Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication No. 2026-02 Olson Trust Proposal - Morrow 1 Memo to Ka’ū CDP Action Committee Members Re: Proposal by Olson Trust for Pahala Center on Highway 11 January 10, 2026 From Babette Morrow On November 18, Committee member Ibarra provided to the Committee members a proposed letter of support for this project. I appreciate the information he provided with a detailed explanation of the project, community input, and CDP analysis. I feel that it is premature to support the proposed development, since application hasn’t been made yet to the Planning Department. We’ve seen different proposals over the last several months, and I would like to see the final application to know what is actually being submitted. However, I am willing to provide CDP compliance comments from the Action Committee to the applicant based on what we know so far. Land Use Policy This proposed development area is currently designated as Important Agricultural Land in the Ka’ū CDP and Low Density Urban in the County General Plan. Apparently the applicant will be requesting a change in the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) in the General Plan to Medium Density Urban for a portion of the site. I would like to see more justification from the applicant for changing this from Important Ag Land as found in the Ka’ū CDP. Policy 7 in Section 3.4 of the Ka’ū CDP states “Future land use decisions shall be consistent with the land use policy map boundaries, designations, and policies herein, unless the CDP and the General Plan are in direct conflict.” Policy 15 in Section 3.4 proposes County action to amend the General Plan LUPAG and, as needed, State Land Use boundaries, to conform with the official Ka’ū CDP Land Use Policy Map. The applicant is proposing to change the LUPAG from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban, which is taking the General Plan further away from the land use policies of the Ka’ū CDP. The Land Use Category closest to Important Ag Land in the Ka’ū CDP is Low Density Urban. Policy 8 in Section 3.4 of the CDP states that changes of zone in LDU shall only be permitted to Single Family Residential, Multiple Family Residential, Residential- Commercial Mixed Use, or Open. Apparently none of these categories would allow the proposed Pahala development, and thus the applicant is requesting a higher use category. 2 Policy 2 of Section 3.4 advises to “Concentrate commercial uses within and surrounding central core areas in Pāhala and do not allow strip or spot commercial development outside of the designated urban areas.” The proposed development is not located in the central core area in Pāhala and is adjacent to Low Density Urban. The applicant is requesting a change to Medium Density Urban, but currently the only Medium Density Urban areas in Pāhala are located in the current town core at the intersection of Kamani Street and Pikake Street, and at the area around Maile Street and Pikake Street. This would seem to indicate that the proposed development is strip or spot commercial development. Appendix 5 of the Ka’ū CDP includes summaries of the rationale behind each of the CDP policies and advocacy strategies. Table 1 recommends that TMK 396012012 be designated Important Agriculture because “connections to town over channel are impractical and the land is planted in coffee” and TMK 396012027 be designated Important Agriculture because “connections to town over channel are impractical and LDU areas are outside SLU Urban district”. Additionally, it recommends that neighborhoods outside historical and existing commercial areas be designated LDU in order to concentrate more intensive development (including commercial) in the center of town next to existing non-residential uses. The applicant should provide justification for not complying with these rationales in the Ka’ū CDP. I agree with AC Member Ibarra that this project supports Section 1.5.1. Community Objectives. Objective 11: Increase the number and diversity of income sources for residents, including jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities that complement Ka’ū’s ecology, culture, and evolving demographics. Preferred Settlement Patterns 3.3 Community Objectives. Objective 1: concentrate new commercial development in compact, walkable, mixed-use town/village centers. This proposed development is not located in the town center. It is on the highway, almost a mile from the existing town center, and is not safely walkable for potential local customers such as school children and kupuna. People walking from Pāhala to the project would have to walk along the highway from Kamani Street. 3.3 Community Objectives. Objective 2: Preserve prime and other viable agricultural lands. I understand that the current proposal is for development of approximately three acres of the 77 acres in the two TMKs, although in one meeting they indicated that eight acres would be part of the application. Apparently, the applicant will include a 3 plan to allow the remaining land to remain designated as Agricultural. I would like this to be clarified. 3.3 Community Objectives. Objective 4: Protect, restore, and enhance Ka’ū’s unique cultural assets, including archeological and historic sites and historic buildings. Apparently there are no identified cultural assets on the site. 3.3 Community Objectives. Objective 12: Establish or expand retail, service, dining, and entertainment centers in rural villages and towns capable of supporting Ka’ū-appropriate growth. This development will expand services in an area currently lacking sufficient service, however it is not located in the town that it is supposed to serve. Just a reminder, as Action Committee members our responsibility is not to decide whether or not we like a project, but to evaluate whether or not a project complies with the goals and policies of the CDP and to make recommendations to the Planning Director and/or the Planning Commission. The Ka’ū CDP was developed over ten years of many many public meetings with the community, and we value the final adopted plan. In materials that I received when I first joined the Action Committee in 2022, it states : “The overarching role of an Action Committee is to be a proactive, community-based steward for the implementation of their respective CDP. The Action Committee will provide ongoing feedback, advocacy, and action to advance implementation of the CDP goals and objectives and acts in an advisory capacity to the Planning Director.” Input from the community has shown strong support for the proposed project, especially since it will provide needed jobs and services to the Pāhala area. However, I would be more inclined to support the development as an AC member once I see an official application and see how the applicant is responding to the goals and policies of the CDP.