HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 052317 MinutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 23, 2017
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair Keawe at 9:04 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A -
2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Kimo Keawe
Ms. Kanoe Ahuna
Ms. Donna Apisa
Mr. Roy Ho
Mr. Wade Lord
Mr. Sean Mahoney
Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert
The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Jody
Galinato, Lee Steinmetz, Leslie Takasaki, Marie Williams; Office of the County Attorney
Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa; Office of Boards and Commissions —
Commission Support Clerk Darcie Agaran
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Keawe called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dahilig_ Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Here.
Mr. Dahilig. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Here.
Mr. Dahilig. Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, you have seven (7) members present this morning.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig: The Department would recommend, as part of the approval of the agenda, to move
Item K, Committee Reports, immediately after Item H, which is after the Consent Calendar, and
no Executive Sessions this morning. And then move into all the New Business items before
handling Item I, which is the General Business Matters.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: That would be our recommended agenda for this morning, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Alright.
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve the amended agenda.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice
vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Contested Case Calendar of Mav 9.2017
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item D. These are the minutes of the
Contested Case Calendar of May 9, 2017.
2
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve the minutes of May 9, 2017.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of Contested Case Calendar
on May 9, 2017. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion
approved 7:0.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Dahili . Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Receipt of Items for the Record. There are
a number of testimonies that have been circulated for the Commission's review. I will read them
off as part of the agency hearing items if we move on to that, Mr. Chair.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Continued Agency Hearing
New Agency Hearing
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-10, Use Permit U-2017-8 and Special Permit SP -
2017 -4 to allow development of a substance abuse treatment and healing center for
adolescents, involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Maalo Road in Kapaia,
approx. 0.75 miles north of the Maalo Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further
identified as Tax Map Key (4) 3-8-018:012, and affecting a parcel approx. 5.825 acre in
size = County ofKatta `i, Office of the Mayor.
Mr. Dahilig: Item F, Hearings and Public Comment. We have no continued agency hearings,
but we do have three (3) agency hearings. Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-10, Use Permit U-
2017-8, and Special Permit SP -2017-4 to allow the development of a substance abuse treatment
and healing center for adolescents, involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Maalo Road
in Kapaia, approx. 0.75 miles north of the Maalo Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further
identified as Tax Map Key (4) 3-8-018 Parcel 012 and affecting a parcel approx. 5.825 acres in
size. The applicant is the County of Kauai, Office of the Mayor.
Mr. Chair, we do have two (2) individuals signed up to testify, but we also have written
testimonies that have come in after the agenda has been submitted to the Commission from Craig
De Costa; Michael Contrades, Deputy Chief of Police; Michelle Premeaux, Attorney with De
Costa Hempey Meyers; Daniel Hempey, Esq.; Charlotte Souza from CARE Hawaii; Eddie
Sarita from Hanama`ulu; as well as Darryl Perry, Chief of Police; Maile Murray, Pono
Assessment and Counseling; and Thomas B. Williamson, MD, Kauai Medical Clinic.
Mr. Chair, our recommendation would be to open the agency hearing at this time.
Chair Keawe: We will open the agency hearing for this item.
Mr. Dahilig: Brian Kohatsu, followed by Kimberly Cummings. Brian Kohatsu.
Brian Kohatsu: Good morning, Commission Chair and members of the Plamling Commission.
My name is Brian Kohatsu. I am a licensed clinical social worker. I'm also a certified substance
abuse counselor. I am here in support of approval by the Planning Commission of the Class IV
Zoning Permit, Use Permit, and Special Permit to allow development of a substance abuse
treatment and healing center for adolescents on the 5.825 -acre parcel situated on the eastern side
of Maalo Road in Kapaia. In the field that I am in, ladies and gentlemen, it is a desperate sort of
situation. I work in the field, I work with adults, and it seems like, until we can really get a
handle on dealing with the juveniles, we continue to see the flow of substance abuse and crime
that continues to come through our community. I work with generations; grandpa, grandma,
parents, and grandchild. Sometimes all together. So I am here in support of this. There is a
continuum of care that has been established by the American Society of American Medicine that
talks about levels of service and the gaps in service. One of the gaps in service we have here on
Kauai is a residential treatment center for adolescents. It is imperative, it is a desperate call that
I'm here to say that we need this facility. We need to start pouring into our children. I am also
someone who has suffered from addiction myself. I am in recovery and I know it all too well. I
work with families who are suffering as well; don't know what to do, don't have answers. So
this facility is really a step in that direction. It is a chance for our families and the members of
our community to experience some hope because right now we send them off -island. They build
the resources and the capacity on another island, then they come back here and they don't have
anything. We need to build that support here. We need to have a sense of place, a cultural
component, a component that they can stay home and establish these things. So often they go
away and they come back and they have to start all over. So having this facility here on Kauai
is very much needed and appreciated by myself and for the families and children that I work
with. Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Kimberly Cummings.
