HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2022 Applicant Response to Public Testimonies (PL-REZ-2021-012) LPC Item 41 Siting Chen (PL-REZ-2021-000012)
7/18/2022 Applicant Response to Public Testimonies
Mori, Ashley
From: Katrina Kern <katrina@landplanninghawaii.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:09 PM
To: Andrews, Jessica
Cc: Planning Internet Mail;John Pipan
Subject: Response to Testimony for Chen PL-REZ-2021-000012
Attachments: Chen_Testimony_Response.pdf
Aloha Jessica,
Please see the attached letter responding to the public testimony we've received to date for the Chen
rezone. Let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Katrina Kern
Office Manager
Land Planning Hawaii LLC
194 Wiwoole St.
Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 333-3393
katrina@ land planninghawaii.com
LAND'` *
PLANNING
HAWAII LLC
This err ad and any files transmitted rrrrth it erre confidential and rrrtencled srwrfefY for the use of the individual or entitY to whom they erre
a ck1re,^r,^rrr<l. Rease notifY the sender rrrrrrrrrrlrfrtrrfY by e-rrrarf it you have rer;artved this e-rrrarf by mistake and delete this 6-rrrarf from.your
system, If you are not the int nclecl recipient.you are notified that disclosing, copying, distrif,„ruling or taking any action in refiarrce on the
contents of this infdrination is strictlY prohibited,
1
LAND 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720
PLANNING
LAN p I� G (808) 333-3393
� �I � �1 info@landplanninghawaii.com
-IHAWAII LLC --
July 18, 2022
Mr. Michael Vitousek, Chairman
Leeward Planning Commission
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Vitousek,
Subject: Response to Public Testimony
Rezone (REZ 21-000012)
Applicant: Siting Chen
Waiaha 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017: 043
To date we have received four(4)items of public testimony relating to the subject Change of
Zone Application. We appreciate their concerns and hope to address them in the following
responses.
Ms. Dunn's comments:
1. Regarding the proposed number of lots and maximum allowed by requested zoning:
Ms. Dunn points out the difference in the number of lots proposed (11) and the maximum
that would be possible with the requested zoning (14). The difference is due to water
currently available to the parcel. There are currently only 11 water units available to the
parcel. Should additional water commitments be secured, up to 14 lots could be developed
(13 when the required area for the proposed road is accounted for). The Applicant does not
intend to create more than 11 lots. They wish to keep the largest lot(3+ acres) for their own
use.
2. Regarding proposed zoning consistency with General Plan LUPAG designation:
By communication dated February 25, 2010, the Planning Director determined that the
LUPAG urban expansion boundary and thus the Kona CDP Urban Area was interpreted to
include the subject property within the Urban Area(Exhibit A). This aligns with the
proposed increase in density as the majority of future growth in Kona is to be directed to the
Urban Area according to the Kona CDP. This determination also reflects that the subject
parcel is not considered Important Agricultural Land.
3. Regarding affordable housing:
If the requested zoning is granted the Applicant will satisfy the affordable housing
requirements for the project according to Hawaii County Code Chapter 11 which requires
affordable housing credits equal to 20% of the proposed units be earned.
4. Regarding Agricultural use requirement, and ohana dwellings:
CC&Rs are not proposed at this time to compel agricultural uses on the proposed new lots.
Uses permitted in the proposed Family Agricultural zoning would be allowed and the
Hawai'i Right to Farm Act(HRS 165)would protect agricultural uses on these and
neighboring agricultural properties. As for ohana dwellings or additional farm dwellings,
proposed Condition O in the Recommendation Report prohibits the construction of a second
dwelling unit and condominium property regimes on each lot.
State Land Use Law, Hawaii Revised Statutes 205 details uses permissable on land with
Agricultural SLU designation (including the proposed lots).
Farm dwellings, employee housing,farm buildings, or activities or uses related to.farming
and animal husbandry. "Farm dwelling" as used in this paragraph, means a single-family
dwelling located on and accessory to a farm, including clusters ofsingle-family,farm
dwellings permitted within agricultural parks developed by the State, or where agricultural
activity provides income to the family occupying the dwelling;
In short, dwellings will be allowed on the proposed lots located on and accessory to a farm,
or where agricultural activity provides income to the,family occupying the dwelling.
Enforcement of these State Land Use laws is a larger question which should hopefully not
overshadow the many benefits of this project.
5. Regarding intent of Applicant to live on one of the subdivided properties:
It is the true intent of the Applicant to live on one of the newly created lots and establish a
productive fruit farm.
6. Regarding water availability and CWRM comment response:
The water availability is addressed on Page 26 of the Environmental Report and page 5-6 of
the Recommendation Report. In short, there is sufficient County water available to support
the proposed development of 11 lots. Any confusion likely stems from the different
allocations these water commitments are drawn from. These units include six (6) equivalent
units (EUs) available through the Waiaha Water System Agreement, two (2) EUs available
through the current zoning and six (6)EUs available with a change of zone. The six units
from the Waiaha Water System agreement are required to be used at a rate of two (2)EUs
per dwelling unit on parcels zoned RS-15 or larger, thus the 14 EUs available can support the
proposed 11 lots (6+2+(6/2)=11).
