Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 10-28-14 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 28 , 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Jan Kimura at 9 : 06 a.m ., at the Lilnu ` e Civic Center, Mo` ikeba Building, in Meeting Room 2A/2B . The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jan Kimura Vice Chair Angela Anderson Mr. John Isobe (entered 9 : 08 a.m.) Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Amy Mendonca Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie Takasaki, Dale Cua, Jody Galinato, Marie Williams; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted there were five commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig recommended Item I.2. relating to Coconut Beach Development be moved to immediately follow the public comment period On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Meeting of September 23, 2014 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (Mr. Isobe entered the meeting) Mr. Jung noted the following items that have been submitted: • Written testimony from Catherine Lo regarding any proposed VDA in the Hoona neighborhood. ® Written testimony from County Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding Item F.2 .a. • Written testimony from County Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding Item R3 .a • E-mail testimony from Ronald Paul regarding the South Kauai Community Plan On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to receive items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing (None) New Agency Hem Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-4 and Use Permit U-2015-4 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. '/Z mile east of its intersection with Kuhi6 Highways further identified as 6020 Koolau Road or Tax Map_Key 4-9-009 : 012, CPR Unit 83 and containing a land area of 6 .25 acres = Kauai Kunana, Inc. (dba Kaua `i Kunana Dairy jDirector's Report received 10/14/ 14 .1 The Commission received testimony from Ned Whitlock who stated he has known LouisaWooten for 20 years, and the Wooten' s have been at every farmer' s market as agriculture is a big part of their lives. He heartily supports this application. The Commission received testimony from Cynthia Chiang who stated she moved to Kauai five years ago to live and work at Kauai Kunana Dairy, which she had done for two years. She has worked on other farms, and expressed the importance of having a structure that supports your well-being. She continues to manage their farmer' s market at Kauai Community College every Saturday, and she is proud to represent the farm. The family works hard to put out numerous products that are the epitome of certified organic, Kauai Made. She is in support of this application. The Commission received testimony from County Council Chair Jay Furfaro who noted he sent a letter of support last week, which outlined the specifics for housing opportunities for farm workers, and the related criteria that is outlined in Bill 935. (On file) He noted this was a special standard the Council passed to help promote faun worker housing in support of the agricultural industry. He is in support of this application. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to close the agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearincr ZA-2015- 1 : A proposed ordinance to implement the South Kauai Community Plan which is an update to the existing K6loa-Po ` ipu-Kalaheo Development Plan and includes the communities of Koloa Po ` i u Kalaheo Oma` o and Lawa` i. The proposed ordinance will amend Chapter 10 Article 6 of the Kaua` i County Code to identifY potential special planning areas to accommodate fixture growth and to establish new special planning areas for the town cores of K61oa and Kalaheo, and an area adiacent to the Po ` ipu Road roundabout and exceptions. modifications and additions to Cha ters 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 Kaua` i Planning District that were created through a public planning process and with assistance from a Citizen's Advisory Committee, 1 . Special Planning Area "H", also known as the "K61oa Town Walkable Mixed Use District". 2. Special Planning Area "I", also known as the "Kalaheo Town Walkable Mixed Use District". 3 . Special Planning Area "J", also known as the "Po` ipu Roundabout Walkable Mixed Use District". The Commission received testimony from Juliette Souza in reference to her neighborhood on Hoona Road. She expressed her appreciation to Marie Williams and others who informed the residents there that the zoning has been changed; their residential area has been removed from the proposed zoning. Ms. Souza commented that she has worked in the hospitality industry for over 40 years, and knows that visitors come for the island' s beauty as well as the residents. She feels if their small community was changed to only be resort, there would be no more residents as they would no longer be able to afford to stay, and would be pushed out. Using the example of the Hanalei/Ha`ena area, she commented that in that area you don't even know you're on Kauai; you could just as well be in Venice Beach noting the only beauty left there, if you can find it, is the ocean. Everything else is just buildings, and more buildings . She and her neighbors are very happy that this has changed, noting the majority of guests and friends that have been coming for years and years will still continue to return. She pointed out the numerous visitors that come through the neighborhood comment about what a special place that area is. The remaining eight families there all take care of one another, and when they found out that things would be changing without their knowledge, the community got together. She thanked the Commission for listening to the public. The Commission received testimony from Polly Oliver in support of keeping the Hoona/Kaheka neighborhood in a residential zone. She has lived. in that neighborhood for the past 39 years, and has had the same neighbors for all of that time. All four of her children were born here and raised in this neighborhood. This neighborhood has seen many changes over the years, being almost completely destroyed by Hurricanes Iwa and Iniki, and each time it was rebuilt many changes occurred. Over the last 20 years after Hurricane Iniki, the homes that were rebuilt were owned or were bought by people who did not live here full time, and the homes became more and more used as vacation rentals; in her area many of the homes are used as TVRs, which has contributed to much of the changes they have experienced such as more noise, traffic on their narrow, substandard streets. Still, their neighborhood has maintained its residential feel, due in large part to the neighbors who are still there, and who have been there all these years like the Lo 's, the Lee' s, Julie Souza and her parents before her, Sue Ishibashi, the Shintani 's and the Kubota family. They have all placed a huge value on remaining a warm, family neighborhood despite the fact of having many visitors throughout the year, and gladly share in the pleasant, family lifestyle they find there. Ms. Oliver stated changing the zoning of this neighborhood to VDA, which would allow more TVRs to operate in this small, quiet area would permanently change the nature of this residential family feeling they all currently enjoy. Speaking for herself and others she has spoken to she greatly appreciates the special nature of this long-standing residential neighborhood, and despite the many changes that have occurred over the years, they appreciate it being allowed to remain a residential district. The Commission received testimony from Catherine Lo who read her written testimony into the record. (On file) Mr. Dahilig clarified for the record that based on what was received during the last public hearing, the Department is recommending making the changes Ms . Lo is requesting, and will be removing the Kaheka and Hoona residential area from the proposed VDA zoning change. The Commission received testimony from County Council Chair Jay Furfaro who expressed his delight that the Commission is considering a newly drawn VDA area for Po ` ipu in recognition of a sense of place for the residents that are there. He feels it is extremely important through this process that the Commission has reached a sensitivity to what Kauai is all about. Mr. Furfaro stated he is very familiar with that area, working as a manager of the Sheraton Kauai in 1982, and again in 1992 . He thanked the Commission for considering his testimony in the redrawing of the lines that he submitted electronically, and for all they are doing in preserving a sense of place there. He stated the VDA areas have been a long process, and that getting their house in order is a high priority for the Planning Department, commenting that the staff is doing an outstanding job. The Commission received testimony from Patricia Ericson who lives on Lawa` i Beach Road, and has been on the island for 22 years. Currently, with the temporary VDA she is not allowed to live in her home; she can't give it up, but it can't be a residence, yet she is being taxed very highly. She would love to move here and live in her home, but she does not have that choice. The current change in the zoning for those on Lawa` i Beach Road would allow them to use their homes as residences where they can live and be part of the community; as it stands now, she has no right to rent, or to live in her home. She is in support of the change on Lawa`i Road. The Commission received