Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2010-Doc15932• • MINUTES PLANNING COMMITTEE May 5, 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 Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, at 12:29 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 There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:29 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 1:47 a.m., and proceeded as follows: JAY FURFARO (Committee Chair): Aloha we're back from our lunch and recess and I do want to share with you that on the item dealing with Planning on the workforce housing bill, I will be explaining some particulars because I will be asking for a deferral and also as we approach some of the developments standards in the Open District, I will be asking if we could recess to go into Executive Session to hear from our County Attorneys, so I would like to go now to item two, three, five, zero (2350). Let the record show that all members are present and could I have that Bill two, three, five, zero (2350) read? LAUIE CHOW (Senior Clerk Typist): Excuse me, would you want me to read the minutes first? Mr. Furfaro: You know that would be a very good idea. I'm sorry I was trying to share some information to the audience about the other two (2) bills, that I forgot to ask you to please read into the record the acceptance of the Minutes from March 16 and April 7, please go right ahead. Minutes of the March 16, 2010 Planning Committee Workshop Meeting. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the March 16, 2010 Planning Committee Workshop Meeting was approved. Minutes of the April 7, 2010 Planning Committee Meeting. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the April 7, 2010 Planning Committee Meeting was approved. The Committee proceeded on its agenda items, as shown in the following Committee reports which are incorporated herein by reference: • Bill No. 2350 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, RELATING TO ZONING DESIGNATION IN WAIMEA, KAUAI (C. Ahko Inc., et al., Applicant) [This item was deferred.] Mr. Furfaro: We have a representative of the applicant here, would you like to speak first sir or? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. WALTON HONG: Actually if I could have the courtesy of speaking last? Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Hong: So granted. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to suspend the rules and ask for those in the audience that would like to offer testimony. Ms. Chow: Our first speaker is Julia McGovern. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Julia please come right up. Ms. Chow: Followed by Linda Harmon. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. JULIA MCGOVERN: Aloha and thank you for letting me speak or read. My name is Julia McGovern, I have lived in Waimea for twenty (20) years next to the Ahko property. Mr. Furfaro: Can we just adjust your mic a little bit, just pull it closer to you, the whole stand, the whole mic stand. Ms. McGovern: Oh. I'll just take the whole table with me... Can you hear me now? Mr. Furfaro: Yes we can. Ms. McGovern: Okay my name is Julia McGovern, I had lived in Waimea next to the Ahko property for twenty (20) years and in 2006 this once forested land backhoe barren as a (inaudible) to a petition for a change in zoning from Open District to R6, this was later withdrawn. Today this... Ahko Inc Attorney is again here to petition to amend this O zoning to R4. I am concerned about the repercussions for everyone and everything around this property if this critical flood plain is lost forever. The property is zoned Open District for a very good reason, bordered by Kealii Ditch and sitting on former rice farms. It has always been a place for waters to raise and recede, when heavy rains and backflow from Waimea River during high tides and ocean swells cause the ditch to overflow, its soil and once vegetation, vegetation was in a central green space to ameliorate flooding of all surrounding properties. Moreover according to the County 2 • • Wastewater Department, Kealii Ditch itself is a protected waterway under the Federal Clean Water Act, because it discharges into the Waimea River which then of course goes into the ocean. Before any zoning is amended or permit is issued a watershed engineering analysis of the area must be done. A watershed plan must be created and adhered to for the health and safety of the land and people. What to do with these flood waters is currently addressed as a crisis without a preventative watershed plan in place. The Kealii ditch has had trees chopped from its banks, weeds sprayed with Round-Up and backhoes dredging it, possible without the necessary state permits. This is no way to treat a waterway that should be maintained as a function watershed. Residents such as myself have to call the police to dredge open the Waimea river mouth when the ditch backs up onto the roads and into our yards... Mr. Furfaro: Okay excuse me just for a second. Your first three (3) minutes, but I'm going to let you continue for your second three (3) minutes. Ms. McGovern: Sorry I took up being nervous with the first one. Again we have to call the Police to dredge open the Waimea River mouth when the ditch backs up unto the roads and into our yards. Not long ago... I apologize... this is no way to treat a waterway that should be maintained as a functioning watershed. Not long ago, a backhoe was sent to dredge the ditch causing severe erosion of my property. These are crisis responses that do harm. Moreover these responses are usually too late. I carry boots in the back of my truck every day because I do not know whether I would have to wait into my carport. In 2005 the New Year started with four (4) feet of water submerging Waimea period. And not long ago I was stopped by emergency vehicles before I could get two hundred (200) feet of my house with flooding that stretched from Menehune Road to the river. We need to act preventively. We must heed our General Plan which states Waimea remain rural, adding housing, condos, concrete, asphalts, sidewalk, driveways and the like that come with R4 zoning in such awatershed/green space would be a grave mistake for our neighborhood, making a problem we already have, a much larger one and affecting many, many more people. Mahalo. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Let me see if I have any questions from the other Councilmembers okay? Are there any questions of the speaker? LANI T. KAWAHARA (Committee Member): Me, I do. Mr. Furfaro: Go ahead Lani. Ms. Kawahara: How close are you to the property? Did you say you were a neighbor? Ms. McGovern: It's my backyard. Ms. Kawahara: It's your backyard okay thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Any other questions? I do want to let you know that it is very possible that a week from today I will be going out to visit the site and maybe with another Councilmember so we have a better understanding. We do have preliminary report from the Planning Department that recommends this approval but it also have very little testimony and it... and so I just feel that I need to do a visitation and gather some information. 3 • Ms. McGovern: And if I may say it might be prudent to look at the history of what's happened in this area because literally people have been... there's property damage, it's a tremendous, tremendous accident waiting to happen again and again. Mr. Furfaro: I also want to let you know that there is some work on in Mr. Bynum's Committee in Public Works dealing with the embankments and what seems to be some concern as to who has the responsibility when it comes to opening the river mouth, typically those areas at the high water mark from the shore are under State jurisdiction but I will be trying to get some clarification on that as well as you made reference to that being a problem so. Ms. McGovern: Yeah I feel for you because I've been trying to get clarification and acceptance of responsibility for twenty (20) years myself. Mr. Furfaro: Well we'll see what we can do then. Ms. McGovern: I'm here to help. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Next speaker. Ms. Chow: Linda Harmon, followed by Karin. Mr. Furfaro: Hi Linda. Please introduce yourself again first. LINDA HARMON: Hi. My name is Linda Harmon. I am against any ordinance change at the Ahko Inc property in Waimea Valley from Open space usage to R4. The owners tried to change the ordinance back in 2006 but withdrew their request, I believe, when they were faced with a possible rejection. The owners would like to increase the value by a stroke of the Council's approval so they can build condominiums for sale to the detriment to the valley residents. This change would be significant to the rural character of the Valley which the General Plan enacted after the much citizen participation in the year 2000. Back in 2006 I helped circulate a petition to prevent the rezoning; the reasons for no alteration in zoning haven't changed. The valleys of Kauai have been dedicated to agrarian use throughout its past in part because of good soil for growing and rural life style due to potential of flooding. Now that the levee has failed to meet new certification requirements, requirements residents will have to pay flood insurance or risk losing everything due to homeowners policy or insurance not any longer paying for flood damage. Putting up more buildings and paving a good portion of the lot will increase the likelihood of flooding and costly rebuilding in the area. The Kauai General Plan is our guidance in planning buildings for the long term. It calls for the valleys to remain rural in character. It calls for low lying land adjoining the park that includes a natural drainage for the surrounding area to remain open with buildings no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the property. I therefore urge you not to grant R4 status to this property. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Linda. Ms. Harmon: You have the petition, I resubmitted it. Mr. Furfaro: Yes. I think I did see it with our County Clerk's Office, yes. 4 • • Ms. Harmon: Okay thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Hold on, just a second Linda let me see if members have questions of you. Go ahead Lani. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you. We did receive the petition, the question I had was it was in 2006 the petition. I am curious if it's still a reliable source of information or if any of those people could have changed their minds about the petition. Ms. Harmon: Yes. Well I haven't gone back to those people but the information, the reason for the petition hasn't changed because when Ron Wilson made it up, he made up the petition he looked at both R6 and R4 and he was saying even as he wrote in the petition, even with an R4 designation most of the lot... it would have to be filled in and it would have to be paved over. Ms. Kawahara: So the wording of the petition of course remains the same, it's the signatures and the people that signed it, I'm not sure that we can assume that they would still be in agreement with the wording of the petition. Ms. Harmon: Right. I'm not sure of that. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you very much. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. TIM BYNUM (Committee Member): You said something about fifteen percent (15%), I didn't understand that reference. Ms. Harmon: Um according to Open Space designation you can, I believe, build over fifteen percent (15%) of the lot. Mr. Bynum: Lot coverage, okay. Ms. Harmon: So they've got a house on it now. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Linda. Next speaker please. Ms. Chow: Karin, followed by Mr. Hong. KARIN MEDIGORICH: Honorable Council, my name is Karin Medigorich. I've testified before you today as a concernd resident and property owner at 4730 Menehune Road. My husband and I reside two (2) blocks out from the Ahko property. On our property water has risen at least two (2) feet on occasion, some say four (4). Our house is four (4) feet up from the ground, built up from the ground. As residence from a flood zone preventative measures have to be taken, we have planted a large garden and twenty (20) fruit trees which feeds the two (2) of us almost solely, with much leftover to share. Regular cultivation of the ground keeps it absorbent; we're considering a roof water collection system. The water table in this area is only six (6) feet down, the whole neighborhood could be watering their yards with various shallow wells. Two (2) blocks toward the ocean the Ahko Inc property probably has a water table about four (4) feet down, much of the time. This seems likely when looking at Kealii ditch. Changing the zoning on the Ahko property would be a grave danger of the needed absorbency of this valley. As much 5 • concrete as would be needed for acquire footings, driveways, sidewalks and the like to accommodate more houses on this land put surrounding neighbors at risk of increase flooding. This in turn will now cause water that now goes into the ground to runoff to other properties, if the zoning is changed and water is not routed to surrounding properties these proposed welling themselves will be in jeopardy as they will surely flood given the water history of this land. This is like building a adornment waterway, it is only a matter of time and the .waters will rise quickly and dangerously where housing is concerned. Amending to R4 is a lose/lose proposition. If this land is planted with a crop or crops, trees with food it would be used wisely and awin/win. This land is ideal for organic farm, water could be used from the ditch to irrigate, probably as it was used in the past. Its barren state in present is unfortunate, as we know it was once a rice field, perhaps taro field and later filled with trees. This is ideal land for farming, this is a watershed area, that dryness that we experience most of the time is part of a large picture of even flow water cycle that must be respected. This is an area where waters rise and fall quickly, I urge you Honorable Council to hold to the General Plan for Kauai and keep this Waimea Valley rural and do not change the zoning to R4 and help these landowners make wise and profitable use of their property through a single family farm. This property could yield a large amount of food for Waimea, perhaps the owners could lease a portion of land for someone else to cultivate, if they are not interested themselves or sell it for such a use. I have a large lot which I am so grateful for, if I had this one, I could be feeding half Waimea. Two (2) blocks of my home on Menehune are two (2) that sit destroyed by Iniki, these properties are a R4 zoning, if someone wants to build houses this would be a logical place. Mr. Furfaro: One moment please. Just one moment. Ms. Medigorich: I'm almost done. Mr. Furfaro: Is that three (3) minutes? Okay you can continue. Ms. Medigorich: As they are falling down and in much need of attention. Perhaps these two (2) property owners could make a trade I mean this as a serious suggestion. Such innovated neighborhood cooperation is what is needed in Planning; we need to be thinking as a group working for common good, not just individual to solve isolated problems. Flooding and drainage concerns all of us here in Waimea Valley, let's work together. Thanks for hearing me. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you and we do... I did want to let you know that we do have in Mr. Bynum's Committee some Public Works items relates specifically the valley flood system and so forth which is kind of going on parallel to this application so we are... we are sensitive to maybe getting some feedback from Public Works on where they stand. Are there any questions here? Thank you very much for your testimony. And may I ask if there's anyone else in the audience, oh please come right on up. DING ALTIMORI: My name is Dino Altimori, people call me Dino. I live right next to this property in question. So I see it every day and it's a beautiful piece of land. It floods easily. Couple years ago they were rowing canoes right up and down in front of it. I think much thought have to given, before you decide what you're going to do with it. I'm glad I don't have to decide but I can tell you the... it's an active waterway. I mean if it rains, it floods and it flood right into my yard and I think I wasn't prepared to speak today so I'm a little disjointed, you have to excuse me. I believe people should do what they can with their land when they want to but 6 • • it has to be taken into consideration that we're dealing with a situation here that's going to affect a lot of people. The river empties right into the ocean and she was right... one of them was right, when they were saying how deep... I can tell you below four (4) feet underground, its water. It's not sometimes water, it's water. And to build on it, it's going to be worrisome and if people are allowed to build on it, they should maintain it as single family housing, the way it is now and not go to large developments because it's going to ruin the character of the Valley and I'm not sure there's enough room to do that. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, I've lived there for twenty (20) years so I can tell you a lot of what you need to know. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for your comments and your feedback, I don't believe we're going to take any action today at least that's _ going to be my recommendation until we go to site the area but I did give you the copy of... Mr. Altimori: Yes you did. Mr. Furfaro: The information from the Planning Commission and recommendation. Mr. Altimori: And when you do a site visit, my house is the house right under the big monkey pod tree that adjoins the property, you can come over... there's no dogs, you can come over beat on my door and if I'm there, I'd be glad to speak with you. . Mr. Furfaro: I may come over the knock on your door. Thank you. BILL "KAIPO" ASING (Ex-officio Member): Councilmember Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro: Hold on just a second sir. Mr. Asing: May I? Mr. Furfaro: Yes I was going to let the Committee members first. Mr. Asing: Oh yeah go ahead, yes. Mr. Furfaro: Ms. Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you. You're the second person that mentioned and I wanted to be sure I heard it correctly, so you being there twenty (20) years did... were there trees there before. Mr. Altimori: Yes. Ms. Kawahara: Yes? Mr. Altimori: But I can't tell you to what degree... I don't remember. Ms. Kawahara: Okay, okay. Mr. Altimori: Ms. Kawahara: Mr. Furfaro: But it's open pasture now. Right. Mr. Chair. Mr. Asing: Yes. I'm not sure whether I heard you correctly but if I heard you correctly did you say that single family residence your building was built there, that's not a problem, did I hear correctly? Mr. Altimori: No. You know you just can't block everything out. I think that's not responsible, but I think what's built there has to be built within reason. Mr. Asing: Okay. Mr. Altimori: And I don't want to see a manure plant put up right there because it wouldn't do me any good. Mr. Asing: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers before I ask the applicant to come up okay because after the applicant I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Mr. Hong do you want to come up now? Oh excuse me Mr. Hong. Did you want to come up a second time, I can give you another three (3) minutes. You have to introduce yourself again though. I'm going to give you three (3) minutes because I already let you have the six (6) so go right ahead. Ms. McGovern: My name is Julia McGovern, thank you for giving me another moment, I just want to in answer to... Mr. Furfaro: Chairman Asing. Ms. McGovern: Chairman Asing, there was... it was keawe trees, birds, nesting pueo's; that was a very forested. area. And it was quite. beautiful__and I'm not saying that it was a little conjested with vegetation but to change it to open red dirt... is a crime. I guess I will never see pueo in my backyard again. I keep hearing keep Kauai Kauai. I guess I just don't understand necessarily what all the interpretations of that are. Mahalo. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Asing: Mr. Chair can I make a comment. Mr. Furfaro: Yes go ahead please as a adhoc member of the Committee. Mr. Asing: I just want to make reference to your statement keep Kaua`i/Kaua`i, I agree with you one hundred percent (100%) but I also am concerned about property rights, an individual who owns a property should have the right to do something with it and leave it at that, thank you. Mr. Furfaro: I'm sorry... he just wanted to comment on your 8 • • comments... are you posing a question to her? Mr. Asing: No I'm not. Mr. Furfaro: No question.. Only if there's a question... Mr. Asing: Just a comment. Mr. Furfaro: Can I have you come back. Thank you. Mr. Hong. I hope you understand that those are the rules, he had to pose a question to you, thank you. Mr. Hong: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Walton Hong representing C Ahko Inc and the other landowners on the subject property. To begin with I would like to thank you for continuing this matter from the last Committee meeting when I could not appear because of the scheduling conflict. Unfortunately and ironically I learned on Monday morning that both Dr. Howard Ahko and Jennet Kian were the two (2) descendents of Kun Ming Ahko could not be here had to be called to the mainland unexpectedly. Kian's left yesterday and the Ahko's left today so they do send their apologies of not being able to be here with you today. (inaudible) to know a few things for the record regarding the bill before you which of course is to rezone approximately one (1) acre in Waimea Valley from its current Open Zoning to Residential R4. There are some people who have advocated leaving the property in its current zoning. Their basis is that that the land should be remain Open for future agricultural purposes, that the land is in the flood zone, that the owners are from Honolulu and shall not be able to benefit from the rezoning. And that the land should be kept in green space. We don't believe that these arguments have