HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-2010-Doc15925:•
• •
MINUTE S
PLANNING COMMITTEE
January 13, 2010
A meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the County of
Kauai, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Councilmember Jay Furfaro, Chair,
at the Historic County Building, Room 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday,
January 13, 2010, at 9:39 a.m., after which the following members answered the
call of the roll:
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable Jay Furfaro
Honorable Daryl W. Kaneshiro
Honorable Lani T. Kawahara
Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami
Honorable Bill "Kaipo" Asing, Ex-Officio Member
Honorable Dickie Chang, Ex-Officio Member
JAY FURFARO (COMMITTEE CHAIR): I would like to now call the
Planning Committee to order. Let the record show that all members are present.
We have the Minutes of the December 9, 2009 Planning Committee to be approved.
May I have a motion to approve such.
Minutes of the December 9, 2009 Planning Committee Meeting.
TIM BYNUM (COMMITTEE MEMBER): Move to approve.
DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI (COMMITTEE MEMBER): Seconded.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, and seconded by
Councilmember Kawakami, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the
December 9, 2009 Planning Committee Meeting was approved.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Any comments? If
not all those in favor say "aye".
Committee Members: Aye.
Mr. Furfaro: I do want to make a couple of
announcements before we get into the individual committee items. First of all in
this morning's meeting I would like to deal with the Bill No. 2328 first as we have
asked for some presentations from people that carry a large amount of history with
us. I would also like to say that the bill addressing the TVR,s on Ag land, you may
have a communication already from the County Attorney asking us to consider
scheduling a follow up meeting with them in Executive Session to consider legal
advice that they would like to provide us, so that would probably be moved to
receive today so.
Mr. Bynum: Deferral.
Mr. Furfaro: Defer, I'm sorry. I would also like to say
that, no that's just the order that I'm going to take it then I'm going to fall back into
the order as posted. So on that note, may I ask that we take item I believe it's
•
•
2010-1 communication from Mr. Bynum as member of the Planning Department
asking for presentation on this Ag Open bill from Mr. Keith Nitta. Are there any
questions in that order that I'm going to take them in my Committee? If not, we're
going to go ahead. I don't need that item read since I just covered it and we're going
to go ahead, I'm going to ask Mr. Nitta to come up. And while Mr. Nitta comes up, I
do want to say this really gives us an opportunity to have a good understanding of
items associated also with the CZO. The history and continuity you know we have a
number of retirements that have occurred in the Planning Department and we have
seen a few of more senior people actually retired. I'm delighted that Keith is willing
to be here. The CZO you know is a very sophisticated document and you know we
do hear a lot about this upcoming update which is scheduled for us. But I always
believe that's kind of a forward looking document and to be a forward document
that was based on the big question is you know when we lose sugar, how would we
find ourselves prepared to handle agriculture. At that time not knowing what
might be an alternative product but that is certainly one of the reasons that I'm
delighted that through Mr. Bynum and myself, we've been able to ask Keith to come
forward. So I'm going to suspend the rules Keith and I'm going to turn the floor to
you.
PL 2010-1 Communication (12/30/2009) from Councilmember Tim Bynum,
requesting time for a presentation by Keith Niita on Bill No.
2339, relating to Development Standards in the Open
District.
[This item was deferred.]
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KEITH NITTA: Thank you. I do have a powerpoint
presentation and I noticed that they're setting up. But before I start the
presentation I'd like to first of all thank Planning Committee Chair Furfaro and
Councilmember Bynum for inviting me to do this presentation because I felt that it
was~very important with the pending bill that and in my discussions with them that
the Councilmembers have some insight and background to how the open zone was
created so at the request of Councilmember Bynum and Planning Committee Chair
Furfaro, I've prepared the presentation to be more informative and hopefully to give
you more background on the purpose of why the open zone was written as such.
Mr. Furfaro: Keith for some of the newer members, I
know for myself, I was on the Planning Commission so, could you also give a
background of yourself?
Mr. Nitta: Oh okay.
LANI KAWAHARA (COMMITTEE MEMBER): Yes.
Mr. Nitta: I have thirty-one (31) years in Planning,
three (3) years with the State of Hawaii in the Department of Land and Natural
Resources it was... I started off at the State Parks Division to do in-house planning.
Some of the projects that I did in-house planning for one was that stands out is
Diamond Head, the Diamond Head crater. I was then transferred to the
Chairman's office to do a conservation district planning. And it was interesting
because I was there at the time when Governor Ariyoshi was in office and it was a
state move to redo the conservation district. The conservation district was almost
like how Kauai used to be, way back when, when they had no zoning. The
2
\~
• •
conservation district had just one (1) zone, so I was involved in the zoning of the
conservation district which was an exciting project. Then in 1978 I moved back
home to Kauai and with the Planning Department and from 1983 - 93 I was in
charge of the subdivisions, I was assigned to actually build a subdivision section of
the Department. Then in 93 after the hurricane, right after the hurricane Iniki, I
was the temporary, I mean I acted as Deputy for a year for the Department. Then
subsequent to that Mayor Yukimura asked me to build a long range planning
division which is where I started in 94 and where I ended in 2006. So I've had
about thirty-one (31) years of experience with the County and State.
Okay ah...
Ms. Kawahara: Thank you.
Mr. Nitta: Hey. Sounds like my resume, thank you. I
have several things to say before I begin my presentation and first of all when asked
by the two (2) Councilmembers to do this presentation, I really felt strongly about
that this would be a good opportunity to show some respect to the people who youu
know put in a lot of effort in designing the CZO in 1972. Because throughout the
later part of my career at the Planning Department, I heard a lot of criticism about
the open zone and why it was written, the way it was written. And some of the
comments and concerns I thought warranted an explanation you know and the
people on the wall over there and soon you guys will be up there too, I think the
people involved in drafting the CZO and this Planning Commission, Planning
Department staff, County Councilmembers and members of the public who were all
involved in the process, I felt did a really good job and they were really I feel good
reasons for the open zone written as such. But it's unfortunate that like
Councilmember Furfaro had just mentioned that'you know with the sugar industry
going down, things changed, but nevertheless the efforts that these people put forth
warranted I think some explanation and they didn't do it... just slap it together -and
out it went. Ah, I think they did a good job.
Secondly, I would like to commend the Planning Department for the proposed
bill because when taking a look at it, I try not to look at it not from a really
microscopic perspective but one of more from a metrical perspective and the bill
does two (2) things and I ask myself two (2) questions regarding the bill. One (1)
does it resolve the current issues that we have with the open zone? My answer was
yes. (inaudible) how and why. I mean how?
First, it resolves the what I think is imbalances and I'll get into that in my
slide presentation but it resolves the issue of the contiguous lot provision, the one
(1) time subdivision, the sliding scale and a cap on density. I think those four (4)
points are very important and the bill does address that and those are the current
issues.
The second question I ask myself was, does this bill help us to move forward
or help the county to move forward? Definitely and it... I think in general it helps
us to move forward in one (1) important way and again from a macro perspective, it
levels the playing field and you'll hear me say this throughout my presentation,
leveling of the playing field and what I'm talking about is a leveling of the land use
playing field. Because right now the open zone, because of circumstances with
agriculture and everything, have somewhat been imbalanced or skewed what... the
best analogy I can give you on land use regulations and how it plays into part of
the... growth of the island and the economy is that, land use regulations tend to be
3
• •
like a fulcrum, so if you have a... let's says this one end of the spectrum, let's say
this is low development, this is mass development, wherever you... the land use
regulations will be this fulcrum, it will either tip it this way or that way but what
you ideally want is it to be in the middle. But right now it's skewed a little this way
because the open zone has been looked upon as now provider of housing. In terms
of subdivision, it's been looked upon as the easier place to subdivide because you
don't have to worry about the one (1) time subdivision. So in a sense it's imbalanced
so I think the proposed bill with the Planning Department and I would really like to
commend them on it is that it kind of switches the fulcrum to now try to put things
in balance and with this balance I believe the county can now move forward with
the CZO update and whatever they have to do in terms of managing the open zone
and managing land use. So with that I would like to start my presentation.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse my Keith before we do I have just
two (2) items for the audience after we deal with the presentation 2010, we will go
to the Bill 2339,, the rules say that you can... you can speak on both Bills... I mean
both agenda .items but if you could keep it until we get the bill which will be right
after Keith's presentation. And also I assume we have Mike Dyer in the audience
but Keith you will be talking about all this 1971 and the closing of Kilauea sugar
and some of the issues there.
Mr. Nitta: Right and I'm glad Mike Dyer is here
because I think he can supplement and maybe even add more insight to what I'm
about to present to you especially as it relates to Kilauea because Kilauea has
always been the... I would say like the magnet to those open zone issues.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay before we shut off the lights, if there
are any members that would like to relocate, now is the time to do it.
Mr. Nitta: Before I start how many of you
Councilmembers have actually seen the open zone map? I mean what it looks like.
How many of you haven't? Okay.
No, that's the General Plan.
Ms. Kawahara:
Mr. Nitta:
Ms. Kawahara:
Mr. Nitta:
Because I want to show you what t
of relate to what I'm talking about.
Oh it's not in here?
No.
Okay then no.
Then Peter has it? Can I start it backwards?
he open zone map looks like so you folks can kind
Hey that's the end, my mother used to always tell me that when she was
done with something. It's ah "the work is finished". Just some... and I'm starting
backwards and this is more like a footnote to give you more information about the
open zone. For Kauai which is highly unusual in terms of in comparison to the rest
of the other counties. We have fifty percent (50%) of our lands in the conservation
district and our agricultural district percentage wise is the smallest of all four (4)
counties, at thirty-nine percent (39%). Our urban areas about four point five
percent (4.5%) and the rural district is about half a percent but oops... wrong one. I
did an assumption and is that if twenty-five percent (25%) of this agricultural
4
• •
district here, the a hundred forty thousand (140,000) acres that we have on Kauai
were zoned open, then we have a potential density of about seventy-four hundred
(7,400) units in the open zone. On the low end if ten percent (10%) of the
agricultural district were zoned open, we would have a potential about twenty-eight
hundred (2,800) units in the open zone. Just to give you an example of what twenty-
eight hundred (2,800) is, it would be almost what the Kalaheo is, Kalaheo and
Lawa`i and Omao included, that would be about twenty-eight hundred (2,800) units.
So it will be on the low end but the Planning Department while I was there never
did a real, because of the immensity of the work, calculation of actually how much of
the land is in open but so I went on the... it's somewhere in between twenty-eight
hundred (2,800) and seventy-four hundred (7,400) that's potentially available in the
open zone, in the agricultural district. The only thing here I wanted to point out to
you is that Kaua`i... and this is as of 2006, we have about almost close to twenty
thousand (20,000) single-family units here on Kauai. Of the twenty thousand
(20,000) units, close to twenty thousand (20,000) about I would say because this is
in 2005 when I was ending my stay at the Planning Department and this is where
the data is obtained from. You have about sixteen hundred (1,600) units in the
agricultural district, about how much is that in the open? I'm not certain. Your
guess would be as good as mine. This is what the open zone looks like,
Councilmember Kawahara, I think you were looking at the General Plan map. It's
these portions over here, this is Kilauea, this would be Kilauea Town, crater hill is
here, these are the open zones, you see these little fingers that stick out? That
would be open, what the open districts looks like. Just a footnote, Kilauea valley is
open zoned but during the North Shore Plan update in 85, we changed the zoning to
include a .special treatment resource overlay, to better manage that valley. This
would be what I think the Lihu`e-Kapa`a district and you see these fingers here are
all the open zoned. This would be the Koloa district, I mean the map haven't come
out clear but, you can see generally what the open zone looks like that this bill is
referring to. Open zoned is also is included in the urban district, this is Kalaheo,
where I live. You have open in urban as well and but the open in the Kalaheo area
is typical of open zoning throughout the urban areas on Kauai and it's to reflect
that there is some kind of physical constraint on the property. This would be the
Kai Ikena subdivision over here in this area and this open zoned here is the gully. I
don't know if you are familiar with it, Kukuiolono Golf Course is right here. The
open zoned over here this is where you know the Neighborhood Center is right here
and the fire station and this is what I call the pineapple camp across the Post
Office. The open zoned there is reflective of the spit-way of the reservoir, so the
open zoned had several functions you know. Again this is Lihue and that's it but I
got to start from the beginning Peter. So now that you are familiar with what is the
open zoned, if you have any questions? Before I begin.
Thank you Peter.
Ms. Kawahara:
Mr. Nitta:
Ms. Kawahara:
Mr. Furfaro:
Councilwoman go right ahead.
Oh I do have a question.
Sure.
The...
We'll go ahead and
5
recognize you
• •
Ms. Kawahara: So the open zoned is not only... is not only
restricted just because of the topography yeah? It's also open zoned because we
chose to have open spaces and...
Mr. Nitta: Ah not necessarily... some of it you know I'll
get into that maybe as I go through my presentation, it might answer your question
on some of the reasons for it.
Ms. Kawahara: Thank you.
Mr. Nitta: And then I'll go through the presentation
and then reserve to the questions after I'm done.
Mr. Furfaro: Ah excuse me, Mr. Kaneshiro.
DARYL W. KANESHIRO (COMMITTEE MEMBER): Just one question
so everyone is clear that under the current CZO the open zoned allows one (1)
building per five (5) acres of open zoned, is that correct? One density.