testimony ftom Suzanne Kashiwaeda who stated she has not read that there have been any revisions to the South Kauai Community Plan since it was put forth a few weeks ago, but she did submit testimony to express the importance of designating open space, particularly the Mahauleupu area. She stated she does realize it is Grove Farm land, and acknowledges that you cannot tell a land owner what to do with their properties; however, because the community plans reference to preserving the local, rural lifestyle she thinks it is important to consider the possibility of preserving that area in open space as a wilderness area for locals and visitors to access . She commented her social work mentality allows her understanding of the importance of people in the service industries, and how expensive it is to live and work on Kauai; many people work two or more jobs. It is important for people' s mental health to be able to go somewhere where they can truly relax without being among the masses to rejuvenate, and recreate the feeling of aloha. If Kaua` i is going to be dependent on tourism, they need to be able to feel and demonstrate that aloha spirit. Ms. Kashiwaeda has lived in the Lawa` i Valley since 1975, and stated they need somewhere close to home they can go to renew their source of aloha. Mr. Dahilig requested the Commission consider the deferral of deciding whether or not to close the public hearing until after the supplemental presentation on the plan by the consultant as he feels it warrants some discussion. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Angela Anderson to defer the item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. New Public Hearing ZA-2015-2: A proposed ordinance to adopt the Lihu`e Community Plaza Update and amend Cha ter 10. Article 5 of the Kauai County Code which set forth policies and recommendations for each of the three major communities in the (sic) Lihu` e (Lihu` e, Puhi, and Ilanama`ulu), as well as to identify potential special Planning areas for the Lzhu` e District Mr. Dahilig suggested the Commission defer consideration to close public hearing on this item until after the presentation from the consultants. On the motion Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to defer the item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. All rema=* * public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 Sunshine Law The Commission received testimony from Debra Nantais relating to Item I.2. Coconut Beach Development, LLC. Ms . Nantais is a homeowner at Plantation Hale, and has a very strong, vested interest in the Coconut Beach Resort Development. She provided the Commission with documents, which showed the impact of what this development will do to Plantation Hale, which is composed of 10 buildings directly facing the ocean, and have been there for 43 years. There are long term owners who obtain a good portion of their income from the rental units. The Plantation Hale residents understand the proposed resort is designated in the correct area, but she cautioned the Commission about the severe impacts. Not only from an owner's point of view, but also as a person who travels up and down KuN6 Highway daily. She noted Aleka Loop is a private road, which will be severely impacted by this resort, and it is known that people already often use this road to bypass the bad traffic. Ms. Nantais pointed out the silt fence that will go across the entire property, which would obstruct all the view plains in addition to the dust, noise and severity of impact to a road that cannot handle that type of traffic. She stated her presence there is only to caution the Commission, and to have their look carefully at the impacts of the potential 20-acre resort, with close to 500 parking spaces. She feels the mitigating impacts to address a development like this need to be addressed before they can move forward. In her . opinion, the most difficult impact is the traffic, noting there is no light at Coconut Marketplace, which would likely be the optimum place to put it. She commented that Kauai is the Garden Island, and they need to maintain their open and green spaces, and keep the visual plain as low as possible so people can enjoy the view of the ocean. Ms. Nantais stated she is not strictly opposed to this project, but she has seen the plans and is very concerned about the lack of infrastructure to hold this type of traffic, and construction traffic. She asked the Commission to please consider those factors for those that live there, and how their property values, and view plain will be affected. Ms. Nantais noted she has also spoken about the Long' s project, stating they have done a superb job on the building, and have done everything they could to be good neighbors. This is what she would wish Coconut Beach Development will also do. She restated their very small, private road cannot handle that type of traffic impact. (The meeting recessed at 9 :42 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 9 :52 a.m.) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Discussion and Action on Procedural Matters for 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 sc . ft. Ed Ben Dor and Join Ben-Dor. [Director' s Report received 9/23/14 .1 (Applicant' s Response to Planning Director' s Report, received 10/8/14, hearing closed- 10/14/ 14.1 Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung was representing the Planning Department on this item. Attorney Gregory Meyers on behalf of the applicant was also present. Mr. Jung stated both parties have come to an agreement on the modified contested case schedule, and the plan they have developed, which will be put in writing and will include the following: • Submittals of the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law by November 18, 2014 c.o.b. to the Planning Department • Arguments on the proposals and any further discussion on the permits on November 25, 2014 Ms. Anderson asked if there will be any further presentation of evidence to which Attorney Jung stated that is what will be looked at in what is being proposed. There are no distinguishing facts at this point, therefore, they will attempt to stipulate to some of the factual issues, and if there is any factual evidence from the Commission, the matter can be reopened to determine whether any further evidence has to be submitted. Mr. Katayama wanted to clarify whether a week difference from the Findings of Fact is enough time for this body to review to which Mr. Dahilig stated it is typically seven days before the hearing, which meets the Planning Commission rule. Mr. Katayama asked if it would be prudent in this case to have a longer review period to which Mr. Dahilig stated there is a meeting scheduled for December 9, which is the last meeting of the year, and it is up to the Commission whether or not to accept the stipulated dates. Mr. Katayama asked if the Commission will have an opportunity to have an Executive Session on the matters and procedures of this contested case before the hearing. Mr. Dahilig stated there is a Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 12, which could be an opportunity for discussion with counsel. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the stipulated dates for the contested case hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Dahilig suggested taking Item K. before handling the next couple of matters. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Planning Subdivision Committee Chair Amy Mendonca read the Subdivision Committee Report into the record. (On file) The following Modification of Requirement/Condition Action was approved 3 -0 : S-2005-24 = KVHPartners, Proposed 4-lot Subdivision The following Tentative Subdivision Action was approved 3 -0 : 5-2015-04 = Phillip Richmond, Fia Palmer Richmond, Mark Gabbay, Andrea Gabbay, Proposed 2-lot Consolidation On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to receive the Subdivision Committee Report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS (For action) Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-4 and Use Permit U-2015-4 to construct a farmworkdr housing unit featuring 3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms on a parcel situated along the Makai side of Koolau Road in Moloa`a, approx. % mile east of its intersection with Kuhio Highway, further identified as 6020 Koolau Road or Tax Map 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 . jDirector' s Report received 10/14/14.1 Staff Planner Ka' aina Hull read a summary of the Director' s Report into the record. (On file) Applicants Louisa and Ryan Wooton were present. Mr. Hull noted the Department is ultimately recommending approval for this application. The bulk of the conditions are standard conditions of approval, the rest are essentially recodification or reestablishment of those conditions or parameters set forth under Chapter 8-9 of the Kauai County Code concerning farm worker housing applications. The only agency that had a bit of an issue was SHPD, who did a walk-through of the property with the applicant; the Department is awaiting their official comments; however, they did verbally confirm that they anticipate no impact. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the Class IV Zoning Permit and Use Permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Project Design Review for the Coconut Beach Resort pursuant to Condition No . 3 .k. Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U1-2006-4 Project Development Use Permit PDU- 2006-6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-9 further identified as Tax Mqp Key 4-3 -002: 015 , 016 & 020, Waipouli, Kauai = Coconut Beach Development, LLC. Mr. Dahilig noted these permits were taken to court, and they are operating partially under decree by the court concerning the development of conditions, particularly relating to traffic for which an exaction was ruled unconstitutional. The delay in these permits coming forward is a consequence of the lawsuit. Mr. Dahilig noted a Supplemental Director' s Report to this matter that changed their recommendations has been distributed to the commissioners in writing. Staff Planner Jody Galinato explained the original recommendation was for denial because the applicant did not meet all the requirements; they subsequently submitted a nice description of all the changes since 2006 to present along with an overlay of the changes. She read the additional findings of the Supplemental Director' s Report into the record . (On file) Ms. Galinato noted for the record that she received a phone call this morning from Peter Lopez who will follow up with written testimony expressing concerns with road infrastructure, sewer, and garbage impact. Mitch Heller of Coconut Beach Development along with Connie Chow (sp?) with the firm of Ashford and Bristol, Land Use Council, were present. Also present were several design team members: James Gomes, Construction Manager; Jim Freeman and Mathias Winkler with FSC Architects; Landscape and Water Architect Mike Terry of Belt Collins; Civil Engineer Haku Mills of Lyon Associates. A project design review Powerpoint was presented. (On file) Mr. Freeman provided an overview of the site plan, noting the buildings are masked along Aleka Loop, and are aligned with the property on the mauka side, which he indicated on the map. At the request of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, the building facing Aleka Loop will stop at two to three stories in height; the balance of the buildings will be four stories . The shoreline setback lines as well as the locations of the various buildings according to height, and the locations of the multi-level parking structures and the surface-level parking were pointed out on the slides shown. Mr. Freeman pointed out the relationship of the buildings relative to the neighbors, and the effects the new shoreline setback requirements have on those beach front properties. Mr. Freeman stated there was a request for gaps between the buildings to prevent the creation of a wall of buildings along Aleka Loop. Renderings showing the staggering of the buildings, and the gaps created were viewed. Some of the other related site renderings were viewed. (On file) In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Freemen pointed out the certified shoreline setback on the site plan slide. Ms. Galinato stated for clarification that this project is exempt from the shoreline setback ordinance. Mr. Terry provided an overview of the landscape design, providing a description of the entry plaza, a drive leading up to the arrival court, and buffer landscaping along the perimeter of the site, which will screen views from the beach access ways and Aleka Loop into the parking areas. There are three pool areas that consist of a large main pool, a kid' s pool, and a quieter, adult environment. The pool features are designed to be functional as well as ornamental in nature when it is not as actively in use. Low water use, no-maintenance plant pallets will be used throughout the project, though there are areas where they will utilize more lush plantings such as in entry courtyards, and entry spaces. For the most part they will be adhering to xeriscaping principles, which allows the use of some water intensive landscaping as long as it is in a controlled manner. Mr. Terry stated they are working with the County on the bikeway alignment through the site, and have suggested a curvilinear alignment in keeping with the curvilinear pathways they are proposing for the project. In one corner of the site there is a cultural preserve area, which is an area for re-interment of buried remains . There are three burials that will remain in place, and for which buffers have been prescribed in the preservation plan that was approved by the burial council. Mr. Terry showed a blow-up of the re-interment area, which includes two picnic tables, and two barbeques that would be available for public use; this was one of the items prescribed in the conditions of the SMA permit. As a part of the plan, they have included an area to relocate the re-internment areas should the coastal erosion endanger the current re-internment area; an area mauka of the bike path is being suggested for that. Mr. Freeman detailed the plant palette (Slides on file), and explained landscape lighting in general, which will comply with the Federal Shearwater Act, and be designed to meet code requirements for illumination and to provide safety and security for staff, guests, and public. Diagrams of the landscape lighting concept for all areas were viewed. (On file) Mr. Mills noted they have worked closely with Stanford Iwamoto of the Department of Public Work' s Building division to put together a conceptual drainage and grading plan, and were able to receive an approval letter for the conceptual drainage plan. They were also able to obtain an approval letter for the grading and drainage master plan. Mr. Katayama asked to clarify what sides public or beach access will be granted from to which the access areas were pointed out on the plan. The location of the 12 parking stalls were also pointed out. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Freeman explained the 61 parking stall requirement noted in the letter has to do with the amount of stalls that would be allowed to use grasscrete covering for lot coverage purposes. Mr. Katayama asked where the public would be allowed to access the bike path, or any of the shoreline, if there are only 12 public parking spaces available on this project. Ms . Galinato clarified that the conditions of the number of parking spaces for the public was set in the litigation, and those conditions cannot be revised because they were vetted out in court. The status report on each condition will be coming out at a later date. Mr. Katayama asked how they could get appropriate access to the public, as it seems there is currently a very moderate access . Mr. Dahilig stated the difficulty with this particular design review is that it is not an evaluation of a permit or exaction; all the exactions have already been levied by the court. He noted additional public access would be a condition that would need to be added as an exaction to the original permit conditions; public access is not a design review element. Attorney Jung added for clarity that Condition 31. reflects that prior to the building permit application process the applicant must come back before the Planning Commission to obtain design review and approval of the project to include architectural grading and fill, drainage, landscaping, green building strategy, possible buildings being scaled back, and pedestrian connectivity. Currently, the Commission is operating under Condition 31. Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that the only planned runoff will be surface runoff due to weather to which Mr. Mills stated there are proposed drainage maps showing runoff to various locations, which will be in line with the existing conditions. Mr. Katayama asked whether roof runoff is considered point source or non-point source to which Ms . Galinato replied the planners do not typically look at that. Mr. Mills added the overall design reflects they are capturing roof runoff. Though it is still a conceptual design, they are not proposing any point specific discharge that will cause any kind of downstream issues. Typically, if surface runoff is kept at a shallow flow, there is not a point discharge that will cause any issues such as erosion. Mr. Kimura commented that the amount of parking allowed to the public has been an issue, and because that cannot be changed he is requesting that the parking location be changed to an area down closer to the beach. The reason being, many fisherman will need to carry their gear and equipment down to the beach, which is quite a distance. Mr. Gomes stated other locations had been previously looked at considering all aspects; the fishing aspect is clearly understood, and they want to continue to encourage that. In considering how to secure the area for both the public and the residents, they felt the location it is in provides the best location for the parking, and allows for a very clear, dedicated area to access the beach and fishing grounds. Mr. Kimura stated the way he sees it is if there will be problems, they will happen no matter where the parking area is located, and seeing that it is only 12 parking stalls, he does not see a problem with moving it. It seems to him that the intent is to put the public parking as far away from the guests as possible, and if there were more parking stalls it may prove problematic, but with only 12 stalls he does not foresee any problem. Mr. Gomes stated a suggestion might be to discuss with the Department how the parking will be managed for access to the community, noting many of the fisherman are there late at night, and having a lot of traffic interface with the guests could possibly be limited to an extent. They can work with the Planning Department to determine that. Mr. Kimura questioned isn't the whole guest experience about talking with the fisherman, and getting a history of the place to which Mr. Gomes stated they are open to and want to encourage that, but just need to understand how that can be managed. Mr. Kimura stated he wants to ensure that the community still has easy access to the beach. Mr. Gomes stated that is something they can discuss with the Planning Department to try and work out. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Dahilig stated this is a design review consistent with the terms and conditions of the court ordered permit, and if the Commission wishes to require the public parking stalls be placed as close to the pathway as possible, the Department would have no objection to that. The Department' s primary concern is that the parking spaces are usable, and if the Commission wishes to do so, Mr. Kimura' s request can be incorporated as a recommendation for approval by the Department. Ms. Anderson suggested a potential recommendation to have a loading/unloading area closer to the beach to allow people with children in strollers, fishing gear, or different things to bring onto the beach. Ms . Anderson stated she is unclear on the drainage plan, and surface water is a potential concern. She requested the engineer address what the numbers mean in terms of drainage to the ocean, and whether there will be any surface water going directly to the ocean. Mr. Mills explained the plan, which has not been fmalized, shows some drainage to the ocean, and in discussions with Stanford they are working to define the existing conditions and where the water ends up as the property currently stands. Those conditions will still be met in the final drainage plan, and there will still be time for Stanford to comment so they can work with him to ensure what they are proposing is in line with Kauai standards. The numbers shown in the plan they are currently looking at are the peak discharge rates; how much runoff per cubic feet per second that they have calculated will go to the various drainage areas. Ms. Anderson stated it is her understanding the Commission is currently doing an approval of the design, and asked if the final drainage plan will come before the Commission. Attorney Jung replied no, it would not, but would go through the building permit application at which time the final plan would have to be submitted. Mr. Katayama asked for clarification on the 12 parking spaces, stating his presumption that it is a statute requirement. He asked how they will handle other public parking as he imagines they would want to attract the public to other facilities there such as restaurants. He asked if this will purely be a residence only operation. Mr. Gomes stated those 12 stalls were designated strictly for public access to the beachfront, but any guests coming to the bars or restaurants on the property, the parking areas at the site will be available to them, which has been addressed in the parking stall counts for guests of the facility. Mr. Katayama asked what the surplus or overflow is in addition to what is required for the residents, or occupants. Mr. Freeman stated he does not know the number off the top of his head, but it was specifically addressed; there are parking requirements for the timeshare units, the number of employees, and the restaurant and other amenities open to the public. Mr. Isobe referenced the massing of the buildings, specifically the "L" configuration of the buildings. To address the concerns of the public, he asked if the view corridors could be opened up to allow a view of portions of the ocean as one is driving by, noting that the current design makes it a wall of buildings. Mr. Freeman stated there is a 100 foot transitional height setback on both sides of the property, which provides a bit of a view corridor. He noted the gap between wings "C" and "F" as well as wings "K" and "G" were included based on interest by the Planning Department to ensure there was a break in between. The lobby building is only three stories, and there is a break between the lobby building and the guest wing on both sides; that break has increased significantly from the last time. Mr. Games added the width of the property is very wide, and the design renderings do not really reflect the size of the spaces between the buildings. Mr. Freeman added it surprises even them how large the site is; almost two football fields long. Mr. Freeman pointed out certain features in the renderings of some of the buildings to illustrate the gaps between wings. Mr. Isobe asked if he were driving on the road, and he stopped in front of the development in his car, or were walking along the sidewalk would he be able to see the ocean to which Mr. Freeman replied at certain points, yes; however, it will be limited. Mr. Isobe asked if there is a way to change the massing of the buildings to allow for greater view corridors from the roadway or sidewalk. Mr. Games stated they had previously attempted to create and encourage some corridors in the design, which he feels they have accomplished the best that they can. Attorney Jung reminded the Commission that these permits were already approved, and acknowledges that the Commission is in a difficult situation because they were approved by previous Planning Commission members. He reread Condition 3 .k., reminding the Commission of what they are approving. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify whether that would include the building being scaled back to which Attorney Jung replied theoretically, but they must understand the original site plan that was approved is what controls how a project gets scaled back from that. Mr. Dahilig referenced Condition 3 .k. , noting the idea of scaling the buildings is a necessary evaluation that is a consequence of an SMA review. The idea of having view plains and site views visible from street level is important, and based on the Commission' s concerns the Department can come up with a design adjustment to require that the buildings have a certain street-level gap to allow for the site view. He suggested a 20 foot gap between each of the buildings, with no landscaping taller than a hedge, and clear air space in between. Scaling the building back, he feels, would fall under that type of adjustment. Mr. Isobe stated he would like to see a break in the massing of the building to the extent it is allowable in response to some of the public testimony they have received. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department will consider amending the recommended conditions of approval for the design review to state that Building C and F shall have a 20 foot gap of clear air space with no landscaping higher than a hedge as well as between guest wings G and K. Mr. Freeman stated there is a covered walkway linking the two buildings, which is open air, but is covered to protect people from the rain. A rendering was viewed to look at the covered walkways. Mr. Isobe stated he is okay with the covered walkway, but his concern is with the clear view through the walkway. Mr. Kimura stated the perspective of the renderings shows the views if the building is seen at an angle; however, looking at the buildings straight on will not provide those views. Mr. Freeman stated one' s perspective will be constantly changing as one walks down the street. Mr. Dahilig stated the intent would be to be able to casually see the ocean, and not have to look for it. Based on the rendering provided, it seems you would have to make an effort to actually see the ocean, which is not what is desired; there should be more of a casual, natural view between the buildings. Mr. Dahilig added looking at the rendering of the street-side elevation, the buildings do look like one large mass across, which Mr. Isobe feels is an issue. Ms. Mendonca asked how many rooms the development will have to which Ms. Galinato replied it was approved for 343 rooms, but it has been reduced to 329. Ms. Mendonca stated from what she gathers these are condos, or timeshares to which Ms. Galinato replied there are timeshares, and six hotel rooms. Ms. Anderson referenced the applicant' s green strategies, asking whether they have incorporated solar in the parking structure, what kind of water conservation they will be utilizing in terms of the pools, parking for bicycles, and other options for pedestrian use of the facilities. Mr. Freeman replied low-flush toilets, but not solar or PV at this time. He referred to Mr. Terry to explain the xeriscaping. Mr. Terry explained what xeriscaping is, and its feasibility for a project like this. In addition, the sprinkler systems are much better engineered now, which uses i much less water. He noted it is a large site, which they were mindful of in designing the landscape. He again provided an overview of the landscape plan and pool design for the project. Mr. Katayama asked when they will have a more definitive drainage plan, noting that area is challenged in controlling runoff during heavy rains . Mr. Mills stated they are scheduled to submit construction plans to the Engineering Division sometime at the end of next month, which includes the drainage report. Mr. Gomes stated the design guidelines are very stringent in terms of how they design for the drainage, runoffs, and year storms. They are working with Stanford very closely to ensure they are complying with County standards. Mr. Katayama stated this area is very susceptible to puddling, and it may not be just from the project's roofline, noting it is an issue of understanding and comprehending that factor. Mr. Katayama pointed out the parking plan