HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpposition testimonies (3) 07.17.23 thru 07.18.23 From: Judy Lanclos
To: LPCtestimony
Subject: Rezoning in Waimea
Date: Monday,July 17,2023 11:21:42 AM
I would be opposed to rezoning agricultural land on the outskirts of Waimea for commercial use.
The city plan favors development of parcels closer to the center of town, and that improves
walkability and preserves open land surrounding the present footprint of the town.
Thank you for your consideration,
Judy Lanclos
Puu Nani, Waimea HI
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Kristin Counter
To: LPCtestimonv
Subject: Testimony in Opposition KAUPULEHU LAND LLC Applications
Date: Tuesday,July 18,2023 11:32:50 AM
My name is Kristin Counter, I live in Waimea, directly behind the subject property, and am writing to
oppose both applications submitted by Kaupulehu Land, LLC.
Ultimately, I do understand there is precedent for the commercial component of the parcel. I simply
don't believe the size and scope are consistent with the community goals and future of Waimea
given the surrounding properties and its lack of connection to the rest of town. Clearly the public
and members of the Commission are also concerned.
On the other hand, there is no precedent and no reason to allow the back portion of the property to
be chopped up into 5 more lots. Based on the applicants own testimony, they will simply be
subdivided and sold. It is just a way to maximize profit on the parcel instead of honoring the intent
of the land for the future sustainability of our community.
I was unable to attend the last hearing due to work, and am unlikely to make this hearing as I have
a newborn on the way. I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the comments I
heard in the recording from the June 15th hearing:
1.
I did not see a single piece of written public testimony in support of these applications in the
June 15th public records. All testimony in the files appears to be in OPPOSITION to the
project.
2.
There were two members of the public who provided oral testimony in support, however:
a.
One said she "supported" the application, but thought the commercial should be
limited to one story vs two. This is exactly the type of overdevelopment of the subject
property many of us are concerned about.
b.
The second public testifier is an employee of the applicant. It's simply worth
transparency around the fact that his employment is dependent on the applicant.
3.
In the Commission's discussion, there was concern about the "overall plan" for the area and
how these applications connect to the rest of town. I would like to reiterate those same
concerns:
a.
This is a huge (19,000 sq ft commercial) space sitting on the exact border of entirely
Ag-5 Land (see image below). It is truly inconsistent with what is around it.
b.
For example, I believe one of the requirements is for a sidewalk in front of the subject
property, but it would be a sidewalk connecting to nothing. A full uninterrupted
sidewalk doesn't begin for another '/2 mile at the corner of Mamalahoa and Kamamalu.
Again, how does this project make sense in the context of the community?
4.
When asked specifically, the applicant declined having thought about CC&Rs for the
residential portion of the property and stated that he was most likely going to sell the vacant
lots. So yes, while the existing two homes are charming, the applicant doesn't intend on
developing the other homes himself(which is the correct decision from a financial
standpoint). So there is no reason to rely on the existing homes as an example of how the
others will be built.
5.
The applicant also stated that selling the lots undeveloped is the "most affordable" way for
buyers to purchase. However, buying vacant land and building requires you either use cash
OR a construction loan, neither of which are affordable by most standards, especially in the
current lending landscape. Combine that with FEMA flood insurance and these lots are not
contributing in any way to affordable housing in Waimea.
6.
As part of the Commission's discussion on the application, it was mentioned that young
people aren't ranching anymore and therefore it makes sense to turn the land into smaller
lots. A few points on that:
a.
The size of the proposed residential portion is not a vast ranch, but is beautifully
suitable for family and community farming.
b.
There are, in fact, many young families with a growing interest in food autonomy and
sustainability, for which the approximately 3 acres would be both manageable and
perfect to achieve those goals.
C.
We live directly behind the parcel and have harvested our own beef, produce our own
eggs, and grow plenty of vegetables to share with our friends. This is what the
Waimea community is about.
d.
Once you chop up the land, you don't get it back, and you set a precedent for the Ag-5
land around it to also slowly be converted to smaller parcels.
7.
The legal representatives of the applicant went through a lengthy presentation on how they
changed the plans based on the feedback from the last hearing:
a.
My understanding is that nothing changed with the front commercial plans.
b.
On the back portion of the property, the applicant has simply swapped six RS-10 lots
for five RA-.05 parcels. Aside from dropping one of the lots, it is the same effort to
maximize development of the parcel.
8.