Mr. Nitta: ~ That... right. That's correct for the
agricultural district the hundred and forty thousand (140,000) acres that I showed
you. Yeah that's correct.
So this is more background information. The first thing I wanted to get into
and I felt was really important was the origin of the open zone and it started with
the... this is more like a footnote, it started with 1971 General Plan because prior to
the 1972 the County of Kauai did not have zoning, we were the last county of the
four (4) to adopt zoning. So the 1971 General Plan was designed to guide zoning
and it was very, very parcel specific and back in those days when you made a
change in your zoning you also had a General Plan change involved. Which you
don't see much of today. And the General Plan• of 1971 was mainly, although it was
a document as well but .people thought of the General Plan back then was mainly
maps so it was a mapping policy. And back in those days the General Plan was
adopted by resolution, so if you came in for a zoning and General Plan change you
got the zoning approved by Ordinance and the General Plan changed by Resolution
so it was more intended to be a policy document but the important point I'm trying
to drive across was that, this 1971 General Plan was the original zoning and the
next slide should show you how it worked.
This is how... this is a map of the 1971 General Plan and unfortunately I
could not get it in color but let me familiarize all of you with the... where we are.
This is Lihue Mill, in this map here, Lihue Mill is right here, so Lihue Mill, Lihue
Mill. Kaumualii Highway, Kaumualii Highway. If you look closely at this map this
General Plan map, it delineates although the shades have come out really, really
light the open zoned is you see this open zoned here? Would be the open zoned if
you can follow. my pointer, it doesn't show but this in here is the open zoned. And
on the General Plan map, on the zoning map, this would be the open zoned so the
zoning map mirrored the General Plan map. But this one little thing I'd like to
point out and it would be a very important point as I go further in my presentation
is that if you noticed that the General Plan map is very, very more specific on the
delineation of the open zoned whereas when it came down to zoning we made it
more general so you see the lines that really are more follow the contours over here,
it doesn't. But there's a reason for that and I'll get into that in my presentation
later on but this is how the 1971 General Plan map guided zoning. So when we
6
• •
finally adopted zoning in 72 it reflected what the General Plan map showed. How
did the 1971 General Plan compare to the following General Plans? I have just the
1971 and 2000 but also included should be the 1984 General Plan. With its zoning
in place you know the updates we did in 84 and 2000, the General Plan maps
became more general and less focused on parcel specific type of zoning. And that
was an important move in a sense that the open zoned policies would not be
addressed during zoning changes because the General Plan did not distinguish
between open and Ag; it kind of consolidated both. So suddenly you have the
General Plan out of the picture, but. the point I'm making is that with zoning in
place, policies from the General Plan became less apparent in the you know the
more zoning changes and I think in guiding zoning.
Again the differences between the 1971 General Plan and the 1984 and the
2000 General Plans, I'll go through this real quickly. The differences are that as I
mentioned earlier, 71 was Resolution, 84 to 2000 now is adopted by Ordinance. The
open and Ag now consolidated in mapping so if you look at the newer maps 84 and
the 2000 maps, you'll notice that it's hard to distinguish open from Ag wherein the
71 it was very clear. Less GP amendments with zoning changes and less mapping
policies are less involved in zoning matters. But the similarities between all three
(3) General Plans was that the goals for agriculture are the same. Maintain
agriculture as a viable industry was still an important goal. The 1972 CZO and I'm
going to speak just specifically to open. Density which is the issue today, played an
important role in implementing the General Plan's goal of keeping the agricultural
industry strong. Now what? How does density play into keeping the industry
strong? First of all by allowing dwellings units in the Open Zone instead of the Ag
would help preserve the Ag portions. Now you have to look at in 1972 how it was
back then. I think we had like twenty-one thousand (21,000) people on Kauai, we
wouldn't even fill up half of Aloha Stadium, maybe we all could fit in Vidinha
Stadium with that population. But very little people and the majority of the people
on Kauai were employed by the sugar industry and um I came from a Plantation
Camp here on Kauai, so I kind of can relate to some of this stuff but it was
basically, the density of the open zoned was to allow the plantations if they needed
to have a worker, farm worker housing or housing to go to the Open Zoned and not
use the agricultural lands because the flat lands in those days I mean, still yet it's
the most productive part of the property and so (inaudible) said you know what
preserve the productive part, the marginal part which would be the Open is where
you would put the units in. To some people it doesn't make sense because the Open
seems constraint but I'll get more into that later. Secondly allowing more than one
dwelling unit in the agricultural zoned, so I'm getting out of the Open now but in
the Ag area.
Ag zoned areas was to help the diversified Ag people to continue and it was
those family farmers, I don't know if you guys are familiar but those of you on the
East side would know that Wailua Homesteads was mainly farms, diversified Ag
farms and pastures and whatnot and back then in drafting the CZO those farmers
in the Homestead areas in Wailua and Kapa`a said that you know what if my child
wants to come home and continue the farm that we're operating now, I'd like to be
able to allow them to have a dwelling unit, a house. And just a footnote on that
point, the other counties Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island only allows one (1) house
per lot on Ag. Kaua`i is the only county that allows more than one (1) house on the
Ag and we allow it for that particular reason in Ag because it was essentially to
help the diversified Ag farmers continue their farming activity in case the family
members wanted to you know wanted to live on the property, they no have to go buy
someplace and build a home, they could live there and then if maybe on the part
7
• •
time work on the farm. And secondly it was, this point here is a slow growth tool to
keep homestead Ag lands from urbanizing too quickly, by helping... it was a means
to help the farmers to keep it within the family and have family members work on
the farm. So it was to say you know what, before you give up on farming, we'll give
you a chance. Give the family a chance to if they want to farm? Great. But the
dwelling unit was looked upon as a opportunity to help keep Ag people farming.
Bad choice of words on my part but I... the sugar industry will always be there -
false sense of security. I would have replaced "false sense of security" now that I
think about it with just an "unforeseen events." But density in the Open Zoned
back then now I'm going back to the 1972 era as the CZO is being drafted, density
in the Open Zoned on a large scale I think the decision makers even the plantations
themselves were involved in the process, the large landowners. Never felt that the
Open Zoned density would be used because they felt confident that sugar would
always be around because back then I think even throughout the whole State of
Hawaii, you'll notice that you know you had the HSPA, the Sugar Planters
Associations, all of those things were very, very influential in most commissions and
(inaudible) even elected officials, you would have representations from the Sugar
Industry and the Labor Unions highly involved and the Sugar Industry
represented. No one thought that sugar would ever actually go belly-up and so all
this density in the Open we said more than likely it's not going to be used. And the
second point also reflects that. Also another thing too was that we felt that even
regardless of the density in the Open, plantation worker housing could be provided
elsewhere and examples are like, the communities of Hanama`ulu, `Ele`ele Nani,
Kekaha we're all... `Ele`ele Nani was for McBryde, Hanama`ulu was Lihu`e
Plantation and Kekaha was Kekaha sugar but they were in the urban areas and
they provided the housing so we said you know more than likely sugar won't go
belly-up and so all this density is out there but never would be used.
But another thing and if you get anything out of my presentation this thing
in red is probably the thing I hope you remember and again on this point of
unforeseen events, we always felt that and this is even in my era as I came into the
Planning Department that financing would be the key hurdle for use of that
density. Now how does financing and density inter-relate? Utilizing density
without subdivision would be difficult because if you take five (5) people unrelated,
let's say Councilmember Chang, myself, Kawahara, and Bynum, we all and buy a
piece, we'll all have to co-sign each other's loans and we share each other's liability
so if one of us messes up, we all mess up. It drags us in. So we said you know if you
wanted to put more than one (1) house on the piece and was not family members, it
would be very, very difficult to achieve the density. And I have .a note here, Kilauea
example and Mike Dyer can come up if he speaks he can explain it further, but as
(inaudible) subdivided their lands there were a lot of pieces that qualified for more
than one (1) house because if you look at the sliding scales there were big chunks of
land, so the resulting lots would result in lots that would qualify for more than one
(1) farm dwelling unit. But many of the sales, it was difficult to sell because based
on the density you could achieve because most of those lots were purchased by
individual owners like Doty, the Doty Property in Waikoloa and it's because you
could not use the density of five (5) because once... because there's a one time
subdivision restriction. So you bought a piece and you say oh you know what let's
all get together and we go subdivide and you can have your portion, cannot.
Because it's only one time subdivision so the only choice the four (4) of us have is to
share each other's loans and that is... would be very difficult and there were several
parcels in Kilauea that were purchased as such by individual owners but it ended
up being a real, real big mess because it ended up with violations and squabbles and
fights and whatever. So we felt that although you have this density out there,
•
anybody that would make use of the density again like how I mentioned in the
Homestead areas would be the family members, because they would... those are the
ones that would share loan commitments and co-sign each other, mom and dad
would sign for son or daughter. So we felt that the utilization of allowable farm
dwelling densities were more likely to be used by the farmers in the Homestead
areas which is what it was designed for you know on a family owned lot, when there
was a need for housing. And there would be less of a need to subdivide among
family. members to separate financing because co-signing was not... I wouldn't say
"was not" we would be less of an issue among family that... separate interest. And
also this business about the one time subdivision, the allowable density... by
allowing more than one house it would postpone subdivision for these homestead
people (farmers) for more prudent use later on in the future because you don't. have
to subdivide to build a house for your son or your daughter. Anyway this point has
more history than what I'm saying but I just wanted to drive home the point that
what the density was intended for. But what happened that really threw a curve
ball to everybody and which is why I put it under the term unforeseen events or
false sense of security was that CPRs (back in .our time it was called horizontal
property regime) made, achieving density possible without subdividing. And long
(inaudible) history behind that too but CPRs now made it possible for
Councilmember Bynum, Kawahara, Chang and myself to buy a piece because now
we could CPR it, Councilmember Bynum could have his own loan, Councilmember
Kawahara could have her own, I could have my own and Councilmember Chang
could have his own so, we all separated our liabilities through CPRs. The question
that came up in the late 80s between the Planning Department and the County
Attorney's Office based on lobbying efforts by some private entities was that our
CPR subdivision, the answer that came back after a long and grueling debate
among ourselves internally was that CPRs are a form of ownership and not
subdivision and anyway, history behind that too but the point is that CPRs now
made achieving densities possible and that's what I want you folks to know.
Getting back to my other. point, was the County, aware of the differences in
standards between the Open and Agricultural zones during CZO adoption? And as
I mentioned to you folks earlier, yes. For the reasons that I stated in my... before I
started the show, the slide presentation. And the second bullet because sugar was
strong, and the large landowners would... we felt that the large landowners would
hang on to their holdings, it was thought that it was highly unlikely that the Open
zone would be taken advantage of. -And what are the differences between the Open
and the Ag that could be taken advantage of? One is that you don't have the
contiguous lot provisions. This is a very critical point because and it's a Bard
concept to understand but you see essentially that if the way the sliding scale works
in the Ag is that the larger you are, the less lots you can make and the more... the
larger the lots have to be. So what you want to stay away from is increasing the
size of your Ag lot, the contiguous lot provisions says that if you own two (2) pieces
at the time of the adoption of the CZO, two (2) ten (10) acre pieces it's no... it's not
two (2) ten (10) acre pieces it's a twenty (20) acre piece, so it becomes a larger piece.
And rather than just affecting one (1) lot, it affects two (2). So the contiguous lot
provision I can get into more detail if you have more questions but it's basically that
concept. The sliding scale again is that the larger you are, the larger lot you have to
make and maybe less, there's no density cap, the Ag district has a five (5) unit cap,
Councilmember Kaneshiro you asked me about one (1) per five (5), the Open zone
does not restrict you to just five (5) units like the Ag does so it has no cap on
density and there's no one (1) time subdivision restriction for the Open zone. So you
can subdivide as many times as you want.
9
•
Important dates. The first bullet mid 70's to early 80's -the way we treated
agricultural subdivision administratively in the Planning Department was that we
made the Open zone invisible. Meaning that we treated everything as it was zoned
Ag, that requires a long explanation but essentially what that does is that it takes
the density out in Open. The point is that Open would yield too much density so we
worked with the subdividers in Kilauea and said you know what too much density,
how about we treat everything as Ag and (inaudible) and so be it, that's how it
ended up. Critical turning point was this 1982 -Crater Hill. This internal policy of
invisible Open zone quietly disappears because what came about with Crater Hill
was that the request brought forth to the Planning Commission and the
Department was that Open is Open and Ag is Ag, shouldn't we have one (1) lot per
five (5) acres in the Open and whatever the Ag yields, that amount of lots versus
erasing the Open zoned and making. it all Ag lots, which would end up with less.
The decision rendered was that in 82 and that would be the turning point that Open
is Open and Ag is Ag, so now you can have density in the Open and density in the
Ag. 1984 and 1985 would be other critical... you know another set of critical dates
because but the 82 incident in Crater Hill did internally it sounded the alarm bell
you know waved the flag or yellow flag or whatever you want to call it and we said
you know what and when we were doing the North Shore Development Plan update
at that time and the Koloa Development Plan at that time, we said you know what
we got to shut the door on the Open Zone and so what these two (2) development
plans did in their ordinances and it became... it has a regulatory function dust so
you know is that limited the Open zoned to one (1) time subdivision like the Ag and
it made a ten (10) lot max, you can make ten (10) maximum lots out in the Open
zoned. It was the first time that we actually brought out the concern about the
Open zoned publicly and anyway... try to address the issues. We didn't address all
of it because it... you don't have a density cap and it has a none contiguous
provision still not included. But nevertheless it was a step in the right direction.
