The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpc 1-14-14 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua` i was called to order by Chair Pro Tem. Katayama at 9:22 a.m., at the L!hu` e Civic Center, Mo` ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-213 . The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. Jan Kimura Mr, Hartwell Blake Ms. Amy Mendonca Mr. John Isobe Ms. Angela Anderson Mr. Herman Texeira The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Dale Cua, Ka' aina Hull, Jody Galinato, Leslie Takasaki; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: . CALL TO ORDER Chair Pro Tem. Katayama called the meeting to order at 9:22 a.m. (Mr. Kimura left the meeting at 9: 22 a.m.) ROLL CALL Director Michael Dahing noted that there were six Commissioners present. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON APPOINTMENT OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON, VICE- CHAIRPERSON AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mr. Katayama opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Isobe nominated Jan Kimura for the position of Chair. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by John Isobe to close nominations and select Mr. Kimura for the position of Planning Commission Chair for 2014, the motion carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Isobe nominated Angela Anderson for the position of Vice-Chair. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Herman Tezeira to close nominations and select Ms. Anderson for the position of Planning Commission_ Vice-Chair for 2014, the motion carried by unanimous vote. (The meeting recessed at 9:25 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 9 : 37 a.m.) (Mr. Kimura reentered the meeting at 9:37 a.m.) Chair Kimura called the meeting back to order. Chair Kimura selected the following Commission members for the Subdivision Committee: Hartwell Blake -- Chair Amy Mendonca — Vice-Chair John Isobe On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the selection of the Subdivision Committee members, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dahilig suggested Item L. 1 Subdivision Committee Report be moved immediately before Item H. Consent Calendar. On the motion by Herman Tezeira and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Kimura asked if Item L. can be appropriately placed on the agenda moving forward to which Mr. Dahilig explained the order of the agenda is set by Commission rule; however if the Commission wishes, an amendment can be brought.before the Commission for consideration. . He further noted there is a certain rule-making procedure they must follow pursuant to HRS 91 , which the Department will initiate. Page 2 MINUTES of the meetine(s� of the Planning Commission Workshop of December 3 , 2013 Regular meeting of December 10, 2013 9. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Wayne Katayama to accept the minutes of both the Workshop of December 3, 2013, and the Regular meeting of December 10, 2013, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Wayne Katayama to receive the items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMNMNT Continued Agency Hearing (LI;Q I New Agency Hearing Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-7 and Use Permit U-2014-7 for construction of an affordable multi-family residential project on a parcel located in Princeville, situated along the makai side of Kuhi' o Highway and approx. 250 ft. east of its intersection with Hanalei Plantation Road, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-4-024: 020 and affecting a portion of a parcel containing 19.204 acres = Kolopua Partners, LP. jDirector's Report received 12/10/13 .1 The Commission received testimony from Gregory Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin pointed out an error on the item under new agency hearing for Kolopua where it states: 250 feet east of the intersection of Hanalei Plantation Road. He noted that is not Hanalei Plantation Road, its Honu Road. He expressed concerns on the dangerous traffic issues in that area as detailed in his written testimony. (On file) Mr. Goodwin stated the reason he feels his concern is important is because this affordable housing proposal doesn't allow any way for Hanalei Plantation Road to connect with Kuhi ' o Highway; Kuhi' o Highway was supposed to be joined with Hanalei Plantation Road where the existing Hawaiian Tel concrete bunker is. He suggested the 60 foot right-of-way be extended a little more east of the bunker, and make the right-of--way onto the highway there. That way all the community members in Princeville would have safe access to Kuhi'o Highway, and would be able to have a left-turn lane going east so they could enter Hanalei Plantation Road. Currently, it is a very unsafe intersection. Page 13 Mr. Goodwin respectfully asks that the Planning Department consider that the affordable housing allow for a 60-foot right of way on the west side of the proposed project area for future development of Hanalei Plantation Road to connect onto the highway. Mr. Dahing noted the receipt of written testimonies in support of the application from the following: Barbara Robeson Susan Wilson On the motion by Berman Tegeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to close agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, Continued Public Hearing Adoption of administrative rules interpreting provisions of Chapter 8, Kauai County Code pertaining to the enforcement of Chapter 8 , Article 17 (Single Family Transient Vacation Rentals) = County of%aua % Planning Department. [Director's Report received and hearing continued 11/12/13 . Mr. Dahilig noted that rules such as these must be brought before the Small Business Regulatory Review Board (SBRRB), and requested that a final call for public testimony be made, and that this item be deferred to a later meeting, pending the outcome of the SBRRB review of the proposed rules in February. On the motion by Herman Tegeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to defer this item until the February 25, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 9:52 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 9 : 55 . a.m.) New Public Hearing (NONE) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Subdivision Committee Vice-Chair Herman Texeira read the Subdivision report into the record. The following Subdivision Extension Requests were approved 3-0 : S-2006-27=Grove Farm Properties Inc., Proposed 26-Lot subdivision Page 4 S-2009- 13=Grove Farm Properties Inc., Proposed 99-Lot subdivision S-2000- 14=Grove Farm Properties Inc„ Proposed 20-Lot subdivision S-2009-15=Grove Farm Properties Inc., Proposed 109-Lot subdivision S-2009-21 =Grove Farm Properties Inc., Proposed 20-Lot subdivision The following Final Subdivision Actions were approved 3-0: S-2012-20=Barbara Childers/Greg Holzman, Proposed 2-lot boundary adjustment S-2013-01 Michael M. & Barbara J. G. Castillo, Proposed 2-lot subdivision On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to accept the Subdivision Committee report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports ONE) Director' s Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 1/28/ 14 (NONE) Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014- 18 and Shoreline Setback Determination 8 SD-2014-48 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax May Key 2-9-001 :002, Koloa, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = Kawailya Development LLP, Applicant, Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014- 19 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-49 fora shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 2-8-017:009, Koloa, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = %iahuna Plantation (Edward Wright), Applicant. Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014=20 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-20 14-53 fora shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 2-8-017:007, Koloa, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = Marriott's Watohas Beach Club, Applicant. Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-45 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014 45 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 4-3-007:011, Waipouuli, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = GCT Properties, LLC (Mokihana Resort), Applicant. Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014- 16 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-16 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 5-4-012:011 , Page 15 .. . . .. . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . _ _. Princeville, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = Pu 'u Poa Condominium (Marc Harris), Applicant. Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-17 and Shoreline Setback Determination SS13-201447 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 2-8-016 : 003, Koloa, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = SVO Pacific, Inc. . Applicant. On the motion by Herman Tegeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the consent calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), and Kaua'i County Charter Section 3 .07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Commission to provide a briefing and discuss legal issues concerning the law of constitutional property rights concerning the nexus between police power and exactions. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges,immunities and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to this agenda item. Mr. Dahilig requested that rather than holding an executive session, at the Chair' s suggestion, the Planning Commission support clerk will be scheduling individual meetings for each Commission member to meet with the County Attorney' s office to discuss this item. On the motion by Herman Tegeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to receive the executive session item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Request from the Director that the Commission create and appoint members to a Commission Task Group on Long Range Plans pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92- 2. 5 and as a Select Committee pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Commission Rules. Mr. Dahilig circulated a memorandum for the Commission' s review and action, which requests on behalf of the Department, help to facilitate a better interface for input and feedback on the numerous long range plans currently in development. (On file) In response to Mr. Blake' s question, Mr. Dahilig noted the Department's current long range planners are Marie Williams, Lea Kaiaokamaile, Lee .Steinmetz, and Marisa Valenciano. The supervisory position previously held by Peter Nakamura is currently vacant, but they are in the process of seeking someone for that position. Mr. Kimura asked if there is currently someone in the Department that has the qualifications to fill that supervisory position to which Mr. Dahilig replied it is a personnel matter that he did not want to put on the floor. Page 4 6 _ . ..... ... . . Mr. Texeira asked to clarify if the Commission Task Group appointment would be a four year term to which W. Dahilig replied it is a continuing committee consisting of Commission members, and would remain in existence until the five specified plans are brought before the Commission for action. He further explained that should the term of a member expire, the Commission would be asked to appoint another member to the task group. In response to Mr. Blake, Mr. Jung explained that should the Commission vote to create the task group, it would be a select committee in which the Chair would appoint its members, Mr, Katayama commented that there has been discussion on expanding the Commission ' s comprehension of long term planning, including economic impact. Currently, other infrastructure issues are not integrated, and he feels this committee would be a good vehicle for the Commission to help the planners look at things more comprehensively; are they being smart about the way they go about development and growth. Mr. Texeira asked if this select committee would have the authority to recommend other possible long-term plans that are not currently listed to which Mr. Dahilig replied that can be added to the task group ' s charge, Mr. Texeira asked if the committee could bring in other professionals as they see fit to which Mr. Dahilig explained the reason for the committee would be to allow for flexibility, and less formality in numerous postings, and other more formal Sunshine Law requirements. However, should the committee make a recommendation for action before the Planning Commission, it must be presented at one meeting, and acted upon at a subsequent meeting. The public notice element is still preserved in that sense, Mr. Dahilig also noted that just as with any other fact-finding or investigative committee, external parties are welcome to provide guidance and input. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to create a select committee, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed for caption break at 10: 14 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 10:29 a.m.) Mr. Jung explained that the Commission is creating a select committee to brainstorm ideas, and identify and review issues. No action would be taken until it comes before the fall Commission in the form of a report. Mr. Kimura asked that the committee inform the full Commission of when they will be conducting a meeting so that should any commissioners have comments or thoughts they would like to be represented at the meeting, they can do so. Mr. Dahilig stated if such a limitation is needed for the committee' s function, it would be appropriate to attach such to the charge of the committee, which would require the previous motion be amended. Page J 7 .. . . . . . .. . . ......... _... Mr. Kimura appointed the following Planning Commission members to the Select Committee: Wayne Katayama Jahn lsobe Angela Anderson On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the selection of the select committee members, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Kimura requested an item to set the parameters of the committee be placed on the next meeting agenda. Review and approval of the FY 2014-2015 Six-year Capital Improvements Program Mr. Dahilig noted that this report had been presented to the Commission a few months ago for entertainment and deliberation. The Department is now seeking approval of the report. Long Range Planners Marie Williams and Lee Steinmetz, and CIP Manager Keith Suga provided an update on the FY 2014-2015 Six-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). (On file) Mr. Texeira referenced the six year cost distribution for FY 2014-2015, noting that it is going to be a much. slower year than the following year and questioned what the reason is for that. Ms. Williams pointed out that projects:included in the six year CIP reflect only a small part of all projects the County is involved in. There is no specific reason that this year is less funded than subsequent years, but noted that the anticipated capital project cost for new projects in FY 15- 16 will be quite high. Na. Suga added that they will be starting upcoming CIP budget discussions in February with Administration. Currently, according to the Director of Finance, there are no new CIP funds coming in to the program this fiscal year, therefore, they are working within the current balance available, which is the reason for the lower amount shown. For subsequent years, they want to align the six year CIP program with the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) in order to allow for the 20 percent matches. Projects for" FY 16, 17, and 18 are being projected because of the limited amount of Federal funds available each year. They want to ensure they are attempting to appropriately forecast what the County funding needs will be. In response to Mr. Texeira's question about County bond funds, Mr. Suga explained that there is a specific formula to calculate the County' s debt service coverage ratio, noting that the Director of Finance is strategizing how they can balance that out, and be ready to go out for the next bond issuance to address the County' s capital needs. Following up on Mr. Texeira' s question, Mr. Isobe asked what specifically will be funded in the next fiscal year out of the CIP budget. Mr. Suga referenced the capital funding plan spreadsheet included in the report, noting anything that shows dollars within FY 15- 16 would be Page 18 projects that they are planning to fund. Mr. Isobe asked if there is a summary of projects being funded included in the report to which Ms. Williams replied the schedule for all projects are included on the Project Description page. There is not necessarily a summary; however that can be incorporated in the next report. Mr. Isobe stated he is under the assumption that once the CIP budget is formulated, and the funding approved by Council, this projected report will be revised. Ms. Williams stated this report is updated annually, and will change based on what occurred in the previous fiscal year, noting that what gets funded may be different from what was proposed. Mr. Isobe asked for clarification on the correlation of this report to what actually occurs, and how this report does or does not guide actual actions. The reason for his concern is because part of the funding being requested/estimated in this report will require a significant amount of snatching funds; there is also the assumption that they will receive STIP funding which may or may not occur. He stated that not all of the projects listed will receive funding, and as a result the report needs to be amended to reflect that. He asked what exactly is the report showing them. Ms. Williams stated they are trying to change the report from a wish list to something that is a more useful tool for the Mayor' s office as well as Council. She acknowledged that currently there is a gap they are trying to close. Mr. Isobe asked once the CIP is approved by Council, do they then begin revising the report to which Ms. Williams stated yes, for the next fiscal year, but they don't go back and amend the current approved report; however, it does serve as the framework for the upcoming report for the next fiscal year. Mr. Steinmetz added that it is important to recognize that the report provided is intended to be a planning document, not a formal part of the annual CIP process; it serves as a guide for future thinking, but it is not intended to directly impact the annual CIP process which involves numerous other factors. He noted that much time was spent on aligning the six year CIP plan with realistic goals that could be accomplished with the STIP process, which involved discussions with the State on anticipated annual funding. This should be viewed as longer range planning, and will not always align annually with the six year CIP. The report is intended as a guide as opposed to a post-CIP, which is why it is not amended after the fact, noting that it is updated the following year based on what actually occurred, Ms. Mendonca asked for clarification that :the Department obtains money from Council based on the plan outlined in this report, and that money goes toward on-going projects that have not been completed. Ms. Williams pointed out that the scope of what the Department is asking the Commission to do is not to approve the project list, but the connection between the project list and the long range framework. The cost for on-going projects that were previously funded does take up a large portion of what the County spends its funds on, Mr. Katayama commented that he thinks what the Commission is asking to clarify is if monies are rolled back to projects not yet completed, what are the funding obligations of the County should they not receive State or Federal funds? How does that fit in to what the Commission is, and should be approving? Ms. Williams stated for clarification that the Commission is concerned that this report provides no historical background on what was previously funded and the status of those projects. Page 9 Mr. Steinmetz offered an example of the bike path, which is a very long term project that has some funding secured, and will require additional funding in the future. In the six year CIP, they have worked with those working on the bike path to understand the existing and future obligations, as well as STIP obligations. They also_ look at how these longer term projects impact the funding of other projects. Ms. Williams stated that when projects are funded in the existing six year CEP, they are not included in the following year, but they can incorporate the historical perspective if the Commission wishes. Mr. Katayama added it should also include the on-going obligations. Ms. Williams stated the Department would explore how to provide a higher-level perspective to the Commission. Mr. Texeira referenced the long term, ongoing bike path proj ect,. noting it will probably continue in the next few years. He asked if it is included in the FY 14- 15 distribution to which Mr. Suga replied yes, funding requirements would be included for the next phase of work. Mr. Isobe asked who prepares the annual CIP budget to which Mr. Suga replied they work collectively with Administration, and the departments to obtain feedback on project proposals. From there, the proposed list to be submitted to Council is developed. In response to Mr. Isobe, Mr. Suga stated he prepares the annual CIP budget. Mr. Isobe asked if this report is considered when preparing the budget to which Mr. Suga replied yes. Mr. Isobe asked why then is the report not directly reflective of what will. be funded. Mr. Suga explained that there are some projects reflected in the six year CIP that has funding not yet encumbered in this fiscal year. Those funds will roll over info the FY 2015 annual CIP budget. Other proposed projects they plan to request funds for in FY 2015 are also reflected in the six year CIP. Mr. Isobe restated for clarification that this six year report they are requesting to be approved by the Commission does directly correlate to this upcoming fiscal year' s CIP budget. Mr. Suga replied it is going to be proposed, yes. He clarified that this report reflects what will be proposed within the six year CIP; however, there may be other short term projects that are added to the annual CIP budget that would not be reflected in the six year report. Mr. Dahilig added the report does not cover things relating to road maintenance; however money may be used out of the bond fund and may be considered part of the CIP budget, though it would not be reflected in the report. There may be things not shown in the CIP report for which funds are requested. Mr. Suga stated he foresees the upcoming FY 2015 annual CIP budget to be around 30 million; of that 30 million, 9 million is being requested in FY 2015 to fund projects included in the six year CIP report. (Chair Kimura stepped out of the meeting. Vice-Chair Anderson resumed.) Ms. Mendonca asked who selects the priority of the projects to which Mr. Suga replied he makes recommendations, but he is not the deciding party. Mr. Dahilig added that it is part of. the Mayor' s budget, so the Mayor ultimately makes the call as to what the budget looks like. The Department has looked at other ways of evaluating CIP projects as they come in, and have Page 10 been focusing more on consistency with the General Plan rather than the fiscal elements. There have been past discussions on possibly working with Economic Development on project yields I n certain sectors. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Suga provided information and clarification on the following sections of the report: Section F. Wastewater — clarification on the Sewer Trust fund. Section E. Solid Waste — concerns about building capacity and whether it relates to building compliance or the Clean Water Act. Mr. Isobe expressed the need to understand the correlation between the budget that is approved and the six year CIP plan. He feels that rather than this being a plan that is adopted every year, it should be a continuous planning tool that reflects the reality of what is being done, Otherwise, the Commission is simply approving someone' s best guess of what they think will occur. Referencing Mr. Katayama's earlier concern on building capacity, Mr. Isobe asked bow the General Plan impacts building capacity. As an example, he asked if the General Plan calls for more housing units in Wailua, but the treatment plant cannot handle that capacity, how will the General Plan correlate to the need for increased sewer capacity in Wailua? In response to Mr. Isobe' s concerns, Ms. Williams stated they will .work on developing the report earlier on in the year to make the six year CIP report more relevant,to what has fiscally been approved, and are likely to be approved in the upcoming fiscal year, and future years. They will try to provide estimates for the amount of monies that are available for new projects. Ms. Williams further stated that her main concern is connecting this report to the General Plan. However, she noted the community plans, which implement the General Plan, have not been updated; they are currently in the process of updating three. Those community plans are where the details of the capital projects needed to implement the General Plan vision will be found. Once those are approved, the concerns about connecting the six year CIP to the issue of capacity and overall growth will be resolved. i Mr. Texeira stated he feels that the Commission should be more focused on CIP projects that primarily relate to Planning, and asked Ms. Williams if she feels that is important. Ms. Williams replied yes, noting that projects such as plans are not included in the six year CIP, but when the community plans are brought before the Commission for review and approval, a capital component will be included; this will be an opportune time to look at the types of projects the plan is calling for as well as the scheduling of the projects . The Department would be seeking the Commission' s input at that time. Mr. Texeira asked how the Commission can help the Department and the Long Range Planning division come up with a better product; what would they like the Commission to focus on. Ms. Williams stated the Commission has already provided great input, noting that they have to regroup internally to work on making the six year CIP a more sophisticated tool; Council has echoed the concerns of the Commission. They will return to the Commission in a few months with a more robust report. Page 11 Mr. Dahilig stated the reason the Department wrestles with the notion of what the identity of this plan is stems from a concern about how deeply the Commission wishes to state its position in the appropriation process. Having the Commission' s support would help the Department convey the Commission's desired outcome of the report as there is often much pushback from policy-makers and decision-makers when discussing prioritization or appropriation elements. However, this is a Commission report as mandated by Charter, and the Department will make the necessary adjustments accordingly. Mr. Isobe agreed with Mr. Dahilig' s statement, noting that it is the responsibility of this body to prepare a long range CIP report. He believes this Commission needs to take the charge of reviewing and approving this report much more seriously than it has in the past because it is a requirement of the Charter, and is part of the duties they agreed to in taking the oath of office. Mr. Dahilig suggested the Commission may want to consider including discussion and dialogue with the long range division on the six year CIP plan, and how it should be structured as an additional charge of the long range task group. Mr. Steinmetz added that as the Department goes through the community plan and development plan process, which will each include a specific CIP .section with recommendations for CIP projects, he feels it is important for the Commission to look at the CIP component of each plan. It will provide the Commission the opportunity to provide input on the implementation plan, its priorities and phasing, and its alignment with the plan's vision as well as the General Plan. He feels the relationship between the Department' s plans and the six year CIP is an important nexus where the Commission can provide guidance as they approve those plans .to ensure those sections of the plan are solid. Mr. Texeira asked to clarify if the CIP is part of what the Long Range Planning division is doing, and if they will be spending more time to improve the CIP process as they progress to which Ms. Williams replied yes, especially since it is a critical part of implementing the community plans once they are adopted. Mr. Texeira asked if the Planning Department has the resources in the Long Range division to realistically move forward in improving the CIP. Mr. Dahing stated because it is a charter mandate, if there is a desire for the Commission to create a more intensive report, internal resource reallocation will need to be made to meet the Charter requirements. Mr. Katayama commented that today' s discussion was very helpful, noting that this report has gotten better and better over the years. He noted that if they are going to be spending . valuable resources, he would like to see a work product that can be built upon, create value, and make better connections in understanding capacity issues as most communities will have an element of growth. His goal is to gain a better work product while creating less work for the staff. Page 12 On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the FY 2014-2015 six-year capital improvements program, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (Chair Kimura returned to the meeting.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Class N Zoning_Permit Z-IV-20144 and Use Permit U-2014-4 to construct and operate a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located along the makai side of Kuhi' o Highway, situated immediately across the Kaua'i Mini Golf facility in Kilaum further identified as Tax Map Key 5-2-005 : 023 , and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 179.437 acres = Secret Beach Plantation, LLC. LDirector's Report received 9/10/13, hearing continued 10/8/13.1 Staff Planner Ka' aina Hull noted that the Commission had deferred action on this item to allow the applicant to prepare an agriculture plan study; that document has been submitted. The Department has received comments from the Department of Transportation with concerns about the initial proposal of where the highway access is located, and have requested it be moved; however, that will be reviewed when an application for access onto the highway is submitted. Andy Friend, representing the applicant; was present. Mr. Blake asked how far are they from planting all the crops they had proposed, and whether or not they are harvesting yet. Mr. Friend replied as of the end of the year the 10 acres, which is the subject of the agriculture plan, is about 95 percent complete, and they have been harvesting small amounts of fruit. Mr. Blake asked when the fruit stand will start selling the fruit to which Mr. Friend replied once there is a permit to start, working out the DOT requirements will likely take a year, and then the fruit stand would need to be built. If everything .goes smoothly, it should be a minimum of 18 months from now, Mr, Blake asked when they plan to put the row crops in to which Mr. Friend replied there are currently some row crops in small increments, but they will wait to intensify the row crops until the fruit come in. Mr. Blake asked how they will dispose of the row crops. Mark Freeman, associate of property owner Bill Hay, stated currently the row crops are being given away to family as there has not been enough for market production. He explained the row crops are labor intensive, and there is not much profit margin. While they do want the variety, they will hold off intensifying the row crop until the fruit stand is constructed, and they have a venue to market. He noted that some of the fruit trees arrived grafted and bearing fruit, though not enough to be marketable; he predicts there will be a lot to harvest within three to four years. Mr. Freeman commented they currently have banana and lilikoi trees; which are currently fruiting, but the majority of the grafted fruit trees will not be on line for another two to three years. Page 13 In response to Ms. Mendonca, Mr. Freeman stated that the expense of maintaining the row crops was not worth keeping the labor, so it was scaled back to production for just family and friends. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that what they are currently developing is just fruit to which Mr. Freeman replied, yes, the majority is fruit. He further noted there are 475 trees already in the ground. Ms. Mendonca asked if the fruits will be sold at the fruit stand, and not the row vegetables. Mr. Freeman replied both fruits and row vegetables will be sold at the fruit stand to offer a wide range of product, but they do not want to plant serious acreage of row crops until they have the fruit stand venue. They do not desire to take large quantities of vegetables to the farmer' s market, which already offers many vegetables on a small scale. Ms. Mendonca expressed her confusion and asked for clarification that they are currently growing vegetables, yet they state it is labor intensive, and they cannot sell to the farmer' s market because of the abundance there. She asked how a high-labor intensive product is going to benefit their fruit stand. Mr. Friend replied the catalyst of the fruit stand will. be the tropical fruits, and any row crop vegetables will be there as a secondary priority, but will be available in order to offer variety to shoppers; they would not be asking to build a fruit stand solely for vegetables. Ms. Mendonca noted the applicant stated there is already an abundance of fruit, and asked if the fruit stand were already up would they have enough fruits to fulfill that. Mr. Freeman replied no, since the only thing fruiting now are the lihkoi and banana; there would not be enough of a variety to justify a fruit stand. Mr. Friend added that the fruits will begin coming on in approximately two years and they are trying to time the permitting with the onset of the fruit. Mr. Blake asked if the Hanalei transfer station is able to supply the project with compost to which Mr. Freeman stated his company, Heart and Soul Organics, contracts with the County to acquire all the greenwaste fiom.the County transfer stations for their composting facility in Moloa` a. All of the trees on Mr. Hay' s property were planted with product made by Heart and Soul Organics from the County's greenwaste. The entire farm is mowed and. mulched for weed control. Mr. Blake asked if they have to irrigate to which Mr. Freeman replied yes, the entire place is on timed irrigation. Mr. Friend added that one of the maps presented to the Department was an irrigation drip line layout. Mr. Blake asked where the irrigation water is coming from to which