It is my understanding that the two members of the planning commission who provided an
unfavorable recommendation in the last hearing are the members who are most closely
affiliated with the Waimea community. I believe it is worth paying attention to the members
who are in the affected community most.
Image of subject property (with red star) surrounded by all Ag-5 land.
RI
From: E. Flores
To: LPCtestimony
Subject: Testimony for LPC Meeting (7-20-23)-Agenda Items: 1&2
Date: Tuesday,July 18,2023 4:31:16 PM
Attachments: LPC 7-20-23 Flores Testimony.odf
Aloha,
Attached is written testimony for LPC Meeting (7-20-23)
July 20, 2023 Meeting - Agenda Items:
1 . Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008)
2. Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000039)
Also, please include me on the list to provide oral testimony for this meeting.
Mahalo, E. Kalani Flores
July 18, 2023
TO: Leeward Planning Commission - County of Hawaii
LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
FR: E. Kalani Flores
PO Box 6918, Kamuela, HI 96743
08ef80@gmail.com
RE: July 20, 2023 Meeting-Agenda Items:
1. Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008)
2. Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000039)
Aloha e Commissioners,
As a Waimea resident located just a few blocks from the proposed project, I including all
our household family members, adamantly OPPOSE this project and call upon the LPC to
REJECT these applications again for rezoning and state land use amendment for the 64-983
Mamalahoa Hwy. property for all the reasons stated in my written and oral testimony
presented at the LPC June 15, 2023 meeting and including the following reasons:
Procedural Errors
It is believed that the actions that occurred at the end of June 15, 2023 meeting of the LPC
were improper and in violation of regulations and procedural due process for this
commission. The afore-mentioned agenda items were voted upon and both motions failed.
Then at the end of the second agenda item vote, a staff member informed the
commissioners that there was a "no decision because both motions failed"and then
recommended that this matter be deferred. It's contended that the staff member gave an
improper interpretation of the County Code and inappropriate advice to the commissioners
to "defer the hearing to see if votes change at next hearing." In addition,the staff
member implied that the commissioners were required to defer this hearing without
providing any other options such as no further action. This resulted in the approval of a
motion to defer this matter to the next meeting.' However, it's contended that a motion to
defer this matter is out of order and that such a motion should have occurred prior to
voting and that voting should have also been deferred. It appears that no further action or a
motion to reconsider or for continuance should have occurred on this matter since the
commission already voted on these agenda items which resulted in a no decision and an
Based upon the YouTube recording starting near 1:35:30.
1
unfavorable recommendation. There's a public perception that proper procedures weren't
followed in this matter.
A clear example of spot zoning and urban sprawl
This proposed speculation project is a clear example of spot zoning and urban sprawl by
rezoning this prime parcel of agricultural land that is surrounded by other adjacent
residential and agricultural properties. The proposed commercial development is
excessively huge with a 3-building, 2-story complex and is NOT compatible with this part of
Waimea. Directly adjacent to said property on the west are the historic Parker Ranch
employees homes and on the east are the historic home of the Kawano family. Directly
across the street are newer residential homes.
The scale and size of this proposed commercial development is too large, similar to a `strip
mall' and NOT compatible for this area. Likewise, it would degrade the "rural, ranching
character" of Waimea.Also,there aren't any two-story commercial structures in this area.
Most of the commercial properties in this part of Waimea are one-story historic buildings
(ie. The Fish &The Hog and other tenants - former Fukushima Store, Earl's and other
tenants). Furthermore,the applicant has NOT demonstrated a need for additional
commercial and retail space for Waimea as there are a number of existing vacant retail
properties in Waimea.
In addition,the applicant is requesting a rezoning from A-5a to RS-0.5 that according to the
Planning Director,the proposed "Rural SLU classification is rare on Hawaii Island."This
is another example of spot zoning and urban sprawl on prime ag land as this type of RS
zoning doesn't presently exist on the south-side of the highway in the area where the
property is situated. Since this is a speculation project,these parcels would NOT be in the
affordable price range for local residents to purchase.
NOT in compliance with the Hawaii County General Plan (2005)
This proposed project fails to protect significant Agriculture lands by rezoning them and
fails to preserve the rural, ranching character of Waimea as stipulated in the General Plan.
2.4.6.2 South Kohala - Courses ofAction
(a)Assist in the development of agriculture by protecting important agricultural land
from urbanization, providing or having provided the necessary capital improvements,
such as water, and working cooperatively with the agricultural sector and government.
