Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-01 Windward Exh B (Item 2 Cardoza Trust PL-REZ-2022-000018) WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of LEONARD CARDOZA TRUST (PL-REZ-2022-000018)was called to order at 9:47 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chair Dennis Lin presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Dennis Lin, Gilbert Aguinaldo, Lauren Balog, John C. Cross, Louis Daniele III, Wayne De Luz, and Michelle Galimba. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Clinton Mercado (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Janice Hata (Zoom Host), Alex Roy (Acting Planning Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) And 10 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LEONARD CARDOZA TRUST (PL-REZ-2022-000018) Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acre (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-la) zoning district for 15.411 acres of land. The subject properties are located to the north (makai) of Old Mamalahoa Highway approximately 270 feet east of its intersection with Milo Street, Por. of Humu`ula and O`okala, North Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 3-9-001:023 & :031. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. LIN: Okay, we will now move on to agenda Item 92, applicant Leonard Cardoza Trust, PL- REZ-2022-000018. Change of Zone from Agricultural-20-acre (A-20a) to Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-la) zoning district for 15.411 acres of land. The subject properties are located to the north (makai) of Old Mamalahoa Highway approximately 270 feet east of its intersection with Milo Street, Portion of Humu`ula and `O`okala, North Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 3-9-001 parcels 23 and 31. Do we have any testifiers for this agenda item? [None indicated by staff.] Okay. Nobody online either? [None indicated by staff.] Okay, move to close, is there a motion to close public testimony on this matter? AGUINALDO: I make a motion to close public testimony. GALIMBA: Second. LIN: Commissioner Aguinaldo made the motion, seconded by Vice Chair Galimba. All in favor to close public testimony,please say aye. 1 EXHIBIT B COMMISSIONERS: Aye. LIN: Public testimony for this matter is closed. Okay, staff presentation please. CAMERO: Good morning, Chair, and members of the Windward Planning Commission. Before you today we have the Leonard Cardoza Trust Change of Zone application PL-REZ- 2022-000018. It encompasses the following TMK's on the screen 3-9-001:023 and 031. Before you is a location map. You can see that the subject property is designated by the red flag. It is located within the `O`okala Ahupua'a District of the North Hilo, Hawaii. You have Hawaii Belt Road that runs in a north, north to south pattern on the screen but it's actually shown more diagonally. Before you today the applicant is currently requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to Family Agricultural (FA-1 acre) zoning district for approximately 15.411 acres of land. The reason for the request is that if the requested land use entitlement change is approved, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into seven (7) lots. On your screen you have the County zoning map. The subject parcel is designated by the red outline, I apologize it's not too clear from angle I hope you guys can see it. It is located within the Agricultural-20 acres zoning district which is designated by the dark green color on your screen. Across the street you have the RS-10 zoning district which is designated by the yellow color. The MG-1 acre district which is our Industrial district is on your screen in the green-gray color and then further north you have the Agricultural-40-acre district shown to you in the blue. This is the State Land Use Boundary Map, as you can see the green color is the Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is outlined in the red which is located within the Agricultural zoning district. In the pink which is the neighboring parcels is located within the State Land Use Urban district. Before you is the LUPAG map which is a Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map. This is kind of where we see like the property to be in the future. So, the property is outlined in red. It is located within the Low Density Urban as well as the Industrial zoned district which is indicated in the gray. You have the Urban Expansion district which is in the back end and more to the shoreline and then the surrounding is the green district which is the Important Agricultural Lands. So, one thing to note in April 2022, the Planning Director determined that the General Plan designation for this property was located within the Low Density Urban due its broad-brush nature. Typically, within the Low-Density Urban designation you have the residential with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses. On the screen before you is the Hamakua CDP map. This is specifically for the `O`okala area. This is where the Hamakua envisions the future uses for the land as well which you can see is located within the Low-Density Urban shown to you with the goldenrod color. The Industrial shown to you with the gray and the Important Ag Land is shown to you in the green. This is an aerial map of the subject property. Again, the subject property is 15.411 acres. There is an existing garage that was constructed on the property that was done in 1930. I'm not really good with this, but I wanted to show you where it is. Oh, sorry, I'm