1988 (or thereabouts) you know as I mentioned earlier CPRs through that long
grueling battle internally are not counted as subdivisions, I think that is a critical
date because that opened the flood gates as far as we were concerned. But prior to
this date multiple ownership of Ag as I mentioned earlier was very difficult because
four (4) of us again could not buy a piece but now we can because we can CPR. That
Ag lots with... became highly you know with or without Open zoned became highly
desirable because now with CPRs, you can buy a Ag lot and that allows more than
one (1) unit and instead of just one (1) of us being able to buy, we can get our hui
together, pick up a piece and CPR it and we got our house. So this 88 decision is
critical. 1993 its' almost, it's almost like 82. 93 and 82 are almost identical but we
formally came out with a policy that said you know what Open zone has its own
separate density and I had my debates internally with the people making the
decision but because anyway what it did was just strengthen the value of the Open
zoned and it... my feeling was that the county created its own hurdle so here's my
own editorial but I thought that the decision was critical in a sense that suddenly
really the value of Open became apparent.
What lies ahead for the Open zone? It is a I think this particular bill or any
bill like this that tries to close the gap between the Open and Ag is a leveler of the
land use playing field, you level playing land use playing field is such an important
concept. Let me give you another example, if I were a developer and I wanted to
put twenty-five (25) residential units, I wanted to do twenty-five (25) unit project
house and lot, I would have to go to the Land Use Commission spend a year there,
come to the County and spend another year try to get zoning, because the Land Use
Commission would change it from Ag to urban or whatever designation I would
need from them, then I would come to the County another year to get my zoning,
10
• • .
another one (1) to two (2) years to get subdivision approval and then, six (6) more
months to get my permit, so I spent about four and a half (4 1/2) years to get my
twenty-five (25) units. In the Open zone if were... had the resource I could buy a
piece that says I would qualify for twenty (20) units, a hundred (100) acre piece
zoned Open, I could come in today, get my permits and (inaudible) you know
building homes. I would have to wait what maybe six (6) months to a year, whereas
a guy who does it where houses are supposed to be, are supposed to be, spends four
and a half (41/2) years to do it. So the that's what I mean about the imbalance of the
playing field. If you make the zoning I mean the Open zoning if you tighten it up,
then I think like I said you know the fulcrum changes now it... Open being an
advantage now become like everything else and that is so important in urban
planning because you want your zoning district to function the way it's supposed to.
If Open become too liberal, then your industrial uses, your houses and everything
will go into the Open when rightfully it should be in the urban areas to build
communities. And you guys all know that it's important for tax space that's why,
anyway I'll get into Lihue later but so the second point is what lays ahead for the
Open zone is that open zone in the future will incorporate other major land use
function such as land banking, identifying and managing areas of critical concern, I
think you know Councilmember Kawahara I think you mentioned something about
Open spaces yeah? So and the second was Open space preservation and
management and I know Councilman Furfaro drafted I mean passed the bill about
the Open, Special treatment Open, it's sort of related to that but you could have
Open zoning specific to Open space preservation but this business of land banking
is such a critical one because the current CZO if you look at the very last section of
the current CZO you'll see a provision in it that says that the Planning Department
supposed to update the Open zone every five (5) years. The County... and it
mentions that because it... some of the Open zone you know in the 71 General Plan
was granted because we thought that it would be areas of reserve for any
residential use or other types of uses, so there are Open zoning still on the maps
that are land banking but land... used as land banks but anyway on that particular
point I think this, although it's there it will become apparent in the future and more
obvious. The third thing that what lies ahead for the Open zone is what I feel is
important is that it has to be remapped, definite remapping. One of the goals of
this remapping I think should be to implement these other functions of land
banking, areas of critical concern and Open space.
Finally conclusion, four (4) important points. I believe like I mentioned
earlier the Ag industry played very important part in drafting the standards and it
was mainly to help Ag, and that's the important point is that the way the Open was
intended to work back then was it was to complement Ag. Ag could function better
with the Open zoned because that's where you would throw your density if you had
to build a housing and you could preserve the Ag. So the Open was intended to help
the Ag with Ag. Second point because of the demise of the Ag industry, the
imbalance of the Open and Ag zones as it relates to density and subdivision have
become more apparent, as I... that's what the whole presentation is about. And I
think the key to resolving this imbalance is to level the playing field like I
mentioned earlier. But and I mentioned this thirty-eight (38)... this is a little
example that I wanted to give you of what happened in the past. This thirty (30)
acre zoning changing in Kapahi, and it's related to this issue of imbalance... there
was a property owner in Kapahi that came in to us that said you know what, I have
thirty (30) of Open, I want to change it to Ag and we sat with this landowner and
said and... for the life of me it's like giving away a farm but we said you know I
think Open zone better than Ag and this person said "huh, Ag I can do more" I said
no but if your- thirty (30) to fifty (50) acres, you can make five (5) acre lots. With
11
•
Open zoning you can still can make five (5). acre lots, (inaudible) "oh okay" so you
don't need the change but the other part was with Open zone you don't have the one
(1) time subdivision restriction so you can cut out a piece and use that to finance the
rest of your project then subdivide later on, whereas the guy on Ag can only
subdivide only once and "oh okay" so this person went back and said "eh Open
better then Ag" but that's the example I wanted to give of the imbalance and the
Planning Department has always been trying to level the playing field internally
and you know it's not ah what you call that... something that we like to broadcast
back. then but we came up with many interpretations just to keep the playing field
level. Because we had challenges and especially this bullet here, constant testing
by landowners to see what our policies or how we would interpret the Open and the
Ag zone and I think in my life time, I've seen some really, really creative questions
come forth and I'll tell you what if we were to back then have someone totally
impartial like a judge review our response, I think we would lose but we came up
with some really creative interpretations to those really creative questions. But
again it was internally we always felt that leveling the playing field was the key to
managing the Open zone and the third point reduction of large scale Ag has
changed the ways that large tracts of land are viewed. Especially when Amfac sold
out, that was something we never, never expected because Amfac took a different
approach to their, than Kilauea, when they went out of town or they left... they
were done with their business. Amfac decided to sell. Kilauea was more
subdivision but and... Amfac back then was... not back then but it was recent times
but JMB was a Real Estate company so for them this big parcels of land that we
thought that would never sell, sold. All the way from Moloaa to Lihue and the
people who bought the individual pieces said you know what hey it ain't that bad, I
don't have to subdivide to make my money back because I can use the Open zone for
density. And some of them have, like in Anahola and Aliomanu area.
So this change in paradigm in thinking, was the sacred cow of eh you know
what if you really want to make use of your land to develop, this contiguous lot
provision is going to be the protection we need but with CPRs and everything
suddenly you know the protection that of contiguous lot provision of sliding scale
and density caps and whatnot, went out the window. CPRs have really opened the
door and that's my final point is that CPRs have made financing less of an issue you
know for multiple units and now you can obtain the densities in the Open zone but
with that I'm done and I would like to... you know my last slide because my mother
used to always say this "PAU KE HANA" but anyway, I open myself to question`s if
you have any?
Mr. Furfaro: Keith, first of all I do want to acknowledge
you making the time and the effort to make this presentation to the group and I'm
sure there's a few questions but I also wanted to share with the group that my plan
is probably to you know defer your presentation for further considerations as we
actually go into the bill. And I think there are members that are not familiar with
the history that you provided an opportunity for them to digest you know the dates
and the historical process as I said earlier I thought the CZO was certainly a
document that was pretty sophisticated at the time.
Mr. Nitta: Yes it was. It is.
Mr. Furfaro: And try to put some controls in with the
contiguous lot provision and all of the things you wrapped up and there have been
some attempts as you referred to my earlier ordinance on Special treatment for
Open if a developer presents Open space for the purpose of a Golf Course, the
12
•
reality is that's the final standard, you lost your density in that area and that came
up a few years ago. But for the members that's my plan here is to go ahead and
look towards eventually deferring this so we could use this as a reference, but we
will have some questions now.
Mr. Nitta: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Audience is also entitled to some questions,
if you can make yourself available before we actually get to the bill and the
Planning Department's presentation but again I wanted to say' thank you very
much and members if we could keep the questions in such a way that if there's any
clarity you want to study the history, maybe we can focus on that because we still
got to get the bill itself, so on that note are there any questions?
Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Thank you very much Keith for the
presentation and for the time you graciously allowed me over the last few years to
understand this complex issue but real generally I just want to focus on a couple of
things you said because I think you did an outstanding job of laying this out. But
our CZO was quite progressive in the 70's and had provisions that the other CZOs
didn't have...
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: with primary intention being was to protect
agricultural lands, was that correct?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: And you went down one time subdivision,
contiguous parcels those were unique to Kauai's General Plan and... and Open
zoned at the time was seen as a way to support agriculture by allowing farm worker
housing density, right?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: And you know and I particularly appreciate
your saying lets get in the mind set of what you know what our community was like
in the 70's and 80's and we've gone obviously through very significant changes and
the other thing you pointed out is, changes in landownership. The plantations
clearly had agriculture as their primary motivation, there were strong political
forces and so you know some of those concerns didn't become apparent until the
world started changing right? Have I got that right?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: And then you also outlined where the
Planning Department tried through policies to do this but eventually those policies
were challenged.
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
13
Mr. Bynum: So it's a really fascinating story. By the time
of the 2000 update and I may do a presentation later at some point about you know,
you kind of brought us to the 90's and when it became apparent you know that
these density was going to be used for different purposes. So to do a question, at
one point of your presentation you say it is one of many steps that are necessary to
level the playing field and it's a very significant step.
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: It's not the only one.
Mr. Nitta: No.
Mr. Bynum: And you've outlined some of those and made
a recommendation that we remap the Open zone and look at those various purposes
in the context of our current economy and our current land use norms.
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: Have I got that correct?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: And so I just thought... this was very
important for the general public and for Councilmembers, I'd be lost in this bill if I
didn't have this kind of background so thank you again for providing that in a very
thoughtful and succinct way.
Mr. Nitta: You're welcome.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Anymore questions? I'm... go
ahead.
Ms. Kawahara: (inaudible)
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. Keith, I am... Oh Mr. Chair, go
ahead.
BILL "'KAIPO" ASING (COUNCIL CHAIR): (inaudible)
Mr. Nitta: Good morning Council Chair.
Mr. Asing: Keith, you know (softly)
BC: (check your mic.)
Mr. Asing: And I know you're familiar with this, I'm
going to read parts of this. This is January 16, 2002, subject amendments to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance relating to article eight (8) and ten (10) of the
Kauai County Code, starting to...
Mr. Nitta: Ah huh.
14
•
Mr. Asing: Ring a bell? The Planning Commission at its
meeting held on January 8, 2002 voted six (6) to zero (0) to recommend approval of
amendments 'to article eight (8) and ten (10) of the Kauai County Code. Attached
for your reference and action are the recommendations of the Kauai County
Planning Commission for amendments to article eight (8) and ten (10).
Transmitted herewith are the following: one (1) staff report covering the
amendments, two (2) proposed amendments Chapter eight (8) article seven (7),
Chapter eight (8) article eight (8), Chapter eight (8) article one (1), etc., and the
back (inaudible) report. Requirements regarding the Council's consideration of the
amendments are set forth in section eight (8) twenty-two (22) of the Kauai County
Code. It came from the Planning Department and I think you're familiar with this.
And you know it kind of goes on and on but what we have here is a recommendation
of the proposed amendments similar to the amendments being proposed now except
I thought, at that time it was very, very difficult and hard to understand. Am I
correct?
Mr. Nitta: You referring to the first Ag Open bill?
Mr. Asing: Yes. Yes.
Mr. Nitta: Yes. It's actually a...
Mr. Asing: And so...
Mr. Nitta: Simple concept but it's the tables and
whatnot that make it kind of hard to understand...
Mr. Asing: Yea.
Mr.. Nitta: But (inaudible) to the people -who drafted
it... its...
Mr. Asing: And I have the whole transcript here and
what I wanted to do is let because you're familiar with it, let Councilmembers know
is that the Planning Department did this back in 2002, is January 2002 this has
been in our hands, our hands since that time, 2002. And one of the reasons why
there was no movement on this was it was so complicated and difficult to fully
understand that I don't think there was enough I guess, working together with the
Planning Department to fully understand it. But the question I really had for you
is and I don't expect you to answer it now because I think you're going to have to
kind of go look at this again on the bonuses that you presented, you folks presented
at that time here because I believe they are different than the proposal now, am I
correct?
Mr. Nitta: Yes you are.
Mr. Asing: So what is troubling me a little bit is the fact
that we have one (1) set of recommendations that was made back then and we have
another set of recommendations that is being now and the two (2) are different, and
that's what is kind of bothering me and maybe it's going to take a little bit and I
don't expect any answers, any definitive except to explain that you know its
something that needs some work on to fully understand it.
15
• !