Response to CWRM comments on the application were provided in our last correspondence
dated June 13, 2022. To date the Aha Moku Council has not responded to our messages.
7. Regarding Septic system vs cesspool and possibility of connecting to sewer system:
New cesspools are not allowed in Hawaii. Individual Wastewater Systems proposed to
service any dwellings on the proposed lots would be required to be septic systems designed
by civil engineers licensed in Hawaii and approved by the Department of Health. The County
sewer system is not currently accessible to the subject parcel however, the project would be
required to connect to the sewer should it become available to the property prior to Final
Subdivision Approval (Proposed Condition P in Recommendation Report).
8. Regarding potential off site storm flows:
Comments from the Department of Public Works have been incorporated into the Proposed
Condition K in the Recommendation Report requiring that All development-generated runoff
shall be disposed of on site and not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage
study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting
the approval ofthe Department of Public Works.
Preliminary construction plans for the neighboring lot 042 indicated an infiltration trench
would be installed along the shared lot boundary (makai boundary of subject property)to
address existing off-site flows. The potential for additional impacts from the proposed
development are mitigated by proposed Condition K. Further, impacts to the proposed
development from off site flows are less likely due to the low-density nature of the proposed
development.
9. Regarding water allocation and potential development of parcel 042 to the west:
The second amended agreement for the Waiaha Water System was affected on February 12,
2021, prior to the Applicant's purchase of the property in April of 2021. This amendment
transferred excess water commitments to the neighboring lot 042. We understand that a sale
of lot 042 is pending and any new owner would need to seek new entitlements or a time
extension to Ordinance 10-02 which allowed for RS-10 zoning of that property.
10. Regarding proposed roadway connections to neighboring parcels:
Connections to neighboring parcels to the south and west are provided by the proposed
project as required by KCDP Policy TRAN-2.1. Additional discussion regarding connectivity
to Hualalai Road and lot 042 is provided in our correspondence dated June 13, 2022.
Forward thinking planning requires a long-term view of land use in an area and this proposed
project would fit in to the areas development pattern without creating blockages to the
interconnectivity of neighborhoods.
11. Regarding review by the Cultural Resources Commission, outreach to lineal or cultural
descendants.
An Archaeological Inventory Survey and subsequent Data Recovery Report were completed
and approved by the DLNR State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and a statement that
no historic properties would be affected was issued. Should the Planning Commission
determine that review by the Cultural Resources Commission is warranted we would be
happy to present the project. However, we believe the work done on the historic resources of
the site is satisfactory and the proposed project will not have impacts to historic sites.
Further, as is standard and reflected in the Proposed Condition Q in the Recommendation
Report, should previously unidentified sites be discovered, work in the immediate vicinity of
the find will be stopped and SHPD will be contacted. Work would not resume until
appropriate mitigation is accomplished.
Ms. Matlock's comments:
1. Regarding agricultural potential.
Several sources of guidance help to evaluate the agricultural potential of land in Hawaii. The
Natural Resource Conservation Service Land Study Bureau rates agricultural productivity of
this property as mostly "D" (poor) and a smaller area of"C" (fair). This parcel is not
classified under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH)
system. The subject parcel was determined to fall within the General Plan Urban Expansion
LUPAG map designation. These factors, along with the sloping topography of the site
severely limit the range of commercial agricultural uses likely to succeed on the property.
Combining these factors with the challenges experienced by agricultural producers including
high input, transportation and labor costs, helps to explain why it is unlikely for this parcel or
the proposed new lots to be successfully used for commercial agricultural operations.
On the other hand, the property is very well suited to Family Agricultural uses including
small-scale agricultural operations associated with low density residential activities
consistent with Section 25-5-60 of the zoning code (Exhibit B). Soils and rainfall on the
property are sufficient to grow a wide range of fruits and vegetables on a small farm or
homestead. This diverse distributed low impact form of agriculture is a vital component to
healthy communities and island food security.
2. Regarding wastewater disposal. Please see response to question #7 above.
3. Regarding Traffic impacts.
Fair share contributions for each lot of$15,636.59 will help to mitigate the potential impacts
from the proposed project relating to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal
facilities and roads. Certainly, traffic is a concern, but it has to be weighed with the potential
benefits of the proposed project. This project is proposed in an area designated for urban
expansion and of limited agricultural potential. If approved this project would generate
housing and farming opportunities conforming to the surrounding area in a time of housing
crisis.
4. Regarding cul-de-sac. Please see response to question #10 above.
Mr. Van Pernis' comments:
Firstly, The Hagen-Cowell Trust applications also before the Commission do not take
access from Hualalai Road as Mr. Van Pernis contends. That proposed project would take
access from Mamalahoa Highway near its intersection with Ali'i Drive and Napoopoo
Road, approximately 10 miles from the subject property and Hualalai Road. Traffic
studies were conducted in 2013 by Witcher Engineering, LLP for the previously
proposed RS-15 development of approximately 43 lots. We are nearing the 10-year mark
of the Witcher Engineering Study (2013), well scope of the study. As summarized in the
Planning Recommendation Report for that application and part of the public record:
The report concluded that the short term impact of construction would not have a
significant effect along Hualalai Road. The TIAR also concluded that the long term effect
of this project on the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway/Hualalai Road intersection is
minimal. The TIAR concluded that the levels ofservice at the intersection ofPuapuaanui
Street and the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, as well as Hualalai Road and the project
entrance to be "A"or `B"during the AM and PMpeak hours and are thus acceptable
levels ofservice in compliance with concurrency requirements ofthe Hawai'i County
Code.