having "—"pointer. I apologize. I wanted to show you where the garage was. Okay, is it showing, okay, cool. Okay, 2 EXHIBIT B so, the existing garage is here. As stated in the background report the subject property was used in conjunction with the `O`okala Mill site which is located on this property. As you can see, as well as stated in your background report there is a crisscrossing section of the existing roadways that exist on the property. And that's the reason that Mr. Cardoza's is coming before you today to adjust his subdivision to reflect the existing roadways that kind of go in a crisscrossing pattern on the subject property. This is the applicant's proposed subdivision plan. As stated, he is proposing to subdivide the property into 7 lots ranging from 4 acres to 1 acre. Again, the reasons for him requesting the FA-1 acre is because due to the existing roadway construction on the property he wants to kind of keep it with it and these are the sizes of the lots that he's currently going to be proposing should this land use entitlement change be approved. These are the existing site photos of the subject property off of Mamalahoa Highway. On the left-hand side, you have a view of the subject property facing the northeast direction. The subject property is located on the right. On the right-hand photo, you have the view of the subject property on Mamalahoa Highway facing south and the subject property is located to the left. Currently with Mamalahoa Highway you have about a twenty (20) foot wide pavement width within a fifty (50) foot County right-of-way. There's also the utility lines that I wanted to discuss with you guys because they are located along the Old Mamalahoa Highway within the County right-of-way. This is a site photo of the existing agricultural roadway that will be giving access to the subject properties from Mamalahoa Highway. It's currently 20 feet wide according to our background report and the subject property is located to the right-hand side of the photo. The Planning Director is currently recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for PL-REZ-2022-000018. That concludes my presentation, and I can turn it back to the Chair. LIN: Thank you Tracie. Any questions for the staff, Commissioners? No, if not, I'd like to ask the applicant or their representative to please come forward. If you could please raise your hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Yes. I do. LIN: Okay. Alright,please speak directly into your microphones. State your name and the area you reside in and whom you represent. CARDOZA: Leonard Cardoza, South Hilo. ARAI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Daryn Arai, I'm here assisting the applicant, Leonard Cardoza Trust. Also, assisting us is Mr. Sidney Fuke, who is sitting in the back. 3 EXHIBIT B LIN: Have you received the background report and recommendation reports from the Planning Department, and do you agree with their recommendations including the proposed conditions? ARAI: Yes, we have read the Director's report and we do appreciate the favorable recommendation and we also agree with the proposed conditions of approval. During our presentation we would like to speak to some suggested amendments to those conditions. LIN: Please go-ahead Mr. Arai. ARAI: Thank you again and good morning, everyone. As always, we appreciate the very comprehensive presentation by the Planning Department. First of all, we wanted to kind of set the proper perspective of why this subdivision is being proposed in this particular area. As staff mentioned these lands were part of a plantation skill sugar operation and that was part of the `O`okala Sugar Company that started back in the mid-1800's. And I'm sure Mr. Cross would probably correct me if I was wrong on that, but I tried to do my research. Unfortunate, the demise of the sugar plantation, there's a need now to kind of rebalance the land uses in the particular area which includes the subject property. The proposed 7 lots subdivision is part of that rebalancing that would take advantage, provide for small scale agricultural opportunities as well as single-family residential uses which is consistent with existing residential uses immediately mauka of the subject property along the Old Mamalahoa Highway. And that includes Kukui Camp Village, New Village as well as, I just lost the name, Milo Village. Sorry, a lot of villages, so. Anyway, as the staff mentioned the proposed subdivision would take advantage of the existing cane haul road"—"that crisscrosses the property. And as you can imagine being former cane haul roads, it's very, very, very robust and would more than be adequately serve the proposed residential traffic to be generated by this proposed development. We feel that the project site itself and the request of FA-la zoning is appropriate in this particular area as indicated by the Low-Density Urban designation by the General Plan. A similar designation by the Hamakua Community Development Plan (CDP) which defines the project site as within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the `O`okala area. And, um' let's see. And I should note that one of the things expressed within the Hamakua CDP is this following statement that I would like to read for you, and which basically defines why this is an appropriate request in `O`okala. And that particular policy statement from the CDP reads "to reduce rural sprawl and infrastructure costs, it [the Hamakua CDP] focuses future residential development in existing villages and towns and seeks to preserve