Mr. Furfaro: Ah Mr. Chair and if I may Keith touch on
this. For those members on the Council this first hybrid of addressing density on
Ag lands and Open lands, I was a member of the Planning Commission that made
those recommendations and just for clarifications one of the big pieces in that and if
you can also expand (inaudible -soft) on that Keith, I would appreciate it. When
we as Commissioners worked on it, we focused on the concept of using clustering,
okay that is one of the major differences that the clustering effort would need more
space as Open land and most of the bonuses were focused on the fact that
encouraging landowners to use a cluster development for their density and if they
did that's where they then got a bonus, that's one of the major difference here but I
think I can agree with Keith Nitta here, at first blush it seemed very complicated to
understand but it was the first effort to reduce some of that density in Open space
in a trade for clustering and density than what we have now over to us to me is an
offshoot of that bill that the Planning people looked at taking the best parts and
their opinion to put this bill forward and I would just like to say and acknowledge
the Chair for saying that it's been worked on for some time but the reality it was
this bill... this kind of a simplify approach to the original intent when I was on the
Planning Commission, would you acknowledge that?
Mr. Nitta: Yes. That's a fair statement.
Mr. Asing: Can I expand a little bit on this Mr. Chair?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Asing: What I want to do is because I think its
important let me just read it, Findings and Purpose. Article eleven (11) section
three (3) the Hawaii State constitution states the State shall conserve and protect
agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agriculture self-
sufficiency and assure availability of agriculture suitable lands. I'm not going to
read all of it but I'm going to read what I think is important in the bills that we
have before us; all the bills that are on the agenda today. The primary intent of
agricultural designation is to conserve land and water resources in order to one (1)
ensure an excellent resource base for existing and potential agricultural uses. Two
(2) assure a sufficient supply of land available for sale or lease at a cost that is
economically feasible for agricultural enterprise and promote and preserve Open
agricultural lands as a key element to Kauai's rural character and lifestyle essential
to its image to the Garden Island, and to the continued viability and development of
the Kauai visitor industry. I think I'll stop now but I think I wanted to read that
because I think it's important that we know about the intent, the constitution and
even to that extent this report that you've presented to the Council about the
importance of Ag lands and to use it for its designated purpose. So with that, thank
you.
Mr. Furfaro: Keith let me see if there's any more
questions of him and his presentation before we go to the bill, did you have a
question councilwoman? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Regarding the 2002 bill I just want to make
sure I have that understanding correct I'm... that bill is still pending on our agenda
and you know it wasn't an attempt to not only address that Open density bonus but
to provide the idea... to promote the idea of clustering and to meet other goals right,
so this bill...and I think that's why you probably said this is the first of many steps
because rather than try to do it more comprehensively like the 2002 bill did, this is
16
•
C~
like lets deal with this step now but there will be subsequent steps. Do I have that
right?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: Or there should be subsequent steps. And
the other thing is that the 2002 bill since it's now 2010, a lot of things have changed
and some of the goals that that bill attempted to obtain, weren't obtained at that
time and may not be on point on today's current reality and we may not need to do
some of the things that that bill intended originally because of the change of
landscape. Does that make sense?
Mr. Nitta: Makes sense.
Mr. Bynum: Right so that bill has some... really
important and interesting things and like the Chair, I read all the transcripts from
the Planning Department and the Council meetings when it was addressed in 2002
because I believe to understand how we can move forward and what you provided
today is, is understanding what has happened in the past so I just wanted to make
those comments about the 2002 bill because it was a really a... the Planning
Department fulfill its obligation to respond to the issues that were raised in the
2000 General Plan or many of them through that bill.
Mr. Nitta: That's correct. Can I make just a quick
comment on that bill for the Council Chair and the two (2) Councilmembers that
just spoke is that... that bill was drafted almost immediately after the General Plan
was adopted so you know you saw it in 2002 but the real drafting started
immediately after the General Plan was adopted in 2000 so. There was a lot of
thought put into it in reference to the people who... the Director who was intensely
involved in it. He put a lot of effort into it and it was freshly after the General Plan
so you know this... with the concepts of clustering, having large chunks reserved
like you know Ag easements and whatnot, were really fresh in everybody's mind.
This bill comes with a little disconnect but it's nevertheless for the same purpose of
leveling the same playing field.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kaneshiro.
Mr. Kaneshiro:. Thank you Chair. Mr. Nitta is correct in
that because when we adopted the General Plan in 2000 basically the concept was
to have Ag land be of a Ag community, or what we call "cluster" and the Open to be
Open.
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Even the suggestion that there would be no
dwellings or buildings on Open land so in concept this bill followed after we adopted
the General Plan in 2000 and we've seen the changes to that time to today as to the
idea of clustering and so forth which we haven't seen much occurring but at the
same time I think this bill before us it really takes care of the issue of density that
has been a problem for many years in fact, even the later part of the CZO that we
originally embark on, on changing the CZO I believe was before 2000 right?
Mr. Nitta: We started in 78 actually.
17
• •
Mr. Kaneshiro: And we haven't adopted any changes to the
CZO till then and in there it talked about this Open density also, is that right?
Mr. Nitta: That's correct.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Nitta if I could ask you to stay in case we
have some questions on your presentation.
Mr. Nitta: Sure.
Mr. Furfaro: Again for the audience if you want to
comment later on the bill itself, we haven't read it yet but if you have any comments
on Mr. Nitta's presentation that is the item that's on the agenda and present.
Thank you again it's very appreciative of Keith of what you did.
Mr. Nitta: Thank you Councilmembers as well.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Mickens.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you Jay. Good morning
Councilmembers. I have a couple of questions for Keith, I really appreciate his fine
presentation today. I known Keith for many of quite many years and he's
completely efficient at what he does. If I understood Keith correctly I believe our
past planners did a good job in putting a future projection together of what our
island will be zoning, General Plans, etc., if this is true, what went wrong when
today we have basically one (1) road circling our island creating mass traffic jams
with any accidents, fire or cut in the island like the Kaloko Dam break or
construction as it's going on with the Wailua Bridge? Developers holding permits
for years without building and then beginning construction in already over
development areas like the project by the Coconut Market place there's going to be
what another five hundred (500) units there, four hundred (400), five hundred (500)
units, another thousand cars that will be impacting Kuhio Highway. You know it
just exacerbates to everything that's been happening. No real .impact fees put on
these developers, roads, schools, parks like they do on the mainland. Places over
there they have tremendous impact fees, here what do we make the developer do to
improve our island, like down there by the market place, made them put a little
lane come out there, merge back on by the Safeway Shopping Center, I mean what
kind of an impact fee is that? TVR,s proliferating all of the island particularly in our
non-VDA areas and Kaipo, you've been at the forefront of that with your many,
many charts and everything. What's been done to you know make the developers do
anything about that particular thing? And yes Keith did point out many flaws in
this systems, CPRs, etc., but what can be done to correct these flaws going forward?
Upgrading our infrastructure will now take hundreds of millions of dollars and
finding those funds will be slim to zero (0) so what is the answer? I played baseball
back in Salt Lake City in 1950 and was amazed at the width and the streets and the
squareness the way the city was laid out. Obviously the long range planners of that
city was visionary. And we certainly need more of that type of planning on Kauai.
Again I... at this stage of the game, I don't have the answers but again I certainly
appreciate Keith's input to this, your job is well cut out as Councilmembers to be
able to solve any of the problems that are impacting this island at this stage of the
game and you know like how Keith pointed out CPRs you know, they can build,
18
~'
subdivide, it's just going to add to the problem that we have now. Anyway thank
you Jay very much.
Mr. Furfaro: You're welcome. Is there anyone else who
would like to testify? Mr. Dyer. Mike the agenda item right now is the
presentation, we'll come up on the actual bill next.
MIKE DYER: My name is Mike Dyer and I'd like to talk
about Open and as Keith mentioned I was around through a lot of this history and
in fact I arrived on Kaua`I, took over management of the Kilauea sugar lands in
1971 just when we were making the transition from the old land use system to the
new CZO, and I'd like to say just first of all thank you very much to Keith who over
those many years have been a very thoughtful planner, very approachable, looking
at it from the developer/landowner side and we've all been really fortunate to have a
guy like Keith in Planning all this time. With regard to Open zoning, when we first
started doing subdivisions in Kilauea we got off to kind of a rocky start. There was
a lot of stuff that Keith didn't mention: litigation, the State coming in and
threatening to condemn leasehold interest and all that land you know for better or
worse that took a few years. By 1978 the first Ag subdivisions under the 1972 CZO
were done in the Kilauea area, at that time we... we looked at the CZO, we read it
as the rules of the road and we tried to do it with the help of the Planning
Department, it was interpreted in that time. So for those first subdivisions in
Kilauea 1978, we looked at Open as a kind of an overlay zoning, it didn't affect
density, it just meant that if you applied the numbers that applied to Ag, formulas
that we gotten familiar with over the years and deal with big parcels, you actually
do a percentage formula, you get you know to do ten (10) parcels, no more than
seventy-five (75) acres, no smaller than five (5) acres and you had we talked about
the unique thing that we have on Kauai that more than one (1) house permitted per
parcel. For us the Open meant that if you had Open within a lot once you did the
subdivision if it reduced the area of Ag that was left over down below a certain level,
you didn't get say the two (2) houses on the five (5) acre parcel if there was too
many acres of Open in that parcel, you only got one (1). And later on down the road
as we know that turned into the ADU situation that we're living with today.
(inaudible) in those years we looked at just as an overlay. It generally seemed to
follow and our at least steep areas and flood zones and things like that, in most
cases although in other areas it seemed like it wasn't necessary in some areas, but I
hear now from Keith's presentation that there were some other theories other than
Open space just for purposes of you know flood zones and STP plan.
(BEEPER)
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, Mike that's three (3) minutes, I'll
give you another three (3).
Mr. Dyer: Yeah I better hurry up then.
Mr. Furfaro: I have the liberty to extend that if it's
historically tied to Keith's presentation.
Mr. Dyer: Okay thank you., As Keith said everything
started to change and I think the date was some time in 1983 the Crater Hill
subdivision which from my perspective I wasn't directly involved in that subdivision
but the interpretation to use Open in a different way and that particular project to
me was because there were tradeoffs being made, there was an attempt going on to
19
try to create the Wild Life Refuge area and it required some cooporation with the
developer to get the lands necessary to expand the refuge and to do that they gave
them some extra zoning by an.:. sort of re-interpreting the Open. Okay that was
fine for that project. The thing that happened later and I'm not sure what year it
was in but it was a year to me was very disturbing because that was the year that
the rules started changing. We done a lot of subdivisions under a certain
interpretation of the rules but a guy named Benjamin Bollag came in and with the
help of a friend of mine Max Graham a very able attorney said well okay the Crater
Hill project set a precedent and that precedent says that you can treat Open as a
separate parcel and therefore what was in one of the Ag subdivisions we done back
in 1978, there was a big remnant parcel that included fifty (50) acres of Ag land and
more importantly I guess about a hundred fifty acres of the K-lauea river valley
which was all zoned Open. The contention was that they should be allowed to do a
second time subdivision, our understanding of the rule was that you never got to
subdivide Ag land twice but this was a time when they came in and said okay
there's a precedent here Open is treated separately it's one house per very five (5)
acres, let's make a separate parcel. I was extremely concerned about this
interpretation one because I knew looking around the map in the North Shore
particularly there were a lot of parcels around who were extremely huge that were
all zoned Open and you know applying that rule these bigger parcels was going to
create a planning nightmare in my opinion. We hired an attorney and came in and
did a contested case which we lost to try to keep this re-subdivision, this second
subdivision of this parcel to create the Kilauea river valley piece with all that
inherent density which came to some thirty (30) home sites potential within the
Kilauea river valley which was all Special Treatment, STP and all that kind of
thing. We lost that case and from that point on any subdivisions that I worked on
and I guess everyone else worked on, ended up using density as sort of a separate
divisor, you took the amount of Open that you had, you divided it by five (5) and you
got extra lots for that. So that was a benefit but we were doing fine with the old
rules before this new interpretation came in. And I thought that it added a lot of
confusion and it didn't take away that possibility that really big pieces were going to
be divided by five (5) and a bunch of home sites were going to pop up. I haven't read
this bill, this new bill yet so I'm not sure what my opinion of the bill would be but I
agree with Keith that there is some need to bring a little bit of reality back in to
how Open is being used here. I feel comfortable with it has an overlay back in the
old days where it just said you know this is land that is steep and should be Open
and I hope that that's what the bill says. I'll be reading it and have some comments
maybe after that. And with regard to CPR just really, really, really quickly if I
may? And then I'm done.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes Mike go ahead.