Mr. Nunberg's comments:
Please see response #4 to Ms. Dunn's comments relating to agricultural use requirements.
We would also like to note that we have discussed this project on multiple occasions over the last
year with Mr. David Sveiven, owner of the neighboring parcel to the north and he has no
concerns about the project and says that he gives it a"thumbs up."
When considering the suitability of the proposed change of zone please consider that the
alternative of higher density residential zoning was attempted and failed ten years ago.
Conditions haven't changed significantly since then to expect that alternative to be more viable
now. The no action alternative of leaving the property in A-5a zoning would greatly restrict the
potential beneficial use of the property, allowing at most two lots with the limited associated
farm dwelling uses. The proposed Family Agricultural zoning would allow for a low-density
development that would retain much of its existing green space and would permit for much
needed housing options and diverse small agricultural pursuits.
Thank you very much for your service and consideration.
Sincerely,
JOHN PIPAN
Planning Administrator
Copy —Chen
William P.Kenoi +tv or,, RECEIVED
Mayor ' ;. BJ Leithead Todd
MAR 01 N10 Director
Margaret K.Masunaga
•�� '���� Deputy
p�N
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720
February 25, 2010 Phone(808)961-8288 . Fax(808)961-8742
Mr. Steven S.C. Lim
Carismith Ball LLP
121 Waianuenue Avenue
Hilo,HI 96721
Dear Mr. Lim:
SUBJECT: General Plan LUPAG Map and Kona CDP Determination
Tax May Key: (3) 7-5-17.43; Puayuala 1st,North Kona District.Hawaii
This is in response to your February 8,2010 letter requesting the Planning Director's interpretation
of the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide(LUPAG)map designation for TMK 7-5-
17:43 and whether the subject property is located inside the Kona Urban Area as defined in the Kona
Community Development Plan(CDP).
The General Plan LUPAG map designation for the subject property is Urban Expansion Area.
In the Official Kona Land Use Map(Figure 4-7)in the Kona CDP,the line indicating the boundary
of the Kona Urban Area runs through the property in a north-south direction. According to the
official map metadata(enclosed)contained in"Attachment A"of the Kona CDP, the Kona Urban
Area boundary line traces the LUPAG boundaries so that urban designations (ie. urban expansion
area, low density urban, industrial) are within the Kona Urban Area and rural designations (ie.
important agricultural land) are outside of the Kona Urban Area. Therefore, since the property's
LUPAG designation is Urban Expansion Area,the property is also determined to be entirely within
the Kona Urban Area.
Should you have questions, please contact Maija Cottle of my staff at 961-8159.
Sincerely,
OJ LEITHEAD TODD
Planning Director
MJC:smn
P:\wpwin60\Maija\Letters\Determination\GP\Lim-7-5-17-43.doc
Encl: Pg. 6-7, Attachment A- Kona CDP
xc: Long Range Planning Division
Kona Planning Office
Hawaii Count),is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Exhibit A
ZONING § 25-5-57
Section 25-5-57. Other regulations.
(a) If any legal building site in the RA district has an area less than one-half acre, then
the yard and height requirements for the building site shall be the same as the
yard requirements for the RS district.
(b) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new
structure or development, or of any addition to an existing structure or
development which is used for minor agricultural products processing.
(c) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the RA district, as
permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter.
(d) Exceptions to the regulations for the RA district regarding heights, building site
areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the commission
within a planned unit development pursuant to article 6, division 1 of this chapter.
(1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2015, ord 15-33, sec 4.)
Division 6. FA, Family Agricultural Districts.
Section 25-5-60. Purpose and applicability.
The FA(family agricultural) district provides for a blend of small-scale agricultural
operations associated with residential activities and which may be characterized by
farm estates, small acreage farms, or subsistence lots. The FA district is intended to be
in areas designated as being within the State land use agricultural district, where
public services and infrastructure are appropriate to support the very low density
residential needs of a rural community and where substantial number of parcels are
less than five acres in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be
detrimental to existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area.
In addition, this district is intended to be primarily comprised of agricultural lands
less than five acres in area, which are not classified as A or B lands under the land
study bureau's master productivity rating, or classified as prime, unique, or other
important agricultural lands. Provided, that this district may include lands so classified
if the lands are situated within an urban expansion or other urban designation under
the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG) map.
(1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-61. Designation of FA districts.
Each FA(family agricultural) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the
symbol "FA" followed by a number and the lower case letter"a" which indicates the
required number of acres for each building site. For example, FA-Ia means a family
agricultural district with a minimum building site area of one acre.
(1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.)
25-87