott n -20) abase,
*COMMENT: This exactly describes Kihalani Homestead... the first "larger lot agricultural
(often Ag -20)" areas are located right after the end of Kihalani Homestead Road. Ag -20 should
be expressed as "20 acres or more" because 20 acres is the smallest conforming parcel for
zoning purposes. As far as Ag -20 describing Kihalani Homestead, there has never been and
will never be a "20 acre parcel or larger lot agricultural" in this homestead. It is just the zoning
designation that comes with the land. The zoning doesn't care about the quality of the land for
agriculture in Kihalani Homestead. It simply defines agricultural uses.
*The CDP states:
and 11 -the intent of recornirnending LUPAG U3uslr 11 designations is'1 to accommodate a fIleAW11ty h n houshng olpUioi ns to
1plrovii e an iilrocei nUive to develop Irulrall 1paircells G. oseir to IresHei nball coimlmulroirbes wir h adequate h nfirastiructulre h nstead of
d'evellolph n Irulrall - IresHei nhall uses on LARGE, POTENTIALLY PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. See ansa Factor :3, firom
IPollilnby 1.
*COMMENT: Kihalani Homestead will never be "large, potentially productive agricultural
lands" but it does compare to most of the Rural criteria.
*The CDP states:
lFllhe coimimuro4 of N iirnolle its a good example of a coimimuno ty wir h eAshing ILUYRAG Rurall lbased on its underlyhng Stats
Land Use Rurall II:DiistHct and its (predominance sof the correspoindhng County zonhng sof ResHenhall-AgHcullture (IIIA). For
more information on l ornes earl wid rural settlements, see pages; 174-176 of Appendix V4B.
*COMMENT: A LUPAG Rural designation can be applied by the County without the parcel
being in a State Rural District. See next paragraph.
*The 2005 General Plan states at sec. 14.1.1:
Rurall ICDesigna ion: Rural: LlMs category hnclludes EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS I.Jinduffling homestead land's] h n the h n the State
Land Use Agikullturall II:DiisHcts that Ilhave a sii i fiifiinban-tit siiden-Miall cornpoir en -t. T-ypical (lot sizes vary from 9,000 -square
feet to two acres. lFllhese sulbd'iiviisions imay contahn sir allll Minns, wood areas, and open hellds as well as resHences.
Allowable uses wirUll i n these aireas...imay iindude cornirnrciiall...coimimuno ty and Ipublic faciillffiies."
*COMMENT: This description makes it clear that the County has the authority to approve Rural
designations for LUPAG or zoning regardless of the State land use map; that existing subdivisions that
have rural uses are eligible to be designated rural; and that rural uses can be on State Agricultural
Districts as well as on Rural Districts. To the extent the acreage minimums are an issue, the
agricultural zoning could be relied on to trump a rural LUPAG map.
*the "nearest productive agricultural lands" are at the top of Kihalani Homestead Road
*The rationale cites Policy 5
Policy 5 In the ofhcUi Land Use IRolky IMalp, the urban growth boundary (between developed areas (designated
"Low/II`Jlediiuim IDensity Urban") and lands designated as agikullturall or irurall (designated "Important Agi1cullture (Land" or
"IExtensive AgHcWture" or "Rural") its hntended to Ike Iparcell-specffiic h n the IH5im5lku a CICDIR planinhng area. Areas that are
clearly (beyond the designated urlba n growth boundaries sllhallll Ike preserved as irurA or agidcullturA lands to irnah ntah n
open space, sceno c view planes, and naturA lbeauty areas. Nate: See IRolky 6 for more h nforimaUio n on lndustiIA areas.
*COMMENT:
*parcel 055 is:
*already zoned agricultural (A-20)
*not beyond the urban growth boundaries (see 1. TMK 35004055 & History: Parcel 055 Should Be
Retained In A LDU Designation)
The CDP states:
IRatiormle: rhe Urbarn Growth Bo urndary (UG B) ideriitiFies areas where growth will be ernco uraged arnd areas that are to be protected
for agriculture. UG Bs are iruiternded to accommodate aruiticipated growth arnd to separate areas appropriate for future resideruitial
developrneruit from areas iruiternded for agricultural use. rvnis is sometimes referred to as ` rowrn arnd Co uruitry" zmirng, which requires
that developrrieriit occur ornly irn towm arnd villages, with the saurro urndirng mural areas remairnirng aurndeveloped arnd available for
Farrruirng, Forestry, rmtaural area preservatiorn, arnd recreation rhe ILUIPAG map irnclLudes larnd use categories that effectively establish
am UG B betweern the agricultural categories (Orchard, Exterisive Agriculture, arnd Ilmportaruit Agriculture), the mural category, arnd the
Corrum urnity (Review Draft 2016 aurbarn categories ((Lova, Medium, arnd (High Dernsity Urbarn, Ilr d ustrial, Urbarn Exparnsiorn, arnd Resort).
rvnis policy clarifies that the UG B established with the I1l5m5kLua CDP ILarnd Use (Policy IMap establishes parcel specific UG Bs whernever
practical.
*COMMENT: *Kihalani Homestead and parcel 055 is already developed and size -appropriate
farming is being practiced on most of the Kihalani Homestead parcels
*parcel 055 is designated as LDU
*the UBG for Kihalani would properly be the entire Kihalani Homestead; and the first parcel
above the end of Kihalani Homestead Road would be the first large agricultural land; see map
and parcel bordered in red, below, which is TMK 3-5-001-083 & 68 acres (and the first
large/core agricultural commercial size lot near) Kihalani Homestead Road that might be
qualified to be IAL.
*The CDP states:
*111aboinalle:lFllhiis strategy sof moviiing towaird paircell-specific imapipfing foir the IH5im5lkaua CICDIP, ILairnd Use IPolliis.y IMalp
refllects a s1hiift firoim the 2005 Geineirai Plain's ILLYPIAG diiiirectiiioirn sof beiiing generalized guiidaince. (See the iraboirnalle foir IPolliis.y
1 foir a fuirtlheir diiisc ussiioirn sof the Geineirai IPlain ILLYPIAG.) As irnoted, the ILLYPIAG imalps weire oini iiirnalllly broad, fIlexiii1blle toolls
iirntsyroded to guiide the diiiirsys.hoin airnd types sof d'eshralblle girowtlh foir syas.11h airea sof the County....lFllhiis geineirai approach to
guiidiiing Ilairnd use airnd girowtlh allowed foir iirntseirlpirseUve fl exiii1biiillirty airnd was lbased, at least iiirn 1pairt, oirn the challenges sof
cireahing dela heed imalps specffiic serooullh to demonstrate Ilairnd use desiii irnaboirns at a 1pars.sell Ilsevell. Howev ir, Iby alillowfing
geineirall, albll lb" stylle LUPAG imaps, paircellsweirs oftein splift finto vairiokis LUPAG i inati in iiro gays that weirse
irnoirse airlbiitirairy t1hairn they weirse iirnLein nboinall.lFllhiis, at himses, II -to piropeirty owineirs desfirfingIl it it dfirectioin albout
the it laind kine desiginatioins aind-fkj-tkjire devellopirneint optioins airnd Ilse' some property owin eirs to sseselk fuirtllhseir
IPlaininiiing Department iirntseirlpirsetaboins sof th eiir property iiirn irellaboirn to the geineirai ILLYPIAG desiii irnaboirns. Now that the CICDII)s
Ihave the oppoirtuirnirty airnd the technology to seas lly airnd seffiis.iisentlly create 1pars.sell-specffiis. ILLYPIAG imalps, it is a em it
piroactive p1laininfingtir to y to clearly airUcullatse ILLYPIAG desiii irnaboirns iiirn the IH5im5lkua CICDII) at a 1pairs.syll level airnd
d ecirseas e the Ipirseval eince sof sphtfling LUIII G d esl inn loins airlk Lira irflly. A coirnpeiiiiing ireasoirn foir airn sexcelphoin to t1hiiis
approach woulld The wllhsyirn 1pairt sof a 1pairs.syll its iiirn airn Opein LUPAG desiii irnaboirn (sus.11h as wllhsyirn 1pairt sof a 1pairs.syll its wiiLllhiiirn the
State ILairnd Use Coirnseirvaboirn diiistilct — e.g., alloing the coastllhn e sir iiirn imaulka forests). Any 1pairt sof a 1pairs.syll that its
d esii melees as ILLYPIAG 01psyirn woulld irseirnahn 01psyirn foir that sp ecffiis. airsea sof the 1pairs.sell. Otlheir exceptioinstothis paircell-
specifictir to y woulld The wllhsyirn the paircell is lair, airnd imay rosesed to rsefllses.t two (s it irnoirse) difffseirsernt .tyloses sof ILLYPIAG
desiii irnaboirns. IFoir example, wllhsyirn the 1pairs.syll lboird eirs a towirn wllhseirse 1pairt sof in woulld The wiiLllhiiirn the uirlbairn girowtlh
lbouirndairy, airnd yet the hair se 1pairs.syll stretches fairtllhseir hints a ilculltuirall airseas wllhseirse airn A ilculltuirall desiii irnaboirn its
aIK pirolpiriiatse. lFllhse CICDII) strategy sof imalkiiirn Ipairs.syll-specffiis. ILLYPIAGS desiii irnaboirns adds s.11ailty, specffiis.irty, airnd iiirns.ireases
Lira irnspaire irns.y hints the Ilairnd use desiii irnaboirn process airnd imoirse accurately rsefllses.ts the County's airnd the imimaiinityr
Ilairnd use goalls airnd iiirnteirnboirns.