Mr. Freeman replied it comes from the well located near the proposed site of the fruit stand; they do not use water from Pfleuger'-s reservoir, Mr. Kimura asked why that particular location was chosen for the fruit stand, noting there is one directly across the street as well as the mini-golf facility, which will be expanding. Additionally, there is a farmer' s market. He asked what made their product superior to the products offered by these neighboring businesses that the applicant feels they need to have a fruit stand in that exact location. Mr. Friend replied he feels the more product there is, the more people will stop, and also patronize those other venues as well. He feels the diversity of products that will be offered makes it different, noting the current plantings offer 40 varieties of tropical fruit trees; this does not include vegetables. The addition of value-added products, and juices,. will offer a very broad diversification that is not currently available, and will be unique to many places on the island in providing new products that have never been tried. (The meeting recessed for a caption break at 11 :45 a.m.) Page 14 (The meeting resumed at 11 : 58 a.m.) Mr. Freeman commented the Banana Joe fruit stand across the road attracts many people, but they do not have the large variety of fruit that will be offered by the applicant. He shared that he has talked with the owner of Banana Joe's, who expressed support for the fruit stand as he feels it would help bring customers to his business. Mr. Freeman feels all the venues in that area will bring business to one another. (The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:00 p.m.) (The meeting resumed at 1 :25 p.m.) Ms. Anderson referenced the Department of Transportation' s letter regarding the positioning of the access, and expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians crossing the highway in that area. She asked how those safety issues would be addressed. Mr. Friend replied that there will be a follow up meeting with DOT to discuss safety mitigation measures. Ms. Anderson questioned whether, because it is a highway, it is an appropriate place for a crosswalk, If they anticipate people from Banana Joe's and the mini-golf course crossing the highway to their establishment, something must be implemented, but she is concerned whether or not the proposed location is appropriate for that. Mr. Friend replied the comments from the DOT stated they were asking to include signage, . crosswalks, and left turn holding lanes. Ms. Mendonca stated she appreciates the concept of what they are trying to do by offering such exotic fruits, and understands that they are trying to build an inventory to be sold at the fruit stand. However, she stated her difficulty in accepting the' size of this structure, at approximately 2,800 square feet, as she envisions a fruit stand to be a small building. She acknowledged that this had been discussed before, and the explanation given was that the outside area was not going to be used, and would serve as a shade overhang. Ms. Mendonca stated she is not convinced that the applicant will refrain from eventually using that area as the business grows, noting it is a huge building, and does not look like fruit stands that she has seen throughout the country. It appears to her to be a commercial business with 2,800 square feet, and even if only 900 square feet will be enclosed for use, that is still a good size area. Ms. Mendonca again stated her difficulty in accepting its size, and asked if it could be scaled down to be more cohesive with the concept of what a fruit stand is. She provided examples of other fruit stands she has visited in other states that fit her idea of what a fruit stand is, adding that this structure gives her the concept of a supermarket. She agrees with the idea of what they are trying to do in bringing in a wide variety of fruits; however, she feels it should be more along the lines of what Guava Kai used to do where customers could visit the farm and see the produce being grown. She reiterated her difficulty in accepting such a large structure. Mr. Dahilig stated for the record that an agricultural plan has been submitted as well as testimony in support of the application from the following: (On file) Cas Schnabe & Amy Vieira Elizabeth Lis Craig Wall Page 15 Michelle Rose & Parker Croft Jackie Yellin & Danae Winger Darla Anderson Marion Paul Michael Botello Allan Parachini & Gina Lobaco Mary Patterson Mr. Kimura asked if all the signatures in support are from residents on Kauapea Road to which Mr. Freeman stated yes, he recognizes quite a few of those names as compost clients, and neighbors of that CPR. Mr. Kimura asked for clarification on who will own and run the fruit stand. Mr. Freeman replied he is a consultant with Mr. Hay on the ten acre farm in this application, and is leasing 46 acres to do his own project; Mr. Hay owns the farm. Mr. Kimura commented that the road next to the fruit stand will be a construction road, and stated he would recommend a condition that the applicant will not collect any type of money from the construction company, or developer, due to the dust issue as the applicant is aware that road will be used for construction vehicles. Mr. Katayama noted there is a list of 575 trees, and asked how that works with the 2,000 square foot fruit stand, and where the value-added area in the architectural rendering of the fruit stand is located. Mr. Friend explained the facility that will process the value-added products has not been developed yet, and will be built on another part of the property. It is not part of the 10 acres, and he believes there will be an agreement between Mr. Hay and Mr. Freeman to share in the value-added processing, noting some of the products built on the 10 acres will be processed into products to be sold at the fruit stand. Some products grown on other parts of the property will be marketed outside of the fruit stand. Mr. Katayama clarified. his question, stating they have a 120 acre agriculture parcel of which they are asking the Commission to permit use on 10 acres, and asked what the relationship with the remaining 110 acres is. Mr. Friend explained some of it will be leased by Mr. Freeman for an agricultural venture. Mr. Freeman added that Mr. Hay would like to market his fruit from his 10 acre parcel; however the parcel is located out in the middle of the whole property, which is the reason he would like to build the fruit stand near the road. Mr. Friend stated the balance of the acreage will be used for livestock grazing. Mr. Freeman explained that currently everything is being used for grazing by David Spears who has been breeding horses for the last 10 years. Now they also have a whole herd of cattle, and many goats which are all used for food production. A portion of the livestock area will be taken out, and transferred to a combination of forestry, and other orchard crops that Mr. Freeman is working with NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) on planning out. He further noted the fruit stand is to service the 10 acres with 20 to 30 tons of mixed tropical fruit, and has nothing to do with what Mr. Freeman is doing. Mr. Freeman acknowledges that the amount of fruit the 10 acres will eventually be yielding will be too much for the fruit stand to sell. At that point, they will have to begin producing value-added products; however that will not occur until years down the road, so it is difficult to determine the details of the value-added processing facility. Page 16 Mr. Kimura stated they will be taking property from Mr. Spears who receives a tax exemption for breeding and selling horses on a certain amount of acreage. He asked if Mr. Freeman takes some of that acreage, will Mr. Spears still be able to use that property and still receive the same tax exemptions for his horse breeding business, or will the loss of acreage result in his losing that tax exemption. Mr. Freeman stated not as far as he understands to which Mr. Kimura asked if he had looked into it. Mr. Freeman explained his understanding is that Mr. Spears is semi-retired, and wants to wind down his horse breeding, therefore, less acreage is working out for him, but he is still using a majority of the acreage. Mr. Kimura restated his question on how the loss of acreage will affect Mr. Spears' taxes, and if he loses that acreage, will he still qualify for that tax exemption? Mr. Freeman stated he was unable to answer that. Mr. Kimura commented that there are not many horse breeders on Kauai, and he would hate to see Mr, Spears lose that. Mr. Freeman explained that much of the land being transferred was covered in widelia, making it the worst grazing lands, and stated that Mr. Spears is okay with less acreage because that grass was not good for horses anyway. He further explained that 1W Hay has imported thousands of dollars of pasture grass to rehab the pasture land that Mr: Spears is on. Mr. Kimura clarified his question by asking if Mr. Spears will still be able to continue his business, not because the applicant is allowing him to, but because he will still qualify with the State and County. Mr. Jung stated it is important that the Commission focus its discussion on the use and the impact of what the applicant is asking to which Mr. Kimura replied he understands, but he wants to know how it will affect Mr. Spears and his business. He restated his question of whether Mr. Spears will still be able to operate if he loses that acreage. Mr. Jung explained that we live in a free-market enterprise which allows a landowner to do what he wants with his land, and a tenant possibly being displaced is not the role of the Commission to look at; it' s up to the property owner what he wishes to do on his land. Mr. Kimura asked the Commission to look at what they would rather have there: a horse ranch, or a farm. Mr. Jung reminded the Commission that on agricultural lands, both are permitted activities, and the permit before them is for a fruit stand to further the agricultural activity, therefore, the Commission should not bring tax implications into the discussion. Mr. Freeman pointed out the numerous improvements to the entire property that are taking place with the addition of orchards, a farm, a fruit stand, along with the horses, goats, and cattle making it very well-rounded. Mr. Kimura reiterated that the applicant allowing Mr. Spears to continue operations is not what he was asking, clarifying that his question was whether Mr. Spears would still be able to qualify to keep the permit he presently has with the amount of land he now has. He acknowledges that Mr. Spears wants to downsize, but asked if he does so, will he still qualify for that permit. Mr. Freeman stated he is unable to answer that question. Mr. Katayama stated for clarification that this is a 120 acre parcel that has leases from the owner, and asked if it would be appropriate to require a master plan that will demonstrate the impact of this application to the adjoining parcels of land, and the relationships. It is difficult for him to see how 575 trees, of which some of the yields of fruit will be 10 percent, will adequately Page 17 provide for the fruit stand. Mr. Dahilig asked for clarification that the Commission wished to include a condition for approval to state the applicant is required to present an agriculture plan for the whole parcel, and how it integrates with the existing uses of the property. Mr. Katayama replied yes, acknowledging that may awkward because the applicant does not have control over the 120 acres; however, the representation in the agriculture plan to support the 2,800 square foot fruit stand implies sourcing material from the remaining acres. Mr. Freeman explained it is not the initial intent because 20 to 30 tons of fruit off the ten acres alone is two to three thousand pounds of fruit per month. Mr. Friend summarized the planting of the 10 acres as having 575 fruit trees in 42 varieties with an estimated maturity, and estimated annual production of 70,000 lbs of saleable fait. Priority is to what the fruit stand can consume, but it is up the Mr. Hay to develop secondary, and tertiary marketing outlets for the excess. The 10 acres is the production that will support the fruit stand; only value-added products would have to be produced outside of the 10 acres. Mr. Katayama asked how many of the 575 trees are in the ground to which Mr. Friend replied 95 percent. The drip irrigation system is in as well as the windbreaks, the greenhouses and an auxiliary building are up and operating. Mr. Dahilig asked if NRCS ' has reviewed the numbers of poundage of fruit to which Mr. Friend replied no. Mr. Dahilig then asked how they are getting those numbers. Mr. Friend stated an employee of Mr. Hay, who has been farming his whole life, did a projection of yield at maturity. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Friend explained the construction road is not at all adjacent to the 10 acre farm, and that a map showing the location was submitted in the initial application. Mr. Katayama asked if the auxiliary building has been constructed, and where it would be in relation to the fruit stand to which Mr. Friend replied yes, noting it is a couple thousand feet away. Ms. Mendonca asked if the 10 acres is flat land to which Mr. Freeman replied it is gently rolling, and used to be a cane field. Ms. Mendonca asked if the 66 passion fruit mentioned in the agriculture plan are vines or trees to which Mr. Freeman replied they are vines, and heavy duty fences were. brought in to support the six different varieties brought in from the Big Island; the number represents 66 individual plants. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that the number of guava trees is three to which Mr. Freeman explained the market for guava is very small, and is not a high commodity item. Ms. Mendonca asked what type of fruit make up the 76 citrus plants to which Mr. Friend replied it is a mixture; tangelo, grapefruit, tangerine, lemon, lime, etc. In reference to the Lychee and Longan trees, Ms. Mendonca asked if they were hybrids to which Mr. Freeman replied they are all grafted trees, and almost all of them came from Planet Hawaii on the Big Island. Ms. Mendonca stated these trees and plants take up a lot of space, and they are being put on a ten acre parcel of land with bananas, papayas, etc., and she is trying to visualize it. Mr. Freeman stated all the trees are all on 30-35 foot spacing. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that there are 70 banana trees. Mr. Freeman pointed out on the map where the bananas are located in a low, wetland type space that would not be good.for fruit trees as it would promote, root rot. Ms. Mendonca asked what type of bananas are being planted to which Mr. Freeman replied dwarf apple Cavendish. Ms. Mendonca noted that many of the plantings are Page 18 seasonal to which Mr, Freeman replied yes, explaining that it is to ensure they have a variety of fruits available all year long. Ms. Mendonca stated that the intent then is to hit that many pounds in yield, and not so much having the fruit stand be a unique operation. She surmised that what the applicant is looking to do is have a large-scale business, and export some of the fruits to Oahu. Mr. Freeman replied they are trying to grow as much food on this space as possible, and to try and get the best yields to maintain a profitable farm. Should they get those projected yields, they will flood their own fruit stand, and will either have to sell off island, or produce value-added items. Ms. Mendonca stated that what she is seeing is a large-scale business that will use the fruit stand to sell what they cannot sell outside. Mr. Freeman clarified it was just the opposite; the purpose of the fruit stand is to sell as much as possible on-site, on property, on this agriculture parcel from what they grow. Ms. Mendonca retorted that the applicant stated the fruit stand could not handle the projected yields, which would mean they would have to export it. She stated what the applicant is doing right now is anticipating that the fruit stand cannot handle that, which she speculated is the reason they are attempting a large-scale operation to ensure they have enough to export elsewhere, Mr. Friend stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hay will be developing an integrated marketing plan with the primary focus being the fruit stand, and they will be developing alternative outlets to market the fruit not sold through the fruit stand through either value-added products, or through wholesale outlets, Ms. Mendonca stated she understands and agrees with that concept as she feels we do need a source for these fruits; however, what doesn't sit right with her is the size of the fruit stand because it loses its quaintness, and detracts from the rural look of the community. Mr. Friend stated that he thinks Mr. and Mrs. Hay would be open to revisiting the size. Ms. Anderson asked the planner how the traffic and safety concerns can be integrated into the Commission' s recommendations. Mr. Hull stated it can be conditioned with specific ingress, egress, and parking stipulations; however, the Department generally advises against that as the Department of Transportation Highways division has the purview of this area, and there is already a condition that the applicant receive the approval of the applicable government agencies. Being that the applicant would have to apply for a road right-of-way access with the DOT, they will have to meet their requirements in order to receive their approval. Mr. Hull added that if the Commission wishes to strengthen that, it can be included in the conditions. Ms. Anderson stated she would like to see a reference to the safety. Additionally, because it' s not just a stand-alone fruit stand, and is becoming a commercial area with the multiple developments there, she feels they should also look at Complete Streets to see the recommendations for multi-modal access . Mr. Dahilig noted that the comments from DOT have been circulated, and as part of the recommended conditions of approval, the Department suggests the Commission also adopt those three items, verbatim, as part of the conditions. Mr. Texeira asked that based on the comments from DOT, shouldn't the applicant make these improvements prior to approval of the application to which Mr. Dahilig replied that is why they would include it as part of the condition of approval. However, given there is an additional set of studies that DOT is asking for, the actual citing of these improvements should be incumbent upon DOT' s direction. Mr. Texeira asked to clarify that the DOT has no problem Page 19 approving the project in light of their recommendations to which Mr. Dahilig replied DOT is anticipating a specific structural issue they would like to have remedied of where the access should be located along the highway: Should the findings of the Traffic Impact Report DOT is requesting warrant further recommendations by the traffic engineer for further improvements, that should dovetail into conditions of approval as part of this permit. Referencing DOT's recommendation for an entire master plan, Mr. Texeira asked how the applicant would have control of that since they lease much of the land. Mr. Dahilig replied that though the applicant may not have control over the other elements of the property, there should be enough information to analyze the traffic impacts generated by the present uses. Mr. Hull added that should this be approved, the applicant would still need to go to the Department of Transportation where the application will be .finther analyzed for any additional, necessary exactions; this is just the first stage of approvals.. Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that one of the standard conditions is to require a farm plan to which Mr. Hull replied that is more standard when a special permit is involved. Because the use is outright permitted under HRS 205, a special permit is not triggered. Mr. Katayama asked if it should be requested to provide clarity as there are certain representations made on other parts of the parcel that are an integral part of this permit. It is not quite clear how it is all integrated on this 120 acre .parcel. Mr. Dahilig recognized the Commission' s skepticism on whether the demand warrants such a large structure, and suggested ways the Commission could address that. Mr. Katayama commented that he does not want to second guess the applicant, but he wants to ensure the representations made orally are documented as part of the approval process by way of conditions. In order for him to feel comfortable in approving this application, he wants to understand how this operation will enhance the agriculture activity in the area. Mr. Kimura expressed concern regarding Condition 2, .stating he would like to see the fruit stand sell only raw produce from the property, and not value-added products as he feels that would open a door to a whole bunch of different things. Mr. Blake noted the applicant stated the value-added products would be products that came from the land, and if that is the case, he does not see a problem with it. Mr. Kimura noted Condition 2 states: agricultural products grown on the subject property OR Kauai (emphasis added), and he would like to see it come from just that particular property. To address the debate of whether the value-added be taken away, or whether the Kauai option should be taken away, Mr. Hull explained how other islands handle fruit stands. He stated Kauai is the only island that requires a use permit for a fruit stand; any commercial type of sale on fruit and vegetable products automatically moves into the use permit process. On other islands, fruit stands are outright permitted over the counter; however they must be a certain square footage, and in some instances must sell products only grown on their property. Above and beyond that, they move on to the equivalent of a use permit. Page 20 Mr. Isobe stated it is his understanding that the fruit stand is a generally permitted use within the agriculture district, both statutorily as well as within the CZO (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance), He noted the applicant stated that 10 acres of land can produce enough fruits to accommodate a 2,800 square foot fruit stand. Being that there is a total of 180 acres of land, if another applicant wanted to build a fruit stand to serve another 10 acres of land on the same parcel to sell a different variety of fruit, would the Department recommend the Commission approve that application. As a matter of practice and policy, would they then approve another 16 fruit stands on this same property, or would they limit the size of the fruit stand as well as the type of fruit they would be allowed to sell based on what the Commission feels would be appropriate, then allow the customer to deal with the excess fruit in whatever manner they choose. Mr. Isobe stated the reason for his questions are to gain an understanding of the practice and policy of the Department, and to maintain consistency for future applications . Mr. Dahilig explained when the application was previously brought before the Commission, the issue of guidance and consistency was brought up with regard to proliferation. The Department drafted a set of Administrative Interpretive Rules that was placed on the Commission's docket in November, but had been deferred and is still up for discussion. Those rules attempt to address concerns on how to approach these types of operations from a programmatic standpoint. Mr. Dahilig noted the use permit process is not meant to be a cookie- cutter approach to how to handle these applications; it is the Commission' s discretion to allow a use based on the proposal brought before them. The rules serve as a good guide for future Commission actions; however, the factual circumstances and approach may be different. Mr. Hull added that State statute outright permits fruit stands and vegetable stands in the State Land Use agricultural district. The conflict comes from the Kauai County Code not outright permitting them, which is why these fruit stand applications come before the Commission, regardless of size; any commercial sale in the agricultural district requires approval by the Commission. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that Condition 2 means the applicant is able to sell sandwiches, plate lunches, etc. as long as they use Kauai grown products. Mr. Hull replied yes, it would be considered value-added. Mr. Jung noted the importance of recognizing where the State policy has been going with this as there is a debate between balancing the CZO requirements versus the State policy. Value- added was included when the Legislature allowed retail activities with value-added products grown in Hawaii. Mr. Kimura asked if they could limit it to value-added products grown on- property to which Mr. Jung replied yes, if it can be tied to some kind of health and safety aspect in mitigating the impact the project may have; they would have to look at the use permit requirements of the CZO since according to State law, value-added is allowed. Mr. Kimura clarified that it could ultimately be taken out, or limited to on-property to which Mr. Jung replied yes, as long as there is a rationale behind it. Mr. Jung read the CZO standard for clarification purposes: The Planning Commission may impose conditions on the permit involving any of the following matters; location, amount and type and time of construction, type of use, its maintenance and operation, type and amount of traffic, off-street parking, condition and width of Page 121 adjoining roads, access, nuisance values, appearance of the building, landscaping, yards, open areas and other matters deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake expressed his hesitation in adding conditions that would restrict what might be an understandable adjunct to the business, especially due to the positive economic impacts that could occur. He acknowledges that there may be excess fruit that would contribute to value- added products, but noted that it may require resources from outside the property; restricting them to the property would potentially cause the excess fruit to go to waste. He suggested the value-added products be limited to the fruit grown on property; however, should there be a need for off-property resources, it would be allowed as long as the majority of the value-added product is derived from fruit grown on-property. Mr. Kimura asked who determines the allowed amount to which Mr. Blake stated the Commission can set that standard, and review if necessary to determine compliance. Mr. Kimura suggested they include a condition to state that anytime the applicant wishes to add another product to sell, they will be required to seek approval from the Department as opposed to the full Commission. He further noted that he does support agriculture; however, there is no way to tell what will be sold in the future, especially considering the permit runs with the land. (The meeting recessed for a caption break at 2:41 p.m.) (The meeting resumed at 3 :00 p.m.) Ms. Anderson restated her concerns about the safety and compliance with DOT recommendations and requested a general addition to the recommendations to comply with DOT safety recommendations, Mr, Hull read the following condition: 3 . The applicant shall comply with requirements of the State Department of Health, the County' s Fire Department, the Department of Water, the Department of Public Works as well as any other applicable government agencies. Mr. Dahilig noted Condition 3 could be amended to include any safety improvements required by the State Department of Transportation, to be orally incorporated into the .Director' s report. Ms, Mendonca stated she had asked the applicant about the size of the fruit stand, which she is really concerned about, and was told that the applicant did not think the owner would object to downsizing it. She asked if that would also be included as a condition. Mr. Dahilig noted it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a motion to .either amend the previous condition, or add an additional condition limiting the size to a specific square footage: Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that there was currently a motion on the floor to approve the application to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes. She asked if it were to be denied, would the Commission review it again to which Mr. Dahilig replied no, it would be over. Mr. Kimura added if Ms. Mendonca wished to make an amendment on any of the conditions, now would be the time. Page 22 Mr. Jung clarified there is currently a motion on the floor to approve the application, and the Commission is in the process of making amendments to what the Planning Department had recommended in its report. If the Commission wishes for something from that report to be amended, that can be done now. If the motion for the amendment fails, no changes will be made to the report, and the main motion will then have to be voted on; if the main motion fails, another motion can be made to deny. If there is not enough action, it will be carried over to the next meeting. Mr. Dahilig asked if there was a specific square footage that is of concern in minimizing the view plain, and massing issues along the highway. Ms. Mendonca stated her concern is with only 900 of the 2,000 square feet being usable space, and asked if the outside area will be used for tables, chairs, etc., and to sell smoothies, and sandwiches, which she feels completely takes away from the concept of a fruit stand. She would consider that 900 square feet is more than enough for a simple fruit stand. Mr. Dahilig asked to clarify that the suggested motion is to add a Condition 12 to state the total square footprint shall not exceed 900 square feet to which Ms. Mendonca replied that would be fair, unless they have another concept. She reiterated the report states only about 900 square feet is usable to display their product, and she is not comfortable with the space beyond that. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that at the last meeting the applicant stated there would be stools, and a countertop outside to which the applicant replied no, there is no sit-down area; it is strictly display. Mr. Hull clarified that should Ms . Mendonca' s motion for an additional Condition 12 be passed, Condition 1 would also need to be amended to read with the exception of size, the proposed fruit stand will he constructed and operated as represented, noting it is currently being represented as 2,800 square feet; Mr. Kimura asked along with Ms. Mendonca's recommendation, can the Department work out a sizable building considering they will need an area to wash and prep their produce. Mr. Hull noted the processing of the fruits and vegetables is an outright permitted use, and what is up for review is the sale of it. Mr. Texeira stated he is unsure that 900 square feet is an adequate size, and would like to know what would be an appropriate size. Ms. Mendonca responded by noting the applicant originally stated they had 2,880 square feet under a roof with an interior work room at 960 square feet; she is against the total size of 2,880 square feet. She is not saying it needs to be a specific size; however, she feels 2,880 square feet is a lot of space for a fruit stand. She further noted the applicants have calculated 960 square feet as usable space to present the product. Mr. Dahilig asked if the condition as stated earlier captures Ms. Mendonca' s intent to which Ms. Mendonca replied she would agree to the 960 square feet as represented as usable space by the applicant. Mr. Texeira noted the applicant talked about a display area outside the enclosed building, and expressed his uncertainty that the 960 square feet would accommodate that. His concern is that there will not be sufficient area to display their produce. Mr. Kimura Page 23 asked to clarify that the 900 square feet would be for storage, and the outside for display, Mr. Friend replied, yes, and explained the interior room will be used for the employees, for storage, and to prepare smoothies and juice; the outside overhang is the display area, separate from the 960 square feet. Mr. Freeman added the 960 square feet would include supplies, refrigeration, and counter with cash registers; the overhang is to provide adequate shade to protect the produce displays as well as the customers from the elements. Mr. Friend stated the interior room is not for public use. Ms. Mendonca stated that the structure is 2,800 square feet which she feels is a good size building. Mr. Kimura stated the size seems to be compatible with what they want to do. The Commission reviewed the building plans as provided by the applicant. Ms. Mendonca commented it is a huge space, and looks like a restaurant. Mr. Freeman used the comparison of Banana Joe' s stating they too have a storage building with a covered lanai area to display their products. Mr. Texeira reiterated his concern about the adequateness of 900 square feet, and asked to receive information on what would be the appropriate size. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Mr. Texeira to include an additional Condition 12 which restricts the fruit stand to 900 square feet, Mr. Texeira withdrew his second and Ms. Mendonca withdrew her motion. There was further discussion on the appropriate size of the structure. Mr. Jung stated the importance of making conditions is that they must be very specific, therefore, the motion should include a specific number as opposed to a range. The motion should also be broken up to address the sizes of both the interior space, and the .exterior overhang space; they should specify the size of each individual space. Mr. Dahilig noted the Commission ' s concern was with the entire square footage of the structure' s total footprint, which is what the motion would address, however, a specific size would still need to be included in the motion. There was further discussion on the structure's size, the size of the enclosed interior space, and the amount of exterior overhang space. Mr. Friend asked if the current motion allowed for the interior room to be adjusted to whatever size the applicant chooses to which Mr. Dahing said compliance would be interpreted as any size within the determined square footage of the building's footprint. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that they are currently only voting on the square footage issue, but not the issue on DOT. Mr. Dahilig replied yes as the DOT issue was orally incorporated into the Director' s report by the Department. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Herman Texeira to amend the main motion to include an additional Condition 12 which states the total footprint of the building shall not exceed 1,500 square feet, the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. Page 24 Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that the main motion being voted on now includes the comments of the DOT, the clarification of the safety issue to Condition 3 , and the reduction of square footage. Mr. Dahilig reiterated the current motion on the floor. is to approve the Class IV zoning permit and use permit with 12 conditions, including an amendment to the Planning Director' s report on Condition 3 to state at the end of the paragraph including any safety improvements required by the Department of Transportation; the addition of Conditions 9 through 11 which will be items 1 through 3 of the memorandum sent by DOT; and the approved motion to add a square footage limitation as Condition 12 to the permit. Mr. Hull added for clarification that because of the adoption of the recent motion changing the square footage, Condition 1 will also need to be amended to read: With the exception of size, the fruit and vegetable stand shall be constructed and operated as represented. Any changes to the facility and/or operations shall be reviewed by the Department to determine whether Planning Commission review and approval is required. On the motion by Herman Tezeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to amend the language of Condition 1 as stated by the Planner, the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the Class IV zoning permit and use permit as amended and without objection from the applicant, the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-05 and Use Permit U-2014-05 to construct a farm dwelling with garage lanai and pool on Lot 13 of the Seacliff Plantation Subdivision in Kilauea, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-2-004: 086 and containing a total area of approx. 5.082 acres = Kyle & Neate Barker. [Director's (tort received 11 /12/13, hearing closed and action deferred 12/10/13.1 Staff Planner Jody Galinato summarized Supplement No. 5 to the Director's report for the record. (On file) Ms. Anderson asked if the farm plan includes a list of plants, along with photos of the plants, to which Ms. Galinato replied yes. Ms. Anderson asked how the information presented relates to a farm plan as it seems to be just a listing of plants. Ms. Galinato stated the listing of plants is just her addition to the report, and that a colored 11 " x 17" set of plans had been submitted at the previous meeting; the Department had not had a chance to review it at that time, but have since done so . Santo Giorgio, plan maker and owner's representative, was present. Mr. Katayama asked for a description of the agricultural activity as well as the sustainability plan for the agricultural activity on the lot. Mr. Giorgio explained the lot itself is a very steep, sloped property located on the back side of Crater Hill, which greatly limits their farming activity. The property is County-zoned Open, not Ag, and has never been used for agriculture, but is in the overall State Ag use district, which is why they made the effort to Page 125 prepare a farm plan. The photo included in the submitted farm plan shows the steepness of the property as well as the wild brush; they used whatever usable area they had. Mr. Giorgio consulted with a landscaper to devise a plan to incorporate some of the owner' s desire to have a wide variety of fruit trees. The farm plan is their best effort to fulfill the obligation to the Commission; however, realistically speaking, it's not farm land. Mr. Katayama asked if there is any commercial agricultural activity on the land to .which Mr. Giorgio replied currently there is none. However, the 60 — 70 fruit trees they plan to plant can be used to supply local farmer's markets, and possibly the proposed agriculture park they are hoping will be approved within the subdivision in the near future. Realistically, the fruit trees will supply family, friends, and those who maintain the property with a source of food. Mr. Blake asked if the trees proposed to be planted are resistant to wind and salt breeze as it was stated the property is directly impacted by trade winds. Mr. Giorgio stated most of the trees will be getting wind protection from the house, and milo has been planted in an attempt to create a further wind break. Mr. Kimura stated for the Commission' s information that when Seacliff was in development, 75 acres was donated to the County for agricultural activity for that subdivision. Mr. Blake asked if the Department found the farm plan to be acceptable to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes. Mr. Katayama asked what ancillary items could be included in an agriculture dwelling provision; would a pool be part of an agriculture dwelling? Mr. Dahilig acknowledged the difficulty in answering that question, but noted there are no restrictions as to what a farm dwelling should look like, which is made clear in the State Cade as well as the County Code; there are no design element or accessory use parameters as related to the existence of a farm dwelling. With the use permit currently before the Commission, those are limitations the Commission can impose should it feel it is in conflict with the form and character of the area. Mr. Blake expressed his frustration in the lack of a clear definition of a farm dwelling, commenting that some applicants submit a farm plan just so they can construct their dwelling. Until there is a definition of a farm dwelling, this problem will continually come up, and the Department will continue to recommend approval. Mr. Isobe asked why this application is before the Commission for a use permit to which Ms. Galinato replied because it is the Scenic Resource Constraint District which requires the view plains to be unaffected. Mr. Isobe asked if it had not been a view plain issue, would the farm dwelling have been approved over the counter as represented in the application to include the garage, lanai and swimming pool to which Ms. Galinato replied yes. Ms. Anderson referenced a letter from. the State of Hawaii Office of Planning dated November 7, 2013 (on file), and asked if there was a subsequent letter since the submission of the farm plan, noting the letter states that they do not consider the 4,000 square foot, single family residence a farm dwelling under State Chapter 205. Ms. Galinato stated the Department did not resubmit back to them for comments, but encouraged the farm dwelling based on the Page 26 State' s letter. Mr. Dahilig further clarified the Department' s interpretation by explaining that the State does not hold the official position on interpreting Chapter 205 ; that must be done through action by the State Land Use Commission (SLUC). Given past approvals that have gone before the SLUC, the Department is not aware of any situation where a home such as this one has been denied on the basis of not being an agricultural dwelling. Mr. Dahilig stated, the Department has a responsibility to uphold Chapter 205, however, without any position from the SLUC that these homes are not in compliance, the only other option would be to create a test case in court. Mr. Kimura expressed his frustration that even with a determination from the State that this dwelling is not considered a farm dwelling, they are still unable to take the desired action because of compliance with Chapter 205 . He commented that something within the laws has to be fixed, and does not understand why it has been so difficult to do so. Mr. Dahilig offered to provide a Powerpoint slideshow on farm dwellings, and agricultural activities. Mr. Katayama commented that the Commission has the ability to do a test of reason, but questioned where. the line is drawn when doing so . There is a scale between the size of the dwelling and the agricultural land it sits on, noting the intent of Chapter 205 is to help sustain agriculture. He asked how this approval keeps agriculture sustainable on this property. Mr. Katayama pointed out they would have to determine what constitutes a farm as an agricultural use; is this property better or worse off from this agricultural use. They should be looking at what makes sense. There was further discussion on interpretations of agricultural use and farm dwellings. Mr. Jung noted the importance of having the presentation on agricultural use and farm dwellings in order to look at all the issues from a historical perspective. Mr. Isobe noted the original application stated 75 acres had been set aside for an agricultural park, which was turned over to the County to develop. He asked whether the 75 acres was a recognition that some of the parcels, as the applicant mentioned earlier, were not conducive for agricultural activities. Mr. Dahilig was unsure of the circumstances of setting aside that land as it took place years ago . Mr. Kimura commented that 75 acres cannot be farmed as it has no water, noting that a 36 inch pipe needs to be installed, but no one is willing to pay for it; that land will sit there unused. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on what would happen should the motion carry to which Mr. Jung replied the whole project would be denied, On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to deny the recommendations made by the Planning Department, no action was taken. Mr. Dahilig addressed Ms. Anderson' s motion, and explained that under the law, a motion to deny must be accompanied by a stated findings of fact and conclusion of law as to why the denial motion is appropriate. He requested she restate her motion to include the findings Page f 27 regarding the denial to ensure the conclusions of the Commission are included for the record in the decision and order. Mr. Isobe moved to suspend the rules to allow the applicant to make a statement. Mr. Giorgio stated he feels that Ms. Anderson' s concern is with the letter from the State of Hawaii Office of Planning, and informed the Commission that he called, and personally spoke to Rodney Funakoshi who informed him of the reason the letter was sent. Mr. Giorgio stated he was informed by Mr. Funakoshi that if certain documents were submitted, the letter would be revised. On the motion by Angela. Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to deny the recommendations made by the Planning Department, Mr. Katayama withdrew his second and Ms. Anderson withdrew her motion. Mr. Kimura requested a waiver of mandatory action from the applicant until the information is presented to the Commission to which the applicant agreed. Mr. Giorgio commented that the reason he is before the Commission is not because of the agriculture aspect of the property, but because of the view plain, which is the real issue; this is not agriculture land. However, he will obtain a letter from the State of Hawaii Office of Planning, and go through the process. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to defer the item pending further information regarding the farm plan as well as a revised letter from the State of Hawaii Office of Planning, the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. Class N Zoning Permit Z-1V-20144 and Use Permit U-2014-7 for construction of an affordable multi-family residential proiect on a parcel located in Princeville, situated along the makai side of Kuhi'o Highway and approx. 