Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Submitted Online or by EmailDraft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP The green, open areas shown on pg 40 for Paukaa indicte all residences on makai side of Paukaa Dr is an open area ... same for the adjacent residences on Kuikahi St. The gree areas shoud be redrawn to shown the existing residential lots. Appears this situation may also exist elsewhere along the coast. Lower Hamakua Ditch I see no mention of one of the most significant resources of Northwest Hamakua, the Hamakua Ditch system. It is absolutely vital to my agriculture operations and for many of my neighbors livelihoods. A clean,safe and reliable source of irrigation water is paramount. It upsets me that some people want to leave the ditch open for "aesthetic"/"historical" purposes, but the true historical intent of the ditch is to support agriculture. In fact, only a handful of people actually get to see the flowing ditch except where it traverses a persons private property. We could greatly expand ag opportunities because of this ditch water resource. However, I worry constantly of the possibility of contaminated water applied to crops or consumed by livestock. My educational background is in Aquatic Ecology. It is well known that the leading source of e -coli contaminated crops comes from irrigation water. One incidence of illness or death from this could devastated the reputation of all Hamakua ag products for years. The State has or had funds to contain this water in pipes within the ditch. A compromise could be to contain the ag water in pipes submerged in the ditch while water flows over it for aesthetic purposes. Please move forward with securing safe and reliable lower hamakua ditch irrigation water. I appreciate all the hard work of all those representatives and stake holders who are coming together to improve the Hamakua community and region. Perhaps I have missed it but, in my review of the community development plan on the web site I do not see the plan for the Hamakua Ditch. I live in a community of small farmers downstream of Honoka'a town and am a rate payer for ditch water together with some of my neighbors. As far as I know we have never been consulted regarding what the agricultural community in my area would advise regarding the ditch. You may recall that some time after 2006 millions of dollars in federal funds were granted to enclose the ditch water flow in an high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe primarily for flood mitigation. Despite winning a successful competition for a $3,000,000 federal grant bolstered by 130 letters of support from local farmers and supporters a small group of community members along with their attorneys successfully hijacked efforts to enclose the flow on their property due to its "historical significance" (read property value asset). Federal funding was lost for the ENTIRE project! The agricultural community which is admittedly not politically powerful suffered from this loss. The current open ditch configuration causes excessive siltation that fouls irrigation equipment, increases evaporative losses and leads to significance losses through open ditch leakage into the ground water. The open ditch configuration also increases contaminated water run off into the ditch from upstream animals including feral pigs, rats and live stock. The Hamakua region is a known reservoir of leptospirosis, a rare but severe disease which is likely under diagnosed. Our own late P. Quentin Tomich Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP studied the endemic presence of leptospirosis in Waipio Valley rodents and found a prevalence rate above 20% in some common species (Pac Sci 33:257). Leptospirosis is carried in the urine of rats and mongoose and may contaminate open waterways through those vectors. To our knowledge no one has studied the safety of the ditch water for food crop irrigation and aquaculture despite the obvious risks due to its open configuration. Regardless, there is a high probability that piping the ditch water in HDPE would improve microbiologic safety for down stream rate payers and farmers. What is also clear is that enclosing the ditch would vastly reduce the maintenance costs on the ditch and vastly improve the reliability of the irrigation water source which frequently has to be shut off for repairs. A few land owners claimed that they would maintain the ditch through the few linear feet that the ditch ran through their property but that begs the question of what benefit that has on the rest of the greater than 95% that remains to the tax payer to maintain. Ironically the ditch was not improved and enclosed due to the lobbying of a very few who's claim was that the ditch was an historic land mark. The problem is that the primary original function of the ditch in 1910 is the very same as the primary current function of the ditch today and that is to sustain the local agricultural community. The primary function of the ditch and the farming community that it supports should not fall prey to late arriving agenda of a few people who have failed to take into complete account the reason the ditch exists in the first place. Some of my neighbors and I have the following concerns: 1. We are not aware that the people who actually pay for the water service of the Hamakua Ditch were adequately represented, if they were represented at all, in prior decisions to halt improvements to the ditch over the howls of a few vocal stake holders who appear to be politically and legally powerfully connected. 2. We are doubtful that the aggregate costs to the tax payers, the ditch rate payers, the local agricultural efforts and, to the community at large have been factored into the decision to NOT enclose the ditch water and we strongly urge those estimates to be included the next time this issue comes up politically. 3. We are concerned about the health safety of the ditch water if not enclosed especially for food crop farming and we advise that health safety be strongly considered in leaving the ditch open. We wonder if not currently being performed, whether the ditch water should be analyzed at intervals by the Department of Health for coliforms, leptospirosis and other contaminates they deem appropriate. 4. Operation of the Hamakua ditch is intermittent, the maintenance is spotty and poorly funded and, excessive siltation from its open configuration leads to lost agricultural productivity which could be dramatically improved by HDPE pipe installation. If the Hamakua Community Development Plan is going to be a serious effort that adequately represents the interests of the agricultural community, they will support enclosing the Hamakua ditch water flow for the economy and safety of all concerned. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP TM K 3-5-004-054-000 Per our discussion, in the subject line is the TMK for the parcel I mentioned to you. It's just 1.885 acres so it's not really a piece of land that could be used for ag purposes. If possible, I would like to see this parcel added to the distinction for consideration of being re -zoned to low density (yellow) on your proposed map. This parcel is just above Laupahoehoe School. I think it would make a great lot for some smaller sized homes for teachers at the school. Finding housing is one of the challenges in attracting teachers to Laupahoehoe School and this lot has the potential to help in create a solution for this issue. Yes, I fully understand this is not a zoning change, only a designation recommendation change. Thanks again for your assistance! Request revision to the Proposed Hakalau/Wailea LUPAG Map for the reasons below: I attended the public meeting held in Pepekeeo on May 11, 2016, and was distressed to learn that the proposed LUPAG would revise the current LUPAG at Hakalau Point, in conformity with the current landowner's change of zoning application to allow the Landowner to establish a subdivision of residential homes for most of the Hakalau Point property and to establish industrial/commercial structures within the remainder of the property. As you are no doubt aware, the current LUPAG establishes the entire Hakalau Point as Industrial, and the entire parcel is, in fact, currently zoned as Industrial. Although currently zoned industrial, there is very little activity of any type taking place on the property, nor has there been significant activity over the course of the prior several decades. Specifically, one of the warehouses on the parcel is used by a handful of farm workers who package ginger and sweet potatoes in the warehouse. The other warehouse located on the property, until very recently, was used as a home/party-facility for the son of the landowner. This second warehouse is currently abandoned. The proposed change in the LUPAG to recast most of the nine acre parcel from industrial to low density urban coincides with the Landowner's request for rezoning the property to residential, and is wholly inconsistent with the priorities of the CDP as described in the informational material that was handed out to the assembled during the meeting. In particular: With regard to the coastal lands along the Hamakua Coast, the CDP states that Objective Number 1 is to: •Protect, restore, and enhance watershed ecosystems, sweeping views, and open spaces from mauka forests to Makai shorelines, while assuring responsible public access for recreational, spiritual, cultural, and sustenance practices. As you may be aware, the Hawaii County Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission ("PONC") has identified and targeted the Hakalau Point property as one for protection and Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP preservation through County acquisition. You are probably also aware that the Hakalau Point Property is the only one on the list for East Hawaii, and that the mayor has approved the property for acquisition. The desire of the residents in and around Hakalau, is that the County would establish a memorial park at Hakalau Point to honor and commemorate the legacy of those who lived and labored at sugar plantations along the Hamakua Coast. The park would provide a quiet place for meditation, retrospection, and spiritual thought. Instead of performing as a steward, seeking to protect this last remaining critically important historic parcel of ocean front property along the Hamakua Coast, (to be appreciated and enjoyed by all the citizens and residents of Hawaii County), the proposed LUPAG, rather, assists the landowner in his efforts to rezone this property for the purpose of constructing ocean front homes and industrial/commercial buildings for his own economic benefit. If the Landowner is successful in obtaining his rezoning and subdivision, then the sweeping views and access to Hakalau Point will be available only to those who purchase one of his home lots on the property. In one of the brochures that was handed out at the meeting, it was made clear in the CDP that the residents of Hamakua want to do several things, including: •"Limit/halt multimillion dollar developments." It seems pretty obvious that in changing the LUPAG to allow some 75% of the nine acres of Hakalau Point to be utilized for building seven to eleven expensive ocean front homes, is inconsistent with the CDP goal of limiting multimillion dollar developments along the shorelines of the Hamakua Coast. •"Caring for the'aina, reflecting community values and environmental consciousness. Promoting the private interests of the landowner for the purpose of developing ocean front homes and commercial activities, in lieu of preserving Hakalau Point for the people of Hawaii, does not seem consistent with the desire to reflect the community values for those priorities as set forth in the CDP. •"Open space along all Hamakua Coast for fishing and hiking" By proposing to change the LUPAG to now designate Hakalau Point as Urban, (which wholly supports and conforms to the landowner's request to rezone that same portion of his parcel to residential), the planners are undermining the goal of public use and public access of Hakalau Point in favor of restricting access and use of the property to those favored homeowners and business owners that end up owning and occupying the Hakalau Point subdivided plots. •"Preserve, restore, and enhance sweeping open views of ocean and scenic view outlooks." As previously stated, by proposing to change the LUPAG to designate most of Hakalau Point as "low density urban", with the rest as "industrial", the Community Development planners will greatly assist the Landowner in his efforts to subdivide the property for the purpose of constructing several ocean front homes, while simultaneously ignoring the desire of the Hamakua residents and the mission of the CDP, which instead advocate for preservation Hakalau Point in order to protect sweeping ocean front and scenic views for the enjoyment of all the residents of Hawaii County and the Hamakua Coast. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 4 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP In conclusion, and for the reasons set forth above, it seems counter -intuitive and inconsistent with the objectives of the CDP, to revise the LUPAG at this time to change the land use designation at Hakalau Point from its current one of industrial to that of low density urban. AGRICULTURE:- Farmers won't continue to farm unless they be profitable. Need to assure access to several low cost commercial kitchens that farmers can use to produce value added products cost effectively and safely while complying with health regulations. AINA: 1) That people/ developers are made to be complaint with land regulations and building codes in a way that forces them to be complaint (jail if necessary) and not just paltry fines that the developers of multi-million dollar houses find easy to pay but then ignore! Specifically we are referring to the "$24 million dollar" home built by Scott Watson Developers in Ninoole. This was built by on a cliff, having 500 seat tennis stadium& helicopter pad. They received fines, but this did not stop the building. 