Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-24 TPDWAIMEAREZ PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 24, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the CHANGE OF ZONE (REZ 07-000062)was called to order at 2:18 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: Takashi Domingo ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda William Graham Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR (REZ 07-000062) Change of Zone from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to an Agricultural 400-acre (A-400a) district for 420.17 acres of land. The property is located north of Konokohau Road and Waimea Town and includes the hills (puu) Hokuula, Puuowaowaka, and Puu Ki in the land divisions of Keanuiomano and Puuki, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-5-1:20. GRAHAM: New Business, item No. 5 on our agenda. It’s a rezoning ordinance; the initiator is the Planning Director. It’s a change of zone from Ag 1-acre to Ag 400-acre for 420.17 acres of land. This is in South Kohala above Waimea Town. I have two people signed up for public testimony. Jeff, could you give us a rundown on this application, please? DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the Planning Commission’s attention to the location map, the area of this application is located within the South Kohala District of Hawaii, more specifically we are looking at Kawaihae Road and Mamalahoa Highway running in an east-west direction. This is Waimea Town. Just above Waimea Town to the north, we have the area identified with a red dot, and it’s just north of Konokohau Road. The Planning Director is recommending a change of zone for this property identified in this area, which is approximately 420 acres in size. As you’ll notice, the different colors on the property represent the zoning; the blue represents Agricultural 40-acres, and the green represents Agricultural 1-acre. Just to give some history on this, the Waimea Community Association originally requested that the subject property be preserved, and the reason for this is this is the location of three pu‘us: Basically we have Hoku‘ula identified in this area, we have Pu‘u‘owa‘owaka identified in this EXHIBIT D 1 area, and Pu‘u Ki which is located in this particular area on this 420-acre property. The Waimea Community Association was requesting that the Council be able to protect and preserve this property basically to keep it as a scenic and historical resource of open space, green pasture, pu‘u and forest for many important uses such as grazing, watershed, water development, public access and viewshed. The Planning Director, based on the resolution that was passed by the Hawaii County Council, Resolution 456-06, which was passed on October 31, 2006, requested the Planning Director to initiate down-zoning of this property from Agricultural 1-acre and Agricultural 40-acre to Agricultural 400-acre, that would prevent further development on this property. At this time with the current zoning, the potential is that you could have 6 forty-acre lots as well as 176 one-acre lots. Down-zoning the property to Agricultural 400-acre would preserve this particular property. And again this resolution was passed in order to preserve the Waimea pu‘u as cultural and open space resources and to preserve their agricultural and recreational uses. The pastures and Pu‘u that are immediately above Waimea Town are identified as a vista of exceptional natural beauty. Lastly this particular property is rich in historical and cultural significance as it was the location of the Battle of Hoku‘ula, and within the Recommendation there is a portion that gives a little background on that actual battle. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council on this application. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. I guess on this matter since the Planning Director is not here, you are both our staff and our applicant, so -. DARROW: I guess so. GRAHAM: Any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I noted that the Department of Land and Natural Resources indicated that the subject parcel is subject to a cattle lease. So that implies that the State owns this land right now, all of it? DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: Okay, thanks. GRAHAM: Any further questions before I take public testimony? All right. Thank you. I have two people signed up: Bob Hunter and Margaret Wille. You are in front of a somewhat tired Planning Commission, I think, but we’d appreciate some words from you anyway. Could you both raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission this afternoon? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Hunter, you can begin, and give your name and address as you begin your testimony, please. HUNTER: Thank you. My name is Bob Hunter. I live at 65-1116 Hoku‘ula Road in Waimea. I’m the Chair of the Waimea CDP Committee of the Waimea Community Association, EXHIBIT D 2 and I’m on the Steering Committee for the South Kohala CDP, but I’m not speaking for those groups today. The reason this is so important to the community, and has been for over 30 years now when our Community Association started requesting this very thing, is that it’s home to a Hawaiian god and goddess; it towers above the only woman’s heiau on our island. And it’s the site of the battle that’s described in the paperwork that you’ve been reading. So it’s really important to so many aspects of our community. It’s particularly important to the Hawaiian community many of whom have expressed to me and to the community at large their personal family relationship to physical features on the parcel, and others who retell these various legends – a whole bunch of them – having to do with just that parcel and the adjoining ones. These legends have given the place names that we use everyday all over Waimea, so it is part of the identity of the community and it’s important for that way. It’s important because visitors and new comers just absolutely fall in love with the misty hills with the cows calling to their calves that they see up there, so it’s important to a lot of the community. It cries out for conservation and our community has echoed that cry for over 30 years. It’s a pilot project of our Waimea CDP Committee and we are asking for it to be done, so that we can learn as a community how to work with our government and develop a relationship with it because not a strong one exists right now. And we really ask your help in protecting the sacred land by giving a favorable recommendation. You might know, as you read your paper, that the Council requested that the parcel be down- zoned to Ag-500. And the reason for that was to do exactly -, was to create a non-conforming lot that is a lot that no one could build on. State law gives the County the power – and the sole power – of creating minimum lot sizes on parcels; and we can’t see anything in the law or in the regulations or in resolutions of the County Council that would prevent the creation of a non- conforming lot, which would seal the fate of development up there, instead of having a 400-acre situation and a 20-point-something-acre situation. So that’s why the 500 was requested; and we request that you seriously consider recommending that as it moves upstream. That’s my testimony, and I’d be open to any questions. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: I commend you folks for embarking on this task. I think with today’s vote, you and your organization would further realize how much important it is that citizen input be considered in this kind of matter, especially land use planning. Because often times when decisions are being made for rezoning or boundary amendments, or General Plan amendments, it comes before a body at a moment’s notice or without any recognition by the community or its organizations, and it’s simply because there isn’t much interest generated within the community. But with this happening, I’m sure you and your organization would now realize that it can be done. And what I encourage you and your organization, as you embark in considering your community development plan, look at other areas within the community that you as residents of the area feel is best for you, and make the decision to pursue it because it’s possible as you’ll find out hopefully after this meeting. I know of other places, more specific in Waikii, where many years ago there were rezonings to the effect and they created residential-agricultural lots with a particular agricultural and livestock program that would have each interest in property owners contribute to establishing a livestock program; and in doing so in obtaining those parcels, smaller parcels for home sites, they would use one community designated area as a pasture EXHIBIT D 3 owned by all of the people; and all the rest of the property surrounding that were down-zoned to, I think, probably no smaller than 1,000-acre Ag zoning. And this would ensure in perpetuity that those lands would be in huge parcels that would further prevent additional development up there. So that’s why there you hardly see anyone rushing up there and rezoning properties or building, with the exception of what you see now; they are all scattered. So, you know, with some innovative ideas and especially with the desire with respect to what you really want in the community, you folks can do it. This is your opportunity. Thank you for what you’re doing. GRAHAM: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I am so happy that I’m going to be a part of, by casting my vote preserving the pu‘u in Waimea because I have always loved them. And I just wanted to say that I think asking for Ag-400 as a zoning doesn’t say that these 20 acres over here are left out. That zoning for Ag-400 is for the entire 420 acres.So I don’t think you really have to worry about that 20 acres would not be protected from development by virtue of that zoning, because you’d still get what you want and that’s the protection without necessarily the creation of a non- conforming lot. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. I’d also like to just reiterate I agree with the 400-acre zoning. I mean you folks know there’s lots of properties in Waimea that are zoned Ag-1a, that the lots are much less than Ag-1a in size, yet people can build on them just like anywhere else. So I don’t think you’d be buying any additional protection, if you had Ag- 500. And like Commissioner Siracusa said, there is no way to get two lots out of it. And I also, like the Planning Director, don’t like to create non-conforming lots in any rezoning before us. So I think you’re fine with what we’ve got. Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Ms. Wille. WILLE: Hi. Yes. My name is Margaret Wille. I live in Waimea, 65-1316 Lihipali Road. And I am also on the South Kohala Community Development Steering Committee, and again want to express that these are my own views. And I am an attorney. And again I just want to say this is, I am not representing any other person. I have been working with Bob Hunter on the community development process, and was the co- chairman of the conservation sub-group that initiated and worked on the plans promoting the protection of this parcel. I want to add to what Bob said in terms of seeing the Waimea pu‘u as a landmark, as Diamond Head is to Honolulu and as Mauna Kea is to our entire island. Certainly these hills are an equivalent spiritual, emotional, intellectual, inspirational place. In going through the County General Plan in almost every section it would say something about protecting these hills from development. For example: environmental – that this is extremely ecologically sensitive land. Flooding – there is terrible risk, even from if too many jeeps go up that. Then I said, well, let me look at the State law, and I started going through the State law that would apply, such as the public trust doctrine and viewing ourselves as stewards for ourselves and future generations. And for historical preservation – the historical and cultural significance of this parcel has been outlined. Such properties are so critical for the education, inspiration and pleasure and enrichment of the citizens, yet we are losing these assets. I think one thing that geared us up is that the Parker Ranch range lease expires in four years. And you know if all of the sudden this land came up for auction or something happened, how, what would we do? And EXHIBIT D 4 also all of the unknowns, so in a way we’re trying to work on this now proactively. And also we are using this project where there was general community consensus, and let’s do something where we achieve something and have something to show and get all the people engaged that have been so discouraged in terms of planning such as for traffic problems yet nothing happens. We want to inspire and engage others in the