shows 577 stalls, of which nine are for the restaurant, and five are for the bar, therefore it must be a small restaurant and bar. Mr. Dahilig stated he will revisit his earlier recommendation on the massing between buildings, noting he mentioned 20 feet, but feels what would really make a difference is 50 feet. The Department will be incorporating as part of their recommendations a 50 foot gap between the two buildings to provide a true breakup in the building massing. Additionally, the Department will include a recommendation to move the public parking area closer to the bike path. The Commission received testimony from Wendy Rabeck who stated she feels there should be a deferral on approving this as it is a gigantic property that is being developed in a huge way in a very vulnerable place, where much has already happened. She is concerned about the fact that the initial approval was done by a different Commission, and feels that everyone on the current Commission needs to ensure they are truly familiar with this project and its ramifications. There are elements that do not seem complete at this time such as the drainage issue. She is concerned with the fake heiau, which she feels is shocking and appalling that a sacred site where bones were unearthed all along the waterfront, and where it is still hallowed land where locals practice cultural, traditional practices can be moved into a little "token" area. She is glad the parking issue is being addressed, noting there are 577 stalls for guests and only 12 for locals, which she feels it places the parking burden on adjacent properties to accommodate the locals. Currently, people have access and can just walk right through to the beach. Ms . Rabeck stated she has a lot of personal stake in this because she lives near there, she has walked the property thousands of times, and is very saddened by the whole project. She expressed appreciation for the suggestion that the view corridors be open because otherwise it will truly be a wall along Aleka Loop, and no less than 50 feet should even be considered. She acknowledges that it will affect the architecture in a big way, but so be it. She believes four stories is too high for that property, and that region, noting this is a place where people, including locals, recreate. To put up four stories is destroying the view of Sleeping Giant, and taking away the sunset. The views shown in the renderings provided reflect a view of the top of the Sleeping Giant if one is out on the ocean, where nobody will really be. The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush on behalf of the Wailua/Kapa`a Neighborhood Association, for which she serves as Chairperson. Ms. Regush read the first half of her written testimony into the record. (On file) Ms. Galinato read. the additional recommendations the Department would like to incorporate into the design review into the record: 1 . Public parking for public access must be located in the parking lot closest to the County beach bike path. 2. Street side elevations and plans must show 50 feet of clear air to reduce massing between buildings C and F, and G and K. Landscaping must be kept to no higher than three feet in between the buildings. The applicant concurred with the additions to the design review. Mr. Katayama asked who will be reviewing the drainage plan to which Mr. Kimura replied Public Works. Mr. Katayama then asked what the requirements for the drainage plan would be. Attorney Jung stated if they require all the details of what the drainage plan requires, it would be best to consult with Public Works as they are the experts on the drainage requirements . Mr. Katayama stated there are certain issues that need to be addressed, and shared what had been done on past applications for that area. He asked how this level of concern will be communicated to Public Works as part of the conditions. Ms . Galinato replied the status report that will be presented to the Commission at a future date will include a copy of the grading and drainage master plan that has been approved by Public Works, Ms. Galinato read Condition 3 . d.into the record, (On file) noting that condition has to be complied with before the Department signs off on the application. Mr. Dahilig added he acknowledges the Commission' s concerns, but assured them there is a follow up that will fall into place should the design that is approved by the Commission not meet the drainage requirements imposed by Public Works. In that case, the new design would come back before the Commission to be re-reviewed. Ms. Mendonca stated that she is a bit concerned about the burial areas, and how it will relate to the final development. Mr. Dahilig explained that based on Condition 31 SHPD has already provided comment and procedures for the project, which requires data recovery, archaeological monitoring, and a preservation plan. If SHPD ' s conditions are not met, the Department would hold the applicant in violation of the permits. Ms. Mendonca asked if that area can be expanded a bit more for the public to which Mr. Dahilig stated that exaction discussion has already happened as part of the court proceeding. Ms. Mendonca commented that there seems to be much concern as to how this will be changed, and the applicant has already agreed to the ocean view changes. She questions whether the best thing to do would be to defer it until they actually see the expansion, and in the meantime, that will allow some time to potentially address Mr. Katayama' s concern with the drainage. Mr. Dahilig reiterated that the drainage plans cannot be final until the design is set; the Commission will likely not receive a final drainage report from the engineer even if they defer it. Mr. Katayama commented the applicant can make certain assumptions on rainfall and water runoff as well as assumptions on how they want to handle that, which may impact their building siting, or amount of square footage they can handle. However, based on the proposed layout, there is no assumption on what 16 CFM runoffs look like, and what kind of capacity they would need to handle that. If it is contemplated, where will that be handled; how will that be integrated into their plan. Ms. Anderson agreed, stating she would like to have more information on the conceptual drainage plan, even if the final plan is not laid out. She feels this is precisely why Condition 3 exists, so they can have the review. If the answers to how they will be dealing with surface water isn't in this conceptual design review, it makes sense to defer until they have more information. She noted the Commission would need to see the changes made to the renderings to reflect the 50 foot spaces in between the buildings, which may dramatically change the footprint. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that Ms. Anderson would like a deferral until the renderings are done, and the additional information is received on the drainage report to which Ms . Anderson stated there are changes that have been addressed that she would like to see renderings of, and there seem to be questions on how surface water will be dealt with. She would like to have those answer before approving a plan. Ms . Anderson referenced a concern raised during public testimony on the location for the burials, and questioned the appropriateness of placing a picnic area with a grill and picnic tables adjacent to the burial area. Ms. Anderson referenced Mr. Katayama' s question on the timeframe for more information on the drainage, which was stated to be two weeks or toward the end of November, and asked how long the applicant would need to provide the information the Commission has requested. Mr. Dahilig referred the question to the applicant' s counsel. Mr. Mills stated they had initially projected submittal of construction plans and a drainage report to the Engineering Division by the end of next month. If there are changes to the layout that affects the calculations and the preliminary reports, and things that have already been discussed with Stanford, they would like to still finish by the end of the month, but it would depend on the significant changes, if any, to the layout. Mr. Dahilig suggested the December 9 meeting to schedule this matter should the Commission wish to receive the updated information. He cautioned the Commission that on December 9 they have set for public hearing the Coco Palms application; there is a heavy agenda on December 9 . On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Amy Mendonca to defer the matter to the December 9, 2014 Commission meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 11 : 39 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 11 : 54 a.in.) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS 2014 Annual Status Report and Time Extension Request regarding Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-20014-6, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2004-30 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35 to complete the project, Tax Map Key 2-8 -015: 025-035 045- 074 081 Po ` i ii Kaua` i = Koloa Landin at Po `i a (formerly Regency Development, LLC Staff Planner Dale Cua read a summary of the applicant' s request into the record. (On file) Mr. Cua stated the Department is recommending the acceptance of the status report for the project as well as to amend Condition 7 to allow additional time. A new Condition 21 has been added which essentially states that if there are any changes to the project, the Department will review it and if it warrants Commission approval, it will be scheduled for review on the Commission' s agenda. Avery Youn authorized agent for the applicant was present, and stated the conditions are fine as stated. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by John Isobe to approve the Extension Request, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports 2013 Annual Status Report for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2006-5 Project Development Use Permit PDU-2006-7 .and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006- 10 Tax Map Key 4-3 -007: ' 027, Waipouli, Kauai = Coconut Plantation Owners, LLC (formerly Coconut Plantation Holdings, LLC.) Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency_Hearing on 11 /12/14 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-5 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2015-3 to develop a commercial facility consisting of a retail store approx. 213 88 sq . ft., a restaurant, a gasoline dispensing area, and 112 off-street parking stalls on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Ala Kalanikaumaka in Kukui`ula, at its intersection with Po ` ipu Road in the vicinity of the roundabout, further identified as Tax Map Keys 2-6-015 : 009, & 2-6-004 : 034 and affecting approx. 2. 678 acres of a larger parcel = MNS, Ltd. , dba ABC Stores. The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush regarding Item G. 1 . a. Coconut Plantation. She noted that in looking at the Director's report, she asked whether that report could include the date of when the clock started for the SMA permit. Even though the permit was granted in 2007, and litigation concluded in June 2010, she feels it is important to ensure everyone knows the date of when the clock starts. She feels this is helpful and appropriate to explain if the project is meeting its SMA conditions along with HRS 205a. She noted that it states once the permits are issued substantial progress as determined by the Director must commence within two years, or the permit shall be deemed to have lapsed, or no longer be in effect. She feels this information she is sharing is important, and would like to see it reflected in the Director' s report. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy-Mendonca to accept the Consent Calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Public Hearing ZA-2015- 1 : A proposed ordinance to implement the South Kauai Community Plan which is an update to the existing K6loa-Po` ipu-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 K51oa and Kalaheo, and an area adjacent to the Po ` ipu 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 Planting District that were created through a public planning process and with assistance from a Citizen' s Advisory Committee. 1 . Special Planning Area "H", also known as the "K61oa Town Walkable Mixed Use District". 2. Special Planning Area "I", also known as the "Kalaheo Town Walkable Mixed Use District". 3 . Special Planning Area "J", also known as the "Po ` ipu Roundabout Walkable Mixed Use District' Staff Planner Marie Williams presented a revised Exhibit I, which contain the proposed changes to the Hoona Road VDA based on concerns raised at a previous review of this item. (On file) Ms. Williams along with Kimi Yuen of PBR Hawaii provided a Powerpoint slideshow presentation on the revised proposal. (On file) Mr. Kimura requested for recommendation that the entire resort zoning for the 13 acres in Mahaulepu be discarded because the local people have lost access to the land. Having a resort on one of the last strongholds for locals to go is unacceptable. Chair Kimura left the meeting. Ms. Anderson resumed as Chair for the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Yuen continued with her presentation. Referencing the conceptual parking design for the Koloa Town Core area and along the highway in Kalaheo Town, Ms. Mendonca commented that the streets in Kalaheo are already very narrow, and unless they are widening the area to allow for the sidewalk, bike path, and back-up parking, she is certain they will be faced with a lot of accidents. She used the example of the parking area in Lihu` e across from McDonald's, which stops the flow of traffic. Additionally, people are not inclined to stop for people backing out of those stalls. She stated for the record that the committee has done a great job in putting the proposal together, but she does need to express with emphasis, that she agrees with Mr. Kimura that the 13 acres in Mahaulepu should remain in open zoning. Currently, to her knowledge, there are 1 ,200 rooms already approved for development in the Po ` ipu area, and now a projection for another 134 units in an extremely sensitive area. Mahaulepu offers historical,, cultural generations of Hawaiiana in that area, and she feels it is their responsibility to keep it as pristine as possible, and not put another resort there. She feels it should be left open until the demand is greater. Ms. Mendonca commented what is also troubling to her is often time projections are made with great intent and good will, but if they do not "protect their foresight" they will be in the same situation they often times face right now, where there is nothing they can do to make any corrections . Mr. Isobe asked how much weight do those recommendations for Mahaulepu really carry to which Ms . Williams stated it is a policy statement in a community plan, therefore it would have similar weight to a similar policy statement in the general plan, which helps to guide, but is not necessarily within itself an action. It can help guide things toward County action, or private action. Mr. Isobe asked whether there is a way for it to be worded in the community plan that it would be more than a policy statement. He understands they cannot necessarily put a zoning overlay on the land at this time, but he asked if there is a mechanism to make it more than a policy statement. Ms. Yuen replied it becomes tricky because you then enter into the reahn of takings, and she feels the community plan is setting forth the vision and ideas to keep the discussion going. She feels anything more than that enters the realm of takings. Attorney Jung stated the plan is like a wish list, and there are certain actions that must be taken after the plan is adopted; there is no rezoning going on at this point. Any subsequent action taken on the plan must go through the whole gamut of process that the code allows. At this point the plan is only a recommendation. Mr. Dahilig added that there is IAL in this area, therefore the effect of the IAL on the County's authority severely limits what they can do. The do not have a clear community consensus of how preservation should be done in that area. Mr. Isobe stated his concern is not so much with the agricultural uses, or agricultural zoning in that area. He is more concerned about this on-going conversation/debate about whether or not Mahaulepu should or should not be developed with bricks and mortar. In trying to set a long-term vision, he sees the plan as an opportunity to try and bring more clarity, and hopefully put that debate to rest. He asked if the intent is to defer the matter again, or is the Commission going to try and move this out today. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department' s recommendation given the public hearing was to get a sense of the Commission's comfort level because they cannot take any action until the public hearing is closed. If this is an issue they need to revisit, he suggested leaving the public hearing open, and schedule it for a future meeting. He stated it would be helpful for the Commission to give them some direction on how they can address some of those issues concerning Mahaulepu. At this point testimony has been all over the place, and the issue of preserving Mahaulepu has been around for a very long time. Any guidance from the Commission would be helpful as they are struggling to get their arms around what to do. Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that he is not necessarily opposed to the agricultural uses, he understands the IAL in that area; that is not his concern. His concern is the expansion of resort, or the pressures to push the resort further toward the L1hu e direction . He would like an opportunity to discuss with the staff some possibilities of ways to provide more clarity on this issue. Mr. Isobe would like to keep the public hearing open a little longer because if anything comes out of it he feels it is important to allow the public to respond or react to it as well. Ms. Mendonca responded to Mr. Dahilig' s comments on the difficulty in finding a balance in terms of Mahaulepu. She stated her concern with that area is that if that area is already zoned open, they should leave it that way, at least for now. Her concern is by saying they are in agreement to changing it to R-10 that will give a preliminary approval to the land owner that he can move forward with what' s in the South Shore plan . She is concerned with not knowing what will happen between now and 2035, and sooner or later they may feel they shouldn't have done something. She reiterated that since that acreage is already zoned open, it should remain that way until such time that the demand becomes greater than what is available. Ms. Mendonca stated she agrees there are needs for more possible development, but tourists visit that particular part of the island because they want the old, open, plantation, local style. Too much development could be detrimental. Ms. Anderson stated from what they have heard today, there was discussion on leaving the matter open, noting the Chair also mentioned prior to his departure from the meeting, that his desire was to leave that area open as well. Mr. Isobe also expressed similar concerns as well as Ms. Anderson who concurs that the preservation of these open spaces is one of the most important responsibilities of being on the Planning Commission. There are very few areas where you can see the ocean from the road, and this is one of the last areas on the island that you can do so . She acknowledged that this is a work in progress, noting that the balance seems to be shifting toward preservation, and would like to have that reflected in the language, and have the language be more direct to specifically identify Mahaulepu as an intention to preserve that area. She feels it is important to recognize the existing sites there such as heiaus, endangered species' habitats, and other areas that are not specifically spelled out in the plan. Mr. Dahilig suggested if there are other policy items that can be worked on in the interim, or other items that require attention, change, or clarification that the Department be made aware of them in order for those changes to be worked on to bring it to a level of comfort for action. M-. Katayama referenced Section 4. 