2. Development by Steve & Dylan Shopshire -also in Ninoole on the Makai side of Highway. Right now this appears to be a "scar" on the land, which seems to be inappropriately close to the Cliffside and disregard for runoff into the ocean . Please visit if you have not already to view their development work which appears to be inappropriate. STRONG COMMUNITIES: support for assisted living facilities and related health care facilities for elderly. Essential, because if you view the current demographics of Hamakua, majority of population is over 65. Walking/ biking paths along the old highway— seems like it we should make safety a priority so people can improve their health via walking/ biking. INFRASTRUCTURE: The Hakalau and Kolekole bridges are soon to require drastic overhauling and are already in urgent need for rebuilding. The Umauma Bridge is costing so many additional millions odollars and too much time for rebuilding because some historic group decided to put "history" above safety and cost effectiveness. We are winding up with the 100 year old Umauma Bridge being "recovered and supplemented" rather than a more safe approach to a newly built bridge. Safety is more important than history in this situation. This Umauma experience should not be duplicated for the Hakalau and Kolekole Bridges repairs/ rebuilding. This is a CDP comment in addition to the comments dated June 1, previously submitted. The following comments are related to: 1) Our request to retain our property's LUPAG designation as Low Density Urban; 2) The IAL LUPAG designation proposed for our property; and Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 5 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP 3) Our request to make the "de facto Rural" uses (created prior to statehood) for the 3 Laupahoehoe homestead lands, permanent by changing the zoning from Agriculture to Rural zoning for these homesteads. We would like to meet with you, when convenient, to discuss items 1 and 3 as you suggested in your email. In addition to the June 1 comments about keeping our property designated as Low Density Urban, I would like to note that urban uses extend to the church on Kihalani Homestead Road which is a commercial use (see parcel outlined in red below; TMK 3-5-004-082). The church is the logical buffer between Low Density Urban (or Rural based on the zoning we are requesting) and Agricultural. With regard to the County's use of the terms "Important Agriculture Lands" and "IAL", Planning stated at the 5-25-16 meeting that no COH procedures for selecting parcels for submission to the State Land Use Commission have been established. In the meantime Planning stated that "County IAL" only means current county zoning. Regardless, policies and issues about IAL are part of both the GP and the CDP. The IAL materials in the GP and CDP are not limited to "County IAL... i.e. zoning only" as discussed at the 5-25-16 meeting: but refer to State statutes and policies as well. Examples include 4.3.2 of the draft CDP "existing policy"; 4.3.3 Land Use Policy 4.3.3 "development and construction in Important Agricultural Land shall be limited to agriculture; and in the CDP rationale 4.3 that says "the [LUPAG"] designates agricultural lands in the Hamakua Planning Area to be preserved for agriculture and open space". This is State IAL wording. Also, these County IAL policies are worded as current, binding policy (in the case of the GP already binding; and in the case of the CDP, binding when approved by the Planning Commission and the County Council). For instance, Policy 4.3.3 would become law and be binding on landowners upon approval of the CDP regardless of the fact that there is no County process under way to identify IAL designation to the LUC. As I understand, at this time the State and LUC pre-empt County law on the subject of IAL. The County cannot legislate about the same IAL policies in State law without the LUC's and State's permission. Also there is no State statute listing IAL land uses; and the LUC has not confirmed any of the county lands IAL under the County Mandatory Designation program. This situation puts landowners in a confusing situation. Should a landowner conclude that State IAL is already in force by virtue of the 2005 GP and may be further in force when the CDP is approved? Would a landowner who disagrees with a County IAL thus be subject to some kind of statute of limitation? Is the County ready to issue a binding opinion about whether a particular parcel qualifies for list as State IAL now? Or are the County IAL provisions intended to become binding only when the State completes its IAL process (even if the GP and CDP do not specifically say so)? So my suggestion is that: Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP 1. The County and CDP change the LUPAG "IAL" designation wording to reference a "agriculture" or "Ag" designation; and 2. The GP should be amended and a caveat should be included in the CDP that any reference to "IAL" or "Important Agricultural Lands" will not be binding until the entire LUC IAL process is completed and a State bill is passed to define the land uses for Important Agricultural Lands. (the other option being to remove the IAL references in the GP and CDP) I also think it is not too early to start thinking about how to approach the designation of IAL parcels to the LUC. In the June 1 comments I submitted some suggestions about what the designation process might include, the criteria for designating a parcel IAL, and why our parcel would not qualify for IAL. A couple other comments about the designation process are: *there are many reasons why the Laupahoehoe Homestead lands should be re -zoned Rural (vs. agriculture) which is, by definition, not IAL *Planning assured us at the 5-25-16 meeting that not all of the current LUPAG County IAL would be designated as State IAL *the State IAL includes criteria that would exclude many Hawaii County agricultural parcels from IAL *the experience of both Kauai and Oahu, so far, has been that less than half of the agricultural zoned parcels become State IAL (leaving the other parcels to be subject to the current agricultural zoning) *despite the concerns of some in the public about losing agricultural land to housing, there is actually a good balance between agriculture and development: for instance, Hamakua agricultural zoning is 163,193 acres (not including open and no zone/government land) while various housing or commercial zoning takes up 687 acres (less that 1% of the total ag and development zoning). Since 2006 Hamakua has gained jobs; and investments in the community have grown source: Hamakua Agricultural Plan. see also "Can Hawaii Feed Itself' (http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/can-hawaii-feed-itself/) and "The Coast is Clear" http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/the-coast-is-clear/ *The IAL designations should be for the "best and most productive agriculturally zoned lands... according to uniform standards and criteria that are flexible, fair and acceptable." source: Hamakua Agricultural Plan. (see other criteria in the June 1 comments) *Rural uses (small farms) are also productive source: Hamakua Agricultural Plan; We are hoping that the County will soon change the zoning for the 3 Laupahoehoe Homesteads from County IAL to Rural since the County already calls the Homesteads "de facto Rural" *Small ag, while not IAL, can still contribute to agriculture: my wife and I support agriculture and practice agriculture on a small parcel with niche crops which provide a small stipend (but mostly exercise and satisfaction). We also support our community and have a long history of working for various causes including environmental, transportation, and education (including raising $450,000 to keep Laupahoehoe School from closing while it was going charter). The majority of our estate planning benefits environmental and conservation organizations in Hawaii. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP I live in mauka Onomea and have a 26 acre FARM where my family and I grow much of our own food. We have animals and greenhouses and many gardens with staple crops. I would like to comment in SUPPORT of the proposed LUPAG amendments that "adjust the makai coastal agricultural areas between Mill Road and makai of Kalaniana'ole School to LUPAG Agricultural to be consistent with their current County zoning and the State Land Use Agricultural District." We MUST "protect productive agricultural lands and their associated open space assets within the coastal and SMA lands makai of the Highway 19." 1 am very concerned about the endorsement of Agricultural Parks as I suspect that designation (within the preserved makai coastal agricultural areas) may be abused. I see the designation may be interpreted as a way to still subdivide precious agricultural land with the promise of farming. The present zoning as Conservation and/or Ag20 MUST remain in order to preserve the land- otherwise it will be developed with an Ag Park as an "excuse". There will be homes that have an option to farm in a community garden space- who says the homeowners will farm/garden and in the meantime there are HOMES where there could be crops of food that will feed our island. These will be homes with owners who drive cars that our traffic safety and bridges cannot handle. There will be people who will need emergency room services and our ER is already more than at its maximum. There are many consequences that I could mention but I want to make my simple point- DO NOT change the present County zoning. PLEASE do not change ANY of the zoning and be extremely cautious of any encouragement for Ag Parks. Please preserve Hamakua in AG so that we have the land and open space for future generations. Someday we may NEED to grow our own food- if the planes and ships don't come, we're on our own. Hamakua's rich soils can sustain us but NOT if there are homes everywhere! Mahalo for your heroic effort to gather the sentiments of the residents. Mahalo for executing the will of the people of Hamakua. Hamakua Community Development Plan Steering Committee Re: Comments on Draft Hamakua Development Plan Aloha Steering Committee members, We would like to thank each one of you for the time and effort that you have dedicated to this process. We fully realize that this effort involves tradeoffs; it is not easy to balance the needs of the community with those of private individuals and entities that form part of it. Comment 1: We are particularly encouraged by the policy intent to: (pg. 92, section 6.2.2) "Encourage and support the expansion of agriculture, including forestry and the macadamia nut industry. (GP 14.2.4.7.2) Support the development of a native hardwood industry. (GP 2.4.3.2 (c)); see also (GP 2.4.4.2 (e))." Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP Our Association supports all types of healthy productive forests and related forest industry, both native and non-native. We would like to suggest the following, more broad statement, by removing the word "native": "Encourage and support the expansion of agriculture, including forestry and the macadamia nut industry. (GP 14.2.4.7.2) Support the development of a hardwood industry. (GP 2.4.3.2 (c)); see also (GP 2.4.4.2 (e))." Comment 2: In another section, our association is concerned about the language in another section, which would appear to contradict the first. "Community Action 6: Educate residents on scenic viewshed importance and alternatives to tall, vegetative wind -breaks that impact viewsheds." We appreciate the desires to keep the Hamakua coast attractive for residents and visitors alike. However, we encourage you to consider that trees and other tall stature vegetation are indeed part of the viewshed in Hamakua, and far from detracting from it, add to the scenic qualities of this windward, moist and verdant coast. Trees, windbreaks and forests impart well known environmental benefits, such as soil stabilization, protection from high winds, and carbon sequestration. In Hawaii, trees have been planted for specific purposes, as fruit trees, to provide timber products, and to protect from drying and salt laden winds, among others. These are important purposes from those who live here, otherwise the trees would not have been planted to begin with. With this in mind, we ask that you consider revising the statement to read: "Community Action 6: Educate residents on scenic viewshed importance, reducing impacts to it as much as possible." About HFIA: The Hawai'i Forest Industry Association (HFIA) is a statewide nonprofit corporation established in Hawai'i in 1989 to promote healthy and productive forests and a sustainable forest industry through forest management, education, planning, information exchange, and advocacy HFIA has over 250 members, including professional foresters, millers, harvesters, growers, educators, retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, governments, nonprofits, horticulturists, and others interested in HFIA's mission of healthy and productive forests. I thank you for your consideration of these comments, and look forward to a Hamakua Community Development Plan that encourages forestry, as well as other land uses. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2016 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP Aloha Kakou! As you know, I worked on the Public Access Component of the Hamakua CDP from 2010 into 2012 while community input was actively gathered through workshops and meetings. The "Public Access Management" section in Appendix V4A: "'Aina: Natural and Cultural Resource Management Analysis" is the result of substantial community input and research. Being away from the project for the past 4 years enables me to look at it with a fresh perspective. The CDP has many moving parts and is highly complex. Mahalo for the opportunity to comment on the current draft. The following comments focus on Section 4.8 "Establish and Manage Public Access and Trails." I understand that the current draft strives to be concise while relying on the background rationale and details to be supported in the Appendix. I agree with that approach as long as the level of detail in the abbreviated version of the plan is sufficient to support the recommendations, and the reader knows where to find further explanations. • Generally, the January 2016 draft does a good job of highlighting the main policies and actions for Public Access. However, there is noticeably more detail in support of Policy 48, than in Policies 49 — 53. This is inconsistent, and the other policies would benefit from brief supportive statements. Policy 48 Element 10 should read, "....required of landowners," not "....required by landowners." • Similar to Policy 52, Policy 50 would benefit from references to the HRS sections that support this policy, i.e., HRS Sections 115-5 and 46-6.5. • The explanation for Policy 51 would be clearer if the phrase, "best adapted to trail use," were