community planning process. I was also concerned, as Bob was, in terms of the 400 acre zoning designation. Why don’t we just go with 420 acre zoning at least? Four hundred and twenty acre zoning is not non- conforming; that’s the actual acreage. And just from a lawyer’s point of view, where is it that says it is wrong to designate higher acreage zoning such as 500 acres, even though non- conforming. I’m sure that if one luxury house were going to sit right on the basin of this parcel, it would destroy this landmark location. Why not 500 acre zoning? I don’t know. Do you know? Maybe there is a reason why you can’t designate it at 500 acre zoning. There was one other aspect that I and some others really pushed, and that was the concept for some public access on this parcel. And I think my motivation really came from when there was a community presentation – I think it was Pua Case, a middle school teacher. She talked about her relationship and the students’ relationship to this land. She teaches the names of these hills and relates the students to it, and they go there and it’s all “no trespassing” signs. And she reflects to them on how she could touch the dirt and went up there as a child and these pu’u were part of an inspiration of nature. So what I am encouraging and would like you all to encourage is working on some kind of partnership for public access. And I recently went up there around the parcel with John Ray – as a neighbor, not as representing Parker Ranch – so that I could go around it and see where we could possibly do a perimeter hike. We would achieve a multi- faceted use of this parcel, not eliminating the ranch use, but how could we maybe put a fence around the edge of the parcel. We do not want for another 35 years or another 99 years of all “no trespassing” signs around this State parcel. What I worked on was what are all of the problems that we have to overcome to do that, such as: Where would we park? Where would we hike to and from? But none of the problems really seem insurmountable. So I just would like to, to the extent that you are in a position to, encourage some kind of partnership with the County, whether it’s Parker Ranch or whatever lessee. I think one thing the people said is that when the range lease comes up, we can write in new terms. But at the same time what I was trying to work on is how can we do a few pilot programs or work through this during this four-year period remaining on the Parker Ranch lease. Ask Parker Ranch and others as a partnership or stewardship that would allow for public access. We might start with some restrictions on who can go there. It might not be just open door to the public. It might be something like we do for hunters getting a license. I’ve taken their hunting course, it’s a great course, but we need to add some environmental and cultural component. So I think that the viewshed is important to all, but to go there on this land is another world. When I drove around there the other day, it was just extraordinary, inspirational. I mean these enormous trees. If you ride around the edge of this land, there is a feeling of sanctity and peace. I also want to emphasize that this parcel was always historically a cultural gathering place both in times of peace and war. The decisive battle between the kingdom of Maui and the kingdom of Hawaii was fought there. And that’s where Maui went to fight; they wanted to fight right on that special place. That was the spot, that was the important site for gathering. A lot of people say that if Maui hadn’t held off so as to fight in this location, giving Hawaii’s other forces time to get to Waimea, Maui would have won the battle, and we could be now the State of Maui. So I just want to emphasize, encourage that there be some public access. It is a great landmark for residents and it is scenic for visitor. It would EXHIBIT D 5 be great if we could encourage some way where you have Waimea in this absolute incredible spot and look out there where you can walk and hike with nature, walk and not just find all “no trespassing” signs. This is a State parcel with special significance and as stated in the State planning laws there is a need for education, inspiration, pleasure and enjoyment of the citizens. Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you very much. Perhaps your aims and your goals can best be accomplished by having your State Representative work with the State Historical and Preservation Department, and then formulate or draft a proposal of plan in which you can really be assured of some strong protection for that pu‘u. WILLE: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, I wanted to make the same point that since it’s State land, it’s the State you should be negotiating with for access; however, the stage is set here because access is one of the things that’s mentioned as a reason for the rezoning change. WILLE: Okay. SIRACUSA: And so that will give you your baseline -. WILLE: A door. SIRACUSA: Your baseline to build on. It’s not within our purview here to work out and negotiate any kind of agreement like that. But that could be done with the State, and this is like the foundation stone. So I’m really happy that this is happening; this is one of the most warm fuzzy things that’s come before me on the Planning Commission, I tell you that. WILLE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you both for your comments and for your hard work on this. I think we are at the point now where the applicant has nothing further to say, so we can entertain a motion. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for a change of zone application, REZ 07-000062, based on the Director’s recommendations. SIRACUSA: Second. GRAHAM: Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa -. SIRACUSA: And with great pleasure, seconded. EXHIBIT D 6 GRAHAM: A favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council. Any comments? Any discussion? Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick note, I wanted to also make mention that there are no conditions being forwarded along with this ordinance to the Hawaii County Council. Additionally, I forgot to mention that we have received a number of letters of support for this application, which have been passed out to the Commission. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, seven to zero. GRAHAM: Very good. The discussion ended at 2:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 7