250 ft. east of its intersection with Hanalei Plantation Road, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-4-024: 020 and affecting a portion of a parcel containing 19 .204 acres = Kolopua Partners, LP. jDirector's Report received 12/1 0/13 .] Mr. Hull noted the Director' s report is on file, and read the Department' s review and recommendation into the record. (On file) In response to Mr. Blake 's question regarding submitted testimony, Mr. Hull explained the proposed access is not the Hanalei Plantation Road access, and will primarily be located near the shopping center area. Given the storage lane will be relative to the proposed access, the Department does not foresee much traffic going to Hanalei Plantation Road. He noted the Department of Transportation had no comments at this time, and Public Works Engineering Division had no actual concerns with the access itself. In reference to the concern with the reduction of the housing requirement, Mr. Hull explained when the land was rezoned, 70 units were required to be built via ordinance. About a year ago, the landowner requested the 70 unit requirement be reduced to 42, and with that lower reduction the housing would be provided to Page 28 income groups of a lower rate for those more in need of housing. That request was reviewed by the Planning Commission, and was ultimately unanimously approved before moving on to County Council where it was also approved. Mr. Blake asked who is paying for this housing, as testimony at a previous meeting brought up concerns about the timing of the approval and how it would affect funding. Mr. Dahilig explained this project is paired with the Rice Camp project that came before this body in December, and noted the applicants are the beneficiaries of the tax credits awarded by State law, in particular the Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation. This is one of two projects on Kauai in which a private developer was awarded these tax credits to develop these units; it is being funded through State tax credits. Mr. Blake asked to clarify that the outlay of cash will be by the developer, which they will receive tax credits for, to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes. Mr. Blake asked for clarification on whether the concerns about 1 ,200 cars traveling back and .forth on Honu Road will be negated to which Mr. Hull replied the Department does not anticipate many problems being created by this development because the proposed access will be in a different area. Additionally, the storage lane for that access will be the primary access for the Hanalei traffic going to this development. He reiterated that neither the Public Works Roads Division nor the State Department of Transportation have raised any concerns regarding the access. Mr. Dahilig noted the applicant would be better suited to respond to some of the traffic impact questions. 'Makani Maeva, Director of Vitus Group, was present along with County Housing Director Kamuela Cobb-Adams, Mr. Blake reiterated his earlier question regarding the traffic concerns, noting that because Public Works has not commented does not mean there is no problem. Mr. Hull clarified that Public Works has commented on the project, but has not raised any concerns about the road impacts. Mr. Blake asked to clarify that the Department is saying the 90 degree curve and pot holes are not a problem anymore to which Mr. Hull replied the specific comments that were solicited were regarding the impacts the project would have on either the floodplain, or the traffic in and around the area; it wasn't a solicitation of road maintenance. In response to further comment by Mr. Blake on the roadway, Mr. Hull explained whether or not there are problematic conditions existing on that roadway, neither the Department nor Public Works is taking a position on that relative to. the impacts this project would have on the roadway. In response to Mr. Katayama, and the comments made by Mr. Goodwin during public testimony for last year's zoning amendments, Ms. Maeva explained the entrance has been aligned to the affordable housing project further toward the shopping center. There will not be any egress; except emergency egress for the Fire Department; bollards will be placed to prevent public access or egress from Honu .Road to the property. The property will share an access with the shopping center expansion. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) was conducted, and updated in October. It found that the impact of the affordable housing project is negligible upon all of the three intersections leading to the project on either side. In response to the TZAR, they have designed improvements to Kuhi'o Highway, which includes tapering at the entrance and an Page 129 expanded roadway. The entire design of the project takes into consideration the traffic problems that exist on Honu Road as well as into Hanalei Plantation Road, Mr. Katayama asked what the housing demand is to which Mr. Cobb-Adams replied the housing absorption rate has not been studied, but the cost of housing in Princeville based on 2010 rates is as follows: • 1 bedroom unit - $ 1 ,443 • 2 bedroom unit 7 $ 11710 .. - • 3 bedroom unit ' $2;150 Mr. Katayama stated for clarification that the goal should be to have people living close to where they work as opposed to commuting. He asked if-there is a forecast of the absorption rate through employment. Ms. Maeva replied, unfortunately, they will address less than 4 percent of the actual need in the area for people, making less than 60 percent of the median income. They have a priority for employees of the Princeville Developments, the Hanalei area, and the North Shore tax map, and will be doing a lottery due to the substantial demand. Mr. Katayama asked what the County' s obligation is to which Ms. Maeva replied this project will consist of long-term affordable rentals to people making less than 60 percent of the median income. As a private developer, Vitus Group will town and operate this asset for the next 61 years, after which time they will give the parcel to the County, which includes an agreement for the parcel to be leased back to the Vitus Group at $ 1 .00 per year with the condition that the rents will be kept affordable in perpetuity. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify how they will be restricting access to Honu Road to which Ms. Maeva noted that parcel is not part of the affordable housing project. There is a long-term easement that will allow egress for emergency vehicles, which will be blocked off with drop- down bollards that can be removed in case of emergency. Mr. Texeira asked what the actual cost of these rental units will be to which Ms. Maeva explained the rents are adjusted by unit type and number of occupants. According to the recently published rents by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the following maximum rental costs will be applied: • 1 bedroom unit - $902 • 2 bedroom - $ 1 ,091 • 3 bedroom - $ 15268 Mr. Texeira asked if there is any subsidy involved to which Ms. Maeva replied there is no subsidy, it is just straight rent calculated at 30 percent of the available income for the family, adjusted by family and unit size. She added that Section 8 vouchers would be accepted as well. Mr. Texeira asked whether two families could live in one unit to which Ms. Maeva replied no, there are occupancy restrictions defined by HUD as 1 1/2 persons per room. There are annual income and occupancy certification tests that each resident must meet as well as health and life safety inspections. Page 30 Mr. Cobb-Adams clarified as a requirement of the Princeville Shopping Center expansion, the original ordinance required the developer to build 75 units, of which 50 were to be affordable, 25 to be at market rate. The Commission approved to increase the total number of units to 88. However, in concurrence with the affordable housing policy and ordinance, if the developer provided housing at 60 percent below the median income they were offered an I ncentive that for every two units they were required to build, they only needed to build one. Additionally, language was added by Council that required the parcel to subsequently be transferred to the County. Mr. Texeira noted the applicant stated they want to make residents of the North Shore area the priority, and what would be considered the North Shore. Mr. Cobb-Adams replied the County Council included that in the amended ordinance. It is defined by district, and an order of preference starting with Princeville is specified. Mr. Isobe asked if there is a deadline for these tax credits to be executed to which Ms. Maeva replied yes. She explained they applied for tax credits on June 28, and were awarded on September 19 , The 10 percent deposit has been submitted to the HHFDC, and they have until December 31 ,. 2014 to build and occupy the units, place them in service, and deliver tax credits to their investors. Due to this timeline, they would like to receive the approvals as soon as possible in order to submit for a building permit, and start building. Ms. Anderson noted the Commission received written testimony regarding the context of the Princeville Shopping Center providing workforce housing, and in the past there have been requirements up to 120 units; it has gone down from there. She asked since this lot will hold 44 units, was it anticipated that this would satisfy Princeville Development' s requirements for affordable housing. Mr. Cobb-Adams stated he cannot answer that, but pointed out the requirement that was amended was a requirement of the shopping center parcel, not a requirement of Princeville Development; it would meet the requirement of the shopping center parcel, and was necessary for any expansion of the shopping center. The Commission received testimony from Donna Gomez, Ms. Gomez stated she has lived at 4421 Hanalei Plantation Road since 1958, and noted her main concern is the statement that there isn't traffic on Hanalei Plantation Road. She asked the Commission and the applicant to tell her where Honu Road is, noting that she was told Honu Road is non-existent. Ms. Gomez provided clarification on where Hanalei Plantation Road begins and ends, noting that Honu Road is non-existent. She explained the current traffic problems on Hanalei Plantation Road, and the lack of a Yield sign. tMr. Kimura noted that the applicant stated they will not be using Hanalei Plantation Road. Ms. Gomez expressed concerns with what previous developers had proposed to which Mr. Kimura stated this is a different group, a different project, and a different road. The shopping center road next to Foodland will be the road utilized to enter and exit the project, and will not contribute to the traffic on Hanalei Plantation Road. Ms. Gomez asked of the 20 acres, how many are currently vacant to which Mr. Kimura stated they are only discussing what is presented before them in this current application. Ms. Gomez asked how many acres are included in this current project to which Mr. Hull replied the overall parcel size is 19.2 acres, but the project itself will cover 9 acres. Ms. Gomez asked if Page 131 the 19 .2 acres includes the shopping center to which Mr. Kimura stated this is not the time to discuss that. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Herman Texeira to approve the Class IV zoning permit and Use permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lthu` e Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A/213. 4444 Rice Street, Lmu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, January 28, 20140 Mr. Dahilig noted for clarification that a workshop will be held at 9:00 a.m. , followed by a regular meeting at 1 :30 p.m, on a separate agenda. There will not be a Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Kimura asked who approved the workshop to which Mr. Dahilig replied. the Commission had discussed the scheduling of these workshops at past meetings. Mr. Kimura asked if the former Chair had approved to move the workshop items to be held prior to the regular meeting to which Mr. Katayama indicated affirmatively, and explained the reason for keeping separate agendas. Mr. Kimura asked that the Director consult with him from this meeting forward. Mr. Dahilig noted the workshop topics would be on Complete Streets, and discussion on the performance goals of the Planning .Director. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4 :43 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Supp Clerk O Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). ( } Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. Page 32