1 . 6 relating to the residential area being taken out of the VDA, noting that he feels there is consensus there and would recommend adoption of that language. Mr. Dahilig asked if the Commission feels the Exhibit Ms . Williams provided comprehensively identifies the areas of concern with the plan. Mr. Katayama stated he feels some things can be taken off the list. Mr. Dahilig stated 6. has been taken care of and can be removed, noting their recommended changes would be incorporated into a subsequent draft for the Commission' s review. He asked whether the six concerns listed in the exhibit identify areas the Commission would like to address before moving forward with any type of action. There was discussion on which concerns the Commission still felt required discussion. Ms. Anderson stated it seemed the Commission had narrowed it to two specific issues: the language of the protection of Mahaulepu as well as the rezoning from Open to R- 10. She stated though it was changed from Resort to R- 10 Residential, she still questions whether it will still be a Visitor Destination Area. Her assumption is that it will be primarily for visitors rather than what it currently is. Ms. Yuen stated it would have been recommended for VDA in that area as well as the intent was to satisfy the projections of the resort growth, and because well- established neighborhoods don't want any additional resort use, and they don't want additional resorts in the town core, this was the one place in the district that could accommodate that, and that made sense; it doesn't make sense to go west of Lawa` i Valley as all of that is IAL. Mr. Katayama stated it will be helpful if it were put in context in terms of capacity to determine whether it makes sense for planning purposes. He feels they should have people reside close to where they work to avoid commuting 30 miles on a-one lane road, and to exhaust that capacity within three or four miles would be the ideal community plan. He acknowledges that the process of getting the area zoned may take years, but he feels having a long-range plan gives a sense of what kind of growth is needed. He stated there are periods of accelerated growth, and also negative growth, but because we have to invest in infrastructure, to plan residential units where employees can live would be the ideal compromise in his opinion. He feels that is the step to take first, and then they can look at preservation of open space when they know what is leftover, commenting that Mahaulepu would be the ideal place to have that kind of preservation. Ms. Anderson commented that in looking at the big picture you can see how these two areas are interrelated, and prior to making the zoning change for one portion, you must address the preservation of the other. That' s where she feels the work needs to be done. Mr. Isobe commented one of the things he would like the plan to consider in the preservation of the Mahaulepu area more directly is the notion of legislation relative to the transfer of development rights. He agrees that the appropriate venue to bring that up would be at the time of the general plan, but he thinks that if they are going to preserve Mahaulepu, the owners need to be compensated in some way. He noted in this particular case the owners also own property in the LihWe area that may be more advantageous for development. As a result whatever loss of development rights you have in Mahaulepu as a result of the preservation action could potentially be transferred to areas like Llibu ` e. He feels the notion of the transference of development rights from one area to another is critical to be able to preserve one area, but not lose the ability for revenues . Ms. Yuen agrees that is a potential avenue for a solution on how to move forward with Mahaulepu, but in the plan we also identify other options such as whether it can be purchased by a land trust, and the idea is to keep your options open at this point because while they do want to preserve it; it is premature at this time to focus on solutions. The idea is to identify the vision for the area, and potential solutions . Ms . Yuen is not comfortable focusing on one specific thing that may need further discussion and a larger venue, but she would like to begin identifying solutions to move forward with the plan. Mr. Isobe stated for clarity that he is not saying that the transfer of development rights legislation is the answer. His concern is that it was left at waiting for the General Plan, but he does not believe it should be left as a policy to wait for the General Plan. He feels it should be looked at as an immediate need today, and not use the General Plan as the trigger. He added that he is unsure whether the Department currently has funds to hire a consultant if necessary, but it may be something they may want to seek funding for in the upcoming budget; he would like to have that discussion now. Ms. Yuen asked if the thought is to expand the discussion on the transfer of development rights to which Mr. Isobe replied yes, as a standalone piece of legislation. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to direct the Department to continue study on Items 1 and 2, and return back to the Commission with further development and discussion at a meeting in two weeks, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 1 : 15 p .m.) (The meeting resumed at 2: 15 p .m.) New Public Hearing ZA-2015-2: A proposed ordinance to adopt the Lihu` e Community Plan Update and amend Chanter 10, Article 5 of the Kauai County Code which set forth policies and recommendations for each of the three major communities in Lthu` e (Lzhu` e Puhi and Hanamd`ulu as well as to identifKpotential special planning areas for the Libu` e District. A summary of the Director' s Report was read into the record. (On file) Staff Planner Leanora Kaiaokamaile read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On file) Cheryl Soon and Melissa White of SSFM International provided a Powerpoint presentation of the L-tiu ` e Community Plan Update. (On file) Mr. Katayama asked what the planning assumption is for population and age to which Ms. Soon replied the average age is slightly higher at 44 years versus 42 years; however, they have both more children, and more seniors in the Lihu` e district than elsewhere. In response to Mr. Katayama, Ms . Soon explained there is a change in the demographics in the 208 and 30s as to where they are living; they' re not living in Lrhu` e prior to forming their families. Once they form their families, and need a different type of housing they move back into Lthu ` e. Mr. Katayama stated this dictates the population they are planning for to which Ms. Soon replied correct, but also the housing unit types they are planning for. Mr. Dahilig added there is an increasing birthrate that is the majority of the numerical growth on Kauai, and that coupled with the demographics of in-migration, it is people that have equity from other places that can afford the housing stock we currently have. 60 percent of our housing stock on Kauai is only affordable to those earning 180 percent of the HUD median income. The reason for the tilt towards either side of the spectrum of the age bracket is because there is an increasing birth rate along with the in-migration of older people that can afford the cost of living on Kauai. The demographic of the out-migration is generally those between the ages of 18 — 30 . They need to look at how to diversify the housing stock to provide more competitiveness for these younger individuals . Mr. Katayama stated it sounds like a job issue to which Mr. Dahilig replied it could be a job issue, an education issue, a construction issue, etc. What they are pni narily focusing on, and is the most intricately involved in land use planning, is the issue of housing. Housing allocation is the primary driver when looking at the spatial analysis of where growth should go, or what it should look like. Mr. Katayama asked if the affordability index was in direct relation to the kinds of jobs that will allow for that to which Mr. Dahilig stated yes, which puts them in a unique situation where the equity in retirement incomes allow for the influx of retirees and older people. Mr. Katayama stated he would imagine