*COMMENT:
*there are no splits at or around parcel 055
*the 2005 General Plan was not "generalized" for LDU: the County had a written list of parcels
that were LDU; and all indicators are Laupahoehoe LDU urban designations were made after a
rational process
*the "community" referenced is first and foremost the citizens of Laupahoehoe and the
respective land owners
*the 2005 LUPAG map might be considered to be "blob mapping" but the County has also
maintained written data for each parcel at all times of the LUPAG designations of each parcel
which has shown parcel 055 as LUPAG; even with blob mapping the boundaries and
characteristics of a parcel can be determined in County records
*parcel specific mapping and good technology is helpful; but for something like IAL a site visit
and comprehensive study should be done
The rationale cites General Plan Policy 14.1.30):
(9) IEincouirage uirlbairu development Mrthhn eAshing zoined aireas alliready seirved lby lbasic hnfirastiru ctuire, oir chose to such
aireas, hnstead of scatteired development.
*COMMENT: The 2005 Laupahoehoe LUPAG which included parcel 055 in the LDU designation
was not "scattered" and reflected a rational land use designation for Kihalani Homestead Road. Like
parcels were treated equally and there was a clear boundary for the LDU (even though the IAL
designation is not appropriate in Kihalani Homestead but applies only to the large agricultural parcels
above the top of Kihalani Homestead Road).
4. CONCLUSION
The main problem of dealing with the homestead lands is that there is really no category, either State or
County, that fits their use well. Homesteads are de facto Rural. But there is a problem in using Rural
in that the rural category provides for parcels as small as one acre and even the homestead owners
would not want new one acre parcels created in their neighborhoods. The Urban uses can cover some
of the homestead lands at lower elevations but do not apply as well past where electric service
terminates. Agricultural zoning takes care of land use above the urban uses. The fact that neither the
State nor County have taken the time to deal with the "challenge" of the homestead lands (referenced in
the CDP) is NOT a reason for slamming the homesteads into an equally inappropriate category like
"Important Agricultural Lands" which involves many unintended consequences and hardships for the
land owners living in the homesteads. The homesteads were created under State law to address a
particular need: to attract small scale farmers and homesteaders to settle in the remote parts of the
island and to occupy those areas for the good of the island. Having taken this bargain nearly 100 years
ago which still is perpetuated today, it behooves the State and County to recognize the homesteaders
signal contributions by at least giving them an appropriate land use. My suggestion would be to leave
the homesteads in State Agricultural and County Ag20 with the same Ag20 conforming uses they have
now, knowing the parcels are and always will be non -conforming or grandfathered in terms of size;
and then to create another LUPAG designation that fits the homesteads such as "Agricultural
Homesteads" that would accurately define the homestead uses as they exist. The 2015 General Plan
will not be completed until 2017 or 2018: so there is plenty of time to craft the right LUPAG
"Agricultural Homesteads" designation for the homesteads that must reflect their historical and current
uses. IAL should apply only to parcels situated outside of the homesteads (which start around 1000 ft.
elevation) if those lands can qualify as truly "important".
Thank You.
Barney Elders
PO Box 371
Laupahoehoe HI 96764
Off/elders.@cruzio.com
*please see the appendix beginning on the next page
3. June 13, 2016
Hawaii County Planning Department
Attn: Hamakua CDP; LeAna Gloor - Project Planner
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720
cc: hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov
cc: Leana.Gloor@hawaiicounty.gov
(808) 961-8308
re: CDP comments
Aloha Ms. Gloor, COH, and Planning:
This is a CDP comment in addition to the comments dated June 1, previously
submitted. The following comments are related to:
v2
1) Our request to retain our property's LUPAG designation as Low Density Urban;
2) The IAL LUPAG designation proposed for our property; and
3) Our request to make the "de facto Rural" uses (created prior to statehood) for the
3 Laupahoehoe homestead lands, permanent by changing the zoning from
Agriculture to Rural zoning for these homesteads.
We would like to meet with you, when convenient, to discuss items 1 and 3 as you
suggested in your email.
In addition to the June 1 comments about keeping our property designated as Low
Density Urban, I would like to note that urban uses extend to the church on
Kihalani Homestead Road which is a commercial use (see parcel outlined in red
below; TMK 3-5-004-082).
4. MEMO
From: Barney & Pam Elders, PO Box 371 Laupahoehoe HI 96764,
elders @ cruzio.com;
To: COH Planning, Atn. LeAna Gloor - Project Planner
RE: 7-19-16 2PM meeting about TMK 3-5-004-055 & Hamakua CDP Draft
I. Introduction
Aloha Ms. Gloor: Per your request, we are glad to furnish a list of matters we would like to discuss with you.
Please see attached exhibits that may be helpful for our meeting.
Exhibit 1 2005 LUPAG map showing proposed Low Density Urban (LDU) LUPAG proposed to be removed by 2015
LUPAG map.pdf: supports our qualifications for LDU
Exhibit 2 2005 LUPAG map showing reasonable corrections to 2015 LUPAG map.pdf: suggests a simple revision to the
LUPAG issue
Exhibit 3 Church & 'tunnel' to upper Kihalani Homestead Rd.pdf: if a transition from LDU or Rural is needed, a good place
would be the Baptist Church that is 6 parcels mauka from our property. The Church serves many LDU.functions; and, in
addition, the Church sits at the top of a narrow, winding, tree covered part of the road that defines lower Kihalani
Homestead below vs. upper Kihalani Homestead above (which is still Rural but not quite as developed as the lower).
Exhibit 4 Kihalani Homestead, buffer, 1st potential IAL parcel.pdf: if a rational transition from Rural Kihalani Homestead
vs. State IAL is needed, this shows where the transition where parcels become 20 acres or more and would be candidates for
IAL.
Exhibit 5 Pamela Elders comments on CDP 5-19-16.pdf: This are comments Pamela Elders sent to the CDP. This
memo will be referenced in this memo frequently.
Exhibit 6 SLU Land Use -GP -Zoning Relationships.pdf: COH Planning publication; Land Use 101; compares State vs.
LUPAG vs. zoning
II. History of TMK 3-5-004-055: see page 1, Exhibit 5) Pamela Elders comments on CDP 5-19-16.pdf.
III. Reason for Meeting
1. We are asking COH/Planning to change the CDP draft 2015 LUPAG map for our parcel 3-5-004-055
to Low Density Urban for purposes of the CDP and the 2015 General Plan. We would also like to
discuss Rural LUPAG as a alternate designation for the 2015 CDP and General Plan for our parcel.
2. We are asking for assurances from COH/Planning that no action will be taken to make our parcel
"State" IAL, including in any recommendation to the LUC or otherwise. Given the information
presented in this memo about the potential of our property for State IAL agfietihtife, it is clear that our
parcel is not State IAL.
3. We are asking that the COH/Planning consider the history of Kihalani Homestead by formalizing
what COH/Planning has already acknowledged: the homesteads are Rural in nature and have been Rural
since 1911 (and increasingly since the plantations closed). COH/Planning should help homestead
owners re -zone to Rural if they want; leaving the choice for others in the homestead to opt for State IAL
as allowed by law to qualify for incentives etc.; or to simply stay "Agricultural." Rural, Agricultural and
IAL can co -exist, including under Right to Farm (HRS 165), because they all engage in agriculture,.
IV. TMK 3-5-004-055 Should Be Designated LUPAG Low Density Urban
1. We purchased our property in 2004. At that time our LUPAG was Low Density Urban (as it had been
for decades). Urban uses are expected to "in fill" and grow over time: as opposed to being reduced by
COH. Kihalani Homestead is no exception. As the homestead in -fills, LDU should gradually expand.
Land owners who practice uses that meet the requirements of LDU should be designated LDU LUPAG.