Mr. Dyer: One of the things that happened with the
CPRs you know that was another thing that Keith said, we have always this
unintended consequences. The first subdivisions I did when we sold lots, and the
first time five (5) families walked in my door and said we were going to buy this big
piece together. I said "well how are you going to relate to each other," well we got
the money cause things were a lot cheaper than you know some people did have the
money to buy them if they pulled the resources. How you going to relate to each
other? Oh we're all friends, it will all work out, as Keith says, it turned into a
nightmare later for a lot of people. Some bright attorney and I forget which one it
was popped up at some point down the road and decided to do those Ag CPRs, and
when it first started happening, my head just started spinning because I never
thought of anything like that. But what happened with CPRs was that, you could
20
•
get financing, Keith was right, that was the main thing, it was just a way to hold
title in such a way to take it to the banks and get a loan, that's was all that
happened, nothing else changed. The density was all stuff that planning and the
zoning ordinance says was there and people just found a better way to take
advantage of it. One of the things that I've seen that's happened with the CPRs
that you know I'm not sure what the long term impact would be because my career
in this stuff is getting toward the end right now but all around Kilauea which was
one of the first towns where this happened, we have CPRs right up to our current
urban zoning boundary. A CPR once it's done is extremely hard to break up. So for
better or for worse I mean people that are... want low gross -slow growth one of the
things that CPR projects close to urban boundaries do is it freezes your zoning. It
really makes it hard to go any step further. So it's another interesting unintended
consequences.
Mr. Furfaro: Mike thank you for the history on that piece
as it adds to Keith's presentation that's why I gave you the extended time.
Mr. Dyer: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: And I want to thank you for your testimony
as well because it kind of complements what Keith said and from a slightly different
perspective but is it fair to say I mean you are agreeing that there were policies that
changed, there were procedures that changed you know that... echoing a lot of what
Keith said people started challenging these policies and the things that the
Planning Department was trying to do to keep the old standards, kind o£ .. started
to breakdown.
Mr. Dyer: Right, exactly. And you know I would be to a
great extent on the side of the Planner's because you know the one thing I want as a
developer is consistency, I want to know what rules I'm playing by when we go
down the road several years with a certain set of rules then all of a sudden some
developer like Bollag walks in the door and the rules change, then I go "wow" I want
things to... you know things can change with good reasons but they shouldn't
change arbitrarily. So yeah I think good planning, a good consistent plan that
works is what most developers I would hope would be looking for.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Mike. We have another question.
Ms. Kawahara: Because he would know this you're a... you
have the history of the developers on that side. Was there... so there are obviously
residentially zoned areas yes is all of our island but with what was happening in the
70's and 80's there wasn't development going on in the residential areas but in the
Open space and the reasons for not being in the residential areas as constructing
there?
Mr. Dyer: Well Keith sort of touched on that too I mean
in Kilauea there was an urban zoned area, there was a General Plan area that was
for additional urban and we over the years in the mid-80s developed that into a
subdivision but then there was no other zoning. In the process that Keith's talking
about you know that... you know if you are a developer and you look at a piece of Ag
land and you say okay am I going to go to the Land Use Commission and get a you
know a land use boundary change, then come to the County and try to change the
21
•
Mr. Bynum: But as a result how much residential
development in urban zone has there been in the Kilauea area over the last ten (10)
or fifteen (15) years?
Mr. Dyer: Essentially zero (0).
Mr. Bynum: And how much large lot residential on Ag
land has there been in that same type area?
Mr. Dyer: Well the last one I did was in 2000, we
finished in 2001 and there hasn't been anything since then. But our community has
matured at this point, everything has been done except what the Pflueger-Lucas
estate.
Mr. Furfaro: On that note, we need to take a caption
break. (inaudible) and we can come back to this if we want but the other public
members can testify when we come back, we're going to take a ten (10) minute
caption break.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:06 a.m.
The Committee reconvened at 11:23 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Can I have the attention in the audience,
we're getting ready to start again? As Chairman of the Planning Committee, I do
have certain opportunities to provide people with the time to testify in various bills
that are here, since unfortunately today the bill on' transient vacation rentals was
identified as the first item coming up in my Committee but because of other
appointments with other individuals, we have someone in the audience that is
anxiously want to move on with the rest of their schedule today so I'm now talking
about bill 2298 and if the gentleman who would like to speak on this item would
come up right now, could I have item 2298 read please.
There being no objections, Bill No. 2298 was taken up next.
Bill No. 2298 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
SINGLE-FAMILY TRANSIENT VACATION RENTALS
[This item was deferred.]
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Again as Chairman,
this is a courtesy I'm extending. Would you like to come up and speak on this item
and we will after refer it to a later part of the agenda today.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
(BARNETT FINEBLOOM): Thank you Councilman Furfaro. I
appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak now. My name is Barrnett
Finebloom. My wife and I own property at thirty-five twenty-nine (3529) `Anini
Road. I was here speaking at the Council meeting of November 10~ when the bill
was deferred again and I believe ~ I notified the county that I had a hearing on my
appeal with the Planning Director's denial of our nonconforming use permit on
23
• •
November 5th and the basis for that appeal was that the ordinance language stating
built by June 4, 1976 in ordinance 864 and 876 does not agree with the language in
the State ordinance 205 that it cites it's pursuant to. Which says that should be the
single family homes are permitted on lots exsisting on -June 4, 1976, not built by.
Yesterday we had our meeting with a Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission hereby accepted and adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact,
conclusions of law, recommended decision and order filed herein. And based on the
above it is the decision and order of the Kauai Planning Commission that it lacks
jurisdiction to hear and to determine this appeal. And the respondent's motion for
some rejudgement is granted and this appeal is hereby dismissed on jurisdictional
grounds. Essentially the County Attorney's position is that the Planning
Commission does not have the authority to hear an appeal of ordinance 817; it could
only hear appeals on 818 and 819, and therefore, there is no process to appeal the
Planning Director's decision and this decision is a final decision. In the hearing
officer's proposed conclusions of law he notes, an actual controversy exists
concerning the application of ordinances 864 and 876, Chapter 8, Article 17 of the
CZO relating to transient vacation rentals. In the instant case there is a
controversy concerning the application of Chapter 8, Article 17 to a single family
TVR, located in the State agriculture district and the county Open zoning district
inasmuch of the subject's property is subject to both county Open zoning and HRS
Chapter 205 agricultural district regulations and the petition is called into question
the validity of the CZO provisions and the proper application of Chapter 205. The
Planning Commission can move towards ending the controversy and removing
uncertainty by amending Section one, nine, one (191) of the rules to commit an
appeal under Chapter eight, seventeen (817) or (b) recognizing and this is where I
think the council can have an impact is recognizing existing procedures or
recommending that the appropriate authority create procedures providing for
alternate means to secure an authorization for single family transient vacation
rentals in the State agricultural district via the state special permit under Chapter
205 and/or a county use permit under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, or a
variance in accordance with the Charter and the County of Kauai code. If no
process is identified or created the landowner's remedy would likely be a direct
appeal from the Director's decision to the court.
So we now have this bill. You know I waited... this bill would hopefully grant
some relief and they... this process moved. You know I did not engage counsel, I
thought that this would be a simple matter that I go online and I find out that the
State statute doesn't say "built by" it says existing by. I call the Planning
Department they tell me my lot existed before 1972 and what recourse do I have?
To go sue? In the Court? I mean it seems to me that this is really a simple matter I
don't know if anybody else is affected besides myself. The other option on Ag land
was to secure State permit under 205-6. I also confirmed that in the thirty-three
(33) years since that time nobody has ever... there's no application form, nobody's
ever applied for and nobody has ever received the 205-6 permit for transient
vacation rental on Ag lot. You've kind of put it in a little box. I think that twenty-
five (25) years ago my wife and I bought a piece of land, complied with all the laws
known at that time, never were informed that we were unlawful, so your ordinance
is saying we are unlawful for something that occurred so many years ago. You
know I think you have the right to make ordinances to affect the future but to take
an existing lawful use and say that I'm unlawful by misstating the State law. Had
your ordinance adopted the language of the State statutes it cites it's pursuant to, I
believe the County Director would have been required to grant our nonconforming
use permit and not deny it.
24
• •
Mr. Furfaro: That bell is... no that bell is your six (6)
minutes, I will give you one (1) minute more.
Mr. Finebloom: That's all I have to say.
Mr. Furfaro: May I ask that Peter there from our staff
could get a copy of your testimony? Can we request of that?
Mr. Finebloom: Certainly.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and the rest of this will go to a later
part of today's agenda, I was happy to consider your schedule.
Mr. Finebloom: I appreciate that very much, thank you.
There being no objections, further discussion on Bill No. 2298 was deferred to
the end of the agenda and discussion on PL 2010-1 was continued.
Mr. Furfaro: And our error in the posting to accept your
testimony. Thank you. Okay for the general audience I would like to go back, rules
are suspended and I would, like to continue on Keith Nitta's presentation, not on the
actual bill. Is there someone in the audience that would like to testify on Keith
Nitta's? Mr. Wong, come on up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
STAGY WONG: Good morning County Councilmembers, my
name is Stacy Wong. I've been the trustee for the Knudsen Trust for the last ten
(10) years. And I just wanted to make a few comments and share some insights
that I saw from Keith Nitta's presentation. It was very enlightening because I was
not aware of how deep and involved the history of Open and Ag was. It helped me
understand the intent of what people were thinking but to add further perspective,
the CZO sounds like it was ancient history in 1972 when it was enacted. The
Knudsen purchased their land one hundred (100) years prior to that, in 1872. So
they've been seeing a lot of comings and goings, and they continued to own large
parcels of land, several thousand acres of it is combination of Ag and Open. So
we're very interested in this process and understanding the history. Couple things I
want to mention based on what Keith said is that there were a lot of discussion
about density and the disparity of density in Ag versus Open. I would like to add
that yes density is an important criteria but also how it's spread out is also
important because I remember the clustering discussion back in 2002 and as way of
an example using a parcel size that Keith did, if you took one hundred (100) acres in
Open zoning, you would be allowed to put twenty (20) homes there. Now is twenty
(20) homes a lot of homes? It's not a lot of homes. In fact if you had R-4 zoning, you
can fit all that in a five (5) acre piece. I think the issue with Open zoning, one of
them is that you want to preserve the esthetic value, the visual aspect of it. And so
if you had twenty (20) homes on a hundred (100) acres and the twenty (20) homes fit
on ten (10) acres say or fifteen (15) acres and the less... the rest of it had no homes
at all, you would not have to change the density of Open but you would still be
preserving Open space. And I'm not necessarily advocating it formally, we're
watching this bill and we're trying to understand the process but from an overall
planning perspective, if Open space is what you want in Open zoned, I don't think
knocking down density is necessarily the solution because if I took a hundred acres
and spread twenty (20) homes in five (5) acre lots, it would feel very private, you
25
• •
wouldn't feel good about looking at it, you'd see a roof top every few hundred feet, as
opposed to clustering the twenty (20) homes in the area of ten (10) fifteen (15) acres
and have the rest be Open, so that's one point. The other has to do with the Ag land
and some of the values that are being promoted is the preservation of agricultural
development to the extent possible.
(BEEPER)
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me Mr. Wong, that's your first three
(3) minutes, you have another three (3) minutes.
Mr. Wong: Okay I'll make this quick, I thought I would
get it long done within the first three (3) minutes. The Knudsen Trust has a lot of
agriculture activity going on, we have cattle, horses, we have vegetable farms, we
have tree farms, we tried aquaculture, we have seed corn and what we have found
is that most Ag in Kauai doesn't work very well, it's very hard to make a living,
there's no market to export to... sometimes the cost of operation is very high, the
only thing that we found that is sustainable and very strong from a financial
standpoint is the seed corn. So while I can applaud the desire to have a lot of Ag
land Opened and to promote diversified Ag, we haven't seen the solution to it other
than seed corn today. The final point is that density whether it's Ag or Open,
density is what creates value in land. Because of this, everyone who owns Ag and
Open land is looking to see how many houses they can build and that's what creates
the value, it totally trumps the value that comes from cash flow in Ag operations.
And so if someone thinks they can build ten (10) homes, and you changed it and say
now you can build five (5) they will feel that their value has been cut in half but if
you said you can build ten (10) homes but you got to stick it into this corner here so
that we can preserve Open space, whether for Open or for Ag, I think something
like that might be more satisfactory to them while at the same time satisfying your
needs to preserve Open space and that's it, thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Are there any questions of
Stacy? Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak and please keep your comments towards the presentation on density
Open space as presented by Mr. Nitta.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair, members of the Council, my name is
Ken Taylor. I want to thank Planning Committee for having Keith here today, it
was very informative history lesson and I really appreciate that and... but when we
move forward with this bill and others that are coming down the pike with the... at
the end of the study of the Prime Ag identification and so on, it seems to me that
these were all great activities but if we don't also put in place urban or community
growth boundaries that force the development into urban areas instead of
continuing to sprawl, we see all... last week you had a report on the energy
activities that's coming, we know that we've had a lot of discussion on
sustainability, these are all very important issues as we move further and further
into the area of the end of cheap oil and I think it.'s really important at this point in
time to start looking at the whole picture and understand that yes it's nice to tweak
this bill and others. But without the growth boundaries in place and that give you
an opportunity to say if you build in the urban areas, you have benefits where if
you'd go outside the growth boundaries you pay a premium price to develop out
there and in the long run this saves the county tremendous amount of money
because it cost more in services to service these outlying areas and so than in the
urban areas. So I think it's important to keep in mind that yes this is a good first
26
• •
step that we're headed in but the growth boundaries are going to be part of the
whole picture. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? If
not, thank you very much. Is there any more testimony regarding Mr. Nitta's
presentation? If not I will call the Committee meeting back to order. As I have
mentioned earlier I do want to find us perhaps you know a move to defer this
particular item and then if we have to bring it back for consideration on what Mr.
