HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 041 11/08/2005 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
DATE: November 8, 2005 Re: Comm. No. 493/Bill No. 162
PLACE: Council Chambers
'T`IME: 1:30 p.m.
Council ('hair and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill Nu. 162, reports as follows:
Bill No. 162, transmitted via Communication No. 493 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated
October 17. ''005, presents a Change of Zonc request by Yoshio Inaba, et al., at Waimea,
South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-417:40.
Bill No. 162 seeks to amend Section 25-8-1 I (Lalamilo-Pu`ukapu Lone Map), Article 8,
Chapter 25 (7~ming Code) of the Hawaii County Code, by changing the District Classitication
of approximately 43.88 acres of land from Agricultural - 40 acres (A-40a) to AT,rricultural -
5 acres (A-Sa).
Communication No. 493 reports the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by the
Hawaii County Charter, Chapter 4, Section 6-43(C), considered this rezoning request and
accompanying Bill No. 162 on September 30, 2005. The Commission concurred with the
Planning Director's favorable recommendation on this matter. The Planning Director's findings
?nd recommendations, transmitted with Communication No. 4~ 10, can be summarized as follows:
I . The applicants, tive members of the Inaba family, are the owners of the property. The
applicants arc requesting a Change of Zone for 43.88 acres of land from the
Agricultural - 40 acres (A-40a) district to the Agricultural 5 acres (A-Sa) district in
order to subdivide the property into eight smaller lots, ;averaging five acres in size.
2. 'The property is located on the north side of Mamalahoa Highway, adjacent to and to the
west afthe Kamuela Fighlands Subdivision, in Waimea.
3. Access to two of the lots is proposed from Mamalahoa Highway, a County road with a
20-fixrt pavement width within a 50-foot right of way. Access to the remaining six lots is
proposed from Hauhoa Street and lJhiwai Street, also County roadways, located in the
Kamuela Highlands Subdivision.
4. According to Communication No. 410, the approval of this Change of Zone reyucst from
the Agricultural 40 acres (A-40a) to the Agricultural - 5 acres (A-Sa) zoned district
would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public based
on the following:
PC REPORT NO. 41
Communication 493
Bill 16Z
Page 2
• The proposed change of zone is located in an area designated in the General Plan as
Important Agrricultural Lands (two-thirds of the property) and Extensive Agriculture
(one-third of the property). The General Plan contains a policy that Important
Agricultural Lands not be divided into parcels which are too small to support viable
fam~ing. Five acres is considered the minimum parcel size which can sustain a viable
commercial agriculture operation for a range of crops. According to page 4 of
Communication No. 410, "this is a small rezoning that does not greatly change the
overall land use pattern of the area." The Inaba family has raised cattle on the property
tier the past 34 years that they have owned the land. 'They state that they wish to divide
the property among family members and other individuals wishing to engage in
small-scale tanning.
• All essential services and utilities are available to the project site.
• 'i'he Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Map (FIRM) identifies
the site as "X" or outside the flood plain.
5. Requisite oi~ the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone
request arc 13 conditions contained in Bill No. 162 that outline specific requirements for
the proposed project. Condition C requires the applicant to obtain Final Subdivision
Approval within five (5) years from the effective date of the ordinance, and Condition G
prohibits the construction of a second dwelling unit as well as condominium property
regimes on each lot.
Ms. Kathy A. Brown, a resident of the neighboring Kamuela Highlands Subdivision, submitted
written testimony dated October 31, 2005, expressing her concerns about the adverse impacts of
the proposal rezoning on surrounding property owners. Ms. Brown noted that Kipahele and
Ho'ohoa Streets in the Kamuela Highlands Subdivision "flood during moderate to heavy rains,
which in turn, Floods Mamalahoa" Ms. Brown was also concerned about the traffic impact of
thcl6-24 additional cars which she projects will be generated by the proposed subdivision.
Ms. Brown describes the current traffic on Mamalahoa Highway as "usually moving at a very
slow crawl from our subdivision, all the way into town."
Mr. Douglas Dick also submitted written testimony opposing the proposed subdivision, by
facsimile dated November 3, 2005 and oral testimony in person at the November 8's meeting.
