This is a letter I recently submitted to the Neighborhood Commission office as clarification and addition to the record as it relates to the Puohala Village rezone proposal.
Neighborhood
Commission Office
Kapalama Hale,
925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
January 19, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of Kāne‘ohe
to be included in the record from the January 18, 2018 Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood
Board meeting. The board voted on a
motion to oppose a development and zone change from Preservation to
Residential. I am currently serving as
the Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board Chair and as a member of the Kāne‘ohe Bay
Regional Council, I am directly involved in these matters and share the
following:
In this case, the landowner purchased land designated as Preservation
land and has tried to develop as a cemetery, an authorized use for that
zone. In that 2017 cemetery brief, it
was clear to the community members and neighborhood board members present that
the process of operating a cemetery and issues like leeching chemicals,
grading, flooding traffic and sustainment in perpetuity were not adequately
explained and the board consequently and unanimously opposed the cemetery plan.
Looking for a new opportunity to develop the land, the owner
tried development of homes on the property which would require a zone change
from P2 Preservation to R-7.5 Residential.
Developers conducted a survey sent to 576 nearby residents
of which only 86 were returned. I am
unaware if the surveys had self-stamped return envelopes which may have contributed
to the 15% return rate on such a contentious issue in the community. That
return rate may also be affected by the wording of the survey in that there
were no opportunities for respondents to oppose the project, only agree to
different development possibilities.
On January 18, 2018, the developer made a presentation at
the Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board with the plans to develop homes. Again, a great deal of concern from the
community with wide-ranging concerns.
Community letter attached. A
motion for the board to oppose the development was 5 to oppose and six
abstentions – the motion failed. In my
experience on this board, abstentions usually mean, “I need more data to make
an informed decision”. Kāne‘ohe board
members are very thoughtful and don’t blindly vote one way or the other. They require
input and data; as do I. Nothing more should be read into that decision other
than more data is needed.
Reviewing TMK’s 450300490000 (Horseshoe Land Co. LLC),
450180490000 (DOHO LTD), 450180500000 (Parkside
Grotto Ltd.) and 450280070000 (Waikalua Farms Inc.) All these properties
connect to each other and three abut Kāne‘ohe
Stream. All properties except
Waikalua Farms are Preservation Lands and were all purchased around 2010. The Waikalua Farms property is zoned both
Residential and Preservation and I’m unable to determine why.
Also, at the meeting on January 18, 2018, a gentleman
announced that a cemetery was an authorized use and if agreement could not be reached,
they “could just go ahead and build a cemetery.” I reminded him that the previous cemetery
proposal was not well-thought out and lacked a sustainability element and would
need to be better developed to have board concurrence.
Another side note is that the Puohala village residents are
highly sensitive to increased traffic.
Their neighborhood is subject to increased traffic load as people
wanting to shortcut the Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive – Kamehameha Highway intersection
will use Puohala Street and Pua Inia Street as well as Makalani and Pua Alowalo
Streets to avoid lights and main arterial traffic. These are public roads and
may be used by anyone, but the fact remains that in many cases, especially
during peak hours and sometimes simply during a change of stoplights, a person
can be stuck on a feeder street for many minutes waiting to turn onto a main
road just to leave the subdivision. I
know because it’s happened to me when visiting Puohala. So, when the developer announces that the
number of cars entering and exiting the proposed properties is very minimal and
is based on approved engineering metrics, it seems that the developer is only
giving the best scenarios that support their desire to move ahead. To the residents, the claim seems
disingenuous because of extended ‘ohana living arrangements and number of
vehicles per household and further steels the community’s resolve to stop the
development.
An explanation from Department of Planning and Permitting
indicates the following:
1.
After a zone application has been received and
accepted as complete, a 45-day public comment period will take place and all
property owners with 300 feet of the project will be notified. Additional notifications will be made to:
a.
Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board
b.
State legislators
c.
City Council members
d.
News media
e.
Members of the public who’ve requested to be on
the mailing list for zone changes for the Koolaupoko Sustainable Communities
Plan area.
2.
All comments including NB minutes will then be
reviewed and sent to other agencies (including federal, state, and city for
their review)
a.
DPP will then consider all input and decide.
3.
Other
opportunities to comment in addition to the 45-day comment period are:
a.
The Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing before making a decision
b.
The City Council and its Zoning & Housing
Committee
At the meeting I asked if a hui of residents and developers
could form to work out the differences and/or possibilities and I offer some closing
questions.
·
Would traffic calming somehow discourage people
from using the village as a cut-through?
·
Is anyone interested in forming a hui where
frank and honest discussion could ensue? I would volunteer to facilitate.
·
Is there any proposed use that the community
would accept?
·
Why is the Waikaua Farms property zoned both
Residential and Preservation?
·
What is the formula an organization uses to
sustain its cemetery in perpetuity?
·
When two sides are diametrically opposed – try
to reduce the gap of perception between the two.
Respectfully submitted,
Mo Radke, Chair
Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board
Kāne‘ohe Bay Regional Council
No comments:
Post a Comment