large productive agricultural lands for agriculture by accommodating rural-residential development close to these urban centers". So, with that statement we believe that the requested FA-la zoning is the appropriate land use pattern for this particular area. So, with that all being said, we'd like to now speak to two (2)proposed changes and to the conditions of approval. Earlier the staff distributed a sheet that sort of outlines the language that we would like the Commission to consider. First of all, Condition I speak to the pro-rata share of improvements to the Old Mamalahoa Highway should it be initiated by the Department of Public Works and as you note at the very beginning of the condition it says, "The applicant, successors or assigns". Meaning that if the widening of the Old Mamalahoa Highway does not commence 4 EXHIBIT B prior to the applicant securing final subdivision approval, that in position will carry on to its successors and assigns. So, with that being said, the suggested language that we offer at the end of Condition I basically states that"In the event the pro-rata share is not paid prior to the receipt of final subdivision approval, restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all proposed lots shall specify the pro-rata share obligation contained in this condition. In that event, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances." And again, this is just clarifying language to make sure that the proper documentation is put forth in the deeds so that future landowners of these lots are made fully aware of their obligation should the road be widened. The second proposed amendment to the end of Condition S which is the Fair Share Condition. That speaks to Condition H which states that"Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant shall install necessary safety devices for example guardrails along the subject properties Old Mamalahoa Highway frontage, provided no utility relocation is required, if required by the Department of Public Works". The applicant will not forsake any necessary safety improvements if required by the County but also, let it be known that the subject property has about 1,100 lineal feet of frontage along the Old Mamalahoa Highway. If deemed necessary the applicant would be willing to provide these safety improvements the guardrails but, understand that that safety improvement not only benefits the 7 lots being proposed by this project, but it will also provide for the safety of all users of that roadway. So, we feel that it is only reasonable and fair that the cost of those improvements should it be required by the County be credited against the applicant's roadway fair share contributions. So, I hope I made myself clear enough, but anyway with that being said we stand ready to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have. LIN: Thank you Mr. Arai. Any questions from the Commissioners? Vice Chair Galimba. GALIMBA: So, I wanted to ask about that last condition, the fair share. So, um', I'm to understand that then it would be credited against the road and traffic improvements assessment so the maximum that would be credited would be the $6,699 that's listed in the recommendation. ARAI: That is correct. GALIMBA: So, anything over that would just be part of what they would be supplying to the improvements correct? ARAI: That is correct. LIN: Any other questions Commissioners? Commissioner De Luz. 5 EXHIBIT B DE LUZ: Just a quick question. Is the Condition I road frontage improvements, so, is that a county road that, that's a designated County road— ARAI: That is a county road. DE LUZ: —that's on the property. Okay. ARAI: That is a county road, yes. DE LUZ: And the second question would be um' I know that the impact fee, or the fee is it only the value of the $6,699 to support road and traffic improvements. Is that what you are trying to convey is that that dollar amount would be going towards that improvement, if necessary, would be dedicated to that improvement that dollar amount? ARAI: Yes. Um' with 7 proposed lots, I'm just doing the math right off the top of my head, maybe roughly $45,000.00 worth of fair share contributions. That$45,000.00 will help offset the cost of installing 1,100 lineal feet of guardrail which I'm guessing is far in excess of $45,000.00. But at the very least it would be unreasonable and unfair to have Mr. Cardoza install the guardrails and yet have to pay an additional $45,000.00 separately as a fair share contribution. And because it benefits not only, it doesn't ameliorate any direct impact caused by Mr. Cardoza's property it also improves and provides safety for all the users of the road. We feel it's reasonable to at least offset some of the costs with the fair share contribution. DE LUZ: Well, thank you for that explanation. I was just curious too that the, is the number of lots limited due to water? ARAI: That is correct. DE LUZ: Okay. ARAI: He has only 7 units available right now. DE LUZ: Okay. Thank you. LIN: Any further questions? GALIMBA: [waved her hand to the Chair] LIN: Oh, go ahead Vice Chair. GALIMBA: I wanted to ask about the roads inside of the property. Um' you said that they were robust but, they're probably also somewhat degraded. Is there any use of regulatory or plan or voluntary plan to make improvements to those roads? ARAI: Based on my visual observation when I did a site inspection. The existing Cane Haul Road that crisscrosses the property is overgrown at least on the sides of it. So, the vegetation is 6 EXHIBIT B pushing in. So, I'm not able