There is actually probably a shortfall of LDU parcels in Hamakua: for instance ALL urban land on
Hawaii Island = 2% of the acreage; but on Maui it is 5% . See page 2, Exhibit 5) Pamela Elders comments on
CDP 5-19-16.pdf
2. Since 2004 we have regularly confirmed with Planning over the counter that the LUPAG for our
parcel 3-5-004-055 was, and would continue to be, Low Density Urban.
3. Recently we became aware from the CDP that the County proposed to change our LUPAG to
Important Agricultural Lands. We believe this designation is inappropriate for the following reasons:
4. TMK 3-5-004-055 Qualifies For Low Density Urban:
a. The County defines Low Density Urban as "Residential, with ancillary [community... public...
neighborhood... [or] commercial] uses."
b. Current uses for TMK 3-5-004-055 are residential; with about 1.5 acres of productive soil
supporting orchard crops (citrus, pineapple, avocados, etc.). Among other things, the crops are sold to a
neighborhood store/restaurant (ancillary commercial) and are sometimes donated to neighbors (ancillary
neighborhood). The remaining apx. 2.4 acres is used for pasture (ancillary commercial) (steep, rocky,
poor soil limit ag options on the 2.4 acres).
c. An LDU property is also identified by the infrastructure that allows the property to perform
ancillary uses. In this case such an infrastructure is available to TMK 3-5-004-055 in the form of a
public road serving all homestead parcels and which connects directly, within a half mile, to community
and commercial uses (church mauka; high school, 2 restaurants, farmers market etc.)
5. Treat Like Cases Alike:
a. IF OUR PARCEL TMK 3-5-004-055 IS:
1) already designated as LDU;
2) is located next to or close -by other parcels designated as LDU;
3) and our parcel qualifies as LDU according to the definition of LDU uses, as well or better than the
other next to/nearby LDU-designated parcels,
4) THEN our parcel should remain LDU.
b. In this case, our parcel qualifies on each factor; and our parcel actually performs LDU uses BETTER
than adjacent LDU parcels. Please reference:
1) Exhibit 1) 2005 LUPAG map shows Low Density Urban (LDU) LUPAG proposed to be removed by
2015 LUPAG map.pdf. The LDU parcels makai to our parcel and across the street from our parcel are
shown by numbers 1 to 7; reserving number 4 for our parcel. Land uses by parcel are listed along with
other parcel -specific information.
2) The two makai parcels marked "2" which are proposed to continue to be LDU, have residential uses
(one being in the course of a expansion) but, beyond horses, no "ancillary uses." This is not to say that
LDU is not a good LUPAG for these parcels since LUPAG is "forward looking" and future uses cannot
be predicted. The point is that we are involved in ancillary uses already making us "more LDU."
3) The parcel marked "3" is owned by the same person who owns the adjoining "2" so might be
considered = of "2" which should make "3" LDU, even though there is no current residential or
ancillary uses for "3."
4) The next parcel "4" is ours
5) Right across the street from our parcel, at the most mauka, "71 at the same elevation as our
property, is a parcel that has residential but no ancillary uses as far as we know. This parcel "7" is only a
couple feet away from our property AND IS DESIGNATED LDU on the 2015 LUPAG map.
c. How can it be that we are proposed for IAL while parcel "7" is proposed for LDU especially when
said parcel "7" does not actually qualify for LDU now?
d. The law should be applied with more parity and our parcel TMK 3-5-004-055 should be designated
LDU for purposes of the 2015 LUPAG map and general plan.
6. The Rationales To Reduce LDU Do Not Make The Case:
a. Our parcel's listing as LDU up to now was NOT a mistake. It is not a LDU by virtue of "blob"
mapping. Somebody at Planning actually entered LDU in our planning file. When I visited Planning in
2004, the Planner pulled up the LDU designation from a list, not a drawing. The 2005 LUPAG
designation for our parcel to be LDU was the considered decision of a planning expert and of the
County.
b. Following (or not following) State boundaries: The COH does not have to follow the State: urban
matters are within the County's jurisdiction. A better rule of thumb would be the urban designations
COH allowed in prior years.
c. Other Features of the Laupahoehoe 2015 LUPAG map seem inconsistent on the subject of LDU
1) Why did Papaaloa get additional LDU? For instance, can TMK 3-5-03-077 be LUPAG solely based
on RS zoning when there is NO residential on the parcel and NO ancillary.
2) Why i�pehu designated LDU when it might have residential but none of the other requirements
ancillary requirements for LDU?
7. The County has discretion about designating LUPAG for future development. However,
decisions about LUPAG must be made based on rational factors including the definition of LDU.
1) Here, TMK 3-5-004-055 is the "most LDU" parcel on lower Kihalani Homestead Road; and is "more
LDU" compared to other nearby LDU parcels.
2) TMK 3-5-004-055 has been LDU for many years.
3) Our property does not qualify for IAL.
4) TMK 3-5-004-055 Should Be Designated LUPAG LDU On The 2015 Map And In The General
Plan
V. TMK 3-5-004-055 is not suitable for IAL designation based on the following criteria:
1. See pages 1 & 2, Exhibit 5), Pamela Elders comments on CDP 5-19-16.pdf
2. The General Plan defines IAL as follows: "Important agricultural lands are those with better potential
for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate, topography, or other factors. The
CDP refers to IAL as 'large agricultural lots" and 'large productive agricultural lands. "
3. TMK 3-5-004-055 does match any definition or criteria for IAL
*Size of parcel: 3.9 acres; approximately 1.5 acres suitable for farming minus house and detached
garage; remaining 2.4 acres is steep, rocky, and limited to pasturing up to 2 horses. The property is too
small to support "sustained high agricultural yields" which is the COH definition of IAL.
Slope (16% - 25%)
Machine till -ability (not suitable 1.5 acres)
Productivity (mitigating factors are land values [see *see page 3c., Exhibit 5)
Amount of amendment required for productivity
Soil type (C) (O'okala Series 10-20%) According to http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/data/Isb.pdf Layer Name: Land
Study Bureau (LSB) Detailed Land Classification (see the LSB map next page)
The parcel is Rural in nature given these factors; Rural is by definition not IAL.
4. Land owners should be allowed to be pre -excepted from the list COH must send to the LUC listing
all Hawaii County IAL if a land owner can make a case that their parcel does not qualify as State IAL.
Allowing this shortcut would save the County time and money when it comes to compile a list for the
LUC.
VI. Whv TMK 3-5-004-055 And The Homesteads Are Rural
1. Kihalani Homestead has been rural for more than 100 years and was created specifically for rural
purposes. Soon after becoming a US Territory in 1900, Kihalani Homestead was created (in 1911) for
homesteaders who would "build a home," "occupy," and "improve" the land. The 1911 subdivision
created parcels of 8 to 12 acres. Currently there is still no lot over 15 acres.
2. The uses of the homesteads were rural and primarily residential in nature.
3. The COH definition of LUPAG Rural is: "This category includes existing subdivisions in the State
Land Use Agricultural and Rural districts that have a significant residential component."
4. The original owners and their successors are legally and morally entitled to enjoy the status and uses
conferred on the homestead lands by the territorial government.
5. On -the -Ground Reality: There is no reasonable way to keep Kihalani Homestead from becoming
developed; or from being rural. Extensive development has already occurred along Kihalani Homestead
Rd. and it has always been rural.
VII. Buffers
1. See page 3/last paragraph to page 4, Exhibit 5) Pamela Elders comments on CDP 5-19-16.pdf.
2. Both LDU and Rural can be used as a buffer. Exhibit 3) Church & 'tunnel' to upper Kihalani
Homestead Rd.pdf shows where the rational LDU should be established. Thereafter, mauka, the parcels
should be Rural with a State IAL buffer at the top of the homestead (see Exhibit 4 Kihalani Homestead,
buffer, 1st potential IAL parcel.pdf).
VIII. There Is Enough Agricultural Land In Hamakua To Limit State IAL To Large and
Prime Agricultural Land Only
1. COH needs, and can afford, to be selective in listing parcels for State IAL: The General Plan defines
IAL as "lands are those with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields"; the CDP refers to
"large agricultural lots" and "large productive agricultural lands." The studies done by Kauai and
Oahu have demonstrated the type of detailed, parcel -specific consideration that is necessary before
listing a property for IAL. The danger of listing all agricultural parcels as IAL is that many parcels that
CANNOT be productive will be captured in the strict IAL regime that has no relevance to what most
agricultural zoned land can actually produce. The result would be non-compliance or fallow land.
