Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 10-14-14 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 14, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Jan Kimura at 9 : 26 a.m., at the Liau` e Civic Center, Mo` ikeha Building, in Meeting Room 2A/2B . The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jan Kimura Vice Chair Angela Anderson Mr. John Isobe Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Amy Mendonca Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake Mr. Wayne Katayama The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie Takasaki, Dale Cua; Marie Williams; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung, Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9 :26 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted there were five commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig requested that actual action relating to Items F.2.a and I.2. a, respectively, be entertained when alternate counsel to advise the Commission can come in, likely after 11 : 00. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Meeting of July 8 , 2014 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the minutes of the July S, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to receive items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing (None) New Agency Hearing Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-2 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2015-3 and Use Permit U-2015-3 to allow conversion of an existing residence into abed and breakfast operation on a parcel located along the mauka side of Weke Road in Hanalei Town, situated at its intersection with Pilikoa Street, further identified as Tax Map Key 5 -5-010 . 032 and containing a total area of 7.568 sq. ft. = Ed Ben Dor and Joan Ben Dor. [Director' s Report received 9/23/ 14.1 [Applicant' s Response to Planning Director' s Report, received 10/8/141 The Commission received testimony from Douglas Blackburn, a resident of Hanalei, who is in support of Ed Ben-Dar' s request for a homestay operation. Mr. Blackburn stated he moved to Hanalei in 1977, and soon after Mr. Ben-Dor became his neighbor, whom he has known for over 30 years. He supports the application because he wishes to see Mr. Ben-Dor' s daughter take over the house as Mr. Ben-Dor has moved on to another location; his daughter will reside in the home, and needs some extra financial support by renting out a room for the time being. He stated it is becoming financially difficult in Hanalei to stay in homes because of the numerous financial burdens, and feels this is a good idea of having local families be able to maintain their homes and make a little income on the side. The Commission received testimony from Carl Imparato, who lives in Hanalei, and is in support of the Director's report and recommendation to DENY the requested permits . He noted this homestay is a TVR by another name, its only distinguishing factor being the full-time, on- site concierge, which he does not believe provides enough of a difference to allow this quasi" TVR to be approved. The primary reason being the County needs to give in-depth consideration to the very important public policy question of whether or not more commercialization of residential neighborhoods should be permitted. The use of the owner' s property as a Bed and Breakfast if the property is the owner' s primary residence, and only a small percentage of the property is rented out, is one thing, but it is entirely different to consider the conversion of properties in general from residential to quasi-commercial use when they are de-facto TVRs having an on-site manager. Mr. Imparato stated his concern is that if this request is approved, it is almost certain that there will be a flood of similar applications in the future, and many residential properties in the future will be marketed and purchased by people with the intent of getting around the TVR laws by converting residential properties to concierge TVRs under the guise of a homestay. He is not arguing the intent. of this applicant, but is speaking about the general idea of what it means to operate a homestay, which he does not think the County has grappled with that yet. The policy issues raised by this application are broad, and precedence- setting. He feels the Commission should conduct a general rule-making proceeding in order to clearly define the criteria and parameters to address these types of requests rather than entertain them on a case-by-case permit process . He urged the Commission not to take a piecemeal approach to this important matter, but if they are going to consider it, please require the property be the primary residence of the owner, who must live on-site, and that no more than one-third of the bedrooms be rented to non-residents, and only be rented during periods when the owner is actually in residence, and that parking, septic, and disaster evacuation impacts be addressed, and that cumulative impacts be fully considered as is required by the SMA rules and regulations. The Commission received testimony from Makaala Kaaumoana, Executive Director of the Hanalei Watershed Hui, who read her written testimony into the record. (On file) Mt. Dahilig noted for the record the receipt of a letter from Barbara Robeson in support of the Planning Director' s recommendation to deny the application. Mr. Dahilig stated because they are without counsel for this item, he suggests the Commission leave the agency hearing open, and defer the item until counsel returns . On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the matter until there is counsel for the Commission, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearing ZA-2014-9 : a BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING Chapter 8 Kauai County Code 1987 as amended relating to Additional Dwelling Unit. The proposal extends the sunset date of the Additional Dwelling Unit on other than residentially zoned lots and establishes an annual recertification requirement and fee = County of Kauai Department of Planning Wearing deferred 7/22/14 due to no quorum Director' s Report received and hearing deferred 8/1_ 2/14. 1 Mr. Dahilig noted for the record the receipt of a set of roughly 90 ADU petitions in support of the matter transmitted by Mr. Jesse Fukushima, The Commission received testimony from Tony Ricci, a current resident of Kekaha who has lived there for 24 years. Mr. Ricci stated he has an ADU lot that is part of Kekaha Sunsets, and is one of the last ADU houses to be constructed there. They were planning to build when his wife retires in 2018 , but due to his medical issues from a motor vehicle accident, when the sunset deadline came down, it became impossible for them to expedite the finances necessary to do so. Mr. Ricci and his wife live down the street from the property, and planned to build an ADU there so his son could take over the existing residence. They cannot afford to lose their investment, and hope the extension is granted to allow for their retirement plans; otherwise, they will be unable to retire here, and their son cannot live here. Mr. Ricci stated their lot is a 14,000 square foot lot where they are planning to put a 2,000 square foot home. This is their future, which they had planned for very well until the unforeseen circumstances came about. He hopes the commission will consider this extension. The Commission received testimony from Lee Mori, President of the Kauai Board of Realtors, who spoke on behalf of two particular individual clients that are both in the same situation as Mr. Ricci. They purchased lots in a development with surrounding houses, and established infrastructure. Both properties are zoned agriculture; however, one client had a death in the family, the other lost a job. She feels these individuals should be offered the privilege of being able to build a home. The client whose husband passed away was left with no money, and is now working hard to build on that parcel, which she paid quite a bit of money for. The other side of it is that the County is losing revenue from the 300 parcels identified, many of which already have infrastructure established. She is hoping the Commission allows this to not sunset, and to go on for another ten years. She also suggested it not be made so expensive that it will make it difficult for some of these families, and include a mechanism to remind certificate holders to renew annually. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. New Public Hearin ZA-2015-1 : A proposed ordinance to implement the South Kauai Community_Plan, which is an update to the existing K61oa-Po ` i u-Kalaheo Development Plan and includes the communities of K61oa, Po ` ipu, Kalaheo Oma` o and Lawa` i. The proposed ordinance will amend Chapter 10, Article 6 of the Kauai County Code to identify potential special planning areas to accommodate future growth and to establish new special planning areas for the town cores of K61oa and Kalaheo and an area ad ' acent to the Po ` i u Road roundabout and ex_ ceptions, modifications and additions to Chapters 8 9 and 10 of the Kauai County Code The Special Planning Areas will provide development standards and guidelines to help achieve the goals and objectives for the South Kauai Planning District that were created through a public planning_mocess and with assistance from a Citizen' s Advisory Committee. Mr. Dahilig stated for the record the receipt of written testimony from Carol Ann Davis- Bryant concerning crosswalks on Po ` ipu Road; a consolidated letter from the residents and owners of Po` ipu Crater noting various concerns on proposals included in the draft plan; an email from Yojana Grace concerning Mahaulepu and the issue of the dairy; an email from Mary Neudorffer concerning various proposals in the plan. The Commission received testimony from Juliette Souza, who lives on Hoona Road in Kukui` ula. She wanted to ensure that the intentions of the citizens group really came across and provided the truth. She, and several of her neighbors. that are involved in the redevelopment have been told that they are in agreement with the rezoning. Ms . Souza would like to make sure that it is stated in the meeting minutes that she is NOT in agreement with the rezoning. She has lived there all her life — 69 years — and is the last one in the lower portion of Hoona Road. She intends to try and remain there for her family as this is their homestead. She asked that the minutes reflect she and her neighbors were misrepresented by a couple of people, and she wants to ensure her intentions are made clear that she is against this rezoning on Hoona Road. The Commission received testimony from Sam Lee, a longtime, pennanent resident in the area, just up the street from Ms . Souza' s property. He has not lived on the property for as long as Ms. Souza has, but has been on his property, where three generations of his immediate family have grown up and continue to grow up, for 44 years. He is here to insure the change to the zoning from residential R-4 to VDA does not pass. Based on neighborhood concerns, an original proposal that showed the VDA to replace residential zoning, and make those residential properties a non-conforming use has been taken off the table. However, he and his neighbors are well aware of the long process ahead, which will ultimately involve the County Council, and may bring about pressures and changes that will be detrimental to them. Mr. Lee stated that a week ago, a coincidence in his opinion considering the date of this hearing, the neighborhood became aware of door to door lobbying by two individuals, primarily focusing on the old timers in the neighborhood to convince them to support the idea of the VDA. He and his neighbors were unaware of this, and were caught off guard. He noted that the lobbyists were members of the South Shore Citizens Advisory Committee, who were both appointed to be community advocates. He stated he will leave it at that, but it certainly makes him wonder. Mr. Isobe asked for clarification or elaboration on the solicitation effort Mr. Lee mentioned, and requested some background on what he was referencing. Mr. Lee explained that Ms . Souza had introduced that occurrence in her earlier testimony, and in her case a visit was actually made with her involving discussion about gaining her support for the VDA change. What was then passed back to the Planning Department was incorrect as Julie never agreed to or supported the change; however the results of that discussion were the opposite of that. Mr. Lee stated lobbying is a time tested way to do business, but it is strange that because of the responsibility the two lobbyists are supposed to be filling on the committee as community advocates that they would be pushing this agenda, and would take the liberty of completely misstating the results of their interviews; which has happened on more than one instance. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Lee stated that the neighbors that were approached, and spoke to the lobbyists can explain exactly what happened. He noted that when he found out about it, he contacted the Planning Department and the consultant, and questioned whether they submitted documents, affidavits, letters signed by the residents, or some hard evidence that what they were saying was true; however, there was no such evidence. It seems that things changed from the original discussion to what was relayed to the Planning Department, Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that the lobbyists are people employed by the County to which Mr. Lee replied no, they were invited to be a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, just as he was, which is comprised of stakeholders that live and work in the project area. The two lobbyists are longtime residents within the project area, and one has a business there. They were named to the committee as community advocates, but commented that one only needs to look at the listing of the CAC to see their affiliations, or the segment of the community they were selected to represent. His thinking is that if he is a community advocate, he is going to advocate for his community, which does not mean changing zoning from residential to commercial in his value system. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that the individuals he is referring to are volunteers that were serving on the CAC to which Mr. Lee stated yes, they were extended invitations . The Commission received testimony from Nonna Doctor Sparks, who read from the written testimony she provided. (On file) The Commission received testimony from Pamela Shivola, representing homeowners in the Koloa Crater, and who concurs with previous speakers. A nine-page letter has been submitted for the Commission' s consideration regarding the South Shore plan, which Ms. Shivola read into the record. (On file) The Commission received testimony from E.J. Olsen, who lives in the area near Mr. Lee. He has a place called Kauai Cove .Cottages, and wanted to address the one size fits all approach to the zoning issue in the VDA that' s now proposed for Puuholo Road, Hoona Road, and Lawa` i Beach Road. He noted that when the ordinance to crack down on vacation. rentals came down, it did not take into account that this area was traditionally used for vacation rentals, or hybrid bed and breakfast type operations. Now the agricultural land next to Puuholo Road has been turned into a VDA with a strip mall; it was turned into a commercial area with Whaler' s Cove on the other end. There is a lot of traffic between these areas, and a pattern of tourism. All the cottages on the one little strip along Waikomo stream were used for tourism, and was in harmony with the neighborhood. He questioned is it not fair to look at this area as a visitor area as it' s been used this way for so long, and he feels it does not impact the neighborhood. Others may feel differently, but the County has now increased the commercial aspect by allowing new businesses to develop inland from this area. He stated they must expand the visitor area to meet the requirements of these commercial areas without impacting the neighborhood, and if they can find that balance, it can be a very good thing for the community. He commented that his property taxes have gone up 311 percent, and he paid over a half a million dollars in TAT since he got his license back in 1997. He has been doing business down there for so long, and feels he has been in harmony with his neighbors. He is asking for the Commission' s consideration in this matter as it has greatly impacted his family. The Commission received testimony from Kalanikumai Kamakaonaalii Hanohano a.k.a. Zachariah Branch Harmony. He provided a short prayer. He is not in agreement with the proposed rezoning, and is in support of previous testimony regarding this, as well as the letters of Carol Ann Davis, and Yojana Grace. He is registered with the State Historic Preservation Department, and with Grove Farin as a native descendent of the aboriginal stewards of the land in K61oa, Mahaulepu, and all the ahupua' a of K61oa. He represents his I ' iwi — his name translated designates who he is in his mookuauhau — and as party of interest over the moku of Kdloa of the feather cloaked clan. Mr. Hanohano