Nitta has so graciously done for us, we can. So on that note are there any further
comments and then we'll actually go into the bill. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Just very briefly I wanted to appreciate the
community members that testified here today, Mr. Dyer, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Wong,
I think all of their comments were on point and part of what we need to consider as
we move forward. That's all I wanted to say.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. And I do understand when we
actually get to the bill, you have a presentation?
Mr. Bynum: I do. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay when we do read that item, I'm going
to ask you to present it first and try to stay within a reasonable time frame since...
Mr. Bynum:
I'll do my best.
Mr. Furfaro: Since we have nine (9) items in my
Committee today. I'm going to recognize Mr. Kaneshiro then we'll come to you.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just my thoughts,
wouldn't it be more appropriate to receive this communication and then when we
get to the bill, this way we can open discussion regarding Mr. Nitta's presentation
and the bill itself, I just wanted to put that out. Currently we only defer this
portion, we won't get too much discussion on the ordinance itself because it's a
different you know... a presentation as related to the actual bill. I think a good
dialog if we need Mr. Nitta to come about or make some presentation could also
involve some parts of the bill. So I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Furfaro: Let me just say I would hope Mr. Nitta is
willing to come back at all. (inaudible)
Mr. Kaneshiro: So that we could have discussions on both
points.
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah I understood your point. Ms.
Kawahara.
Ms. Kawahara: Oh. I just wanted to thank the Planning
Chair and Councilmember Bynum having Mr. Nitta come and present such a broad
history and the great scope and depth ,for Councilmembers that may... truly
appreciate and needed to see it. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Did you have any further comments?
27
• •
Mr. Bynum: Yeah just procedural... I thought your intent
to defer was just if Mr. Nitta was to come back, he wasn't limited by the three (3)
minute rule, if he's actually an agenda item so I thought the deferral was a good
idea and... because we have that option.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay. I mean no matter.
Mr. Furfaro: So we're back to making a motion that
defers?
Mr. Bynum: Move to de...
Mr. Furfaro: Oh let me see if there's any other comments,
did you have anything Mr. Chang as an ex-officio?
Mr. Chang: Well I just wanted to thank both yourselves
and Councilmember Bynum for bringing Keith Nitta and all the speakers and
especially to Mr. Nitta. I have never had an opportunity to work with him but
obviously heard a lot about him and I just wanted thank you because it was
extremely enlightening because when we were dating all the way back to 1971,
1972 when Kauai has twenty-one thousand (21,000) residents, being from the
Plantation myself, I passed pineapple fields and sugarcane fields, Poamoho,
Wahiawa, Whitmore, Kunia, I mean I knew what that lifestyle was all about and as
you mentioned I don't think anybody knew that we were going to lose plantations,
particular the sugar industry so it was extremely enlightening and going from 70's,
71, 80 you know 84, 2000, 2002 up until the present time now, that you know when
you learn about the different zoning and everything else it was a pretty mind-
bottling and when I looked at the presentation again and again, I realize that it
must have taken a lot of time to put together your thoughts and I just thought it
was very eloquently presented because you went from step one (1), step two (2), step
three (3) bullet points what was important, what was the key factors, what was the
red flags, you called them yellow. But the red flags but I think... I think from start
to finish a very easy format to follow and I really learned a lot just observing that.
Thank you for allowing me to... as an ex-officio comment on that. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Did you have anything? Mr. Chair, did you
have anything? Okay so I am actually before I'm going to ask for a motion, I also
want to share with you, I do have some charts here that help you summarize the
existing one (1) time subdivision, the density allowed and then of course the lot size
allowed as it's currently here, this is a working tool for you. May I ask for a motion
to defer?
Ms. Kawahara: Move to de...
Mr. Kawakami: So moved.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Seconded.
Mr. Kawakami: Defer or receive?
Mr. Furfaro: Defer.
Mr. Kawakami: Okay.
28
•
Mr. Furfaro: On that note, all those in favor?
Committee Members: Aye.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kawakami, and seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, PL 2010-1 was
deferred.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. We're now going to go
to the actual bill and may I have the reading of Bill 2339, Mr. Nitta if you want to
stay. for this portion, it would be appreciated.
Bill No. 2339 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 8 OF
CHAPTER 8 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN
THE OPEN DISTRICT
[This item was deferred.]
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Clerk may I ask, I have
written testimony here from the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii, do I
assume all members have this correspondence.
PETER A. NAKAMURA (COUNTY CLERK):Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay very good. Okay do we... I'm going to
ask the Planning Department, I know they're here. Oh they were here. Could we
get someone from the Planning Department they maybe in the back office. Sorry for
the delay. We're going to take a five (5) minute break. Thank you for your patience
while we identify the Planning Department members.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:46 a.m.
The Committee reconvened at 11:56 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we are now the Planning Committee is
back in session, may I have the reading of Bill 2339.
DARRELLYNE SIMAO: A bill for an ordinance amending article 8 of
the chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987 as amended, relating to development
standards in the open district.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Gentleman in the back of the
room may I ask if I could have your attention. Thank you. We are now have Imai
here from the Planning Department and I would like to go ahead and suspend the
rules and let you present to the Council and to the audience here the highlights of
Bi112339.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
IMAIKALANI P. AIU (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING): Okay.
Thank you Chair Furfaro, members of the Council. The intent of the bill is to
basically fulfill the intent of the General Plan and one of the policy there actions in
29
•
the General Plan which was to one (1) limit the density on Open zone lands, the
actual language in the General Plan I believe is close the what's called the Open
density bonus. In this case we've done that by just setting a cap similar to
agricultural land of five (5) units. The other thing is with to Open density bonus is
to limit the subdivision of the amount of lots you can get via subdividing Ag land.
It was during the General Plan process it seems pretty clear that the consensus was
reached that the standards for agricultural land worked pretty well. They may not
be perfect and as testimony said here today, there may be more we can do but there
are definitely better at presenting large tracks of lands than the Open standards
are. As presented last time Open is practically unlimited. Is in... it just... the
bigger the lot gets the more you can do. Unlike agricultural land which has a
sliding scale that the larger the lot gets the more restrictive the parcels sizes are,
preserving larger tracts of land. So we have also instituted standards similar to on
Open Zoned lands similar to the standards of agricultural land. And then the last
thing we've done is considering that most of what is agricultural land at least by the
state land use category on parcels... on our large parcels is a mix between our Open
zoned land and our agricultural zoned land, we have created a provision that says
once that parcel has over fifty (50) acres of land,~and our county Open zoning, when
you determined how you're going to subdivide the land, by what standards, the
parcels size standards, you no longer are going to say the Open is this much land,
the Ag is this much land, you are going to consider it one (1) piece. That would
institute a stricter standard and all of this is again in the goal of putting those
stricter standards and curbing what is you know seen as sprawl development that
over taxes our infrastructure, results in a loss of agricultural land and the loss of
Open space to try and manage that, manage growth.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. The rules are suspended. Let me ask
you before we move any further on this bill, let me ask...I'm assuming, I don't see it
in the bill but I'm assuming so that we don't get into arguments and it could lead
into legal consequences, people who may have vested rights, perceived vested rights
on subdivisions that are tentative right now, your practice has been that that first
process of tentative approval is not in question here, that in fact that is... it really
minimizes our challenges, right?
Mr. Aiu: Yes. Practice of the Department...
Mr. Furfaro: But it's not set, the practices of the
Department aren't set in the bill.
Mr. Aiu: The .practices of the Department are not set
in the bill, they are practices in the Department that once tentative subdivision is
granted, we do not then apply the new standards to what has become already pretty
much the agreed upon conditions of the subdivision.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so that should be put in an
amendment?
Mr. Aiu: It would probably only help to clarify if we
did put that in an amendment.
Mr. Furfaro: But that is your current practices?
Mr. Aiu: That is our current practices.
30
Mr. Furfaro:
before you submitted this bill?
Mr. Aiu:
in place, yes.
•
Is that... and is that what you understood
Yes. That those current practices would stay
Mr. Furfaro: Okay ,now that this bill is in place as far as
being in front of the Council, what would be the practices for any absolute new?
Mr. Aiu: Absolute new subdivisions...
Mr. Furfaro: That came in with an application.
Mr. Aiu: So you're talking about... if tomorrow an
absolute new subdivision walked through the door?
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah.
Mr. Aiu: Brand new subdivision? We would start,
being that it's before the Council right now, and we enforce the laws that are in
place, we cannot enforce the possible laws. So we would accept it and evaluate it
under our current standards.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I can understand you know we've given
tentative approval to a couple of subdivision, I'm just wondering as this bill...
implying that it's successful as it's going through the process...
Mr. Aiu: You're asking where does it (inaudible) with
someone who has applied already but not yet receive tentative?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Aiu: To that middle ground subdivision?
Mr. Furfaro: Or will apply?
Mr. Aiu: You know actually that's a very difficult
question and if I could I'd like to address that with the County Attorneys before I
answer that.
Mr. Furfaro: I. understand when you're saying about
tentative approval because it's like they have an investment and they believe that
they have an entitlement. I'm wondering about someone walking in the door
tomorrow, while this bill is being heard.
Mr. Aiu: Well walking in the door tomorrow, we'd
have to accept them under the current laws. I believe the .difficulty comes in is that
they walk into tomorrow and next week let's say the bill passes; what happens to
that fellow? Is... and I think that's a question that we have to hash out with the
County Attorneys with the question of where rights become vested in an application
of practice.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so you'll... your Department will
pursue that and I'm just...
31
• •
Mr. Aiu: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: I understand it's like posting something,
somebody has the right to speak on that item that's posted, somebody has an
application in, they're now at tentative approval, they haven't gone through several
steps, they've got investment there, they could argue that they were tentative, they
were vested but this could be a three (3) month process.
Mr. Aiu: Yeah. Easily.
Mr. Furfaro: And I'd like to know what someone could
explain to a new applicant you know what's going on at the Council level with the
initiative on this new bill introduced by Planning.
Mr. Aiu: (inaudible)
Mr. Furfaro: But I think we do need to get your past
policies in writing.
Mr. Aiu: On the bill you mean?
Mr. Furfaro: On the bill. That it's in the bill. Excluding
tentative approvals.
Mr. Aiu: I would agree with that.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Chair?
Mr. Asing: Yes I think what is being raised now is an
interesting legal issue.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Asing: And I would suggest that we not move the
bill until we work this legal issue out. Now I believe that we had addressed this
problem before. I believe we had as an example if you remember in Kapa`a a
subdivision that had tentative approval, and we... I think we attempted to rectify
that by putting into the that bill.
Mr. Furfaro: Right.
Mr. Asing: That provision in there so that it would
define what we meant.
Mr. Furfaro: So I'm hearing the same from them on those
who have tentative approval, I'm just worried about those that...
Mr. Asing: Well, well, well...
Mr. Furfaro: Walk in the door now.
Mr. Asing: The reason I say that is that only covers the
tentative...
32
•
Mr. Furfaro:
Tentative.
Mr. Asing: Portion because that was under discussion at
that time because that particular developer was granted the tentative approval so
we took care of that, but what we're now being faced with is not just the tentative
but those that go from tentative all the way back to first application. So here's this
whole broad spectrum...
Mr. Furfaro: Right.
Mr. Asing: Of tentative, go back to apply. So that's the
area that we need to handle.
Mr. Furfaro: No, no I understand that but I want to make
sure, they have past practice that they've had "tentative" and so I don't think we
can change our position on tentative since we have a history of doing that, but I'm
only inquiring new applications and it sounds like it's a .legal question that we need
to get clarification.
Mr. Asing: ~ Arid I just wanted to expand on that, when
you say "new applications," Jay? You have someone as an example that applied
one (1) year ago...
Mr. Furfaro: But don't have tentative approval?
Mr. Asing: They do not have tentative. So it's not the
new applicant only.:.
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Asing:
Yes.
It's "any."
Mr. Furfaro: Applicant that are there that don't have
tentative approval.
Mr. Asing: Yes. That's correct.
Ms. Kawahara: Hi Chair. Um actually if you could help me.
I would expect as a legislative body that we would have something in place that
addresses upcoming ordinances and new applicants, so I'm not expecting a delay for
that because a legislative body we pass ordinances all the time that are going to
affect incoming, yes? So I'm curious if that's your take on it and not to...
Mr. Furfaro: My take is just making giving clarity to the
tentative and making sure that people who just, as the Chair pointed out just have
an application in, know that they are subject to this bill when it applies.
Ms. Kawahara: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Because they don't have tentatives.
Ms. Kawahara: Because I...
33
• •
Mr. Furfaro: I think that needs to be in this bill.
Mr. Asing: It's a very, very...
Mr. Furfaro: Important piece.
Mr. Asing: Serious issue and the reason why I say that,
I went through that process.
BC (check your mic)
Mr. Asing: And I know how long it takes to get from
application to tentative. That time period is extensive, it is a very long time period,
it is not a short time period. 'It can be in some cases two (2) years...
(TAPE CHANGE)
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:05 p.m.
The Committee reconvened at 12:10 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Nakamura:
Okay members.
Okay Vice Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Okay we're back from the five
minute (5) technical recess. Mr. Imai, we're back, this meeting is active, so we'll go
on to another question.
Ms. Kawahara: I was wondering if I would finish because
you spoke in response to me and then he spoke but I didn't finish my statement, if I
could?