restated as "best adapted to non -motorized trail use." • Policy 52 is an important policy but needs to be supported by more information. How will public access potentials be assessed, documented, and protected and by whom? How and who will ensure that this policy becomes more than just good intentions? • It is unclear why Laupahoehoe Boat Ramp is the only specific location singled out in the policies when there are other locations within Hamakua, and North and South Hilo Districts, which have been identified as having exceptional public access value. Brief justification needs to be added to Policy 53. Won't reconstruction of the Laupahoehoe Boat Ramp require K6kua Action from the State Legislature, among others? • Why is Bishop Estate/Kamehameha Schools the only private landowner listed for K6kua Action 22 or 23? It is unclear which K6kua Action is being referred to here. • In general, the K6kua Actions need clarification. Are the parties listed in bold the only partners needed? K6kua Action 24, which is supported by HRS §171-26, should be distinguished from Policy 52 (HRS §46-1.5). • Throughout the document, the reader is being referred to policy numbers and actions that appear in other sections. There needs to be a way for the reader to locate those related policies and actions with ease. Perhaps the final draft should include a listing by page number and/or section where the policy and action numbers are primarily discussed? Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 10 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP • Finally in Appendix V4A (p. 204) "Liability Protection on Unimproved Public Lands," there is good news. Hawaii's Legislature in 2014 made the liability protections in Act 82 (SLH 2003) permanent. This section in the Appendix should be updated. For the details, see HRS §663-52. I attended the SpeakOut on 'Aina - Coastal on May 7, 2015. I would like to object to the proposed LUPAG map, found on page 54, and entitled Figure 12, Hakalau/Wailea 2015. This proposed map changes the zoning of TMK 29002079 and TMK 29002081 from industrial to Low Density Urban with one small area remaining Industrial. The properties in question are located in Hakalau, on the site of the former Hakalau Sugar Plantation, on the coastal cliffs overlooking Hakalau Bay. Except for two cement structures that were former warehouses, the property has been vacant since the Plantation closed in the 1990's. One building is leased to farmers for sorting sweet potatoes and ginger; the other is used as a residence. 39 residential lots make up the rest of Hakalau makai of the highway. Of those 39 lots, 14 are vacant and undeveloped. In fact, the subdivision across the street which the same owner was permitted to subdivide and sell off in 2004, after 12 years still has 6 vacant and undeveloped lots. Clearly, there is no pressing need for the County to approve another subdivision and sale of more residental lots in the area. Objective Number 1 of the Hamakua CDP is to.... protect, restore, and enhance watershed ecosystems, sweeping views, and open spaces from mauka forests to makai shorelines, while assuring responsible public access for recreational, spiritual, cultural, and sustenance practices. The Plan further states that the following strategy will be used in proposing LUPAG changes: Factor 1: Minimize new coastal development. "To further this objective in guiding development, a review of the current land uses and designations in coastal areas was performed and changes are being recommended in areas not yet developed but have LUPAG designations that guide future development to this coastal area. Recommendations are made in these undeveloped coastal areas to protect the shoreline as open space and priority viewsheds whenever possible. " The proposed change of the LUPAG map of Hakalau is not supported by the stated Objectives of the Plan. In fact it is directly opposed by Factor 1, Minimize new coastal development. The owner of the properties has filed a Request for Zoning Change in order to develop a residential subdivision right on the shoreline of this coastal property. Since these properties are coastal, have sweeping views and, except for the two buildings, are open space, they should be protected from development. Changing the zoning to Low Density Urban would only result in the type of development the HCDP is designed to discourage. If the HCDP proposes a future zoning change of a shoreline coastal property, it should not invite development. If it is truly the objective of the Hamakua Community Development Plan to protect coastal lands from development no changes should be proposed that favors a developer. The properties in Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 11 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP question are being considered for PONC acquisition to permit a park, owned by the people of Hawaii, to be protected for future generations as open space. Hopefully, the owner will agree to sell the property to the people of Hawaii, through the PONC acquisition process. Section 19-57 and 19-60 of Real Property Tax Code Can the CDP support a wide range of agricultural endeavors by supporting retention of Sections 19-57 and 19-60 of the Real Property Taxes Code (enacted 1981)? Section 19-57 provides a tax incentive for owners and lessees to retain agricultural zoning and to develop and use their land "on a continuous and regular basis" for an agricultural use. The tax incentive under Section 19-57 is only available for the parts of an agricultural zoned property that are actually used for agriculture; and includes a roll back provision if the agricultural use is discontinued. Section 19-60 of the Code also provides for a tax incentive for 10 - year dedicated agricultural use and primarily applies to larger agricultural pursuits. Section 19-57 was enacted, among other reasons, to address the reality that agricultural zoning (while typically requiring 5, 20, or more acres) actually includes many parcels that are much smaller due to the way agricultural lands were subdivided before the enactment of the Planning and Zoning Codes. Section 19-57 provides the following benefits to Hawaii Island which, in turn, justify the tax incentive: *incentivizes smaller parcels (not necessarily classified as IAL) to remain in agricultural use as opposed to being re -zoned and or used for non-agricultural purposes; *incentivizes owners of Section 19-57 land to accept the use restrictions that affect "ag" zoned parcels; *discourages agricultural lots from becoming non-contiguous by mitigating those factors in a mixed-use environment which eventually make farming non -feasible such as rising land values and conflicts of "quiet use" between residential owners and farmers (noise, use of chemicals, etc.); *promotes local food, livestock, and timber sufficiency and production for parcels that might otherwise stand fallow; *recognizes that even a small Section 19-57 "ag" operation can provide the foregoing benefits, and combined with the other non -dedicated users can provide these benefits on a significant scale in the aggregate. Participation in the Section 19-57 program is not without sacrifice and investment. Each of the participants enrolled under Section 19-57 have had to: *purchase