The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0964.045 2004-2006 Page 1 of I Murashige, Laura From: Karen Eoff [keoff@co.hawaii.hi.usl Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:46 AM To. counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi,us Cc: Murashige, Laura Subject: FW. URGENT F-2 INFO ATTACHMENT re: WED Council meeting Attachments: aug. 20 Mayor- DELETE F-2 FINAL.doc FOR COUNCIL MEETING - 8/23/06 BILL 309 From: rivaut@netscape.com [mailto:rivaut@netscape.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 5:06 PM To. Pilago, K. Angel; phoffman@co.hawaii.hi.us; Jacobson, Bob Subject: URGENT F-2 INFO ATTACHMENT re: WED Council meeting Dear Councilen Pilago, Hoffman and Jacobsen, I hope I spelled everyone's names right. I am just learning computer and I don't type so lots of errors... THANK YOU for your votes to DELETEF-2 Amendment. It was my FIRST council experience. I was shocked by the Planning Director's summary dismissal of the public testimony opposing F- 2. 1 always thought testimony counted. It was a learning experience for me! I also noted that the three of you were consistent in voting to preserve ag lands and were more concerned about dealing with the citizens in good faith, rather than worrying about how you look to developers. Thank you for that. Please read the F-2 Attachment before the Council Meeting Wed. (It took me all day to learn how to send the attachment) Best Regards, Dore Dokos- Loewenthal ` Netscape. Just the Net You Need. ) ,J Comm. No. Ref. To: Fre:wNi Ref. Uate _ 2 3 20 8/22/2006 DELETE F-2 P. 1 of 2 August 20, 2006 Dear Mayor Kim, Planning Director Yuen, and Members of the County Council, On July 31, testimony opposing General Plan Interim Amendment F-2 was presented to the County Council Planning Committee in Hilo.. People video- conferenced testimony from Kona. People drove from Kona to Hilo to testify. Councilman Pilago reported on the large response of citizen testimony concerned over F-2 leading to HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OVER KEALAKEKUA BAY. Mr. Yuen's personal response to all the public testimony on this issue was to characterize concerned citizens as "confused", to label their concern over possible 1/2 acre minimum size house lots a "red herring", and to dismiss all their concerns because he felt they had mixed up the State Land Use Categories and the LUPAG Map land use designations. This evidently was sufficient in his eyes to negate the need for any meaningful response to all the citizens who took time to testify, We ask you, Mayor Kim, since when it is necessary for a citizen to be able to recite the nuances of relationship between State Land Use, County LUPAG Map Land Use Designations, and the Hawaii County Zoning Code in order to have their valid concerns addressed? Whether all the citizens that are opposed to F-2 can explain the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System is not the point. THE POINT IS WHETHER THEIR CONCERNS OVER THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF F-2 ARE VALID. Mr. Yuen publicly evaded addressing the expressed concerns in the testimony opposed to F-2 . He labeled citizens as "confused" and avoided the issues raised. He would not honor Councilwoman Isbell's repeated questions on the F-2 rezoning concerns of her constituents with a direct answer. We hope, Mayor Kim, that you will have the Planning Director clear up the "confusion" for all of us by addressing the following scenario: First, I called the Planning Departments in Hilo and Kona, asking for clarification of the LUPAG Rural Land Use Designation, as described in Hawaii County General Plan Feb. 2005 Land Use -Overview, 14. 1.1 Introduction & Analysis, Land Use Concepts. The above description defines "typical lot sizes of 9000 sq. ft, to 2 acres". I asked them, "What is the minimum house lot size that could be allowed?" The Planning Department said the minimum house lot size allowable under LUPAG Map Land Use Designation of Rural is 1/2 acre. The reason given was that the County cannot go lower than the State Land Use Category of Rural, which states 1/2 acre is the minimum lot size allowable for a house. Then I called the State Land Use Commission. They had a different answer. They said the County could take precedence in some cases. For example, F-2 is proposing Rural LUPAG Map Land Use Designation in an area that is State Land Use Category Urban, Therefore, the County could allow 9000 sq. ft. minimum house lots under their Rural LUPAG Map designation. So, Mr. Yuen, could you clarify this? What is the minimum size house lot allowable under Rural LUPAG Map Land Use Designation ? Page 2 of 2 We know F-2 doesn't automatically change zoning. We are asking, under the proposed F-2 Rural LUPAG LAND Use Designation, what would be the minimum size house lot allowable if applications for rezoning and subdivision are submitted? We know that simply applying for rezoning does not guarantee receiving it. Mr. Yuen and Captain Cook Ranch LLC have said there is no cause for concern over F-2 because there is no present intention to seek rezoning and F-2 "doesn't imply support for rezoning." However, we also know that given an opportunity to apply for higher density development, developers and owners do just that. And we know that DEVELOPERS APPLYING FOR HIGHER DENSITY SUBDIVISIONS SEEM TO ENJOY AN ENVIABLE RATE OF SUCCESS IN OUR COUNTY. Therefore, Mr. Yuen's assurances, since they are not legally binding, do not resolve the community's concerns. The community is concerned that if F-2 passes, higher density rezoning could then be applied for and permitted. Higher density development could pollute and adversely impact Kealakekua Bay and Marine Life Conservation District. It could destroy the agricultural characteristics of this area above the Pali. It could usher in commercial uses which would alter the agrarian nature of this community. It could erase the strong historical and cultural aspects of these lands. According to the Mandate of the Hawaii County General Plan, THESE ARE VALID CONCERNS. THE GENERAL PLAN MANDATES: -First, the protection of Natural Resources- such as our fragile and irreplaceable coral reefs in Kealakekua Bay. -Second, the preservation of our agricultural lands- (The nearly 100 acres affected by F-2 were part of the historic Kona Field System. These lands are on County Water. They can produce coffee, lychees, avocadoes, citrus, rambutans, bananas, vanilla orchids, etc.) -Third, the General Plan mandates retaining the essence and characteristics of our communities. F-2 causes our community deep concern on all these issues because F-2 is the opening that can lead to higher density development. The rationale for F-2 is written as though it only involves a pending sub-division of two acre lots. (Perhaps that is why some people sounded like they were protesting a sub-division. It is a misleading description). The F-2 rationale does not mention the additional 22+ acres not included in the pending subdivision. People are concerned that rezoning could be applied for to subdivide this 22+acre parcel to the highest density allowable under F-2. Is that 1/2 acre house lots or 9000 sq. ft? They are also concerned that the pending sub-division itself could be rezoned in the future for further sub-division into smaller lots. Captain Cook Ranch LLC owns all the nearly 100 acres affected by F-2 Other than greatly increasing their property value by moving their land from an agricultural LUPAG Map designation into the rural LUPAG land use designation, what is the purpose of F-2? WHO DOES IT REALLY BENEFIT TO PUT KEALAKEKUA BAY AND OUR AGRARIAN COMMUNITY AT RISK? Sincerely, Dore Dokos-Loewenthal, P.O. Box 503, Captain Cook, Hi. 96704