(e) Encourage the preservation of the rural, ranching character within the town of
Waimea.
2
Likewise,this proposed project is NOT consistent with the General Plan goals and policies
that pertain to Agriculture.
14.2.2 Agriculture- Goals
(a)Identify, protect and maintain important agriculture lands on the island of Hawaii.
(b)Preserve the agricultural character of the island.
(c) Preserve and enhance opportunities for the expansion of Hawaii's Agricultural
Industry.
14.2.3 Agriculture-Policies
(i) Designate, protect and maintain important agricultural lands from urban
encroachment.
(j)Ensure that development of important agricultural land be primarily for agricultural
use.
14.2.4.5.2 South Kohala - Courses ofAction
(a)Protect important agricultural lands from urban encroachment.
(b)Encourage buffer zones or compatible uses between important agricultural land and
adjacent uses of land.
In addition,this proposed project is NOT consistent with the General Plan goals and
policies that pertain to commercial development. This speculation project has failed to
demonstrate the need for additional retail space in Waimea with many existing vacant retail
properties in Waimea.Also, this project would severely impact the traffic and create further
congestion in this particular area.
14.3.2 Commercial Development- Goals
(b)Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of
transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and
neighborhoods.
14.3.3 Commercial Development-Policies
(c) Distribution of commercial areas shall meet the demands of neighborhood, community
and regional needs.
14.3.5.6.2 Courses ofAction
(b)Establish controls to insure orderly development and minimize speculation of
commercially zoned lands.
3
NOT consistent with the South Kohala CDP (2008)
This proposed project fails to meet the guidelines and policies set forth for the Waimea
Town as stipulated in the South Kohala CDP. Instead,this project would remove prime
agricultural lands and push unsightly commercial development further east of the Waimea
Town center.
4.2 WAIMEA TOMORROW. WAIMEA CONCEPTUAL PLAN&POLICIES PURPOSE: This
Waimea Town Conceptual Plan presents in graphic and narrative form general guidelines
for the long-range-20+year look-ahead-future of Waimea Town. During the course of
the Community Readiness Process and Waimea Focus Group meetings,five main concerns
were consistently voiced:
• Preserving Waimea's "sense of place"
• Moderating the pace ofgrowth and change in Waimea
• Wise management of natural resources and important agricultural lands
• Development of affordable housing
• Timely construction of transportation and circulation improve
POLICY NO. 2 "RESPONSIBLE GROWTH":MODERATE THE PACE OF GROWTH AND
CHANGE IN WAIMEA
Stratea-v 2.1 The County should carefully evaluate and condition, as appropriate, any
rezoning that would negatively impact important agricultural lands or culturally, visually
and environmentally important open spaces or resources in Waimea -- Time will be needed
to implement a number of important open space preservation tools and programs,
including acquisition of fee interest or conservation easements for important pu'u and
some of the East Waimea farm and ranch lots. While these tools and programs are being
put into place, private lands that are currently zoned A-5a,A-10a,A-20a, orA-40a should
retain their current zoning. Exceptions can be made for affordable housing, agricultural
cluster subdivisions, and small-scale rezonings of 4 lots or less that may assist families in
allowing their children to obtain individual properties.
Would adversely increase traffic congestion near this area
This proposed project site would only be accessible from the main Mamalahoa Highway
amongst the surrounding residential homes and commercial properties which are already
difficult to navigate as the highway starts to narrow near here when driving west into
Waimea Town.
4
Would adversely increase property taxes for residents in this area
This proposed residential development which is being built for the high-end market and
not for the affordable range and would only increase the property taxes for local residents
such as us in this area.
Solely for speculation purposes
In 2002,the County Council repealed the previous commercial zoning for a portion of the
property with Ordinance No. 02-107 due to noncompliance of conditions and reverted it
back to Agriculture (A-5a).2 This original commercial zoning was done in 1993 with
Ordinance No. 93-6. However,the proposed applications for this property would be
inconsistent with the updated 2005 General Plan and are purely for speculation purposes
at this time.
2 See Attached
5
64-979 Pfte lah"&Hwy
r
r �
M •. "',%
"
w�
w.
64.983 H'a i i Bel[Rd v e:f; • `n'
.: ,...
, � ��,� t a 1 t - N�� r •I N.