agricultural land (in recent times at a premium) that often does not have the amenities of residential neighborhoods; *invest money to develop their agriculture including clean-up of debris and rock fields, remediation of arsenic contamination from sugar cane production, amendment of substandard soil, grading, building fences, and creating plots for agriculture; *conduct farming operations that require significant financial outlay for tools, equipment, fertilizers, supplies, etc.; Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 12 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2016 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP *tending to farming activities on a daily basis; *establishing a channel for distributing production; *accepting the restrictions of living on agricultural land. Working a small farm is not an easy task. Since 1981 when Section 19-57 was enacted, thousands of families have agreed to provide these benefits of small-scale agriculture and invest their money to create small-scale agriculture based on their reliance on the County's representation that any agricultural use within Section 19-57 would allow them to receive a small tax incentive. Today about 10,000 families are in the Section 19-57 program. The Section 19-60 program is fundamentally different than the Section 19-57 program in that it targets large commercial farming operations; offers a more generous tax incentive; has different goals than the Section 19-57 program (see above); and enrolls about 500 businesses. Essentially Section 19-60 rewards larger farms with an incentive for maintaining industrial -size agricultural operations. It is worth considering that both Section 19-57 and 19-60 were enacted in 1981. This shows that the County viewed these two programs as being different and equally justified. Both programs provide public benefits; and both have provisions to address non-compliance and rollback. Also, both programs are probably equally "dedicated" since Section 19-57 program farmers tend to continue their agricultural operations for many years. A Bill (317) has been introduced which if enacted would establish a 3 or 5 year dedicated incentive while simultaneously phasing out Section 19-57. Upon phase-out the Code would be left with two tax incentive measures that differ primarily by the length of the dedication but not otherwise. Bill 317 would disqualify at least 500 Section 19-57 farmers from the Bill 317 program based on acreage criteria alone. Also, because the Bill 317 program is modeled on the "industrial -oriented" Section 19-60 criteria, it would likely disqualify many other small scale Section 19-57 farmers based on administrative decisions about their scale of production. And during the transition period Bill 317 would phase out the incentive for Section 19-57 farmers that could force more Section 19-57 farmers off their land or out of agriculture. The CDP should support kokua policies such as the Section 19-57 and the Section 19-60 programs which support a wide range of agricultural endeavors and preserve the agricultural nature of the Hamakua Coast. The Section 19-57 program has gotten some bad press because a few people have been accused of "gaming" the system by "taking advantage of the agricultural exemption without growing crops" according to some commentators (West Hawaii Today, November 18, 2014). In fact this appears to be the only criticism of Section 19-57 when the other benefits are considered. But even if some people in the Section 19-57 program have acted irresponsibly does this justify repealing the entire Section 19-57 program for all 10,000 families in it now? That would be like taking away drivers licenses from everyone because a minority of drivers are irresponsible. To list a few points about how small-scale agriculture is typically regarded: Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 13 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2016 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP *Acreage: small parcels can produce specialized products (example coffee, niche crops and even forestry, if the right timber is grown), especially when a plot is too steep or rocky for other crops. CTAHR supports this kind of micro -farming. USDA recognizes farms as including operations as small as 1 acre. Bill 317 would disqualify farmers who have timber operations on less than 10 acres even for lucrative exotic woods; and would disqualify pastures that are less than 10 acres that can also make a contribution to island agriculture. *Income: Department of Agriculture defines farming as $1000.00/year gross or less; Section 19-57 , as written, includes subsistence farming or charitable donations of produce: which would be very justified on Hawaii Island given the high cost of food and the lack of sustainable food production. Any farmer providing food for Hawaii is providing a public benefit. Also, USDA reports "more than one-quarter of farms have no sales in a typical year " and are still regarded as "farms". Yet Bill 317 sets a strict threshold of $2000 net per year under penalty of disqualification. Small scale farmers are sometimes forced to work at other jobs to support the farm and do not "make a living" with farming: this does not mean they are not making a contribution to agriculture that benefits the community. If Bill 317 is further considered by the Council, we think that land that is already enrolled in the Section 19-57 program should be grandfathered and left in that regime with the same requirements and the same tax incentives as long as the land is used "on a continuous and regular basis" for an agricultural use. This is only fair to the thousands of families who have purchased agricultural parcels (especially small ones) with the intent to farm; who have invested their money to improve their property; who have accepted the restricted uses allowed on agricultural lands; and who have made the land productive, all in reliance on the Section 19-57 program Both Section 19-57 and Section 19-60 are programs that work well and are justified. They should be left alone. Subject: (1) Parcel ID 3-5-004-003-0000\ 35-2120 Hawaii Belt Rd. (2) Draft of Hamakua Development Plan (CDP) Thank you for the information provided to Carol. Having been unable to attend the Community Meetings, it helped us to better understand the current CDP Process. The subject property was purchased by my wife and me in June, 1994 and we have resided on it since that date. We plan to continue to do so for the future. The property/parcel is bordered; on the South, by the year round Kihalani Stream (with thick trees and vegetation;) on the East and North, by 250'-350' inaccessible, vertical cliffs; and, on the West, by the Hawaii Belt Road. It is not contiguous to any other properties. The property consists of approximately 11.71 acres; with 6.2 acres maintained with 25 yr. old macadamia nut trees, with modest annual income; one acre planted in mixed/mature tropical fruit trees; two and one-half acres in home and lawn use; and, two acres in mixed wooded growth, stream - gulch area. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 14 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP The property is directly accessible by drive -way, from the Hawaii Belt Road. It possesses approved underground utilities -connection. Importantly, the Mauka West areas of the bordering Hi -Way contain the Laupahoehoe Transfer Station, Swimming Pool, Library and Laupahoehoe Charter School. The property has always had dedicated agricultural/conservation/homeowner usage, or some combination thereof. There are no plans to request changes of its usage. I am writing to object to the 2016 Draft of the Hamakua CDP, effectively rezoning/categorizing all of our property status/use (LUPAG) as "OPEN". A "Rural" designation is more appropriate/acceptable. In summary, I/We do not concur with the re-designation/rezoning/re-classification of all our property to "OPEN". We desire to retain all currently existing rights to our property, including the ability to rebuild our home/garage, in the unlikely event of a disaster: Hurricane, Fire or Earthquake.... among others. Again, the LUPAG Category of "RURAL" would be more appropriate, at least for some of the property, as over one half is in Agricultural use. I/we request that your team review our concerns and revise the Draft CDP accordingly. On reflection, your suggestion/ idea that it might be more appropriate for our parcel to be designated Open along the shoreline and Agricultural on the mauka side, where the six acres of macadamia nut trees are located, is reasonable. That designation then would coincide with what is reality and what has been the land's usage for many years: with no plans/reason to change it. We would view the Agriculture -Open designation favorably and concur with its use in the CDP Proposal document. During our monthly Waipio Taro Farmers Association meeting last night, it was discussed amongst several of the Taro Farmers attending the recent CDP Honokaa meeting, that we insert into the CDP, language (where appropriate) stating that'river maintenance work shall be coordinated with Traditional Waipio Taro Farmers Association waterhead section leaders'. While through the Waipio Valley Stakeholders Alliance, we've since collaboratively formed a Stream Maintenance committee, some in the Association felt that the recognition should be inserted into the CDP for longevity reasons. Please let me know if you have any questions. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 15 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP Dear Hawaii County Planners: The agricultural section of the CDP needs a lot of work. Frankly, I am very disappointed that it doesn't seem like any stakeholders have been involved in the formulation of these ideas, despite holding hearings. ° Any parcel less than 20 acres should not be rezoned to "Important Agricultural Land." They should be rezoned to "Rural" or left as they currently are as "LDU". I own a 15 acre farm which has not been able to be economically sustainable over the 13 years we have owned it, despite being certified organic and selling high value products such as papaya, lychee, citrus, bananas, avocados and other fruits and growing Iamb meat. Expecting any parcel less than 20 acres to be an economically viable unit is extremely dubious. ° CDP section 4.5.6 Community Action has extremely dubious language about "windbreak alternatives." I doubt any of you have tried to grow tree crops along the Hamakua Coast but I can guarantee that it will not be accomplished without the extensive use of windbreak trees. I would like to see all language suggesting the use of "windbreak alternatives" as a viable option be struck from this document. ° Needing a 1000 foot buffer zone for beekeepers is also very dubious. Where did this number come from and what is it based on? Do you actually have any data that supports this distance? We would like to add our input to the Hamakua Community Development Plan and the proposed Land Use Planning changes that have been suggested for the Ookala Village Community area. We have spoken with several people of O'okala Village Area in regard to what they felt would be most valuable for their community to create a comfortable, safe, economically positive, family oriented environment to live and thrive in. The following are several needs and requests that were brought up for consideration to add to the quality of their way of life and provide a means for the next generations to continue to appreciate and respect the family and land of Hawaii. •One of the items that have been voiced many times is the need for affordable homes. Many have and are leaving the community of their village in the hunt for affordable living. Their desire is to remain in the villages they grew up in and be close to family as they raise their own children, but the opportunity to purchase homes is miniscule. Affordable housing could be a huge benefit to the community and potentially add needed support to the local school system. •Along with the affordable housing situation is the need for senior citizen or retirement housing, including a type of facility for providing health care. This could be either in the form of intergenerational homes or organized living centers for seniors. It is the desire for the family to remain intact and involved with each other on a daily basis. Many of the seniors are having to go elsewhere during their senior years because necessary services are not available in the village or close by. If these services were available in the village the family unit would have more stability and continue to profit from the knowledge, wisdom and love the senior generation has to offer. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 16 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP •Within in both the affordable housing and/or senior living areas there could easily be created community gardens and orchards, which would facilitate a revitalized self-sufficiency from the land and add enjoyment and a sense of pride to all those who would participate, and possibly add to the revenue of the family income by sales at a Saturday market or small local community market. •Along with the addition of the housing there has been voiced a concern for the need to be able to work close to home. A type of mixed use housing that would allow for expansion of a small cottage industry, possibly with living quarters on the upper floor and commercial shops or services on the lower floors, could add this beneficial potential to the community. These shops could be used to promote the local people and enrich their lifestyles, such as a small market for selling of locally grown produce and flowers grown in the community gardens or individual properties, or their own creative endeavors, such as an art gallery or quilt shop, etc. Integrating offices for part time dental and medical services, legal or accounting needs in the mix of shops is a practical and wanted possibility. •One resident voiced the potential to house a Regional Fire and/or Police facility as it is centrally located on the Hamakua Coast. This could significantly reduce response time for emergencies which would create a more secure community life for the people. •Several of the village residents suggested the need to maintain local and safe access to the historical fishing areas along the coast. A desire for trails along the coastline, to enjoy the beauty of the water and accommodate a healthy lifestyle activity was also apparent. •A