2. The good news is that it does not appear that there will be a housing boom that will harm agriculture
in Hamakua; and and the inventory of productive agricultural land is adequate despite an improving
economy. For instance, the 2006 Hamakua Agricultural Plan sponsored by the County states that of all
parcels in Hamakua (not counting recreational and government lands) only I% of the remaining parcels
in Hamakua are for residences (687 acres residential vs. 163,193 acres for agriculture). Since 2006
revenue and payroll in Hamakua has steadily grown. Population growth is projected by the census as
being moderate in Hamakua (@ 9% 2005 to 2015 which is healthy growth).
District 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
North Hilo 1,720 1,643 1,720 1,798 1,879
Hamakua 6,108 6,196 6,561 6,933 7,328
IX. Fairness Factors
1. See page 4, Exhibit 5) Pamela Elders comments on CDP 5-19-16.pdf
2. At 72 years of age, after a lifetime of community work including raising $450,000 to save
Laupahoehoe School from closing and our commitment to the environment, we should be allowed a
rural lifestyle given that it will include small scale agriculture as long as we are able.
X. Other Questions
misc note FYI: the location of the MDU seems to be misplaced
WHAT DOES COH/PLANNING MEAN BY:
"...homestead areas contain previous lots of record that were created prior to statehood, and they
accommodate an excess of rural development in the agricultural mauka areas along the homestead
roads... Particularly in the homestead areas, the parcels are often already smaller sizes than their
underlying zoning designation; for example, there are many homestead areas with agricultural lots sized
less than twenty acres despite their Ag -20 zoning. These preexisting lots have created a challenging land
use scenario because in practice, the majority of these areas are "de facto" rural subdivisions within a
State and County land use system that historically underutilized the State Land Use Rural District and
Rural LUPAG designations.... No LUPAG Rural areas are proposed for these areas due to the
prevalence of the surrounding existing rural -style parcels in the homestead areas (e.g., Manowai`opae
Homestead Road, Hokumahoe Road, and Kihalani Homestead Road). [does this mean since the
homesteads are defacto rural they cannot be rural LUPAG or zoned?]
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT KIHALANI HOMESTEAD IS RURAL BOTH IN ITS INCEPTION IN
1911 AND IN ITS CURRENT USE? AND THAT "THE HOMESTEADS WERE CREATED UNDER
TERRITORY (STATE) LAW ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO TO ADDRESS A PARTICULAR NEED:
TO ATTRACT SMALL SCALE FARMERS AND HOMESTEADERS TO SETTLE IN THE
REMOTE PARTS OF THE ISLAND AND TO USE THE HOMESTEAD FOR SUBSISTENCE AND
FOR WHATEVER OTHER BENEFITS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES,
THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE? (https:Ilen.wikipedia.orglwiki/Homesteading).
It ignores history to say that Kihalani Homestead has an "excess" of rural development: the homesteads
were designed to meld agriculture and rural features even though those terms were not used 100 years
ago ... The Hawaii homestead movement provided the desired beneficial effects which can still be seen in
action in the homesteads today. While the homestead lots may seem "non -conforming" with regard to
the modern zoning code, the homestead was authorized before there was a "county" or a "zoning code"
or a "LUPAG" and therefore, have precedence over the current regulations legally or at least in
principle. Homesteads are not some awful mistake of land use planning. They are a separate land use
that has served and still serves a needed purpose. Kihalani Homesteads should not be expected to fit into
any uses or restrictions other than those that were contemplated when the homestead were established
100 years ago. To change the use of the homestead lands to some other use such as IAL is a
misunderstanding of what the homesteads were intended to be and what they contribute to currently.
Also, there are still thousands of acres of large agricultural land above the homesteads that are parcels of
a size of more than 20 acres+ and which are truly IAL whose owners would probably welcome an IAL
designation.
DOESN'T POLICY 4 SAY "In order to preserve larger lot agricultural lands for productive agricultural
use, allow rural development on lands near urban areas where an intermediate land use between
residential and productive agricultural areas is consistent with the surrounding uses and rural character?
[Rationale: The recent growth within the Hamakua planning area has primarily occurred on mauka
agricultural lands and in the homestead areas. Particularly in the homestead areas, the parcels are often
already smaller sizes than their underlying zoning designation; for example, there are many homestead
areas with agricultural lots sized less than twenty acres despite their Ag -20 zoning.]
DOESN'T THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN (GP 14.2. 1) SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF RURAL
DISTRICTS? Why does the CDP say "This General Plan description of rural -style residential -
agriculture developments presents some ambiguity, particularly about what constitutes "marginal
agricultural lands" that are appropriate for this style of rural residential development."
The church is the logical buffer between Low Density Urban (or Rural based on the
zoning we are requesting) and Agricultural.
With regard to the County's use of the terms "Important Agriculture Lands" and
"IAL", Planning stated at the 5-25-16 meeting that no COH procedures for selecting
parcels for submission to the State Land Use Commission have been established. In
the meantime Planning stated that "County IAL" only means current county zoning.
Regardless, policies and issues about IAL are part of both the GP and the CDP.
The IAL materials in the GP and CDP are not limited to "County IAL ... i.e. zoning
only" as discussed at the 5-25-16 meeting: but refer to State statutes and policies as
well. Examples include 4.3.2 of the draft CDP "existing policy"; 4.3.3 Land Use
Policy 4.3.3 "development and construction in Important Agricultural Land shall be
limited to agriculture; and in the CDP rationale 4.3 that says "the [LUPAG"]
designates agricultural lands in the Hamakua Planning Area to be preserved for
agriculture and open space". This is State IAL wording.
Also, these County IAL policies are worded as current, binding policy (in the case
of the GP already binding; and in the case of the CDP, binding when approved by
the Planning Commission and the County Council). For instance, Policy 4.3.3
would become law and be binding on landowners upon approval of the CDP
regardless of the fact that there is no County process under way to identify IAL
designation to the LUC. As I understand, at this time the State and LUC pre-empt
County law on the subject of IAL. The County cannot legislate about the same IAL
policies in State law without the LUC's and State's permission. Also there is no
State statute listing IAL land uses; and the LUC has not confirmed any of the
county lands IAL under the County Mandatory Designation program.
This situation puts landowners in a confusing situation. Should a landowner
conclude that State IAL is already in force by virtue of the 2005 GP and may be
further in force when the CDP is approved? Would a landowner who disagrees with
a County IAL thus be subject to some kind of statute of limitation? Is the County
ready to issue a binding opinion about whether a particular parcel qualifies for list
as State IAL now? Or are the County IAL provisions intended to become binding
only when the State completes its IAL process (even if the GP and CDP do not
specifically say so)?
So my suggestion is that:
1. The County and CDP change the LUPAG "IAL" designation wording to
reference a "agriculture" or "Ag" designation; and
2. The GP should be amended and a caveat should be included in the CDP that any
reference to "IAL" or "Important Agricultural Lands" will not be binding until the
entire LUC IAL process is completed and a State bill is passed to define the land
uses for Important Agricultural Lands. (the other option being to remove the IAL
references in the GP and CDP)
I also think it is not too early to start thinking about how to approach the
designation of IAL parcels to the LUC. In the June 1 comments I submitted some
suggestions about what the designation process might include, the criteria for
designating a parcel IAL, and why our parcel would not qualify for IAL. A couple
other comments about the designation process are:
*there are many reasons why the Laupahoehoe Homestead lands should be re -zoned
Rural (vs. agriculture) which is, by definition, not IAL
*Planning assured us at the 5-25-16 meeting that not all of the current LUPAG
County IAL would be designated as State IAL
*the State IAL includes criteria that would exclude many Hawaii County
agricultural parcels from IAL
*the experience of both Kauai and Oahu, so far, has been that less than half of the
agricultural zoned parcels become State IAL (leaving the other parcels to be subject
to the current agricultural zoning)
*despite the concerns of some in the public about losing agricultural land to
housing, there is actually a good balance between agriculture and development: for
instance, Hamakua agricultural zoning is 163,193 acres (not including open and no
zone/government land) while various housing or commercial zoning takes up 687
acres (less that 1% of the total ag and development zoning). Since 2006 Hamakua
has gained jobs; and investments in the community have grown source: Hamakua Agricultural
Plan. see also "Can Hawaii Feed Itself' (http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/can-hawaii-feed-itself/) and "The Coast is Clear"
httj2://www.hawaiibusiness.com/the-coast-is-clear/
*The IAL designations should be for the "best and most productive agriculturally
zoned lands... according to uniform standards and criteria that are flexible, fair and
acceptable." source: Hamakua Agricultural Plan. (see other criteria in the June 1 comments)
*Rural uses (small farms) are also productive source: Hamakua Agricultural Plan; We are hoping
that the County will soon change the zoning for the 3 Laupahoehoe Homesteads
from County IAL to Rural since the County already calls the Homesteads "de facto
Rural"
*Small ag, while not IAL, can still contribute to agriculture: my wife and I support
agriculture and practice agriculture on a small parcel with niche crops which
provide a small stipend (but mostly exercise and satisfaction). We also support our
community and have a long history of working for various causes including
environmental, transportation, and education (including raising $450,000 to keep
Laupahoehoe School from closing while it was going charter). The majority of our
estate planning benefits environmental and conservation organizations in Hawaii.