merit, first the land was zoned Open under the CZO not because of flooding problems but to preserve the land in the event the county wanted to expand the existing Ching Park; if it was for flooding problem the entire neighborhood would be in Open. If you look at the zoning map this lot along with the county park is only two (2) parcels in that area that is zoned Open, everything else flood zone or not, is zoned residential R4. As you've indicated the record clearly indicates that the county indicated that they have no intentions or no need of expanding Ching park so this parcel is not needed for the expansion of the park any in any time of the future. Yes the land have agricultural potential but so does many other acres within the valley that's not dead center in a center of a residential development. So we feel that if agricultural is going to take place, they should take place on those properties. Yes the land is within the flood zone but so does the surrounding lots, many of which have been developed into homes. Being within the flood zone does not preclude you from building, you only need to take extra precaution in design and construction of your dwelling that is a matter that is required by law. If we can meet those requirements why should we not be able to build? Other surrounding lots in the neighborhood are also within the same flood zone, were permitted to be built upon and many are in fact closer to the Waimea River and more susceptible to flooding should the river overflow that banks and levees. The landowners comprise of the sons of Chung Ching Mi Ahko and are a corporation owned by the family members, we'll the (inaudible) live in Honolulu, the land has been in their family ownership for generations beginning I believe in 1998 as over... Ms. Chow: That was three (3) minutes. Mr. Furfaro: Please continue Mr. Hong. 9 • • Mr. Hong: Thank you. The landowners are not late comers to this... to Kauai because they can trace their roots for more than a hundred past. There are claims that the rezoning of the property is against the General Plan, I'd like to note that this is... nothing can be further from the truth. Look at the General Plan, what does the General Plan say? It says that this property is designated as residential community, it is not Open. When we came before the Council in 2006, some of you were already on the Council and I distinctly remember some of you saying it's a matter of fairness and this is really the crux of the matter. Why is it unfair for the Ahko family who has held the land longer than probably most of the people in the surrounding communities, and those who opposed the rezoning, not to be able to use their property in the same way, with the same privileges as the other neighbors, why is it fair... why isn't it fair to treat the Ahko family equally and indiscriminately as other owners in the immediately surrounding neighborhood. And why is it fair to retain the Open zoning for potential park uses when the county has no plans to expand Ching park. We also know that the family has been paying Real Property taxes for decades, never receiving or requiring public services or benefits in return. Is it fair to permit the landowner to gain some benefit from the use of the land now after paying taxes all of his years and just trying to use the land like everybody else is. The land... the property from decades ago when it was stopped being used to growing rice and I believe the number was like 1930 something they stopped growing rice on this property, has been used literally as a dumping ground, there were old cars, old appliances, debris, and rubbish, keawe trees, bushes on the property, it was overgrown. The family has spent a considerable amount of money clearing this property so that it is now no longer an eyesore to the community. Is it fair that because they open up the land through this (inaudible) that they should be kept from opening it because it looks nicer now than it was before with the rundown abandoned cars, etc., on the property. And that is all the family is asking for. To be treated fairly and equally and subject to the same kind of restrictions as everybody else in the neighborhood, no more, no less, we contend what else could be fair then this. In view of the foregoing we ask your favorable consideration for ordinance to rezone the Ahko property for us to be treated fairly. I would like to end by stating... I'm not sure if it's in your files but when we appeared before the Planning Commission, we had sixteen (16) letters from surrounding landowners. As you know the Planning Commission requires us to send a notice to a hearing to everybody within three hundred feet, and we sent out a notices, we sent a copy of this letter, and at the time of the public hearing before the Planning Commission, we had sixteen (16) positive responses that did not oppose the rezoning. Since the public hearing before the Planning Department, I received three (3) more letters, I have copies for all of you, so that's a total of nineteen (19) surrounding property owners who did not oppose the rezoning. On that basis, we ask that you give favorable consideration to this request. Any questions, I'll respond to the questions. Mr. Furfaro: Yeah Mr. Hong, I have a few questions... we'll look through this as I will be asking for a deferral. And I see the Deputy Planning person in the audience as well here so your 2006 application was for a R6 designation? Mr. Hong: That's correct. Mr. Furfaro: And at that time there were conditions put on the property for wastewater treatment? 