Mr. Dick resides along Mamalahoa Highway near to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Dick was one
of twenty neighbors who attended a meeting on October 29, 2005 at the Waimea Community
Center. to discuss flooding concerns in their neighborhoods. Mr. Dick explained that flooding in
the area from the Lakeland Subdivision on the east to the Pu`u Nani Subdivision on the west has
increased as a direct result of the number of new houses and impermeable surfaces (pavement,
house pads, etc.) being built in this area. Several homes in the area were inundated in
March 2004, and Mr. Dick stated that several residents who attended the October 29'~ meeting
feel that the County is not adequately addressing run-off problems in the affected subdivisions.
PC REPOR'T' NO. 41
Communication 493
Bill 162
Page 3
Mr. Dick requested that, "prior to any rezoning of land which results in increased density in the
Waimea area along Mamalahoa Hwy, between Lakeland Subdivision and the Mana
Road/Mamalahoa Highway intersection, a comprehensive analysis of existing flood control
measures be undertaken by the County of Hawai`i."
Mr. Alfred A. Lasiter testified in person at the November 8's meeting. Mr. Lasiter stated that the
drainage culverts, which were intended to service this area, are 60 years old and have not been
maintained by the County. Mr. Lasiter called for updated FEMA flood maps and refurbishment
of the outdated drainage system in this area. Mr. Lasiter stated, "'fhe lnabas deserve their
subdivision, but we have a problem. We need to get the federal experts in to share their studies
and we need to work together to manage our water runoff better."
Ms. Carol Kaplan testified in person at the November 8'~ meeting, via teleconferencing from the
Waimea Council Office. Ms. Kaplan recounted her family's personal experience with dangerous
and severe flooding in March 2004 to their home located on six acres of land south of
Mamalahoa by Hohola Street. After the 2004 floods, the Kaplans implemented a drainage plan
on their property to divert run-off from their residence, at their own considerable expense.
Ms. Kaplan cautioned the County not to approve additional subdivisions in this area without
installing appropriate water mitigation measures. She stated, "After existing conditions and
appropriate drainage systems (and maintenance for them) arc in place at the County's expense,
perhaps any further local development could have sound plans at the developers' cost to ensure
proper drainage and could carry the relevant liability to ensure that our properties and families
arc not damaged as a result of their building." Ms. Kaplan said that her property was not
classified by the County as being in a flood zone, and therefore she and her family had no reason
to suspect this kind oftlooding would happen.
Ms. Elizabeth Pulhman and Ms. Bea Dickson also testified via videoconferencing from the
Waimea Council Office. Ms. Pullman stated that she wonders how her house was permitted,
when it sits nn a slab in a seasonal pond. Ms. Dickson is a I7-year Kamuela Highlands
suhdivision resident and she stated that flooding has been a recurrent problem in this area.
Ms. Dickson also mentioned her concerns about infected effluent running into farmlands from
the ranchlands in the hills above town, about potholes caused by water erosion along the side of
Mamalahoa Highway, and about the traffic impacts ofthe proposed subdivision on an already
bad traffic situation in Waimea.
Mr. Richard Richards testified via videoconferencing from Kona. Mr. Richards urged the
Planning Committee to re-evaluate across the entire island which lands are appropriate to build
on and which are nut. "As Council members, you cannot pass the buck;' he said.
Finally, Ms. Eileen Dervisevic testified in person in Hilo. Ms. Dervisevic owns a small real
estate business, and she pointed out that realtors assume the liability for poor planning decisions,
since they arc charged with failing to disclose adverse conditions when they sell properties. She
pointed out that effective water diversion strategies are employed in other locations, such as
NC' REPORT' NO. 41
Communication 493
Bill 162
Page 4
California. Shc urged the Council to implement more and better water diversion practices before
approving subdivision of lots in areas subject to inundation.
At the November 8°i Planning Committee, Councilmember Hoffmann reiterated his position,
based on his recent survey of community residents, that he will not support any further
subdivision ofland in Waimea until necessary infrastructural improvements have been made.
Mr. Hoftinann also called for the County to conduct a water mitigation study for this area, and to
prepare a master plan to deal with run-off and water flow generated by development ofland in
the affected area. Mr. Hoffinann suggested that it would be prudent to wait for the completion of
the water- mitigation effort before permitting further subdivision of areas subject to periodic
inundation for residential pu~oses. Mr. Hoffmann expressed concern for the health and safety of
potential and current residents of this area saying "Any further paving over or subdividing will
exacerbate the flooding problem. We have clear-cut evidence of flooding occurring in this
location right now. We need to take action before we approve any further subdivision. We can't
allow this problem to go unattended, since it affects the major road through town."