Mr. Ho: Could I ask a question, Mr. Kohatsu? Mr. Kohatsu, the treatment center now calls for
sixteen (16) beds. Do you feel that is adequate for what you observe in the community?
Mr. Kohatsu: I think it will be full. I think, personally, that there's a lot more I think... hopefully
at some point that can be expanded, but at this time, I support the sixteen (16) beds. Yeah, I
mean, in the work that I do, I feel like those sixteen (16) beds would be filled, continuously.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Just a couple questions. What you were talking about is more like
lifespan treatment and multi -generational treatment of a drug addiction, and right now we are
sending people over to another island for treatment. What would be the advantage of having a
treatment here total treatment here - versus a treatment where you have more facilities on
4
another island and then bringing them back here as a halfway house because the kind of things
that you're saying of a support network can be developed here after full treatment somewhere
else, and then you can still have multi -generational familial treatment or more of a total treatment
plan, a lifespan treatment. What would be the advantage of having one here when we don't have
all of the facilities that we need versus a halfway kind of treatment?
Mr. Kohatsu: In my professional opinion, what happens when we send our children off for the
three (3) months or six (6) months, perhaps, that they are invested, this is a very critical time to
establish these connections. So for example, someone might have a particular counselor, they
might be connected with agencies that are here, and there but with a different person, the outings
or perhaps when they get out in the community are different. So when they get back here, trying
to, again, reestablish themselves here back on island, dealing with the different triggers is
difficult.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: That's why the halfway house concept of something in between full
treatment versus no treatment, or just putting them back into the environment was my question.
Mr. Kohatsu: The halfway house is definitely needed as part of that continuum, but the
relationships that are established within those first six (6) months are critical.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. As I understand, the staffing plans right now, they do not include
any medical staff or any psychiatric staff during the evening hours and night; that's the plan right
now. How does that work when you have both ... and it is now going to accept both drug
addiction, as well as severe mental illness as I understand it now. How does that work when you
have no medical or psychiatric assistance at night when many things happen?
Mr. Kohatsu: Correct. And I think that's a similar setup as to agencies on Oahu as well. I
mean, the doctor is on-call. During the days, they have their staff and then they have staff at
night, but really, those types of professionals are on-call and are called for those types of
incidents. So it's not uncommon, I think, to have ... in Hawaii anyway, in agencies that are
trying to be financially stable, to have a doctor onsite, unless it's a hospital; Queens, Castle.
Other residential programs — that I know of anyway - don't have a 24-hour MD on the facility.
Chair Keawe: Mr. Kohatsu, are you going to be intimately involved with the project? The only
reason I'm asking this is because some of the questions are probably more appropriate to ask the
applicant when it's their turn to come up.
Mr. Kohatsu: Correct. Yes.
Nis. Nogami Streufert: Alright.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Kohatsu: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Mr. Dahilig: Kimberly Cummings.
Kimberly Cummings: Good morning. (Good morning) Every time I come up here, I say I'm
not going to cry and I lie to myself. Today I've written my testimony down because of a direct
result of long-term drug use, so everything I'd like to say, I won't remember so I write things
down to make it easier. Today I am a substance abuse counselor certified for Women In Need, a
non-profit agency that helps women and children who suffer. Sorry.
Aloha, my name is Kimberly Cummings and I am a grateful recovering addict and alcoholic.
I've suffered in addiction for over twenty (20) years and have been delivered for over a decade
now. Today I run a non-profit organization that navigates women and their children to a better
life that includes sobriety and wellness, healthy relationships, opportunities for employment and
continuing education, treatment for physical and emotional wellbeing, housing, and substance
abuse treatment. Unfortunately, I have a house full of women that have suffered since being
teenagers. I suffered in addiction since I was a teenager. I come before you today to express my
utmost support for this adolescent treatment and healing center. There are many pros and cons
about whether this facility can be sustainable or not; I get it. I understand the many issues. I
understand the monies that it will cost to build this facility, but this discussion has lasted
decades; decades -long discussion. Today, many children have passed, some have grown to be
offending adults now incarcerated, and many adults are now addicts. And yet, still, here we are
having this discussion. Addiction is still very much alive and it is very real. It will continue to
destroy our children and our families unless we take full responsibility. Our children deserve the
proper environment in which it takes to heal from trauma, addiction, and the many issues that
arise from it; some being generational. We have a responsibility --
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Cummings: —to offer this opportunity to the next generation and the generations thereafter.