to access the condition of the pavement under the existing vegetation. But there is roughly 20 feet of travel way cleared of vegetation and in my opinion the roads are in pretty good condition and given that it used to support daily traffic, cane haul, what is the word, cane haul trucks. Then, yeah, we believe it continues to be a very robust surface. But I should note that during the subdivision process, regardless of what's there the standard requirement is that the road shall meet the agricultural standards of, roadway standards of the County. So, the County will go out and Mr. Cardoza will need to do whatever is necessary to assure the County that the roadways that will be utilized at least meets those minimum standards. And if you look at the minimum standards in the County Standard Details, the pavement is very, very thin and I'm sorry, I just lost on how thick it is but it's quite thin. In fact, I think agricultural standards did allow for the use of macadam, which is almost like oil treated and that's clearly not as robust as say a compacted sort of a concrete surface and this surface out there is asphaltic concrete. So, we believe it is robust as it sits right now but the applicant will still have to meet those requirements during the subdivision process, and he will need to demonstrate that it meets those standards. I hope I answered your question. GALIMBA: Thank you, yes. LIN: Alright, are there any questions for the applicant? If not, oh, go ahead Commissioner Aguinaldo. AGUINALDO: I, yeah. As far as um' questions, I just liked to thank Mr. Cardoza. Um', this fine man here, when I was in my younger days and when we talk about plantation and like when we have a discussion. He came from that area during the Sugar Mill era, when I was going up as well. Came from there until the sugar mill closed down and I still remember this man and was good friends with my supervisor when I used to work for an electrical firm. We were stuck on, I think the second horseshoe, second or third horseshoe. Somehow, we ran out of gas, diesel and we never know who to call, we were afraid to call our supervisor that we ran out of gas somehow. And I still remember him, and I only knew his number. I said Mr. Cardoza, I need one favor, we need gas. It was raining and it was like nine o'clock and thank God he was in `O`okala. LIN: I'm sorry Commissioner Aguinaldo, do you have a question for Mr. Cardoza? AGUINALDO: Yes, I do have a question for Mr. Cardoza. As far as the lot goes in the shop. I noticed the existing cane road kind of like going around, going in yeah. So, I'm assuming that's what you guys are proposing to keep those roads? CARDOZA: Yes. AGUINALDO: Um' that's all of my questions that I get. CARDOZA: Those roads probably carried 50 tons of— 7 EXHIBIT B AGUINALDO: Yeah. CARDOZA: — each truck a trip and it's still there till today. AGUINALDO: And that's kind of like for my panel of Commissioners, I'm familiar with that kind of road yeah. Okay, that's good. Thank you. LIN: Thank you. DANIELE: I have one question. LIN: Go ahead Commissioner Daniele. DANIELE: Could you please explain, it looks like that road goes right on the property line and the easement goes outside of the subject property. Could you just explain that please. ARAI: Thank you Commissioner Daniele. Where you seethe road heading northwest and then it transitions into the adjoining um' there's a 40-foot-wide access easement and Mr. Cardoza does have easement privileges over that section of road. Which is why on his side of the property he is providing an additional 10-foot road easement in order to combine it to make it the minimum 50-foot wide that's required for agricultural standard roadways. So, you're right, from the Old Mamalahoa Highway the road remains entirely on his property, then for a very short segment, sort of like spill over onto the existing 40-foot right-of-way, and then transitions back completely onto the applicant's property. But he does have those access rights over that easement. DANIELE: Thank you for explaining that. LIN: Any further questions? If not, may I have a motion for action. DANIELE: I move that the applicant for Use Permit, Docket No. 22-000004, oh. Sorry, sorry about that. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for zoning, for Change of Zone, Docket No. PL-REZ-2022-000018 based on the Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. LIN: Yeah, Commissioner Daniele would you like to include the proposed change in conditions? DANIELE: Yes, I'd also like to add the proposed change of conditions that we received today. AGUINALDO: I second. LIN: It was moved by Commissioner Daniele and seconded by Commissioner Aguinaldo for a favorable recommendation to County Council with the proposed conditions provided by the applicant. Is there any discussion on this motion? Okay, if not, staff roll call vote please. 8 EXHIBIT B CAMERO: Commissioner Daniele? DANIELE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Balog? BALOG: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Cross? CROSS: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner De Luz? DE LUZ: Aye. CAMERO: Vice Chair Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Lin? LIN: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carry seven (7)to zero (0). Thank you so much. LIN: Thank you, you'll be notified via writing of the Commission's decision. Thank you. CARDOZA: Thank very much. LIN: Thank you. ARAI: Thank you everyone. The item ended at 10:16 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 9 EXHIBIT B