suggestion that goes along with the quest for a healthy lifestyle and the need for more activities in the community was the development of an additional park and recreation facilities, possibly at the old Ookala School. •The idea of having a historical interpretive center which would focus on the local history and people, and share the peoples' rich heritage was also brought up. This could be a program that would greatly benefit by the contribution and involvement of the senior population. With their knowledge, memory and respect of things past, they could inspire and motivate the current and future generations to keep the spirit of the island traditions and civilization alive and active. All of these suggestions would and could be actualized under the current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide or LUPAG in the 2005 General Plan. O'okala was granted one of the very few Urban Expansion Areas along the rural Hamakua Coast. This allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, or industrial -commercial. O'okala has been granted a generous area for Low Density Urban expansion. To Change this planning to what has been suggested in the CDP would be to disallow the above desires of the residents and could potentially send the village into a downward spiral eventually to lose the community altogether. It is our request that the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide or LUPAG in the O'okala Village area would not be revised. There is no evidence that the planning methodology has ever been abused in our Village area. If the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide or LUPAG was to be changed to what the draft CDP plan suggested for O'okala none of the items noted by the residents would be reasonably plausible! The planning process should remain in such a way that it is beneficial to the people of Ookala village, so that Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 17 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP they may continue to live and grow in an enhanced community, which would be increasingly suitable for the needs of the existing generations and the generations to come. Since the start of the process, things have changed. One is related to the growing elderly population and the need for assisted living and clinics close to where they currently live. Clinics and assisted living centers are not specifically mentioned as examples of "health" related facilities, however, it is suggested that these be included since assisted living facilities are not necessarily referred to as "health" facilities. Additionally, the notion that larger is better does not apply to rural areas, and clinics that can serve urgent care and those routine health care needs that do not require a medical center (HMC), can be very effective, timely in service, and lower cost to build/operate. Too, as people get older, driving longer distances becomes more difficult. Clinics closer to population centers would be easier to access. Clearly there are issues between neighbors when it comes to honey bee hives. Here's an example. I'll try to find another example from Kauai that was particularly ludicrous and share it with you. We know enough about honey bee behavior to craft sensible regulations. No doubt there need to be buffers, design restrictions, and limits on the numbers of hives permitted where there are denser populations, but the regulations should be based on scientific knowledge and not fear. Suggested changes to " Figure 12. Hakalau/Wailea" rationale #1 Suggested Change related to rationale for "preferred land use" Current description "...due to the sites proximity to the ocean, this parcel is no longer seen as suitable for heavy industry and therefore the preferred land use would be for it to be consistent with its neighboring land uses, which are designated as residential." Suggestion The fact that what was formerly UpCamp Hakalau (mauka of Old Mamalahoa Hwy) is now a new subdivision seems a weak rationale for determining that the makai land right beside the bluff and the Bay should be valued as residential also. In light of the community's input to the CDP discouraging coastal bluff development, is there room to reconsider that language in the next draft? I understand the requirement to adhere to the GP- dictated LUPAG Map designations but do they have to be rationalized in this way in the CDP when they don't track with the community input to the CDP? #2 Suggested Change regarding the concept of revitalization" in Hakalau Current description in Hakalau/Wailea rationale it is the County's preferred land use for these towns [ old plantation towns] to be revitalized..." Suggested change It seems unrealistic that land that was formerly a plantation town should be designated for revitalization" as a town, without regard to what is left of it or to what it has become. Unlike a number of old plantation towns along the coast, Hakalau was torn down, almost in total. A new subdivision does Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 18 Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2016 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP exist above Mamalahoa Hwy, but the place as a whole still has a rural character. My concern is that revitalize" can be used as part of a marketing narrative by developers whether or not there's sufficient reality to base it on. Is it necessary to use this word? I don't see it used for any of the other LUPAG rationale write ups for the other old plantation town locations, save for Laupahoehoe's already existing commercial core. #3 Suggested change regarding the presumption of redevelopment" Current description TMK 2- 9- 002: 079 and 2- 9002081) are privately owned and slated for redevelopment." Suggestion The statement " slated for redevelopment" implies an inevitability in regards rezoning approval that does not exist. Does that need to be there? Like "revitalize, the word "redevelopment" implies that there is something present from which to rebuild. That could be the case in such places as Honokaa Town and some others, but not so for Hakalau and its remaining undeveloped land. And, here again, I don't see the word being used in rationale for any of the other old plantation town locations. In the interest of clarity, I would like to suggest either "new development" or just plain " development." Roof/ gutters/ termites: Honokaa- lower and upper field concession roof/ gutters/ termites Honokaa pool- roof/ gutters Pa' auilo- annex roof/ gutters/ termites Papaaloa- gym and annex roof/ gutters/ termites Honomu-termites Papaikou- gym/ community center roof/ gutters/ termites During our monthly Waipio Taro Farmers Association meeting last night, it was discussed amongst several of the Taro Farmers attending the recent CDP Honokaa meeting, that we insert into the CDP, language (where appropriate) stating that'river maintenance work shall be coordinated with Traditional Waipio Taro Farmers Association waterhead section leaders'. While through the Waipio Valley Stakeholders Alliance, we've since collaboratively formed a Stream Maintenance committee, some in the Association felt that the recognition should be inserted into the CDP for longevity reasons. Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info 19