We look forward to meeting with you.
Thank you.
Barney Elders
PO Box 371
Laupahoehoe HI 96764
elders @ cruzio.co
appendix
COMMENTS ON CDP INFORMATION INTRODUCED AT 5-25-16 MEETING
BULLET POINT OUTLINE OF IAL ISSUES
Please see list "Bullet Points About CDP 'Important Agricultural Lands"' following issues 1 to 8
immediately below which addresses information introduced at the CDP meeting on 5-25-16 at
Laupahoehoe School.
ISSUES 1 TO 8
The following is based on information introduced by Planning at the CDP meeting on 5-25-16
at Laupahoehoe School. Each topic has 2 parts: ISSUE and ISSUE COMMENTS.
ISSUE 1: At the 5-25-16 CDP meeting a hand out was distributed about the differences
between County (LUPAG) Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) and IAL at the State level.
Discussion followed the hand out.
a. Hand Out "LUPAG Frequently Asked Questions" states:
1) "LUPAG Important Agricultural Lands Designation vs. State Important Agricultural Lands
(IAL): It is important to recognize that the current General Plan uses the term "Important
Agricultural Lands" as one of its agricultural categories, but there is no correlation to the
State's Important Agricultural Lands designation from Hawaii Revised Statues §205-41
through 52. The LUPAG terminology is expected to be revised in the upcoming General Plan
Comprehensive Review to avoid confusion concerning these two, unrelated land use
designations.
2) "How do the LUPAG designations relate to County Zoning? The LUPAG designations guide
decisions related to future land use. For example, any proposed rezoning must be consistent
with the LUPAG. However, County zoning determines a parcel's current permitted land use
and development entitlements. "
b. Discussion: At the meeting Planning stated to the effect: The definition and significance of
"Important Agricultural Lands" (IAL)" used in the LUPAG maps and County definition of
IAL is very different than the definition and significance as used by the State. The use of IAL
at the County level was an unfortunate choice: and the designation should be revised to
something like "Agricultural Lands". In the meantime the Hamakua CDP will be supplemented
to clarify the definition and significance of "Important Agricultural Lands" (IAL) as used in
the CDP. Planning verbally agreed that County (LUPAG) IAL only means current
applicable agricultural zoning.
*ISSUE 1 COMMENTS:
*It is worth mentioning that land use, including agricultural use, is partially addressed by State
statutes that supplement or are incorporated into County zoning. An example HRS Ch 205 and
205-4.5. When the State Important Agricultural Lands program is implemented in the future
that program will also constitute a land use overlay. When the LUPAG terminology is
amended to change the County (LUPAG) category "IAL" to something like "Agriculture" a
provision should be included in the CDP that the new designation does not include land use
currently regulated by the State.
*Will the information in the hand out and the discussion be incorporated into the CDP? If it is
true that County (LUPAG) IAL only means "current applicable agricultural zoning" that should
be included in the CDP.
*The LUPAG IAL designation should be changed: I would favor using "Agricultural" rather than
"Agricultural Lands". The word "Lands" will still tend to be confused with State IAL. The other
designations do not say "Rural Lands", or "Urban Lands".
*Another hand out distributed by Planning at the 5-25-16 meeting quotes HRS 205-2
"Development on agricultural land is limited to agriculture [and other farm uses], open area
and recreational use". HRS 205-2 does not have such a provision.
*The 2005 General Plan includes a reference at page 270 using the term "Important
Agricultural Lands" which was previously called "Intensive Agriculture". Apparently that is a
way to identify "agricultural lands are those with better potential for sustained high
agricultural yields". There is nothing wrong with trying to identify the better agricultural lands
on Hawaii Island. But such studies should be called something else than Important Agricultural
Lands which is actually a State designation. The term Important Agricultural Lands and the
abbreviation IAL should not be used in the CDP or General Plan until the process of identifying
and finalizing the IAL designations at the LUC level is completed.
*ISSUE 2:
■Although land use matters on Hawaii Island are not directly subject to State IAL (until the IAL
lists are submitted to and approved by the Land Use Commission), there are parts of the CDP
that incorporate State IAL concepts and policies (and some that refer to "IAL") which, if
approved by the County Council, will become County law.
■If this happens the CDP concepts and policies would be a exception to the statement that
"County (LUPAG) IAL only means current applicable agricultural zoning";
sand the CDP IAL policies would usurp State jurisdiction at a time that no lists of IAL parcels
would have been submitted to and approved by the Land Use Commission (and at a time,
therefore, that there would not be Hawaii County IAL parcels). (an exception being parcels
that are IAL by virtue of a HRS 205-45 Petition... which would be solely under the jurisdiction of
the State LUC in any event)
' - • M. . . -. NO
lands.*CDP says: assist the further development of agriculture through the protection of important
agricultural '
• i 205-43says"State .i •countyagricultural policies,tax policies, . • use plans,
ordinances, and rules shall promoteviability agriculturaluse of important
landsagricultural l• shall be consistent with a • implement the following♦o
*HRS 205-43 (1) says "Promote the retention of important agricultural lands in blocks of
iw . •functional . •unitslargeallow• agricultural
production and management;"
*CDP says: Ensure that development of important agricultural land be primarily for
agricultural use. (GP i
• , .. the fragmentation of important agricultural lands and the
conversion of r to nonagricultural uses";
*CDP 4.3.3 Land Use Policy, Policy 24 says: To preserve the agricultural character of Hamakua
and to reinforce existing protections, the official Hamakua CDP Land Use Policy Map
designates agricultural lands in the Hamakua Planning Area to be preserved for agriculture
and open space. Development and construction in "Important Agricultural Land" and
"Extensive Agriculture" areas shall be limited to agriculture, related economic infrastructure
and cottage industries, renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community
facilities unless otherwise permitted by law. (Hamakua Community Development Plan Draft
For Community Review January 2016 pg.57)
*HRS 205-43 (3) says: Direct nonagricultural uses and activities from important agricultura'
lands 1I areas ■ , ensure . ♦ on important
rf:1 agricultural 1I are actually
2gricultural uses;
HRS 205-43 (4) says: Limit physical improvements on important agricultural lands to
maintain affordability of these lands for agricultural purposes;
*ISSUE 2 COMMENTS:
*The CDP should distinguish between County agriculture zoning requirements; and State IAL
land use, concepts, and policies in the CDP that do not apply to Hawaii County until the State
IAL lands are submitted and approved by the LUC.
*The CDP should state to the effect that "Policies and matters in the CDP that are termed as or
related to State IAL policies that will only be effective in the future for agricultural land when
Hawaii County parcels are designated IAL based on the IAL list submitted to the State Land
Use Commission by the County, shall only apply to County parcels when the Land Use
Commission has made a final decision to include such parcels as IAL and when the LUC
approves of any County policies or regulations that purport to implement the State IAL uses,
policies or regulations. In the meantime all land use for agricultural parcels shall be governed
by the zoning code".
*A separate planning track should be launched by Hawaii County to study IAL only.
*The County should create and frequently update a separate website to educate the public
about the IAL process that will lead to the submittal of parcels to the LUC; and how the IAL
differs from the agricultural policies and goals in the CDP and the General Plan.
*How would existing development of agricultural parcels be "preserved" for agriculture and
open space? And how will this policy affect the re -building of destroyed or damaged
structures on parcels that are currently developed with residential homes and other non-
agricultural structures? There should be a provision in the CDP that allows any loss of
grandfathered non-agricultural structure to be repaired, rebuilt, and used in a pre -IAL manner
in perpetuity which runs with the land.
*ISSUE 3: The General Plan also adopts criteriafor importantagricultural lands o
HawaiiState law that apparently refers to County (LUPAG) IAL which is supposed to be limited to
it zoning". These General Plan criteria refer to State IAL which further confuses County IAL with
State IAL. The General Plan use of State IAL criteria cannot be binding since there is no State
IAL in the County of .t those IAL by virtue of a 205-45 -
under State jurisdiction.
For instance,
■the 2005 General Plan states at page 14-8: Important Agricultural Land: Important
agricultural lands are those with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because
of soil type, climate, topography, or other factors
■compare to State HRS 205-42 "Important agricultural lands" means those lands... that... Are
capable of producing sustained high agricultural yields...."
■County: Important agricultural lands were determined by including the following lands:
■compare to State HRS 205-44 Standards and criteria for the identification of important
agricultural lands
■County: Lands identified in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii
(ALISH) classification system as "Prime" or "Unique".