stated the plan does not address issues of drainage posed and questioned by a community study in 2006, led by Donald Cataluna regarding the hazards of Waita dam, and the nature of the hard lava underneath all of K61oa, which would flood the whole area down to Kukui`ula should anything happen to the earthenwork dam. It has not addressed the issue of reef degradation, of poisoning of endangered sea life, and contamination of the shoreline from Hauula all the way to Kukui` ula, which is the South Shore VDA, by the proposed dairy runoff and high nitrates. Because of the percolation into the lava tubes, and the lack of topsoil, the heavy rains will inevitably cause runoff one mile to the beach. Public access rights from Weliweli Road all the way to Waita and Kawailoa Bay were established on July 27, 1896, and indexed in Fifth Circuit Court law. He has copies of the transcripts, and is in conforinance with State law that any road that was established as public access prior to this remains so no matter who owns the property on either side. Former councilman and Mayoral candidate Junmy Tehada's vision for Kaua` i' s South Shore was to attract wealthy retirees to improve health services for geriatrics with increased development of nursing hospital and outpatient services, which is also not addressed in this plan, but it is a more appropriate concern for the future development of this island. The plan does not state that Mahaulepu has been, and is a public priority for preservation, and the threatened species include green sea turtles, monk seals, reef fish, nene, and the Kauai Blind Cave Wolf spider. Mr. Dahilig recommended keeping the public hearing open, stating this is a very dense amount of material that needs to be thoroughly vetted, and he does not want to give the impression that the Department is rushing through this process as it deserves appropriate deliberation by the body as well as infonnation from the public. The consultant and the planner have worked hard to try and be as transparent about this process as possible. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to keep the public hearing open and defer the matter until the next commission meeting, but receive the presentation at a later time in the meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 10 :20 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 10: 30 a.m.) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Subdivision Committee Vice Chair Amy Mendonca read the Subdivision Report into the record. (On file) The following Tentative Subdivision Action was approved 3 -0 : 5-2015-02 — Julie Yaniane and Ainy Postma, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision The following Subdivision Extension Requests were approved 3 -0: S-2012- 11 = Jan, Inc. , Proposed 11 -lot Consolidation S-2012- 16 = The Saiki Fancily Revocable Trust, Proposed 6-lot Subdivision S-2013 -22 = Cheryl Cowden Schenck, Proposed Kuleana Relocation S-96-38 = Kilauea Ventures, LLC, Road and Drainage Subdivision, Consolidation with S-2013 -20 to facilitate conditions pursuant to Z-IV-2012-7 The following Final Subdivision Actions were approved 3 -0: S-2013 - 12 = .John WK. Driver & Teresa S. Driver, Proposed 2-lot Boundary Adjustment S-2014- 14 = Lance & Ann Akama Trust/Michael M. Akama & David Y. Akama, Proposed 2-lot Boundary Adjustment On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to receive the Subdivision Committee Report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Director' s Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 10/28/14 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-4 and Use Permit U-20154 to construct a farmworker housing unit featuring 3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms on a parcel situated along the Makai side of Koolau Road in Moloa` a, approx. V2 mile east of its intersection with Kuhio Highway, further identified as 6020 Koolau Road or Tax MqV Key 4-9-009 : 012 CPR Unit 83 and containing a land area of 6 .25 acres = Kaua `i Kunana, Inc. (dba_Kaua `i Kunana Dairy) Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2015-03 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2015-08 for a shoreline activity determination Tax Map Key 5-3 -005 . 005 `Anini, Kaua` i, for acceptance by the Commission = County oLaua `i. Department of Parks and Recreation. Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2015-04 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2015-09 for a shoreline activity determination Tax Ma Key 1 -9-008 : 007 Hanapepe, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = County ofKaua `i, Department of Parks and Recreation. No action was taken on this item. EXECUTIVE SESSION (None) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Letter (9/22/14) from Gwendolyn A. Mocksing, requesting cancellation of Use Permit U- 2014- 14, Tax Map Key 2-6-004 : 32, Po ` ipu Road Kauai On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to receive the letter, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Dahilig noted Item I.2. a. will be postponed until counsel for the Commission is available. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FOR ACTION ZA-2014-9 : a BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE. AMENDING Chapter 8 , Kauai Countv Code 1987, as amended, relating to Additional Dwelling Unit The proposal extends the sunset date of the Additional Dwelling Unit on other than residentially zoned lots and establishes an annual recertification requirement and fee = County of Kaua `i Department of Planning Hearing deferred 7/22/14 due to no quorum Director's Report received and hearing_deferred 8/12/14.1 Mr. Dahilig stated the Department was tasked at the last meeting to do further research on the proposal. He explained there is an ADU sunset for those certificate holders that will expire in December. Council floated a bill to extend the deadline with certain conditions, particularly a ten year extension, and a $750 annual recertification fee. At the last meeting numerous concerns were raised by commissioners on the appropriateness of the fee, the amount of the fee, and whether a fee should be charged as well as whether the extension should be left at 10 years, or remain indefinite. Additionally, there was concern about the balance between limiting speculation that could occur as a consequence of these entitlements being traded rather than build versus providing an opportunity for local families to provide homes for their children. Mr. Dahilig noted one proposal that came before the body was whether or not the proposed fee could be accrued as a penalty, meaning if the ADU was sold the fee could be retroactively charged as opposed to paying a fee on an annual basis . However, it was determined by the County Attorney' s evaluation that such a proposal would not be in line with various case law and principles of municipal fee charges. The Department cannot recommend that proposal to the Commission at this time. The County Attorney did advise the Department that Hawaii law is a bit more limited regarding the difference between regulatory fees and administrative fees, and though regulatory fees compel a certain action, they should be appropriately proportioned to the amount of service being provided. Given those principles of law, the Department felt the $750 fee is not appropriate, therefore, they are recommending the ten year extension still be granted, and that a one-time registration charge of $500 along with an annual renewal fee of $200 to cover costs for man power required for cataloguing and paperwork will be sufficiently justifiable. The Department's greater concern is whether or not the ADUs will actually be constructed; they want to ensure the vertical unit is built, and avoid entitlements being created. They feel simply setting a ten year deadline will not provide the accountability to encourage people to build the home. Mr. Dahilig noted a comment he made to one of his planners that if they are concerned about urban infill, and attempting to lessen the urban footprint, the ADU law has been one of the more successful proposals to help provide infill versus sprawl. There is value in looking at the ADU bill to provide additional housing in areas that have already been urbanized. The Department would still recommend some kind of passage be adopted by the Commission. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that the ten year extension would bring the sunset date to 2024 to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes, it would be ten years from the date of approval. In response to Ms. Mendonca, Mr. Dahilig explained, the particular measure they are looking at only affects those ADU certificates that were issued within the last decade, and relates to homes NOT on residentially zoned areas; those on ag and open zoned lands . Ms. Mendonca asked if the ADU is not built by 2024, does that mean another dwelling could no longer be built to which Mr. Dahilig stated yes, that would be the consequence. Ms . Mendonca asked if it would be set in stone that an individual could not come back and state their reasons for not building. Mr. Dahilig stated the intent of the legislation back in 2007 was to end the granting of ADUs outside of residentially zoned areas; however, for the landowners who have already gone through the process of obtaining infrastructure entitlements, it is appropriate to offer an extension to close those out and build the unit. Unfortunately, the economy went under, and many people had difficulty obtaining financing. Subsequently, one extension had been granted until 2014 to allow these certificate holders to get their affairs in order, and this is just an extension of that existing policy. Ms. Mendonca stated she understands that clearly, but in her confusion of trying to get the right perspective she pointed out the example of a person with a home on ag land who decides to construct a building for their ag business as opposed to the land owners wishing to pass the land on to family members. She has difficulty understanding why such restrictions are placed on people who own the land and want to use it, but are faced with a multitude of hardships. Should there be another hurricane, will there be an open door for people to come back? Mr. Dahilig stated that is the process they are going through right now in trying to change the deadline. Mr. Isobe asked how many permits are being looked at to which Mr. Dahilig stated one of the functions of this amendment is an effort to itemize and account for all of the certificates. It is roughly estimated to be 300 — 400 certificates, but because of the way the program was initially implemented, they do not have an accurate number. There is no consolidated database to determine the exact number of certificates, but it is estimated at 300 — 400 outstanding. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that the ten year extension is limited to those existing, outstanding certificates, and no new permits will be issued to which Mr. Dahilig stated that is correct. Mr. Isobe stated the assumption then is that within the next ten years, there will be a decline in existing permits as people build their homes to which Mr. Dahilig stated that is a fair assessment. Ms . Anderson asked without a database of the current landowners who hold ADU clearance forms, how will the Department implement enforcement of fee payment? She asked if there will there be public outreach to advise the public about any extension, and how to submit paperwork and fees to make use of it. Mr. Dahilig stated the TVR enforcement they are currently experiencing has provided a template of what to do and what not to do in soliciting information from the public and have people register. The Department is prepared to look at past practice to get the word out. Mr. Dahilig stated rather than have these land owners hold these ADU certificates, they want to create a unified database so that all the departments that rely on that information know who has a valid certificate. Part of the database implementation will involve working with the various agencies that sign off on the certificates . The Department will use the experience they have had with the TVR process for these ADU certificates. Ms. Anderson asked if there will be a deadline for the payment of the initial registration, or can people come in several years from now to register in the event they had not previously heard about it. Mr. Dahilig explained similar to the TVR certificates, this bill proposes a window of time to declare your right to the certificate; once the window is closed, one is no longer entitled to the right. The timeframe of that window, if a concern to the commissioners, can be changed. Mr. Kimura asked on average how long have these ADU certificate holders had their permits to which Mr. Dahilig replied the program was initiated back in the mid-2000s, which is when these certificates were issued; an average of ten years. This extension will sunset in December. Mr. Kimura stated he feels there should not be a problem with the fees, stating that anyone with an ADU certificate would want to build, and have been waiting to build. Mr. Dahilig stated most of the people left with certificates have simply been unable to obtain the equity for a down payment or construction loan; however past use of the certificate program has also been traded as a commodity; these entitlements have been flipped before, and is a practice the Department does not condone. He reiterated there are a lot of people who have not built simply because they do not have the financial means. Mr. Isobe commented that he is in support of the extension, noting he was party to the initial drafting of the law, which was clearly intended to truly help the residents of Kauai, primarily the long-time resident farmers who wanted the opportunity to pass property on to their children. Mr. Isobe stated he does not have a problem with the initial fee of $500, but is concerned about the annual fee. He explained based on calculations on the number of permits outstanding times the cost of the initial fee should generate roughly $ 175 ,000, of which about $70,000 would be sufficient to start a program and hire a staff person for the. management of these outstanding certificates. That leaves $ 100,000, or $ 10,000 per year to maintain the program. He does not feel an additional $70,000 that would be generated from the proposed $200 annual fees would be necessary considering no new pen-nits will be coining in, and there will likely be a reduction in the number of pen-nits to .monitor over the ten year period. He reiterated that he does not feel the annual fees are necessary as the initial fee would provide enough revenue to start, staff, and maintain a program for the next ten years; he supports an initial fee of $ 500, but does not support an annual fee of $200. Mr. Dahilig asked to clarify that Mr. Isobe would still like to require the annual recertification, but with zero fees . Mr. Isobe replied yes, further stating that he assumes the recertification process would be a nominal process as the database would already contain all of the required information. A clerk could then simply update the database. Because there will not be any new permits being issued, he cannot imagine a fall time employee will be needed to manage that. Mr. Kimura stated his concern is that some of the information required for the certificates may not be on record, which will require extensive research and may cost more than just the initial fee will cover. He suggested that those who come in with certificates, and have documents that are easy to find, there will be no annual fee for it. However if extra time needs to be put into locating documents and information, then a fee ban be set up for that. Mr. Dahilig explained calculations had been done on what they expected the manpower to look like, and they were very generous as they anticipated collective bargaining increases, and the use of applications such as GIS in the actual process. They anticipated having a Planner position for that program because it would require the verification of signatures. He acknowledges that some certificates will cost more than others to process, but having a different fee structure for each certificate would be difficult to manage. The fees they proposed are based on what they anticipated the average cost to be. He noted the annual fee is up for debate, but his primary concern is making these certificate holders aware that they should be trying to make progress, and want them to remain in contact with the Department. Mr. Isobe stated assuming the employee will be a 2080 hour employee, which is the normal annual work hours, there is enough manpower to allow for 6 hours per pen-nit per year. He feels that is more than ample time. To allocate for the level of staff the Department would like for this program, whether a Clerk for a year, or a Planner for 6 months, is an Administrative call . Some permits will take longer than others, but if it cannot be done at 6 hours per permit per year, there is something grossly wrong with the program that is set up . Mr. Dahilig does not disagree with that reasoning, but explained that after receiving advice from the Attorney' s office, the calculations they used revolved around the coordination elements such as GIS mapping. I£ given a budget he is confident the Department can manage within those parameters . Mr. Isobe urged the commission not to forget that the County increased the property tax rates for agriculturally zoned lands, therefore, the very people they are talking about are already paying more to the County. As a result, he feels it is only fair that the County provide a certain level of service commensurate with the increases as opposed to having them pay even more. Mr. Kimura asked if they decide to forego the fee, would they still need to inform the certificate holders that they must re-register every year. He feels if they will not be charged, then it is their responsibility to remember to re-register annually. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department would likely do something similar to what they are currently doing with their automated TVR certificate renewal notification where people can opt in to receiving email notifications. Ms. Mendonca asked whether the 350 permits being referenced is a confirmed amount, or is it an estimation. Mr. Dahilig replied they are estimating, and will not have an exact number until they catalog all the certificates. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that if someone failed to apply for a certificate back in 2006, if they were unaware of it, were they given a chance to go back and apply. Attorney Jung stated they could not, explaining that provision of law had sunset; what is before the Commission now is not the actual certificate, but the process to obtain a building permit. Getting an ADU permit has been cut off. Ms. Mendonca questioned whether the Department has any record of those outstanding certificate holders to which Mr. Dahilig stated no, and explained that each different department required to sign off on the certificate may not have kept records of it. That was never parr of the implementation back in 2006 . Attorney Jung stated what Mr. Dahilig is trying to accomplish is to keep an accurate registry, noting that the building division actually generated the ADU clearance form. The Planning Department is now trying to reconcile this, keep an accurate registry, and then keep a log to track them over a ten year period. Ms. Mendonca asked when the certificates were issued in 2006 were the certificate holders properly notified that it was a requirement to which Attorney Jung stated the notification process was never really an issue for the Planning Department because when the law changes, you have a duty to track the law and how it operates. It is identified in the law that you have to be part of the process to recognize your right to claim an ADU. Ms. Mendonca asked if the Department notifies homeowners of that to which Mr. Jung stated no, it is through the public hearing process as well as Sunshine Law postings, etc. Ms. Mendonca asked if someone didn't see that then they lost out to which Mr. Jung replied correct. Ms . Mendonca then asked to clarify that there is still not an accurate count of the ones that did see it and take advantage of it to which Mr. Dahilig replied correct. He explained that it was a multi-agency effort that required signatures from ALL agencies by a certain date to have a valid certificate. Because there was no central agency coordinating once all signatures were received, there is no way to say for certain whether there is an official record to show all the signatures were received. Ms. Mendonca asked that if they grant an extension for ten years, if an individual has a bona fide reason for not building, do they have a right to come back to the Commission for consideration to which Mr. Dahilig replied anyone can come before this body to request due process if they feel they have not received such Mr. Isobe commented that the efforts are well spent, and he compliments the Planning Department for taking it on. He pointed out that he is in agreement with the one-time recertification fee, but stated the fact that there is not a database that recorded all of this information is not the fault of the certificate holders, the shortcoming is on the County' s part. Yet, we are charging the certificate holders for that. This is the reason he is so concerned about the continuing annual cost. He likened it to a recall on a vehicle, when car manufacturers make a mistake they do not ask the owner of the vehicle to pay for their mistake. He feels the compromise would be to have everyone share in the cost, but not continue to charge certificate holders for the shortcomings of the County. Mr. Kimura stated the original intent was to help local families build houses for their children. Unfortunately there were people out there who abused it, which is the reason we are in this situation now. Mr. Dahilig stated to simplify the Commission' s actions, the Department will amend the Director' s Report to state : An initial regulatory fee of,$500 shall be charged upon initial registration with a no-cost regulatory fee each subsequentyear. Ms. Anderson stated she is not against having just the $ 500 initial fee, but she does see the logic with proposing the $200 annual fee as a way to encourage people to build their homes as those who obtain their building permits earlier will not get punished. By having just the initial fee, those that go out and complete their building within the first year will be charged the same as those that take ten years. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the recommendations of the Department, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Appeal on August .20, 2014 Notice of Violation of Order to Pay Fines by Patrick J. Childs, Esq. , on behalf of Greg Allen. Sr. owner of 4241 Annini (sic) Road Kawaihau District Tax Map Key 5-3 -007: 014. Clerk of the Commission' s Recommendation to Receive the Appeal filed on August 20 2014 Concerning a Notice of Violation of Order to Pay Fines by Patrick J Childs Esq. , on behalf of Greg Allen Sr. owner of 4241 Annini sic Road Kawaihau District Tax Ma Ke 5 - 3 -007 : 014 . Clerk' s further Request that a Contested Case Hearing be granted and set on the matter before the Commission on December 9, 2014. Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung represented the Planning Department in this particular matter. Upon speaking with counsel for the appellant, they have stipulated to a briefing schedule as well as the hearing on the contested case itself. They are collectively proposing to have a pre- hearing conference on October 30 at 9 : 00 a.m. , pre-hearing statement deadlines for November 7, and witness list and exhibit lists deadlines on November 7 as well. Counsel for the appellant could not be present today, but sent Attorney Jung an email in concurrence with those dates. They will be moving on to contested case mode on this matter scheduled for December 9. If the Commission is okay with that Mr. Jung will do a joint stipulation with the appellant' s attorney, and submit that for signature by the Planning Commission Chair, Ms. Anderson asked if the December 9 meeting will be a regularly scheduled Commission meeting to which Mr. Jung replied yes, the proposal by the Department is to have the full Commission hear the matter. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the stipulation and ordering of the contested case hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-2, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2015-3 and Use Permit U-2015-3 to allow conversion of an existing residence into a bed and breakfast operation on a parcel located along the mauka side of Weke Road in Hanalei Town, situated at its intersection with Pilikoa Street further identified as Tax Map Key 5 -5-010: 032 and containing a total area of 7,568 sq. ft. = Ed Ben Dor and Joan Ben Dor. [Director' s Report received 9/23/14.1 [Applicant' s Response to Planning Director's Report received 10/8/ 141 Mr. Dahilig recommended the planner be allowed to give his report, but given the potential for a request of a contested case hearing, parties also be allowed to discuss the item before the Commission entertains any discussion. The reason being in the event a contested case hearing is requested by the applicant, the Commission switches modes, which should limit discussion until evidence is presented. Mr. Dahilig suggested the receipt of the Director' s report followed by allowing the attorneys to speak to try and resolve the issue before the Commission commences with any discussion. Staff Planner Dale Cua read a summary of the Director' s Report. (On file) Mr. Dahilig requested that counsel for both parties be allowed to address the Commission concerning the interpretation of the applicant' s response, and what procedures both parties wish to initiate. Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung represented the Planning Department in this matter. Attorney Gregory Meyers, on behalf of the applicant, was present. Attorney Jung explained this case was a bit unusual in that they would normally go into full formal contested case hearing when dealing with intervention proceedings. However, in this case there was an opposition to the Director' s report, which identified several concerns, one of which was a lack of due process. Therefore, the Department interpreted that to mean there may be a formal contested case hearing requirement. Attorney Jung spoke with counsel, to modify some of the contested case procedures because under Rule 1 -6-6 there is an allowance to do so, by either stipulation or consent order. One of the suggestions is to defer the matter, present formal proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and discuss those proposals at a later meeting. Attorney Meyers confirmed that was the discussion he and Attorney Jung had had on how they should proceed. He noted his clients are not asking for a formal contested case, but are here today with their daughter Summer, whom he considers a quasi-applicant as she will be taking over the residence. She would like to address the Commission. Both he and Attorney Jung have agreed that they would both like to propose Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the expectation would be that this body not vote on this matter today, but defer the item for arguments, proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of law, and allow counsel for both parties to stipulate exhibits if necessary. Mr. Dahilig stated given the fact that a modified contested case hearing is being proposed, he would recommend the Commission close agency hearing, and defer the matter for two weeks to allow the receipt of stipulation procedures for such. Because those procedures need to lay out the receipt of evidence, it would not be appropriate to discuss the receipt of any kind of evidence at this time. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Dahilig explained because it appears counsel is requesting some kind of contested case hearing, and are unsure what procedures will be stipulated to at this tune, it would likely involve extensive discussion. Deferring the matter for two weeks would make more sense. Mr. Kimura asked if it would make more sense to hold off on all testimony for two weeks as well, to which Mr. Dahilig replied it is up to the Commission whether or not the agency hearing needs to be closed or not. That is the Department' s suggestion given the agency hearing would be the means for evidence to be presented; however, at this time they are uncertain what the procedures that form receiving evidence for the modified contested case would be. Attorney Jung agreed to the recommendation; however, Attorney Meyers stated he would prefer to move forward today, and have the quasi-applicant address the Commission today as she has flown in from Oahu to do so. Attorney Meyers stated if details need to be worked out on how to proceed with the evidentiary portion of the modified contested case hearing, he is confident that he and Attorney Jung can work that out over lunch. Mr. Dahilig stated there are briefing schedules that need to be laid out for things such as witness lists, motions, etc. , which can be done today, but those schedules need to be stipulated or agreed upon since the request for a contested case hearing was not clearly evident. They are taking an abundance of caution given the overtones of due process being integrated into the response. It is up to the Commission to decide whether they will provide for the hearing today, or schedule it at a later date. Attorney Meyers noted the applicants are not asking for any witnesses, or briefing schedules as they just want to continue under the informal agency hearing today. All they are asking, to which Mr. Jung agreed, is for both sides to submit proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. They are not concerned with having pre-hearing conferences, and do not want to make this a formal issue, or do a formal contested case hearing. They would like to move forward today. He acknowledged that it will need to be deferred for decision making, and the opportunity for counsel to submit their proposals, but he will not be calling for witnesses, and only wishes for his client to be heard from. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that Attorney Meyers is asking to close agency hearing, but have action taken today. Attorney Meyers replied they want to move forward today, to allow counsel to present information, and allow Summer Ben-Dor to provide testimony. If the Commission has questions, they would like to be able to answer them today. If it were to get deferred, at that time counsel for both parties could present their proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law to the Commission for decision-making. Attorney Jung stated he would have no objection to Summer Ben-Dor making a statement as long as the Department has an opportunity to rebuff at a later date, which could be included in their Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. Mr. Kimura stated he does not want to set a precedence for future applicants. - Mr. Isobe asked where they are procedurally, noting they are currently in the public hearing mode, and he is hearing that at some future date they will be accepting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. He expressed his confusion in that he thought in order to present Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, they were required to move into a contested case hearing. Mr. Kimura replied to get to the contested case hearing, they must first close agency hearing to which Mr. Isobe stated yes, he understands that. However, he is hearing they are not going to do that, but will still be accepting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. Mr. Dahilig explained the pen-nit application process, as well as contested case hearing process, as they relate to this particular application. He suspects counsel is attempting to stipulate to the facts, and certain items that do not necessarily need to be entered into evidence, but rather can be memorialized in a stipulated submittal. In order to get to that point, Attorney Jung is not in objection to having the quasi-applicant testify now, as long as there are no argumentative statements from counsel for the applicant. This can be looked at as an early entry of evidence as opposed to testimony. Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that they are in a semi-contested case hearing where they are accepting evidence, but are not taking public testimony, though they are calling it public testimony. Mr. Dahilig stated it can be characterized that way. In order to act on any kind of contested case hearing down the line, agency hearing must be closed. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that they will 'be taking public, evidentiary testimony, and then close the hearing before moving into some modified contested case hearing. Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa, representing the Commission, stated she would recommend closing the agency hearing, and if the parties agree to receive testimony today, it would be in addition to the Findings of Fact being submitted at a later date. Attorney Jung stated the rules allow for flexibility, and if they have an allegation of a lack of due process, they can go into the formal contested case process. The Department would like the opportunity to propose Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and have arguments on those against the applicant in what they are looking at in their Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. At the end of the day in a contested matter such as this where there is a"recommendation opposing the applicant's permit, counsel must do a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law anyway in the event they reserve their right to appeal in circuit court. Mr. Kimura asked if Attorney Jung agreed to what Attorney Higuchi-Sayegusa suggested to which Attorney Jung replied yes. Attorney Meyers also replied yes, but noted he does not consider Summer Ben-Don's presentation as public testimony; however, he has no problem with whatever they need to do to allow her to speak today. What is currently being proposed is to close agency hearing, and allow the quasi- applicant to speak with the