M77-
_ k
w r .
r +
m _
x
a
A
t {�
� t
Goo9 a "�
Highway View of Applicant's Property
I �
LIJ f. Yr k
Proposed Commercial Development on Applicant's Property
7
69 9T4 Haw81 i Belt Rtl P E '...' � •'►,. .. �. X
.: rwe n��ry•ayes. �
f �
�•� � ' '�a n.+ � 87mp+ � � ,
t
r
Go le «
West-End of • • Property
6♦�T HlIeOIY��� {r � 1.. � 6 ��Parker Ranch Employee Residences -West of Applicant's Property
Walenea,Mawali -�, �•�.��
1
•S.4t1' �� .��„r
i
4-966 Hbw9i'i f3cIS RC Q �� .� �^
r
w•. s
-
a
Google
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
2y2 cEP 18 PIS 2 5o
PLANNPP,;C DEPARTMENT BILL NO.' 246
COUNTY OF H,, 'vVAll
AL ORDINANCE NO. 02 10" '
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 93 65 WHICH AMENDED
SECTION 25-95E, CURRENTLY SECTION 25-8-11, THE LALAMILO-PUUKAPU ZONE
MAP, ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE,
1983 (1995 EDITION), AND CHANGED THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-7.5) AT PUUKAPU,
WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 6-4-24:PORTION
OF 27. UPON THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 93 65, THE DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT AREA SHALL BE AGRICULTURAL (A-5a).
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 93 65, which amended Section 25-95E, currently
Section 25-8-11, the LaIamilo-Puukapu Zone Map, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the
Hawaii County Code, as amended, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
[SECTION 1. Section 25-95E, Article 3, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii
County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as
follows:
The district classification of the following area situated at Puukapu, Waimea,
South Kohala, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5):
i
Beginning at the north corner of this parcel of land, being also the west corner of Land
Court Application 1252 and on the southerly side of Mamalahoa Highway, the
coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation
Station "West Base" being 106.74 feet South and 2,646.08 feet East, thence running by
azimuths measured clockwise from True South:
1. 329" 07' 350.60 feet along Land Court Application 1252;
2. 700 21' 392.80 feet along the remainder of Grant 4598 to
Estate of David Koki (remainder of
Lot 1 I-A);
3. 1490 07' 350.60 feet along Grant 4566 to C. Luiki;
' 4. 250" 21' 392.80 feet along Mamalahoa Highway to the point
of beginning and containing an area of 3.101
Acres.
All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference
made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the
following: (A) the applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying
with all of the stated conditions of approval; (B) if required, the applicant shall submit
the required water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply in
accordance with its "Water Commitment Policy" within ninety(90) days from the
effective date of this ordinance; (C) final Subdivision Approval of the proposed
commercial subdivision shall be secured within three (3) years from the effective date of
this ordinance. Plans shall indicate the dedication of a 10-•foot road widening strip along
the subject property's entire Mamalahoa Highway frontage; (D)Final Plan Approval for
the proposed development shall be secured within one year from the date of receipt of
tentative Subdivision Approval. The plan shall indicate existing and proposed structures,
parking, driveway circulation, landscaping, a 10-foot road widening strip along the
property's Mamalahoa Highway frontage to be dedicated to the County, and all off-site
improvements. Structures shall be sited and landscaping provided for the purpose of
mitigating noise and visual impacts to adjacent properties and from Mamalahoa
Highway; (E) Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within three
years from the date of receipt of Final Plan Approval; (F) the applicant shall provide the
following roadway/intersection improvements in a manner meeting with the approval of
the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval: a)
a left-turn pocket on Mamalahoa Highway for westbound traffic, b) separate left-turn and
right-turn lanes for traffic exiting the project site, and c) provide curbs, gutters and
sidewalk improvements along the project site's Mamalahoa Highway frontage and
project's interior roadway system. These improvements shall be constructed and
dedicated to the County when and as required by the Department of Public Works; (G)
the applicant shall provide street lights and signalization of the project site's MamaIahoa
Highway intersection, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. In
-2-
,a
the event that the applicant conveys ownership, Ieasehold, or controlling development
interest in the land prior to receiving its initial subdivision approval for the proposed
project, an in-lieu monetary fee for the cost of constructing these improvements, to be
determined by the Department of Public Works shall be due and payable on or before the
issuance of a building permit for any commercial structure; (H) drainage system
improvements, if required, shall be constructed in a manner meeting with the approval of
the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval; (I)
water demand calculations for the individual commercial uses proposed within the
project site shall be submitted to the Department of Water Supply for review and
approval,prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for these commercial uses; (3) the
applicant shall utilize design and landscaping guidelines of the Waimea Design Plan; (K)
the applicant shall comply with all other applicable laws, rules, regulations and
requirements of the affected agencies, including those of the Department of Health and
the Fire Department; (L) should any unidentified sites or remains, such as lava tubes,
artifacts, shell, bone or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments,
pavings or walks be encountered, work in the affected area shall cease and the Planning
Department immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an
archaeological clearance from the Planning Department when it finds that sufficient
mitigative measures have been taken; (M) should the Council adopt a Unified
Impact-Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment
of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of
the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance; (N) an annual progress report shall be submitted to
the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the effective date of the change of
zone. The report shall address the status of the development and the compliance with the
conditions of approval. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of
approval have been complied and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports
are not required; and, (0) an extension of time for the performance of conditions within
the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances:
1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or
are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result
of their fault or negligence; 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the
-3-
:
General Plan or the Zoning Code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary
to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone; 4) the time extension
granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for the
performance (i.e. a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to
one addition year); and 5) if the applicant should require an additional extension of time,
the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for
appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially
complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning of the area to its
original or more appropriate designation.]