Addiction has no boundaries, no limits, and no prejudices. Addiction is an individual, a family,
and a community's disease. It is our problem and it is our responsibility to do something about it
now. We have been guilty of many errors and many faults in the raising of our children and
what we may have or may have not provided now or in the past. Our worse crime would be to
continue to abandon them and send them off; neglecting their very right to heal at home. And
home doesn't always mean that you have the proper family support if you understand addiction.
That's why it is vital to have a professional team in place and a facility that is ready to treat right
here, right now. We must come together now; tomorrow is too late. Today is our day and today
is the day for our children and for our future for Kauai. Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, those are the only individuals I have that have signed up to testify on
this particular agenda item. The Department would recommend making a final call for any
testifiers for this agency hearing and close the agency hearing.
Chair Keawe: Do we have someone else?
6
Lani Nagao: May I?
Chair Keawe: Have you signed up?
Ms. Nagao: I haven't signed up.
Mr. Dahilig: It's alright.
Chair Keawe: Go ahead.
Ms. Nagao: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Please state your name clearly and pull the mic close to you, please.
Ms. Nagao: Lani Nagao, representing the McKenna Recovery Center, Ke Ala Pono Kauai
Program. I'd like to read a letter from Dr. McKenna who could not be here because he is in
surgery today.
Regarding support for Class IV Zoning Permit, Use Permit, and Special Permit for the 5.825 -
acre parcel. Tax Map Key (4) 3-8-018:012 for adolescent treatment and healing center. Dear
Commission Chair and Distinguished Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to
strongly support the establishment of the adolescent treatment and healing center in Lihu`e off
Maalo Road. Kauai has long needed its own treatment center for adolescents who are abusing
or dependent on drugs or alcohol. We have the opportunity to establish a first-class program for
our youth, and understand that it will need the cooperation of the entire community to make it a
success. The Blue Ribbon Panel, established by the Mayor, has worked for many years to
provide all of the necessary groundwork to have this program become a reality and be successful.
We appreciate the difficult work that you do as members of the Planning Commission and trust
that you will agree with us regarding the need, the opportunity, and the feasibility of establishing
this long needed center. Sincerely, Gerald J. McKenna, MD, DFASAM, DLFAPA, CEO and
Medical Director of Ke Ala Pono Kauai, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry — UH John A.
Burns School of Medicine.
I have my own letter, too. Is that something I can circulate? I have the twelve (12) copies. Or
should I read it?
Chair Keawe: You have about a minute and a half.
Ms. Nagao: Okay. Basically, I totally support this program myself as president of the Kauai
Rural Health Association, a member of the Governor's Kauai Service Area Board for mental
health and substance abuse, a member of the Life's Choices Treatment and Reintegration [sic]
Committee, and my own personal experience in my family, as well as in my professional work at
McKenna Recovery Center servicing patients who have addiction in outpatient clinic. We
recognize the need for adolescents to have a residential program that can take them out of the
community and give them the time and intervene in their addiction to heal in a place. This site,
being away from the community, on one regard—
Mr. Dahilig. Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Nagao: —addresses the NIMBY issues, but also provides them with a place that is in our
community in a natural environment that could provide them many opportunities for healing. So
I hope that you will permit this lot to be used as an adolescent residential healing and treatment
center.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Nagao: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: As we stated, Mr. Chair, that is all I have signed up to testify on this particular
agenda—
Chair Keawe: One last call for anyone testifying on this issue.
Jessica Fu: Aloha. Mahalo for hearing our voices today. My name is Jessica Fu. Because these
people gave such wonderful testimony, I just wanted to come up here and say that I am in
support of this effort to create a facility for the treatment of adolescents and substance abuse. I
just wanted you folks to know that. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mahalo.
Mr. Dahilig: Our recommendation, Mr. Chair, is that the agency hearing be closed at this time.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a motion to close the hearing?