■compare to State: HRS 205-44 c-3: Land identified under agricultural production rating
systems, such as the agricultural lands of importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system
*County: Lands classified by the Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report as Class B
"Good" soils. (There are no Class A lands on the island of Hawaii)
*compare State: HRS 205-44 c-2: Land with soil qualities... that support agricultural
production
*County: Lands classified as at least "fair" for two or more crops, on an irrigated basis, by
the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's study of suitability for various
crops.
*State: HRS 205-44 c-3: Land identified under agricultural production rating systems
*Also the County General Plan 14.2.4 states "prevent non-agricultural uses that COULD
interfere with POTENTIAL or existing agricultural activities on important AGRICULTURAL
IMPORTANT LANDS (which is a policy that goes beyond the current agricultural zoning)
*ISSUE 3 COMMENTS:
*Both the CDP and GP are regulating State IAL when it does not yet exist pending the
submittal of parcels to the LUC
*To the extent that the County is defining State IAL the County does not have the power to
regulate State matters; and there is no IAL land at this point in time.
*There is nothing wrong with the County adopting the same or similar State criteria to express
lands that have superior farm potential. But the General Plan should not refer to Important
Agricultural Lands or IAL when doing so.
*It appears from the text at page 14-8 in the General Plan that the County has made a parcel -
by -parcel "determination" of parcels that are Important Agricultural Lands. Is there a
document that shows these parcels and how each parcel was "determined" to be "Important
Agricultural Lands "?
*ISSUE 4: The State IAL process of obtaining IAL lists from the Counties will begin soon since
both Kauai and Oahu have already conducted in-depth studies to identify State IAL prior to the
submittal of lists of IAL to the LUC.
*ISSUE 4 COMMENTS: The public should be advised about the IAL process: including timeline
and the consequences of being a State IAL parcel. See also the Issue 2 Comments.
*ISSUE 5: The parcels included currently in the CDP as LUPAG IAL will be first tier candidates
to be included in the list the County is required to submit to the LUC to designate Hawaii
County IAL and parcels for inclusion as State IAL. Planning stated at the 5-25-16 meeting that
it is not clear how or when Hawaii County will decide about the IRL list. Hawaii County
appears to have an option of just submitting maps (see LURF powerpoint "The Road Ahead",
Slide 1) rather than doing a study (which could result in the County LUPAG being sent
wholesale to the LUC: although Planning told the 5-25 audience that not all IAL parcels would
be sent to the LUC). It is not known what kind of notice and due process owners of Hawaii
Island parcels on the list may be granted (including having input on the parcel selection criteria
or the benefit of a study like Kauai did). Once a parcel is on the State IAL list for the LUC, a
parcel owner may lose property value (see HRS 205-43 "county ... land use plans, [and]
ordinances... shall be consistent with and implement... policies .... (3) Direct
nonagricultural ... from important agricultural lands .... (4) Limit physical improvements on
important agricultural lands to MAINTAIN AFFORDABILITY OF THESE LANDS......). Once on the
IAL list owners will be subject to multiple hardships: restrictions on the right to build and
occupy houses; prohibitions on additional uses; uncertainty about being able to rebuild
destroyed or damaged structures including homes, etc. Once a parcel is on the State list it will
take the permission of the LUC to get off the list (a lengthy and expensive procedure)
*House Bill 1361/2014 session did not pass but gives a glance at what State IAL regulations
would look like once the State IAL is determined by the LUC; https://legiscan.co /HI/text/H61361/id/919216,
"SECTION 1. To date, the land use commission has designated 89,859 acres of agricultural
lands as important agricultural lands .... [currently ... 20141 the law does not limit the uses and
activities that are permitted on important agricultural lands. Consequently, it appears that all
of the uses and activities permitted on agricultural lands, generally, are also permitted on
important agricultural lands .... The purpose of this Act is to identify permissible and accessory
uses and activities on lands designated as important agricultural lands.
SECTION 2. Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended.... §205- (a) Permissible uses
within designated important agricultural lands. (1) Cultivation of crops.... (2) [Game and
fish propagation]; (3) Raising of livestock (4) Farm dwellings, farm labor, or farm employee
housing .... (other agriculture) (b) Uses not expressly permitted in subsection (a) shall be
prohibited, except non -conforming.... no subdivision or establishment of a condominium
property regime on designated important agricultural lands shall be approved by the State or
counties....
*ISSUE 5 COMMENTS:
*Planning said that the IAL list to be sent to the LUC would not include all County (LUPAG) IAL
parcels. If the Kauai IAL study is any guide and Hawaii County engages in a comprehensive
study, only about 40% would qualify as IAL.
,547 acres ,
rhe mar, sa^rs rr SII Iinr7:3 rtnv ",
PnmP.Mz tMt rag ry�nl+F a r , n+! 25 Mrotnr5
r"shii dF IA Vq(Y .00WS %gR1t Idl"IIPA 1'W4 ��������/ i/AF
A'al Gran rur,n dI e plod aM IA n i�� / i i� i� i�� � ���
ozuw r fho.s rumor innv be uwlzfu"d ilu.
Chavigu and s7mjuld nohmj i,n^,tirau °i7 I
ry� plvu ! ruing r.�S I aud9 "Y"maw Irt�rwn,n�2�.a orl �, i r� �
�ss:r ullur�l �
Siete HIghway
Des ignate dIp,Lq;sppfcziirnetre@y'd6,263acres
MIL, Clr'teda Scores
rg
i ert,,r�nrruyw...
40,
C',O PLIA4¶24.,1.,.4....1
*See powerpoint The Road Ahead: Slide 31: Hawaii County has more than 1.2 million acres of
LUC agricultural land
h_ttp: //mow moa hawaiicountycdpa in fo/ham.akua-cdp/about-the-ham.akua-cdp-planning-area/past-and-current-planning-activities-in-the-
ham.akua-cdp-planning-areaIOSII03 %20HCPO Uchida. pptx/vie w
*Slides frons Important Agricultural and Rural Lands The Road Ahead Land Use Research Foundation Of Hawaii:
htm://wwwalurfor2l: Executive Director Dean Uchida
iThe County should adopt a process for creating its IAL list for the LUC that is deliberate and
that is based on a thorough study of the type Kauai engaged in.
sMaking a decision by mapping alone will shortchange the citizens of Hawaii County because
mapping alone will likely result in parcels being mistakenly placed on the LUC list.
iThere is ample acreage on Hawaii Island to allow the County to limit the IAL parcels sent to
the LUC to be the very best lands: instead of merely lumping everything designated County
"IAL" onto the LUC list.
sCitizens must be given a long notice period, well before the submittal to LUC, if their parcel is
targeted to be on the IAL list; and must be accorded due process if there is a disagreement.
lCitizens must also have input on the selection criteria for parcels
sCitizens must have the benefit of a study like Kauai to be confident that the IAL is process is
fair: especially given the serious risks that small acreage parcels will face if they are designated
IAL.
sLastly if small acreage owners are on the PUC list they must be entitled to incentives that are
targeted at small farms (the large case commercial incentives do not apply to small farms for
the most part) including:
►property tax forgiveness
►crop subsidies
►compensation for any diminution of property value
*A separate planning track should be launched now by Hawaii County to study IAL only.
*The County should create and frequently update a separate website to educate the public
about the IAL process that will lead to the submittal of parcels to the LUC; and how State IAL
differs from current agricultural zoning.
*ISSUE 6: When the County certifies the list of IAL parcels Land Use Commission (LUC) and it is
adopted by the LUC, the County will be required to adopt County ordinances that implement
the use restrictions in the State Constitution and State law that will require the County to
adopt the more strict and inflexible standards in the State law for conforming uses. To the
extent that County IAL may be just the County agricultural zoning now, that status will change
in the near future. The obligation for counties to submit lists has been in place since July,
2011; and Oahu and Kauai are close to submitting their lists having already done a IAL
suitability study of agricultural parcels island wide. Regulations that will come with IAL
designation when the County IAL lists have been submitted to the LUC and when the LUC
approves parcels for IAL include:
*HRS 205-43 "county ... land use plans, [and] ordinances... shall be consistent with and
implement [State IAL]... policies .... [including] (3) Direct nonagricultural ... from important
agricultural lands .... (4) Limit physical improvements on important agricultural lands to
maintain affordability of these lands...." []
*HRS 205-45.5 allows farm dwellings and employee housing for farmers, employees and their
immediate family members .... The farm dwellings and employee housing units shall be used
exclusively by farmers and their immediate family members who actively and currently farm
on important agricultural land .... the immediate family members... shall not live in separate
house .... the landowner shall not plan or develop a residential subdivision on the important
agricultural land
*University of Hawaii Key Points to Understand Important Agricultural Lands FAQ: "Once my
land is considered IAL, can it be used for something else? It cannot be used for anything but
agriculture.