SECTION 2. The subject area shall be reclassified back to its original
Agricuitural (A-5a) zoned district as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit
"A" and by reference made a part hereof.
SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COffNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
H; In , Hawaii
Date of introduction: August 14 , 2002
Date of I"Reading: August 14 , 2002
Date of 2nd Reading. August 28 , 2002
Effective Date: September 12 , 2002
692
-4-
.a
N
e A-5a RS20 \ � \ E
A-5a A I0a
S
A53 \ A-5a
A-5a\ FA-3a
106. RS-10
6 \"VASTT BASS p ¢S•5
RS-10 SA A-5a
A-5a RS10 GN.10
A-5a
ro A-5a
A-5a CV-7. L o
�.
5 nz C
A-5a
N 7.5 � `ri Asa
A-5a NE BORN D
n COMMECIAL(CN .5) A-5a
cv75 TO AGRICULTURAL( 5a)
'y p CV-7.5 A-5a
,.i. o AREA= 3.101 ACRES
FA-3a A-5a
'o
A-5a
�N
i
o A-5a
Ras A 5�
4 aN KA AS3
S 1 �
R spy 111 RQAp
c` A-5a
Ra5 U K O �k A-5a
o A-5a
RA-la L N L1
R5.10 Pu A-5a
0
0 1000 20M 3000 4000 Feet
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 93 65 WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-95E,
CURRENTLY SECTION 25-8-11, THE LALAMILO-PUUKAPU ZONE MAP,
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE,
1983 (1995 EDITION), AND CHANGED THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL (A-5a)TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-7.5)
AT PUUKAPU, WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII,
COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 6-4-24:PORTION OF 27.
UPON THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 93 65, THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
OF THE SUBJECT AREA SHALL BE AGRICULTURAL (A-5a).
PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TMK:6A-024:Por. 027 COUNTY OF HAWAII
MAY 10, 2002
EXHIBIT"A' (REPEAL OF ORD. 93-65:1066)
I
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
County of Hawaii
Hilo , Hawaii
ROLL CALL VOTE
Introduced By: Bobby Jean Leithead—Todd AYES NOES ABS EX
Date Introduced. August 14, 2002 Arakaki X
First Reading: August 14, 2002 Chung x
Published: Elarionoff X
Jacobson x
REMARKS: Leithead-Todd x
Pisicchio x
Safarik X
Tyler x
Yagong x
9 0 0 0
Second Reading: August 28, 2002 ROLL CALL VOTE
To Mayor: Septembe-rAYES NOES ABS EX
Returned: September 12 , 2002 Arakaki X
Effective: September 12 , 20Q2 Chung x
Published: Elarionoff x
Jacobson X
REMARKS: Leithead-Todd X
Pisicchio X
Safarik X
Tyler x
Yagong x
8 0 1 0
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adapted by the County Council published as
indicated above.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LEGALITY:
r �� tOUNTY
AIRMAN
DEPU C RA COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAII
RK
Bill Na.:
246
C-692/PC-99
pproverll isapproved this I day Reference:
'of, S 20 0
Ord No.: 2 :10 7
YOR, C UsVTY OF H,4 WAII