Mr. Furfaro: Go ahead.
Ms. Kawahara: I share your concerns and I'm glad that
you've brought them...
(BC -inaudible)
Mr. Furfaro: Hold on, timeout, timeout. Test? We're on?
Okay, you're good over there BC? Okay you're good. Okay Lani, you had the floor.
Ms. Kawahara: I just wanted to say that I shared your
concerns and I'm confident that there are ways... standards ways that we've always
used that have... will handle that as a legislative body we do it all the time. Thank
you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Kaneshiro
and then I'll go to you Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you Chair, I have a question for the
Planning Department, Imai you know looking over this bill I see several sections in
this bill that might be inconsistent to what we're trying to achieve here you know in
34
the Open districts and specifically I'll point you to one section eight dash one point
four (8-1.4) application of regulations. In there basically what it's saying that any
lot or parcel located in the state land use commission agricultural district in
containing fifty (50) acres or more in a county Open district shall be considered
together. So what we're saying is basically is even though you got fifty (50) acres
you got... or more, you got up to five (5) in the Open that's what we're trying to limit
right? At this point. That when you put this two (2) together in Ag district, you
can't do that.
Mr. Aiu: Okay I...
Mr. Kaneshiro: It's inconsistent to what we're trying to
achieve here. Is that the intent of the Planning Department?
Mr. Aiu: I don't think so but I'm not sure I fully... I'm
not sure I'm fully following your point. So because it's supposed to be considered
together for the purposes of determining subdivision standards and that's the only
time it's considered together, not for density. Is that addressing what you're
saying? Or is that?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Well it seems to me...
Mr. Aiu: Or am I off?
Mr. Kaneshiro: It seems to me that if a person who has three
hundred (300) acres or sixty (60) acres, let's say sixty (60) acres.
Mr. Aiu: Okay.
Mr. Kaneshiro: He has five (5) that we know that we're going
to limit in the Open, that's all he can have not more than that.
Mr. Aiu:
acre...
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Aiu:
Open zoned?
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Aiu:
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Aiu:
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Aiu:
So he has a sixty (60), sorry a sixty (60)
Or seventy (70) acres.
Seventy (70) acre parcel or seventy (70) acre
In Open. In Open.
Okay.
And you have some in Ag.
Okay.
Right?
Yes.
Mr. Kaneshiro: But you limiting that only to the Ag... the Ag
density. That's what it seems like it says here.
35
Mr. Aiu: No. Not necessarily.
Mr. Kaneshiro: And there's one more... there's one more
place in section eight dash eight point five (8-8.5) it says here and provided that
more... no more than five (5) dwelling units may be developed on any one parcel.
Mr. Aiu: Yes. Okay so I see what you're saying. So
you're saying when they come into fifty (50), they cap together, is what you're
saying because of that provision there?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct.
Mr. Aiu: So yeah.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct.
Mr. Aiu: Okay. I see what you're saying and yes that
could be inconsistent because the intent was to give the five (5) density to the Open
and the five (5) density to the agriculture.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Regardless... okay.
Mr. Aiu: However um, I think that parcel language
would stand alone however that may... that may need a certain correction both on
the Ag side and the Open side.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay.
Mr. Aiu: They're considered together; I do believe we
put in language that says for the purpose of determining subdivision standards.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay. And I just wanted to point that out
because you know I wanted to s ee what your intent was and I see that we are all on
the same page. There might be some corrections that we need to do in those
sections to clarify that.
Mr. Aiu: Sure enough.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Because it could be interpreted, you know?
Mr. Aiu: It could be interpreted to parcel and not to
zoning and therefore its purpose to density.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Density.
Mr. Aiu: Got you.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: And I guess the intent here is you know
we're trying to...
Mr. Kaneshiro: Limit.
36
•
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Aiu:
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Aiu:
Mr. Furfaro:
clarification.
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Furfaro:
we take public testimony.
Limit the Open.
Yes.
You know without penalizing the Ag.
Yes.
And so that probably needs some
Okay.
Thank you Mr. Kaneshiro.
Thank you.
Mr. Bynum, I'm going to let you present after
Mr. Bynum: Yeah I .just appreciate the questions you
asked earlier and I know that we're going to be addressing those, so I can withhold
my comments to later.
Mr. Furfaro: Anyone else has questions for them before I
go to the audience? I'm going to excuse you, sir for now and...
Mr. Aiu:
Thank you Council.
Mr. Furfaro: The rules are still suspended. May I ask if
there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak on the actual bill? Did you
want to speak on the bill Ken? Please come right on up.
Mr. Taylor: Chair, members of the Council my name is
Ken Taylor. In reference to the questions that were asked earlier about how you
deal with projects in the pipeline and projects that may come in tomorrow...
Mr. Furfaro: You did... you did hear that we're going to
refer that to the County Attorney?
Mr. Taylor: I heard that but I would hope that under
the.:. because I think this is a very important bill for and revision of the existing
policy in the county, I believe that a short moratorium should be placed until... for
any new projects coming in. I realize projects in the pipeline have to be addressed
and dealt with but from a stand .point because we've seen in the pass the
controversy that can come up around the bill of this nature and this thing could
drag on for a number of years, hopefully it will get addressed quickly and become
the rule of the county but just in case it drags on for some time, I would really like
to see a moratorium put in place on any new activity until this is adopted. Thank
you.
37
•
Mr. Furfaro: Your comments are so noted. Is there
anyone else who would like to speak on this bill? I do want to say that Mr. Bynum
has a presentation prepared, did I see your hand Mike? I'm sorry, come right up.
Mr. Dyer: Thank you Mr. Chair, my name is Mike Dyer
since Planning is here, I haven't really had the chance to study this closely but the
question that I have and I haven't really been able to find the answer to is relating
to development within a subdivided lot... let's say a five (5) acre lot has three (3)
acres of Open in it (inaudible) does the Open in the subdivided lot reduce the
density? Five (5) acre lot normally under the regular Ag CZO would have two (2)
units under this new bill does it get one (1) if it has a certain amount of Open in it?
That's, what we currently have going on but I'm curious if it's still in there.
Mr. Furfaro: I will raise that question since Planning is in
the audience. Do you have anymore Mike? Do you have anymore testimony?
Mr. Dyer: No that was it.
Mr. Furfaro: Imai before you come up, let me see if I have
any other testimony. No? Planning. Did you understand the query?
Mr.Imai: I will repeat it to make sure I did.
(inaudible) given a theoretical example of an Open of a lot which have three (3)
acres in the Open and how much?
Mr. Furfaro:
Mr. Imai:
Mr. Furfaro:
example. Am I correct Mike?
It was a five (5) acre lot.
It was a five (5) acre lot.
With three (3) acres in Open I think was the
Mr. Imai: I assume then the remaining two (2) would
be in agriculture?
(inaudible)
Mr. Imai: Okay. That lot would qualify today and
under the new ordinances for one (1) unit.
Mr. Furfaro: That answers the question for now. If not
I'm going to call the meeting back to order and I'm going to allow Councilmember
Bynum to make a short presentation. Are you prepared?
Mr. Bynum: Yeah I think so. I just wanted to seek your
guidance, I estimated that it would take twenty (20) minutes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay well we'll go to twelve thirty-five
(12:35) before we break for lunch and we'll come back at one thirty-five (1:35), so
you have twenty (20) minutes, twenty-one (21) I may have to cut you off.
Mr. Bynum: I'll do my best. Assuming that it's going to
come up quickly.
38
•
Mr. Furfaro: For us that need to relocate, we'll relocate.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you for this opportunity. Some of this
I presented last year or last term related to CPRs and the fact that residential
development in the agricultural district and so I'm going to go through this quickly.
This you know as the presentation was given to us today by the time the General
Plan rolled around there were concerns and that were expressed quite eloquently in
the General Plan along with recommendations and specific items and so I've said
this a lot over the last couple years, I strongly encourage members of the public to
read Chapter five (5) of the General Plan which addresses these issues in some
detail so but the General Plan basically had a vision of the Garden Island as a rural
environment of towns separated by broad Open spaces. An island distinctly
individual towns and communities each with its own unique and character and I
think everybody agrees with this, we like our unique towns, we like the Open space
between towns and that's part of what gives a rural character. As stated in the
vision rural describes many aspect of Kauai that people .value, lush vegetation,
broad expanses of agricultural lands, given wide open vistas, small communities
where people know each other, the absence of city noise and lights and feeling
crowded and/or said another way, we choose a different path than Oahu or Maui.
And I think people agree with that, those are quotes from the General Plan. This is
a State land use districts on the island of Kauai to the ability you can see this the
blue or green it appears here, segments are the agricultural zoned lands which we
know now have Open overlays on them that are not shown on this map. And the
red, you can see the towns where the red is urban zoning, where we had community
development or we had thoughtful planning and said this is where we want our
residential expansion to occur. The policy section of the General Plan states
allowing incremental growth of towns contiguous to existing development and asks
us to limit the development as a (inaudible) of new agricultural communities
through zoning regulations. So by 2000 the problems that Keith outlined today
were well aware and the General Plan consensus was please. with your regulations
deal with this issue. Over the years the development of agricultural subdivision has
changed parts of Kauai. What was previously an agricultural rural landscape has
been developed into quasi suburban landscape dotted with residences on large lots.
So these again are quotes from the General Plan. So if we look at Kilauea, this is
the Kilauea area where a lot of this occurred and the red portion in the middle is
Kilauea Town and the part that's currently urban zoning, much of which has not
been built out, right? Has Mr. Dyer said there hasn't been a whole lot of residential
development on the North Shore in residential zoned for all of the reasons he said
that the regulatory right now is skewed to favor that subdivision on Ag lands at the
expense of our towns and the residential development in the towns, I won't have
time to go into all of the reasons that the General Plan illustrates of why that's
problematic for the county but again I do encourage people to read Chapter five (5).
You know as we said CPRs were relatively a new thing and this shows them
starting to come up, if you can see the white lines are CPRs parcels (inaudible) 1990
in the Kilauea area and so because of that allowing that financing to occur, it
became amore... it became a vehicle that I believe accelerated the use of
agricultural lands for the defacto residential development. So if you look at 1990 by
2000 that has expanded greatly, this is the date of the General Plan where the
General Plan framer said instructed an essence the county to address this issue
.through a... a number of ways and as Keith said today this bill that's before us is an
important but not the only step to change the regulatory mechanism. This is by
2007 you can see that Kilauea and Mr. Dyer pointed up that the EPA has been
telling us at Smart Growth conferences that if you... once you subdivide land, it's
kind of permanent. You know it's very difficult to go back and say hey let's remove
39
•
all these individual ownerships and go back to a large parcel. And you can lock
yourself in by having this done around your towns and then having no logical place
for the urban expansion to occur. And the EPA has alerted that to us in a great
document about rural zoning changes that's available to the public and if anybody
has interest let me know. This is a new map I got yesterday. Our GIS is getting
better so you can see the conservation zone, even along the coast but you know it's
showing that CPRs here, present date 2009 as Mr. Dyer said pretty much exhausted
the potential along the Kilauea area. But if we look at a little broader expanse of
CPRs as of today, now we see that that phenomenon is spreading into the wide
Pake area and the far right hand bottom corner, the little red dot is the urban
zoning is Anahola area, so between Anahola and Kilauea, subdivisions are kind of
moving around and we had some recent new ones in the Waipake area. The goal
here in this just another way to illustrate it, there are parcels that are TMK parcels
and then there are CPRs within those parcels. These gold areas are just the CPRs.
And it also illustrates that moving out from Kilauea heading towards Kealia. This
is some quotes specific to the Open zoned which is in the CAC... the CA task groups
major concern was to eliminate Open district bonus in agricultural subdivisions
that was clear consensus in this subject. There's a general agreement that this
density bonus for Open land contradicts the intent of the Open district. And Keith
did a great job and saying originally the open.. the density in Open was to support
agriculture. But it changed over time through challenges and to creating a
situation where potential agricultural lands were being used for residential and so
what was originally thought of a friend of agriculture, I in my opinion became not
something that was helpful for our overall plan as a community to keep those wide
open spaces. I'll just say it as aside, I don't have a slide on this but the General
Plan says that there are three (3)... more than one purpose for agricultural lands,
primarily for agriculture for current use, for potential use and future use but it also
says clearly that part of the reason for agriculture is to preserve that Open space.
To preserve that rural character and so there's some confused people that say "eh
are you interested in Open space or Ag?" what is it that you're trying to accomplish
with this and the General Plan was real clear that both of those but it prioritizes it
with agricultural at the top of that. So it contradicts the intent of the Open
districts, Section five point three (5.3) of this plan recommends changing the Open
district so that it include only the more environmentally sensitive lands and no
longer confers the density bonus increasing the number of lots and houses that can
be developed. And so that goes a little further and says let's redesignate what Open
is for and how it's intended and Keith also made that recommendation I believe
about a need to remap Open and bring it closer to its original intent. This bill
doesn't suggest doing that but that's an example of one of the additional steps that
may be required to meet the overall vision. Whereas government sets high
procedural and financial hurdles for urban development, the requirements for
residential development on agricultural lands are minimal. The rest of this
paragraph which I didn't put up here goes into specifics about the difference
between residential development on Ag and in the urban zone but couple of people
have talked quite clearly today about that the difficulties of getting urban zoning
where we intended to be, have skewed or pushed development dollars into a
different place. On Kauai, a residential project... on agriculturally zoned lands
needs only subdivision approval by the Planning Commission, no public hearing is
required. And so I believe the next step after this bill is to address the use issue.