opportunity for the Department' s counsel to rebut her testimony in their Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. Ms. Anderson asked to clarify what the role of the Commission will be, and whether the testimony by Summer Ben-Dor will be seen as witness testimony, and if they are allowed to question the witness. Mr. Kimura asked if this is going to be so complicated, could Ms. Ben-Dor submit written testimony instead. Attorney Higuchi-Sayegusa explained the attorneys are trying to streamline the process and make it more informal, but if the Commission wants the opportunity to question, and characterize what Ms. Ben-Dor is presenting as testimony, it may be more appropriate to follow a full evidentiary type of procedure in order to preserve any due process issues. Attorney Meyers asked, in that case, could they just characterize it as public testimony to avoid all of that. Mr. Kimura asked if a written testimony could be accepted to which Attorney Jung stated yes, he believes so; however the distinguishing factor is that Ms . Ben-Dor is not necessarily the applicant, and though she is related to the applicant, her testimony is not coming from the applicant. He would qualify her testimony as public testimony, and not applicant testimony. Attorney Higuchi-Sayegusa stated because agency hearing is still open, the Commission can receive public testimony at this time, close the agency hearing, and then move into the modified contested case. The Commission received testimony from Summer Ben-Dor, who was speaking on behalf of her sisters who could not be there. Ms. Ben-Dor stated her family has owned the home for the past 28 years, where her she and her sisters grew up, and which has been rented out by her parents since they were children as they split their time between Hawaii and the mainland. Years ago they convinced their dad not to sell the house, and to instead rent it out so that they could one day raise their own families there. She explained though they received their Transient Accommodation Tax certificate in 1987, which was all that was necessary to operate a vacation rental, they failed to re-apply 20 years later when the new laws came about. They were not notified of the new laws, and are now being punished for not re-applying when there was no reason for them not to; it was simply a circumstance of them being unaware. When they began seeing TVR signs everywhere, they assumed it was for advertising purposes, and thought it did not apply to them because they were grandfathered. Prior to being told they were in violation, the County Real Property Tax Department still considered them as Transient Accommodations, which caused their taxes to double. Ms . Ben-Dor acknowledged the importance of setting boundaries to protect the land and people of Kauai, but they feel they are not the average vacation rental as they did not buy the home for the sole purpose of using it as such; this is their home. She speaks for herself and her sisters in saying their goal is to raise their own families and live at their Hanalei home they were raised in, which they cannot afford to do at this time without renting it. If the homestay pen-nit is denied, they will be forced to sell their home, which will result in another community member being taken out of Hanalei. The new buyer will likely be a person from the mainland who will only stay in the house a few weeks out of the year, and rent it out the remainder of the time. One of the primary things the Planning Commission should consider for the permits they seek is the compatibility to the neighborhood, and minimization of adverse effects to the surrounding community. The area where the home is located is comprised mostly of vacation rentals. Of all the neighbors they have spoken to, there has not be a single person that has been against them renting their home when they are not present. Many have been supportive as they are doing the same things in their own homes . Ms. Ben-Dor stated her surprise in seeing the Director' s report describing the area as a residential community, noting growing up, they were the only children in the neighborhood; their only neighbors were visitors on vacation. They live on Kauai, which means their vacation rental has always been managed on-island, and the money generated stays here. They ensure their guests respect parking, and noise restrictions, and provide bicycles for guests to use, which they found have been utilized ;frequently along with public transportation as opposed to renting vehicles . They are located across the street from the Hanalei Pavilion Beach Park, which is well known to have people hanging out there that have broken into homes in the area. Ms . Ben-Dor stated her family has helped to establish a community watch program, and have signage indicating such at the edge of their property. There have been many home burglaries with unattended vacation rentals being targeted, and Ms. Ben-Dor noted that when renting their home, it is occupied 95 percent of the time. If they are forced to sell, it will likely be bought by someone living on the mainland who will not be in the house for more than a couple weeks out of the year, which will give criminals more opportunity to rob and loiter. As a homestay, she will be living in the home, providing hands-on guest management, and it is their opinion that the homestay use is considerably better than a pure TVR because of that. They have been sharing their home with friends and visitors since they bought it 28 years ago, and are not trying to change anything in the community, but just continuing what they have been doing all these years. In conclusion, the home is in an area with a large percentage of vacation rental tax rates, which is profitable for the County of Kauai. This type of development is far more responsible by providing an occupied residential unit instead of a distant land owner. Ms. Ben-Dor asked the Commission to please consider what benefits would arise from denying the pen-nit.. A motion was proposed to close agency hearing and defer the matter for two weeks to take up the recommended stipulated procedure for the contested case hearing. Attorney Myers stated it was not their intent to have a formal contested case hearing, noting during discussions with the Department's counsel, he stated the intent was to have an informal public hearing, and have the opportunity to submit Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, which he understands would take longer than two weeks to prepare. If the Commission feels they need to return to put the stipulation on the record so be it; however he is unsure that is necessary. Mr. Isobe asked whether it was necessary to defer it for two weeks, or could they defer it pending a stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law being filed. Mr. Dahilig stated that there is an identifiable intent to have a contested case, whether modified or not, but that modification must be done by stipulation as there are rules that need to be followed due to the assertion of due process. Because there is no hearings officer appointed at this time, things that would formally be handled by such, a stipulation would have to be done by affirmative motion by the Commission. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close agency hearing and defer the matter for two weeks to take up the recommended stipulated procedure for the contested case hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 12 : 10 p.m.) (The meeting resumed at 1 : 50 p.m.) ZA-2015- 1 : _A .proposed ordinance to implement the South Kauai Community Plan which is an update to the existing Koloa-Po` ipu-Kalaheo Development Plan, and includes the communities of Koloa, Po` ipu, Kalaheo, Oma` o, and Lawa` i. .The proposed ordinance will amend Chapter 10, Article 6 of the Kauai County Code to identify_potential special planning areas to accommodate future Prowth and to establish new s ecial planning areas for the town cores of K61oa and Kalaheo, and an area ad' acent to the Po` i u Road roundabout and exceptions, modifications and additions to Chapters 8 9 and 10 of the Kauai County Code. The Special Planning Areas will provide development standards and guidelines to help achieve the goals and objectives for the South Kauai Planning District that were created through a up blic planning process and with assistance from a Citizen' s Advisory Committee Staff Planner Marie Williams along with Kimi Yuen of PBR. Hawaii provided an overview of the proposal. Ms. Yuen provided a PowerPoint presentation on the South Kaua` i Community Plan. (On file) Mr. Dahilig reminded the Commission of previous action