Councilmember Ikeda asked the applicant, represented by Alan and Melvin Inaba, if there is any
way to alleviate flooding on the property. The applicant responded that the water is coming from
mauka of the applicant's property, from the State- and DHHL-owned (Department of Hawaiian
home Lands) properties to the north. The water is just passing through the applicants property
on its way down slope.
Councilman Jacobson stated that it will make the flooding worst, if this subdivision creates
additional impervious surfaces on this property. He said that "We need to understand the
flooding problems and solve them before we approve further development."
Councilman Arakaki agreed that the County needs to engage in facilities planning, but he argued
that this is an involved process that could take 10 - 20 years. "We need to continue to allow
development in the meantime," he said.
Councilmember Hoftinann stated that he felt the Council would he remiss if they allowed
subdivision of an area which floods regularly and creates hazardous conditions on a major
highway. Mr. Hoftinann cited Section 23-37 of the Hawai"i County Code, which reads, "No area
subject to periodic inundation may be subdivided for residential purposes." Mr. Hoffinann
argued that any water mitigation plan will be for a very specific area and won't take a long time,
if the process is started soon.
Councilmember Holschuh asked Planning Director Yuen about standard rezoning conditions of
approval which deal with drainage. Mr. Yuen explained that DPW (Department of Public
Works) would typically require the applicant to store a certain percentage of water in drywells,
but there would be no requirement to change the direction that water currently flows in across the
property, which is toward the low point in the highway fronting this area. Mr. Yuen explained
that the Kamuda highlands vision
NC REPORT NO. 41
Communication 493
Bill 162
Page 5
subdivision is comprised of 30-50%non-permeable areas, whereas the proposed subdivision
might only create non-permeable areas on a very small percentage of the total 43 plus acres of
land.
Council member Isbell suggestul that the applicant begin a dialogue with surrounding property
owners to collaborate on a solution. "We have, within our means, ways to mitigate flooding. We
should open up dialogue with DHH L to solve this problem," she said.
Councilmember Higa asked Mr. Hoffmann how often the tlooding occurs. Mr. Hoffmann
responded that it has occurred three or four times in the past few years. Mr. Hoffinann also
stated that Mr. Gerry Williams from the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Soil
Conservation Service stated at the October 29'~ community meeting that any type of construction
on the Inaba property will increase the danger and potential for tlooding, because of the
conditions in this particular area.
Councilmcmber Satarik commented that he finds it difticult to justify continuing to allow the
granting ofhuilding permits in areas which are subject to periodic inundation. Mr. Safarik
provided the example of the Hawaiian Acres subdivision in Mountain View, where "homes and
everything in the path of the water is swept away."
Mr. Yuen responded that the County relies on FEMA maps, which are often inadequate for areas
on this island. Mr. Safarik suggested that better mapping is needed to guide Council and County
decision making. Mr. Yuen replied that he concurred, and that there are some on-the-ground
solutions which arc available right now.
Mr. Hot~imann stated that Bruce McClure, Public Works Director, attended the October 29'x'
commuinity meeting and took "copious notes." Mr. Hoffmann again urged the committee
members to seek a solution before going forward with this rezoning approval.
Your Committee is concerned that the proposed subdivision will generate additional run-off and
periodic tlooding in an area which is already plagued by these problems.
PC Rp;POR'T NO. 41
Conununication 493
Bill 162
Page 6
A motion to approve this measure received five no votes. According to Council rules, five aye
votes arc needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards
Bill No. 162 to the Council with a negative recommendation.
Ic
~~rs nuHS ~~r. r:n Respectfully submitted,
ARAKAKI X
FICA X COMMI"pTEE ON PLANNING
- -
_ _
ItoH'H'rotnrvrv X -
HOISCHUII X
IKF.DA ~`%J~-~Lki~y~~ ~
X
IsBra.l, X Pete Hot~mann~ Co-Chair
.IACORtiON X ~ ~
i
tiAF'ARIK X
K. Angel Pilago, -Chair
PC REPORT NO. 4
ADOPTED:
PL REPORT NO. 41
o'') ' ►,
• 1110
OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY
Meeting: November 22, 2005 - Council Meeting (25th Session)
Action: Bill 162 passed 1st Reading
PC Report 41 tr aisriitted the above b311 with a "negative recommendation" due to
4 ayes and 5 noes.
Re: C-493/B111 162/PC-41