Are we subdividing Ag for residential or are we subdividing for agriculture? And
that use issue has not been addressed in the regulatory rules. Contrary to policy
the regulatory playing field is skewed to favor large lot residential development
over agricultural land or agricultural land over residential development in urban
areas. So I'm just underlining that you know repeatedly the General Plan says this
40
is a problem, we need to address it, we need to have growth where it's sustainable
and appropriate and doesn't tax county services and doesn't change the character of
the island in a way that we don't intend. Just real briefly this is a fairly recent CPR
subdivision on Ag land in Kilauea area called Kulana, it started as one (1) big parcel
like this okay and this might be a place that we'd want to do urban expansion
because it's close to the Kapa`a Middle School, it's close to county services, it's a
kind of area that if we did a community development plan, we might say "hey let's
urbanize this area" because Ag land often you know with growth needs to change.
That's what it looks like now, it got divided into I think a hundred and thirty-eight
(138) parcels but how did that happen? Right in the middle and the colors don't
show up so good but in the middle... right in the middle of this parcel is a big
swatch of Open because there's a river valley and it was mapped out with the intent
because of that Open in that Open zoning in that parcel and the density bonus that
we're talking about closing here, it allowed for many more lots than it would've been
had we had the same agricultural standards. So you can't see it on this very well
but the lot lines you know allowed that density. So just as an example of how that
occurs you know because this parcel had Open, it got much higher density than it
would have if we had changed the regulatory structure.. Now I always have to do
this closure I learned a lot about this process by buying an agricultural lot some
years ago and I was very confused by that, I originally didn't know it was a
residential lot on Ag, I just knew it was a lot that was available to purchase because
there weren't any homes available in the residential zones where the kind of places
I grew up, neighborhoods with neighbors. But there was agricultural lots available
at a price that I thought was kind of affordable, so in 2000 even though I don't
believe this kind of creating a large number of these lots at the expense of
residential development was a good idea, at least working class people could afford
it and could benefit from it. But by the time Kulana came along, this is the price
sheet and for some reason the translation is not showing but the lot... this is a price
sheets of the lots that were available at Kulana few years ago and they started at
four hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars ($449,000), I couldn't afford that. So
the other thing that changed was the economic reality that at one time these
agricultural parcels were available to Kauai residents and working class as an
option for their residence but I think that option is largely passed even in our down
economic times, just because of the economic realities. This is two (2) large parcels
in the Kealia. On the ocean side is on the right you see lots lines there which is not
CPRs, they are agricultural "subdivision lots that we know as Kealia Kai. But one of
the more recent subdivisions and it was kind of controversial and there was lots of
discussion about whether it was appropriate or not but these are two (2) very large,
what I could consider in my limited time knowledge prime Ag land, lot of it is level,
it has intact water systems, was not too long ago in cane and at the bottom you see
the red area, is one of our urban zones up Kawaihau Road where a lot of residents
live. This is an example of where twenty (20) or thirty (30) years we might have
wanted to rezoned this land into residential for urban expansion, but we may have
lost the opportunity because this is what it looks like now. It is a very large two
thousand (2,000) acre CPR subdivision with many lots. So those lines have been
drawn, it's been divided up, we've created these large parcels and it may restrict us
from more urbanize use of this land in the future and illustrates what I was saying
earlier is that this phenomenon seems to be moving around the island as plantation
lands go out of plantation, new owners come in, this was once that in Amfac land
where every... as Keith said today we weren't that worried about it because we
thought the plantation want that valuable Ag land for Ag, they want that intact
water system and we expect that we're going to have plantation level agriculture
forever, well unfortunately you know the world proceeded differently but you know
the General Plan asks us to provide stewardship on these lands and gets very
41
i •
specific and this bill is one of those many steps that I believe is necessary. Just real
quickly this is in Po`ipu. Along the Po`ipu bypass there's big sections of agricultural
land there, I don't believe Open density impact this subdivision but just under our
current densities on Ag land, there is no community plan that says this is a good
place to put large lot subdivision, there... we haven't done that. But our current
regulations allow subdivisions like this to occur. This is the Po`ipu Aina Estates it's
seventeen (17) home sites from two pint three (2.3) to two point nine (2.9) acres, it's
certainly a glorious land, I hope a lot of Kauai residents that are middle class
working people end up living there. This is from the sales office there, I just want
to briefly point out and we can go into more detail. Section (k) says the homeowner
association owns and operates the sod farm consisting of approximately .seven (7)
acres of common element of easement lands with the purpose of assisting
homeowners to meet the state agricultural requirements. I think that's just a joke.
So we're going to use these land and you know... I want to drive up there with my
truck and buy some sod, so they're growing grass for commercial is what they're
telling us, it's just... by this time later in subdivisions at least we were giving lip-
service to Ag and this is pretty outrageous lip-service to Ag. This is the price list for
those lots if you want to run out and buy one, there's one bargain at nine hundred
and fifty thousand (950,000) and they go up to one point three (1.3) million. I
question how many working class Kauai citizens are going to end up being
residents of this kind of subdivision. These... here's a rural landscape, this is what
we're doing now. When you do these without any incentives, without any
requirements that you cluster, you want to spread those lots out as far as you can to
get yourself away from your neighbors, you have to build lots of roads and you
consume the Ag land so what starts off as a rural landscape like this ends up
looking like this with no regulations because the General Plan also says if you're
going to do this residential development on Ag, you need rules for it, you need
regulations, you need to do something to make these rural communities if that's
what you choose to do as a community. This is the same landscape with the idea of
clustering being applied, right? It's not... perhaps esthetically pleasing as this but
it's not as bad as that. And it helps preserve some agricultural space and the bill
that was discussed in 2002 tried to (inaudible-coughing) this kind of development.
But a rural community could also look like this, you could take all of that density
and put it and cluster it even further and maintain a rural environment and create
these kinds of rural communities that's envisioned. One" of the reasons I think 2002
bill, times have changed is that that time we anticipated and the General Plan says
that the secondary consideration for Ag land could be these rural communities but
regulate them. But we have yet to do that. And so but now we have a very large
inventory of this, right? So I appreciate, I've got ten (10) seconds that's a very quick
run through of some you know kind of bringing us to what has occurred since there
happened and I'd like to close this with a quote I heard from Mayor Harry Kim at a
Planning Conference a few years ago, as the Big Island struggled with these same
issues and I believe that they are much further along at regulating this kind of
development than we are here on Kauai, but what he said is that at some point you
got to ask yourself what the heck are we doing? And who the heck are we doing it
for? Right? And I cleaned that up a little bit from... if you know Harry Kim.
Because I think you know like I said earlier, at least ten (10) years ago it may not
have been good planning for the island in the right way to do things and we didn't
put the regulations in place but at least working class people like myself you know
it was one of the options for housing, especially in the time where we had no options
in the residential zone because we haven't built any. But that ship has sailed in my
opinion and anything we do now, we're doing it for people not who live here on
Kauai but for people who might choose to move here, who certainly have resources
42
beyond my means, so thank you very much for that time and I think I just met my
deadline. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay thank you for that presentation Mr.
Bynum. I need to help you with your geography though...
(BC): Check your mic there.
Mr. Furfaro: Kulana is in Kapa`a not in Kilauea.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah I meant... thank you very much.
Mr. Furfaro: And I also want to thank you for that cluster
slide which was part of the 2002 bill. I would like to say on that note this
Committee is going to be in recess for lunch and we will come back at about one
thirty-five (1:35).
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:35 p.m.
The Committee reconvened at 1:43 p.m., the proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we are now back from our lunch recess.
We... we're dealing with a presentation from Mr. Bynum on bill two, three, three,
nine (2339), we had public testimony on both two, three, three, nine (2339) as well
as two, zero, one, zero (2010) I would like to, since we did go to public testimony, I
would like to call the meeting back to order, are there any questions from any
members on Mr. Bynum's presentation? If not, what I'd like to do is move to defer
this and it will be deferred to two (2) weeks and come up in our January 27+~
Committee Meeting. That's the motion I'm looking for.
Mr. Kawakami: So moved.
Mr. Bynum: And where...
Mr. Furfaro: No I need a second and then I can.
Mr. Bynum: I'm sorry, seconded.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. I'm sorry you wanted to say
something. May I ask you to remove your seconded, that I asked you to give. That's
my fault. I didn't realize, I thought you were.
Mr. Bynum.: Yes I'm sorry.
Mr. Furfaro: Motion was to defer but before we get there.
Mr. Bynum: And we'll be sending questions to the County
Attorney.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Soon and I just like to... I have questions as
well .which I didn't address so I'll collaborate with you about sending over those.
Yes?
43
•
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Okay that's all.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so noted that when I send over
questions to the County Attorney, if we could let Mr. Bynum review that as a
correspondence as he might want to add some particulars to that point for the legal
department. On that I have a motion to defer.
Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Furfaro:
Committee Members:
Mr. Furfaro:
Seconded.
Thank you. All those in favor?
Aye.
Thank you very much..
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kawakami, and seconded by
Councilmember Bynum, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2339 was
deferred.
Mr. Furfaro: We are now going to come back to the top of
page one (1). We're going to go to bill two, two, nine, eight (2298) as mentioned
earlier this is a bill that I would like to defer as requested by the County Attorney,
we've had one (1) member of the public speak to us. Peter we did get that copy of
his testimony, am I correct?
Thank you very much. So could I ask you to read that one more time for the
public here?
Bill No. 2298 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
SINGLE-FAMILY TRANSIENT VACATION RENTALS
[This item was deferred.]
Mr. Furfaro: So I would like to ask if there's anyone in the
audience that would like to give additional testimony on this although we are going
to defer it, if you are show me your hands so that I can suspend the rules if not...
members? We are back in session and I would like very much to defer this item.
Can I have a motion to defer? _
Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Kaneshiro:
Mr. Furfaro:
Committee Members:
Mr. Furfaro:
So moved.
Seconded.
Any? All those in favor?
Aye.
Thank you very much.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, and seconded by
44
Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2298 was
deferred.
Mr. Furfaro:
one, seven (2317).
Let's go to the next item Bill No. two, three,
CR-PL 2010-01: on Bill No. 2317, Draft 3
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO
ESTABLISH A NEW ARTICLE 28,
CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY
CODE 1987, RELATING TO SMALL
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION
SYSTEMS
[Received.]
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're going to take a recess for right
now, thank you.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:14 p.m.
The Committee reconvened at 2:53 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Bill No. 2318 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, RELATING TO THE
' .COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE (Farm Worker
Housing)
[This item was deferred.]
Mr. Furfaro: Okay continuation for the Planning
Committee for those of you that were not here earlier, I did announce that the
intent for Bill No. twenty-three, one, eight (2318) the farm worker housing bill, I
have been approached by the ADHOC Committee made up by the Farm Bureau, the
Moloaa Coop, Malama Kauai, they've been having some very good dialog with the
tax department, the Planning Department, as well as reviewing other policies
dealing with commercial farming activity. They have asked that we defer this to
date specific to March 10th which is a Committee Meeting and I have so agreed to do
so. So I will be looking at that motion later but in the meantime, is there anyone
here that would like to testify on Bill twenty-three, one, eight (2318)? A Bill for an
ordinance to amend Chapter 8 of the Kauai County code relating to Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance in particular farm worker housing? There's no one here? May I
ask if there is a motion to defer date specific to March 10th?
Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Kawakami:
Mr. Furfaro:
favor say "aye".
Committee Members:
Mr. Furfaro:
So moved.
Seconded.
Thank you. No discussion? All those in
Aye.
Thank you very much.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, and ,seconded by
45
Councilmember Kawakami, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2318 was
deferred to March 10, 2010.
Mr. Furfaro: The last two (2) items that I got here and
there has been a request just to make note of it for the members that there are
members in the public when my Committee closes after this item to deal with the
Public Safety item next versus the Public Works item. So I would like those two (2)
Chair people to consider that. My item I would like to read both twenty-three,
twenty-nine (2329) and twenty-three, forty (2340) dealing with the zoning ordinance
in Kilauea is a correction of a map and there might be an amendment to be
introduced on this. As we have a small housekeeping item in there which left out
the word "map" so could I have those two (2) items read please.
CR-PL 2010-02: on Bill No. 2329 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. PM-228-91, RELATING
TO GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IN
KILAUEA, KAUAI (County of Kauai,
Applicant)
[This item was Approved as Amended.]
CR-PL 2010-03: on Bill No. 2340 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE RELATING
TO ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN
ORDINANCE NO. PM-229-91; KILAUEA,
KAUAI (County of Kauai, Applicant)
[This item was Approved.]
CR-PL 2010-04: on Bill No. 2328
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. PM-227-91, RELATING
TO STATE LAND USE DISTRICT
BOUNDARY IN KILAUEA, KAUAI
(County of Kauai, Applicant)
[This item was Approved.]
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~~~~
Darrellyne M. Simao
Council Services Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on February 10, 2010:
JAY
Chair, mmit
46