taken on this item to leave the hearing open and defer to the next meeting, noting that this presentation was simply for informational purposes in order to begin the adoption process. Mr. Kimura stated because the item has been deferred, he suggested the commissioners review the plan, and list their questions, concerns, or suggestions to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Dahilig agreed, and added that the Department pre-analyze and offer assistance with any clarifications, justifications, or proposed amendments. Mr. Isobe stated it is his understanding that the plan is still in its draft form, and asked for clarification on how and when they would get to the final plan to be adopted. The reason he asked is to ensure the public is aware of any revisions or modifications to the plan as they go along, and which version is the final plan for adoption. Mr. Dahilig stated while they do need to solicit feedback, there is concern about having too many iterations of draft plans floating around. The Department has been receiving much feedback from many different stakeholders, and hopes to take all comments received, categorize them, and present theirs to the Commission. The next Commission meeting can include discussion on the concerns, and proposed approaches of that. Ms. Yuen stated she has been highlighting changes since the draft plan went out, and the Commissioners will get that highlighted version that contains the compiled list of continents they have received. Mr. Jung asked if it could be done in Ramseyer to which Ms. Yuen stated the document will likely crash if she does it that way, which is why she prefers to have it highlighted. Attorney Jung pointed out the three components: the adopting ordinance, the plan itself, and the maps that get adopted, and suggested the Commission be very clear about what they are submitting changes on. Mr. Dahilig stated this is the first time this body is adopting a corm-nunity plan since the early 80 ' s, and are open to suggestions on the process of comment and review. Mr. Isobe stated he compliments the Department for the effort, but because of the plan' s importance, he wants to ensure that the body as well as the community understands what the final plan they are adopting is. At some point the changes may be substantive, and that indicate they may need to. go back to step one, which is public hearing, because it may be so different from the original draft. The form-based code part of it, which is a separate ordinance, is not typical when going through a community development plan process, and he is unsure whether they should be commenting on the form-based code ordinance as well as the plan, including the adopting ordinance and the maps. He thinks it is important that the public understand this process, so there is no confusion, or accusations of inappropriate actions. Mr. Kimura stated he did not realize how complex this whole thing would be, and thought it would be something simple like the L-ihu` e Town Core Plan. He stated it is a lot to take in, and is quite different than he expected, noting to make a decision or recommendation on so many different aspects of the plan is premature. He is still trying to take it all in, and will take some time for him to understand what the recommendations will be. Ms. Mendonca agreed, pointing out that based on some of the testimonies they have heard today, though there has been a concerted effort with community gatherings, she questions how many residents out of the entire population of the area did they actually contact. It is her understanding that this is the pilot plan that will guide the Lihu`e Town Core plan, and if this one is not done right, they will make the same mistakes with L-hu` e. Mr. Kimura stated he believes the consultants have had about 20 community meetings, and did receive community input. Ms . Williams stated they did have an extensive outreach program, and twice sent invites out at the very start of the process to every address in the South Kauai District; over 6,000 postcards were sent out inviting residents to visit the website, or join the mailing list. Additionally, there was a section on the cards where comments could be written and sent back to the Department. She does not know exactly how many of those residents chose to do so, but innovative means of outreach that have never been used before in the Planning Department were implemented. Mr. Dahilig stated they want to do whatever they can to encourage civic participation, and make it as easy as possible to comment on the plan, but it is difficult to get people to come out. Ms . Anderson commented she applauds the efforts thus far, and noted that sitting on the Long Range Planning Committee has afforded her the opportunity to see the process evolve. She has seen several drafts, and is happy with where it is at right now. She is open to speak with individual commissioners if there are any questions on how the process has evolved. Mr. Kimura stated it is a lot to take in, and would just like a better understanding of the whole proposal. Ms. Anderson asked whether the consultant would be making the highlighted version of the changes available on the website to which Ms. Yuen stated it can be made available, and they will be happy to do so. Mr. Isobe asked if it would also be possible as they make those highlighted changes that an executive summary be done along with it. Ms. Yuen stated absolutely, and additionally, they will aggregate based on topic areas, and include it as a supplemental document. Mr. Dahilig stated as long as the hearing is open and the record is clear as to what the changes are based on, incoming feedback tends to be the safest bet in making the necessary changes, which is why they are recommending keeping the hearing open at this time. Mr. Kimura stated he feels it would be good to continue to have public input on something this important. The Commission received testmony from Beryl Blaich, board member of Malama Mahaulepu, who read her written testimony into the record. (On file) Mr. Isobe asked if Malama Mahaulepu was okay with the plan' s proposal to expand the area around the golf course. Ms. Blaich replied when Malama Mahaulepu reformed in 2000 they did an inventory of the watershed, and focused on conservation of the watershed, and also the Punahoa Headlands where the stables are. That was based on the Paniolo cultural activity, and because the stables dominate that coast so much that to allow development there would really change a lot about the area. The other area focused on is the old quarry. They have supported the IAL designation because they believe agriculture is part of the history of that area, but what is being debated now is the compatibility. The ridge that comes down the valley, separating the valley from the coast, the conservation lands along the ridges, and the coastal area that includes agriculture lands are about 1 ,300 acres. Those are the areas of particular focus because that is where the concentration of archaeological resources are. Ms. Blaich noted Grove Farm has been very gracious when determining what they were interested in achieving with this plan for the community, and asked Malaina Mahaulepu to have discussions with them. The aspirations Grove Farm has for the village, industrial, and hotel are something they have known about, and have given thought to. There are a few concerns about the resort site, but it is not in the area that they have focused on conserving; however, there are many people that think Mahaulepu is anything past the bypass road. It' s a very sensitive site, and will be challenging to develop, so it would be good to spend more time reviewing some of those challenges. Ms. Yuen stated they are pulling their proposal for RR- 10 zoning to R- 10, which is stepping it down in that area. Ms. Blaich commented she is very impressed with the response on this whole process. Ms. Mendonca asked for clarification that if they have any other concerns they are to inform the planners, and if those requests or concerns will be making an impact, they will be informed to which Ms. Williams replied yes. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9 :00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihu` e Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lzhu` e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, October 28, 2014. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Anderson adjounied the meeting at 3 : 50 p.m. - Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaim Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) . ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.