10 • Mr. Hong: At that time the Wastewater Treatment expansion if you would had not progressed to the point where it has now. Right now I believe there's a contract out for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, I understand that's supposed to be done within eighteen (18) months or something like that when went for the Planning Commission. And the Department of Public Works has indicated that there is sufficient capacity once the improvement is done to the plant. Mr. Furfaro: So you came back with the request for R4. Mr. Hong: That's correct. Mr. Furfaro: But as I read through this report, it's R4 plus the ability to add an additional dwelling unit on each lot? Mr. Hong: Well we're not sure what we want to do only. because as you can see from the map the lot is somewhat irregular to shape so we're not sure that we can do a subdivision or not, if we do a subdivision they'll be considerable cost incurred for infrastructure cost, we have to put in a subdivision roadway. We're contemplating the possibility (inaudible) subdividing going into a CPR with the maximum amount of units, which is four (4), this would allow us to develop get the same number without having to put the subdivision improvements. I might add that the reason we came up with R6 to begin with is there are actually three (3) family members, kind of hard to divide four (4) lots into six (6) people but knowing that the opposition that we had with facing R6 my clients decided okay let's do it with an R4 instead which is exactly the same as everybody else around. Mr. Furfaro: At that time you were at R6, were you still planning to do an CPR? Mr. Hong: There was... that was possible contemplation again the same reason once the cost of subdivision were CPR without having to incur the subdivision cost. Mr. Furfaro: Okay and let's see... are there difference right now in wastewater treatment possibilities with the county investing in expansion of Wastewater Treatment... Mr. Hong: I believe when the county finishes the expansion there will be sufficient capacity for development of this lot, yes. Mr. Furfaro: Okay. You know I just want to point out that when we do CPR's the declaration itself relieves the county of any real control of zoning density and there's nothing that prevents CPR from being sub-CPR. Mr. Hong: I don't... I beg to differ with you Councilmember Furfaro. But I think the density is governed by what the zoning law says and the zoning law says that you're allowed four (4) units per acre that's what you can put on whether it's CPR or subdivision. Mr. Furfaro: Right but when you get the four (4) units per acre but you also have the opportunity to really CPR those four (4) lots for an additional dwelling which puts it in a retail value for sale. 11 • Mr. Hong: That's a possibility I grant you that but you cannot CPR on a CPR, you have to go through total subdivision first and then if the subdivided lots, the results from the subdivision qualify for the ADU then you may be able to CPR it. Mr. Furfaro: So on parts of this... we do agree. I don't need that... okay, okay let me ask if there's members that have questions at this time. Mr. Bynum. TIM BYNUM (Committee Member): So it's possible for you to do a subdivision into four (4) lots which could have an ADU so it could end up having eight (8) units? Mr. Hong: That's a possibility. Mr. Bynum: But you're saying right now that the intention might be to go straight CPR without subdivision... Mr. Hong: Yeah only have different setback requirements and make it very, very difficult to subdivide infrastructure. because when you do subdivide lots you because of the shape of the lot it might it into four (4) lots plus the cost of the Mr. Bynum: Okay. My other question is that would you agree that any decision made by this Council shouldn't be really dependent upon where the owners live or how long they lived there or... I mean shouldn't we make that decision based on community plans and not who the owners are. Mr. Hong: I agree with you except that it seems that there's a lot of talk about and we had this come up before the Planning Commission that... in fact the last go around before this Council that the owners don't live here, they live in Honolulu so why should we let them have an increase if you would... in the use of the land through density, through zoning, and that's why I bring it up. Mr. Bynum: I was just of the opinion that we can't legislate worthiness, we can't make decisions based on subjective values of who's worthy and who's not. Mr. Hong: Thank you, I agree with. All we saying is it's... what we're proposing is conformity with the General Plan, it... the purpose of putting it originally in Open Zone is no longer there and we ask that we be treated fairly like everyone else. much. Mr. Bynum: I understand your testimony. Thank you very Mr. Furfaro: Any other questions? Ms. Kawahara: I have. Mr. Furfaro: And just for Councilmembers I have maps here of the area flood zoned and how it's been designated... it's at the two percent (2%) range so you may look at them afterwards. 