that the consumption patterns for retirees as opposed to young families, and the multiplier effect of what they need from the community is much different. To attempt to be proactive, if that trend is not what they want to see, they must address how they will try and reverse some of those trends . The- one predominant issue that came forward was workforce and affordable housing. Ms. Soon continued with her presentation. (On file) Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that part of Kalepa was being transferred to ADC (Agricultural Development Corporation) to which Ms. Soon replied no, noting there are lands being leased for cattle grazing, and whether or not that is being done through a land transfer or another mechanism is something she can check on. Mr. Katayama stated he thought it was almost a done deal, and posed a question about the landfill. Ms. Soon replied the proposed location for the landfill is in Hanamd`ulu. Ms . White added that location is up on. Maalo Road; however, the Kalepa area has both DHHL and State lands that are being leased. There was further discussion on the definition of Kalepa, and its boundaries, the areas of which were pointed out on the map provided. Ms. Soon moved on to Chapter 5 of her presentation beginning on Page 95 . (On file) In reference to the bike routes, Mr. Isobe asked whether they currently end in Hanamd` ulu to which Ms. Soon stated yes, the routing currently begins across from Kauai Beach Resort, bypasses the intersection of Kuhio and Kapule Highway, goes behind the Kalepa Village apartments, continuing mauka past Maalo Road and continues to Lzhu` e. Three possible endings have been examined in the Puhi area: one across from the new Safeway, one just south of KCC ' s driveway, and one just a bit farther across the nursery. Studies have been submitted to Public Works to determine the feasibility of this alignment. Mr. Isobe asked if there were an accident at the golf course, people could get on and off the road just past the Wailua bridge, and theoretically get all the way out to Kauai Community College if the road goes that far. Ms. Soon replied she is unsure how to answer that because they would theoretically need to have an agreement with Grove Farm, but the cane haul road does go down to Wailua River. Mr. Isobe stated the County does have an agreement with Grove Farm that the road can be opened in an emergency. In response to Mr. Isobe, Ms. Soon agreed that the road being proposed could ultimately connect to the existing haul cane road system. Mr. Katayama asked when traffic calming tools are installed to make the area more pedestrian friendly, how does that impact capacity of the roadway. Ms. Soon stated it is designed in a way that simultaneously looks at capacity, and ensuring the design can accommodate the full capacity, though not necessarily at the same speed, Mr. Katayama stated for clarification that the plan is to reduce the traffic to KiNC5 Highway, which will allow them to install pedestrian friendly, calming tools to which Ms. White replied exactly. Mr. Isobe asked if any consideration has been given to the existing highway in the event of a tsunami, and the potential for it to flood out. He stated there needs to be an alternate route mauka. Ms. Soon stated the Libu` e district does not have a serious issue with tsunamis because they are elevated from any inundation zones, Mr. Isobe asked how far out this plan goes, questioning whether it goes all the way to Wailua River to which Ms. Soon replied yes it does. Mr. Isobe stated the golf course area is almost sea level, and the highway runs right next to the golf course. The tsunami inundation map on Page 46 was reviewed, and explanation provided. Ms. Soon continued with her presentation, (On file) (The meeting recessed at 3 :46 p .m.) (The meeting resumed at 3 : 52 p .m.) Mr. Dahilig stated the intention is to keep the hearing open to ensure everyone is comfortable with what has been presented. The Department' s recommendation is to approve; however, they are not anticipating any action being taken today. Referencing Page 50, Mr. Katayama asked how the figures in tables 3 - 11 and 3-12 relates to the population figures on Page 79. Ms. Soon explained those are graphic representations of the intensity of location, population, and employment centers . Ms . Soon stated they can provide more information on the demographics. Mr. Katayama stated in looking at the traffic patterns in the morning into L3hu` e, there is a stream of red one way, and a stream of white the other way, which means there is a certain mobility during peak commuting hours. He is unsure if that is an educational, job related, or recreation issue, but there is a huge mismatch in where people live versus where they work, and where the commute is greater than what they are looking at. Ms. Soon stated she thinks his personal observation of seeing peaks happening in the a.m. and p.m. are validated by the counts taken on the bus and the highways, but there is still a higher. proportion of people in Lihu`e who travel shorter distances to get to work than in any other planning district on Kauai. Mr. Katayama asked what the expectation is for the bus system to make a major reduction or impact in the traffic capacity to which Ms. Soon. referred to the Kauai multi-modal transportation plan which sets an aspirational goal of 20 percent of traffic taking place on the bus. In order to achieve that will be a large expenditure by the County in terms of increased frequency of service. The County' s ability to move in that direction will be dependent upon the County Council. The Lihu `e Community Plan identifies circulator routes that could increase the use of the bus, not only for work trips, but also school, shopping, and medical trips . They had originally identified three such circulators, but in working with the Transportation Department, they determined that two circulators would achieve that. Mr. Katayama asked where they currently are in terms of reducing capacity to which Ms. Soon stated they would be lucky if they were at 10 percent. This plan could potentially double that percentage. The Commission received testimony from Jan TenBruggencate who stated it had been a remarkable process working with the consultants and Planning staff on this process. There were a few things he would like to have seen differently, noting his sense was very housing-centric, and he would have liked to have seen a little more attention to things such as commercial, recreational, and industrial land as it is the center of the island. One of his other hats is sitting on the State Advisory Council on Emergency Management, and the issue of mauka roadways is important both for sea level rise, and tsunamis, noting if there were an Alaskan tsunami, the south end of Wailua is not protected by dunes as the golf course area is, and they could potentially lose that road in that situation. Something to think about would be planning interior routes around the island for those types of catastrophes. In developing the urban boundary, he felt that the plateau along Hulemalu Road, which is not within the boundary, would be an appropriate place for Llhu` e to expand; however it was not the majority view. Mr. TenBraggencate expressed his full support for this plan. The Commission received testimony from Pat Griffin who serves as the President of the Lihu` a Business Association. She stated for the record they have been fortunate to have such capable long-range planners, whose work in this was very important along with the very expert consultants of SSFM. She is happy to say that the Lrhu` e Business Association enthusiastically supports this plan. Ms. Griffin noted that what this plan boils down to is places for people to live, work, and play — a vibrant community; this plan provides the framework to make that happen. This plan provides a layout of the ideals and vision, where this land and its population are today, and projections for what is needed for the next 20 years, solutions to make that happen, and what it will take to get there. The concept is to cluster residences together to create an efficiency of scale — walkability, utilities, mobility, and accessibility. It is up to land owners working with the County to see that growth, provide room for both the rich and the poor, and not consign those with the most need to be close to goods and services to outlying areas that would necessitate commutes. Looking at these clusters where growth could happen, it is not the function of this plan to say what types of houses, what types of residences, but to provide the framework that others will fill in. Ms . Griffin provided a history of when this community plan i was adopted, and how it has evolved. She hopes the Commission will bring their wisdom to the plan, and try to get this adopted by the Council. Mr. Dahilig requested if there are issues the Department can organize relating to the plan they would like to begin addressing them. He requested the hearing be kept open to allow the Commissioners time to absorb the information in the plan. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to keep the hearing open and defer the matter for two weeks, 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 Lzhu` e Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lihu` e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, November 11, 2014. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 4: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) . ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.