*ISSUE 6 COMMENTS:
*When the State IAL lists are submitted to and approved by the LUC the County will have to
amend their zoning to comply with State law governing Important Agricultural Lands
*If a farmer living on a IAL parcel suffers a debilitating medical condition and cannot "actively
and current farm" do they have to move off their property to some other place to live out
their lives or petition the LUC? There seem to be no exceptions. It would seem that the State
should adopt automatic exceptions to the IAL uses that would provide for continued residence
in a farm dwelling without having to go through an administrative process to get permission.
*ISSUE 7: The CDP proposes to convert more Laupahoehoe parcels (at least 12 parcels) from
non -IAL designations to IAL.
*ISSUE 7 COMMENTS: Please comment on the discussions and deliberations that led to long
these standing urban designations being changed. To what extent was the change due to
simply create more IAL parcels?
*ISSUE 8: IAL and Rural Uses. The Land Use Research Foundation, a respected think tank for
Hawaii land matters, suggests "A Case For Rural Designations And Zoning". Instead of using the
IAL designation , based on the fact that there are many agricultural lands that do not qualify
for IAL, Counties should strive to convert non -IAL parcels to be designated Rural.
*County General Plan states at 14.2.3(g) that "Land zoned for use in the rural district shall be
expanded, where appropriate."
*ISSUE 8 COMMENTS:
h=://www.hawaiicount)cdh.info/ham.akua-cdp/about-the-ham.akua-cdL�-planning-area/past-and-currvnt-planning-activities- in- the-
ham.akua-cdp 2lanning-area/051103%20HCPOUchida.pptx/view
*Slides frons Important Agricultural and Rural Lands The Road Ahead Land Use Research Foundation Of Hawaii:
ht ://www.lur .or�Ll; Executive Director Dean Uchida *Slide 29
*Slide 35: 'JAL process will identify lands MOST suitable for Agriculture. The non -IAL Agricultural lands will then be assessed for
appropriate uses (Ag, Urban, Conservation, Rural)
The agricultural parts of the Hamakua Draft CDP seem to reflect a yearning to bring back the
days when Hamakua was virtually all agricultural. The policies in the CDP refer to a day before
sweeping changes occurred in Hamakua after the demise of the plantations. Since the demise
of the plantations, large parts of Hamakua have been transformed from agriculture to
predominately rural and residential uses. Now the citizens of Hamakua mostly make their
living outside of Hamakua and return daily to relatively small parcels in Hamakua to enjoy the
rural features of the area including small scale gardening and horticulture that serves
subsistence or perhaps booths at the local "farmers" markets. Despite the laws and zonings
that were in place during the transition from all ag to rural in many parts of Hamakua, the
County has been complicit in these changes by virtue of issuing permits and ignoring the
transformation (including dramatic changes in land values) that were occurring. In the
meantime, the new arrivals to Hamakua have enriched the County by paying to upgrade the
housing stock and by restoring the lands. These changes in Hamakua cannot be reversed
except by a draconian application of the law and hardship to many land owners who thought
they were helping by improving their small lands. The widespread application of Important
Agricultural Lands to small (2 to 10 acre) lands that are not prime for agriculture is a mis-
application of land regulation. Even agriculture on large (20 acres +) lands is doubtful. In the
25 years since the plantations closed there has not been a rush to farm large acreage in
Hamakua and especially in the homesteads because many parcels are most suitable for grazing
which means damage to the vegetation and soil; and an industry that depends on sending
cattle to the mainland to eke out a profit. It is time for Hamakua and the County to be
realistic. Hamakua is not going to go back to the 201h century. Instead of proposing polices for
the land that has already become rural rather than agricultural, it is time for the County to
support a realistic land use policy for Hamakua. First, that will mean bringing a rigorous,
scientific and honest approach to deciding which large (20+ acre) prime lands will actually
qualify for the state Important Agricultural Lands program: Lands that truly accomplish the
goal of supporting large scale commercial farming: Instead of shoe-horning small, marginal
lands into Important Agricultural Lands for no good reason. Second, the County must come to
grips with the lands that have changed from agriculture to rural uses and not act to punish the
owners. The rural designation must be applied to parcels that have become "de facto rural"
simply from the passage of time. With this type of honest approach the County can help to
give Hamakua a new perspective where their agriculture lands can be protected and the value
the rural owners bring by improving housing stock and renewing the small parcels they own is
rewarded.
6-4-16 The following is an update of the Bullet Points v4 due to the IAL comments
by Planning at the 5-25-16 meeting at Laupahoehoe school. At that meeting
Planning said that County IAL was different than State IAL; and that County IAL is
equivalent to Agricultural zoning. That is true in the sense that the County uses
different criteria to identify IAL than the State. However, many of the references to
IAL in the CDP and 2005 General Plan refer to State criteria without making a
distinction between County and State which is confusing and non-binding in the
sense that State law may pre-empt counties from adopting State criteria before the
State finishes deciding which Hawaii County parcels should be IAL (in the next few
years). On the other hand, even though there are currently policies and criteria for
IAL in the State Constitution and the State statutes, no binding State parcel -specific
statute has been adopted by the State to govern land use that would apply to State
IAL lands (i.e. there is no State land use law for IAL lands yet so the County zoning
becomes the default for land use). Some of this confusion is due to the fact that
IAL is a work in progress and what IAL land use is for a particular parcel at this
time will be different in the future. The CDP and County will re -name County IAL
to something like "Agricultural Lands" in the near future: but that, alone, will not
clarify whether State IAL criteria or guidelines in the CDP will be immediately
enforceable. For now there are County IAL parcels which are equivalent to
zoning., The staiyes of IAL are roughly as follows:
Time Line
County
State
Comments
1. NOW: CDP is in draft
in terms of land use
no land use statute
status
regulation, IAL
has been adopted;
means the Co.
the State has a law
zoning for each Ag
defining State IAL
parcel
and criteria to tell
Counties how to
identify IAL HRS
205-1 et seq.
2. CDP approved and
IAL should still
no significance to
adopted by the County
mean the zoning
the State
General Plan
for each Ag parcel;
however there will
be more IAL
parcels; & the
County may
attempt to adopt
State IAL that is in
the CDP into Co.
law
3. County decides which
County is required
The State reviews
Hawaii Co. has the option of
parcels to be included as IAL
to send the list (or
the submittal from
submitting maps to the LUC
in a list to be sent to the State
maps)
the County to
instead of a list; using maps could
Land Use Commission
decide which
mean 100% current County IAL
(LUC)
parcels will actually
although other counties have
Thus IAL will be different according to what stage the IAL program is in. With the
understanding that IAL will mean different things at different times in the future,
the following changes to the Bullet Points v4 in f ,,�%.d below are in order.
BULLET POINTS ABOUT CDP "IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL
LANA,q"
BULLET POINTS v5
BACKGROUND:
•What Does the Hamakua Community Development Plan (CDP) Do? The 2016 draft CDP
states that the CDP "establishes land use and development" (i.e. regulation) for Hamakua
including Laupahoehoe. One goal of the CDP is to prepare a comprehensive plan that includes
the regulation. A Community Development Plan is referred to as a "Comprehensive Plan"
•One way that the CDP establishes land use and development regulation is to
prepare land use maps called "LUPAG maps" (and list of parcels) that show what
"future development" should be allowed on each property.
•The CDP will ask approval from the County for the land uses the CDP proposes: if
approved by the County Council, all future development must be "consistent"
with the uses proposed by the CDP including those shown in the LUPAG land
use maps.
•One type of land use being currently proposed by the CDP for Laupahoehoe is
"Important Agricultural Lands" abbreviated as "IAL". As of uii(% 2016 this
111(% ll "µCouiity I I...," Bi li iii(,%alls Z011111g. "I'llis will lialig(% oT %1- 01110.
become State IAL;
bias may be in favor
of whatever the
County submits
identified less than 50% of ag lands
so far
4. State will probably adopt
State adopts land
see HRS 205-1 and
land use statutes for IAL
use statutes
https:Hlegiscan.com/Hl/text/HB1361/id/919216
5. County will be required by
The State requires
The State IAL
State law to adopt State IAL
the County to
project will be
in zoning
enforce the State
implemented at this
IAL (zoning etc);
point
all the Hawaii Co.
parcels designated
IAL will be subject
to the new zoning
Thus IAL will be different according to what stage the IAL program is in. With the
understanding that IAL will mean different things at different times in the future,
the following changes to the Bullet Points v4 in f ,,�%.d below are in order.