12 • Ms. Kawahara: Thank you, I am actually interested in that. Thank you Mr. Hong for being here. So you had sixteen (16) letters and now you have three (3) more so that's nineteen (19) and those are .within three hundred (300) feet. Mr. Hong: Yeah because those letters were signed by people, when we sent out the notice required by law, everybody within three hundred (300) we included this letter, so those are the only ones that sent back in. Ms. Kawahara: Okay and I was having the same questions about how many possible units you could have and you're... so it's eight (8) but depending on the layout and the size of the parcels it's kind of odd shaped. Mr. Hong: Yeah that's correct. Again if we subdivide and then we were to want to put in a ADU on each of the subdivided lots there's a theoretical maximum of eight (8). However if we don't subdivide and just go through the straight CPR route, four (4) is the maximum you can get. Ms. Kawahara: Okay. We've talked a lot about the flood zone issues and you're saying that all the other homes in the area are in the same kind of flood zone. Mr. Hong: Right I think Councilperson Kawahara if you look at the flood zoned maps, you'll find that about... maybe half or two-thirds (2/3) of the properties are in the flood zone, the remaining portion outside of the flood zone, whereas the surrounding areas on Maile Road, Upe Road are totally within the flood zone. Ms. Kawahara: Okay and then our... so are they in the flood zone and Open zone... Mr. Hong: No. Ms. Kawahara: Like this property because... Mr. Hong: No they're in the flood zone but they're R4, residential R4. Ms. Kawahara: Okay so that's... so they're not really, when you say they're the same, it's not really the same because they're really are in Open... this one is in Open and the other ones are... Mr. Hong: Right. Ms. Kawahara: R4. Mr. Hong: That's why we're asking the same zoning as everybody else. Ms. Kawahara: Okay. One more question. Mr. Furfaro: Sure. Ms. Kawahara: One it comes to the zoning, the flood zone stuff, it 13 says that the Public Works weighed in and you have to comply with it but you also says you have to consider design of the residential development. I mean how far are you willing to go to address the ditch and drainage issues of everybody around based on the fact that right now, it's an active watershed that absorbs stuff. Mr. Hong: Okay well when you say active watershed, I guess anyplace that's not (inaudible) water, if it's going to collect water. I don't agree that it's an active waterway okay. In heavy, heavy rains yes water will pond on the property like the other lots in the area and I guess it's placed in the flood zone at least parts of it is placed in the flood zone. When you develop you have to get your building plans approved to the Public Works, Planning Department and so on and so forth and among other things that I, that they will be looking at is how does this affect, what's the surface drainage going to be, how is it going to be handled and so on and so forth. And I would say that we would have to meet and we are willing to meet all necessary requirements as set forth by law as determined by Public Works or Planning or whatever agency that has jurisdiction over it. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you Vice Chair. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. I want to get to a couple of the comments here if I could please, it says the Planning Department report says this change is consistent with the purpose and function with the town center and residential communities designation which is established in the General Plan. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Hong: I do. Mr. Furfaro: Yes, okay. The location and configuration of the property represents a lot just... a logical extension of the adjacent residential subdivision zoned residential R4 for four (4) units, does that include that house that's there now or is this for an addition to? Mr. Hong: No the house would be one of the four (4) units. Mr. Furfaro: It would be one of the four (4) units. Mr. Hong: That's right. Mr. Furfaro: Okay so it's net three (3)? I have to study this report some more, I have no more questions of you sir. Other members? No. I'm going to. Ms. Kawahara: I have a question as Vice Chair... for the Chair of the Committee... I've been trying to get the Planning Department's 2006 report that was supposed to be submitted and we haven't gotten it so I wanted to be sure. Mr. Furfaro: I know what's supposed to be submitted with this, I didn't make that request I only made the request for the current recommendations. Ms. Kawahara: Oh okay. Well it's mentioned in the current recommendations so. Mr. Furfaro:. Right it is mentioned. 14 Ms. Kawahara: So I could ask for that one because I haven't been able to get. Mr. Furfaro: Okay but you understand that that was withdrawn. Ms. Kawahara: Yes. Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'll get that for you for the next meeting. Ms. Kawahara: Thank you. DARYL W. KANESHIRO: Let me ask Walton one question, if I may. Mr. Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you Chair. Walton when you withdraw... withdrew this application, part of the reason was because on the R6 you were thinking of going to R4, isn't that? Mr. Hong: to... Mr. Kaneshiro to us. No if I could give you some history, when we went Yeah I remember being there when you first sent it Mr. Hong: Yeah when we first came when the Planning Department recommended approval, Planning Commission recommended denial, we appealed to the Council. In coming to the Council certain members of the Council wanted to place floor, certain floor amendments and some of the floor amendments were not acceptable to us, for example, one I distinctly remembered is that we would have been precluded from transferring or selling any of the lots to non-family members for a period of ten (10) years; we thought that was unfair. And then there was a question of whether or not the workforce housing requirements would apply and we said well we're going to get four (4) units, how are we going to give up one unit for affordable workforce housing. Because of those that's when we withdrew the application because we did not want to be treated unfairly. Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Hong I'm going to ask to defer this. I would ask that the rules are suspended, I have the Assistant Planning Director. IMAI AIU (Deputy Planning Director): Good afternoon Chair, members of the Council. Imai Aiu Deputy Planning Director. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for being here. I do want to point out although Councilwoman Kawahara asked the question, I do have a request in for the 2006 report that was for my own use but we have not received it yet, so could you place some urgency to that as it's been asked by other members and I would like to circulate it. Mr. Aiu: Can do. 15 • ' Mr. Furfaro: Also if I arrange a site inspection, could you possibly have someone assigned to that task? Mr. Aiu: Yep we can. Mr. Furfaro: To Waimea. Mr. Aiu: Yes we can schedule that, yes. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Any questions for the Deputy? Thank you very much, we'll be in touch. Okay I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. I'll ask for some discussion but I am going to ask for a deferral, is there any discussion at this point? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Just very briefly I read the original report and I also have some questions that will come up so I wanted to support the deferral at this time. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kaneshiro. Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes... I'm ready to support the deferral, I just wanted to make some things clear though, Mr. Hong was right... or is right in the part where you talk about in the General Plan, the area is proposed or was proposed to be a residential district. Mr. Furfaro: Yes that's where I was reading from. Mr. Kaneshiro: I wanted to... yeah. Mr. Furfaro: You're correct. It is in the General Plan as such. Okay any other? Mr. Bynum: Move to defer. Mr. Kaneshiro: Seconded. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2350 was deferred. Mr. Furfaro: The next item on the agenda is dealing with Open Space bill and I want to see if I can recess my Committee so that we can go to the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Chair and if you wouldn't mind we can then have a Executive Session on that item. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:37 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 3:34 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Furfaro: Okay I would like to call to order the Planning Committee meeting and I would like to ask if I could have a reading of Bill No. 2339 please. 16 CR-PL 2010-10: on Bill No. 2339 Mr. Furfaro: may I have that read. 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 [Approved as Amended.] Now I would like to move to Bill No. 2318, Draft 2, Bill No. 2318, Draft 2 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE (Farm Worker Housing) (Recommitted by the Council on 4/28/2010) Mr. Furfaro: I am going to share with my colleagues that I am looking for a little bit more time on this and would like to get a deferral based on three (3) particular points, the question that has been raised regarding the restrictions to any potential density on a lot versus a unit, that definition also, there seems to be some ongoing concerns amending the CPR declaration that creates more units and then if the individual of that CPR wanted to re-amend we needed to get some clarity and we're working on some language to tighten that up but that is not ready at this point. And the third point is really just you know... you know how much further can we go on amending CPRs since that in fact is an issue that is under the jurisdiction of the State Real Estate Commission, and so I'm still waiting for some time as many of you know I'm really looking at this as a pilot program until the IAL is complete and I've been able to participate in one of those meetings and I think they're probably a lot farther out of making their recommendations before it comes to the Council. Their critical path says November 2011 but then of course whenever it comes to us, it opens up new discussion, then that has to go to the Land Use Commission again, so we could be three (3) years out maybe before this is completed. We have put a lot of requirements and control mechanisms in place because again I want to reiterate to help the existing farmers, we may need this pilot program to be in place before the important Ag lands come back to us and at that point it all really gets under the control of the State so you know we have this criteria that we have in the bill that limits the number of units, it actually deals with a crop report averaging over a two (2) year period and it is important for it to be as tight and manageable until such time that we have the important Ag lands but yet at the same time we can support some existing farmers so I don't have that material to share therefore I'm looking for a deferral again as I mentioned. Ms. Kawahara: Move to defer. Mr. Bynum: Seconded. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kawahara, seconded by Councilmember Bynum, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2318, Draft 2 was deferred. 1~ . There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a~~ YY1/gym FLU`" Darrellyne . Simao Council Services Assistant I (Minutes of the May 5, 2010 Committee Meeting) APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on May 19, 2010: JAY F Chair, ommi e 18