BULLET POINTS ABOUT CDP "IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL
LANA,q"
BULLET POINTS v5
BACKGROUND:
•What Does the Hamakua Community Development Plan (CDP) Do? The 2016 draft CDP
states that the CDP "establishes land use and development" (i.e. regulation) for Hamakua
including Laupahoehoe. One goal of the CDP is to prepare a comprehensive plan that includes
the regulation. A Community Development Plan is referred to as a "Comprehensive Plan"
•One way that the CDP establishes land use and development regulation is to
prepare land use maps called "LUPAG maps" (and list of parcels) that show what
"future development" should be allowed on each property.
•The CDP will ask approval from the County for the land uses the CDP proposes: if
approved by the County Council, all future development must be "consistent"
with the uses proposed by the CDP including those shown in the LUPAG land
use maps.
•One type of land use being currently proposed by the CDP for Laupahoehoe is
"Important Agricultural Lands" abbreviated as "IAL". As of uii(% 2016 this
111(% ll "µCouiity I I...," Bi li iii(,%alls Z011111g. "I'llis will lialig(% oT %1- 01110.
•What is IAL? Cowity IAL refers to large agricultural parcels that have superior
agricultural potential. •Parcel size is one criterion. The CDP refers to Coullty IAL
as parcels that have or are:
•potential for sustained high agricultural yields; larger lot agricultural lands;
productive agricultural uses; large productive agricultural [land]; and
sustained high agricultural yields. In Kihalani Homesteads the first parcel
that might qualify as IAL is beyond the end the top of Kihalani Homestead
Road.
•Besides size, other criteria for IAL are:
•County IAL criteria include: class B soil or better (there is no class A soil on
Hawaii Island); USDA prime/unique parcels; USDA for two or more
crops/irrigated
•State IAL criteria includes: land producing high agricultural yields;
contributes to the State's economic base and produces agricultural
commodities for export or local consumption
•Most of Laupahoehoe is zoned agricultural which restricts some land uses
(building homes is allowed wliicli caii t)(.m if° oii a lot imm
m ii(,,% 4 197 II iii agi- ultui-(m m-(%.quim-(%.d I mem- a 1°anis d%.11iimy if° tlm(% lot was mil'u!i-
u mem %4 197 II i -(,%q u u m (;m s ma y m- U It U m-(! j
•Zoning and County Comprehensive Plans like the CDP are related but not the
same.
• The County comprehensive plan CIV is more general than zoning; and is about
what can done in the future. For instance, if permission is requested for
development by a land owner and it is not "consistent" with uses in the CDP's
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Department would tend to decline the
permission without a General Plan amendment. Comprehensive plans directly
guide subsequent decisions about zoning and what acceptable land uses will be
allowed by the General Plan.
•Zoning is about what is allowed today. Zones are more specific and have less
flexibility.
•There are two types of IAL: County and State 1l1(;m 1l11m of tll(% ��;:�������� � ��oil
IAL m (,%. ii some %tlmimiy d%p%.ii iiig oil tlm(m stag(;m of'tlm(m IAL pi-ogi-am .
m l-mv
•Currently County IAL means that future development must be consistent with
. Zollilig it' tlm % imlf°onliatiolm Plaill1 mg yaT(m mit tlm(", is us(,m.d.
•In the future the County IAL may also become State IAL (s(,%.(,%. 1;:�)or ; almut tll(,,�
m(,; iiii g of Cowity IAL). Under State IAL the uses of "Important Agricultural
Lands" (IAL) lig(,,%.ii Nlly imph%. (,%.iit(,�%.d might be much more restrictive. The
County is required to comply with State law and the State Constitution by
submitting a list of all IAL property on Hawaii Island to the State Land Use
Commission. When that happens the State will have also be able to lig % tl�i(,,
Cowity enforce Stau: "Important Agricultural Lands" uses that may be more
restrictive. It is not known if the County list of IAL sent to the State will be the
same or similar as the IAL parcels the County and CDP have designated IAL
u n -(.Il tly.
•The uses of County IAL property are described as follows at section 4.3.3, Policy
24 of the CDP: "the official Hdmdkua CDP Land Use Policy Map designates
agricultural lands in the Hdmdkua Planning Area to be preserved for agriculture
and open space. Development and construction in agriculturally designated areas
shall be limited to agriculture, or via the Special Permit or Use Permit process
(which allows for agriculturally related economic infrastructure, cottage industries,
renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community facilities) unless
otherwise permitted by law. 'li i s i s aim iiistaim h o1' tli % T %iii %ml Plaii wid CI
" tau IAL" will iiicoi-pomu% this oi- a similai- law li(%.ii tli(;: Stau liar d(: id(,,%.d wliicli
pl- %l oii tli(: Cowity lists to d(,% 1g11at(% as Stau!1L.
•An example of the uses that might be allowed for State IAL when the program is
operational is found in tt s://leiscan.co I/text/ 1361/id/919216 which is
limited to agricultural uses
•Already, most of Laupahoehoe above about 600 feet elevation is designated
Cowity IAL according to the 2005 General Plan (A General Plan is the County's
long-term blueprint for the community's vision of future growth; or for restricted or
no growth). The CDP 111(J T maps and plans are a part of the General Plan as
stated above.
•The 2016 CDP proposes to convert 12 more parcels in Laupahoehoe under 600
feet to Cowity IAL.
•Some concerns about beingowning wning_a Stauh, IAL parcel are:
•Future development will probably be limited to agriculture only (although
current development may be grandfathered);
•In the near future the County must give the State a list of all pai-c(,%.ls that
q u al i l"y as Stau! IAL prem on Hawaii Island which will then become State
"Important Agricultural Lands";
•If a parcel is included in the State IAL program additional use regulations
may be imposed by the State wid I lawaii Cowity i I. laiid will t)(% ul-; 'J ! t to
•Once in a County 1AL designation pi-(,,%.l is in the State program a land
owner will have to go through lengthy and expensive process (up to $100,000)
to get out of IAL (which will probably not be allowed at the end of the
process);
•t)(,!iiig iii tau i I:..., may decrease land values; T m)(%.11 g oil a Coullty list of
•It is not clear under Stau! IAL wid ci-iUN-ia if a grandfathered use (for
instance, a house) is damaged or destroyed whether the owner will be granted
a permit to rebuild the structure.
•Properties in the homesteads (e.g., Manowai`opae Homestead Road,
Hokumahoe Road, and Kihalani Homestead Road), which were created 100
years ago to encourage the settlement of remote parts of the island with
housing, subsistence agriculture, and other mixed uses may have a special
concern about Slate IAL:
•Couiity IAL uiid%i° tl�i% T(,, ii %i - l Plasm wid CIV is supposed to be for large
parcels only (for instance 20 acres or more which is the smallest complying
size under Ag20 zoning)
•1 � � � �� Cowity ii oi- Stau! IAL is 1+4 a suitable designation for the homestead
lands due to cost of property which makes it very difficult to make a living off just
agriculture
•The 2005 General Plan says: "Agricultural land values have risen beyond
their value for agricultural purposes [our systems must] distinguish between
important and other agricultural land.... [based on the cost of land]"
•See heading "What is IAL?" on page 1: none of the homestead parcels in
Laupahoehoe qualify for IAL just based on size as d%.f'ii (,%.d I -)y Cowity i I:....,
there are no 20 acre or large parcels in the homesteads
•But the CDP wants to apply IAL (iii di(,! SIV this (%(%.m to t)(%al-mut
i I . sooii as tl�i% CIV is appi-or(,,;d) to the smaller homestead parcels that
vary from 1 acre to 10 acres;
•The homestead uses are essentially Rural rather than IAL: the CDP says
that the homestead are de facto Rural (another LUPAG designation that is
allowed under County law); the County has permitted all these uses
•County Rural is defined as "includes existing subdivisions
[homesteads] ... that have a significant residential component... small farms ... as
well as residences (agriculture is a conforming use for both Agricultural and
Rural land); the homesteads are easily included under this definition
•But CDP does not want designate the homesteads Rural & instead proposes
to designate most of the homesteads as IAL based on the CDP preference for
ag and open space
•As a result, homestead owners may experience more regulation and other
hardships as the County and State IAL programs are implemented.
• Conclusion:
• The CDP should not convert 12 more parcels to Cowity IAL and should leave
them in LDU
• tau IAL laws, i-iu 1 , wid polic % liould iiot t)(% ppl4%.d to pai-c(,%.ls sliowii oii tli(
•The homesteads and other parcels that do no meet the stringent IAL criteria should
be in a more flexible designation wid zoiiiiig like Rural
•The CDP should designate wid lia y % tli % oiiiiig fbi- the homesteads as Rural or
other appropriate designation that is consistent with the historic and current rural
uses.