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to close the hearing.
Chair Keawe: Is there a second?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to close the hearing. All those in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2017-3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -
2017 -11, Use Permit U-2017-9 to allow additions to the existing Coral Reef Hotel that
includes (4) hotel units, two (2) apartment -hotel units, and associated site improvements,
and Variance Permit V-2017-4 to allow deviations from several requirements of the
Kauai County Code (1987), including Section 8-13.1 relating to Nonconforming
Buildings & Structures, Section 8-13.2 relating to Nonconfonning Uses, Sections 8-
9.2(a) & (b) relating to Open District Development Standards, for a parcel located on the
makai side of Kuhio Highway in Kapa`a Town, further identified as 4-1516 Kuhio
Highway, Tax Map Key 4-5-011:046, and containing a total area of 0.592 acres - Pixar
Development, LLC. [Director's Report received 519117.1
8
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.2.b. This is a new agency hearing
for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2017-3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-
11, Use Permit U-2017-9 to allow additions to the existing Coral Reef Hotel that includes four
(4) hotel units, two (2) apartment -hotel units, and associated site improvements, and Variance
Permit V-2017-4 to allow deviations from several requirements of the Kauai County Code
(1987), including Section 8-13.1 relating to Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, Section 8-
13.2 relating to Nonconforming Uses, Sections 8-9.2(a) and (b) relating to the Open District
Development Standards, for a parcel located on the makai side of Kuhio Highway in Kapa`a
Town, further identified as 4-1516 Kuhio Highway, Tax Map Key 4-5-011 Parcel 046, and
containing a total area of 0.592 acres. The applicant is Pixar Development, LLC.
Mr. Chair, we have received a number of testimonies transmitted by the agent for the applicant
that are listed as "a" to "z" — twenty-six (26) written testimonies as follows — and our department
would recommend opening the agency hearing on these permits at this time.
Chair Keawe: We will open the agency hearing for this item at this time.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, I do have one (1) individual signed up for this agency hearing. Peggy
Sue. Peggy Sue.
Peggy Sue: I'm here in support of Hotel Coral Reef. I know the plans were submitted. I've
been there for a little over three (3) years and had a lot of improvements made there. I've seen
Kauai have a lot of tourism; we're number one, Kauai is number one, right? There are a lot of
times when there's not enough rooms available for the tourist that do come to Kauai and we're
not asking for much (laughter) but we need to have the plan that was submitted. I'm for that. I
approve that plan. Mr. (Inaudible) has been doing a good job on the hotel and I approve the
hotel plan.
Chair Keawe: Thank you very much.
Ms. Sue: Thank you so much.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, that is all I have signed up to testify for this particular agency hearing.
The Department would recommend making a final call for any further testifiers on this agency
hearing and close the agency hearing—
Chair Keawe: One last call for anyone testifying on this particular agenda item. Come forward,
sir. Please pull the mic close to you and give us your name.
Jack Phillips: Jack Phillips. I've walked past this building for many times the last twenty (20)
years. Every time I passed it, I thought it looked ugly; square box like a penitentiary. I'm happy
to hear they are going to improve the aesthetics by putting a pitched roof on it, so I urge you to
vote in favor of the variance.
Mr. Dahilig: Sir, could you state your name for the record?
Mr. Phillips: Jack Phillips.
Chair Keawe: Jack Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Anyone else? If not, I'll entertain a
motion to close the hearing.
Mr. Lord: So moved.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved. Second?
Nis. Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded to close the hearing. All those in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2017-2 to allow electrical and lighting
upgrades to the Mand Drag Strip facility, situated on the makai side of Kaumuali`i
Highway and immediately east of the Kekaha Landfill site, affecting a 20 acre portion of
3 existing parcels, further identified as Tax May Keys (4) 1-2-002:009 (Por.), 036 & 040
State ofHawai `i, Department ofLand and Natural Resources.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item c. This is Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U)-2017-2. This is to allow electrical and lighting upgrades to the bund Drag Strip
facility, situated on the makai side of Kaumuali`i Highway and immediately east of the Kekaha
Landfill site, affecting a 20 -acre portion of three (3) existing parcels, further identified as Tax
Map Keys (4) 1-2-002 Parcel 009 portion, 036, and 040. The applicant is the State of I Iawai`i,
Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Mr. Chair, the Department would recommend opening the agency hearing at this time.
Chair Keawe: We will open the agency hearing for this specific item at this time.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, I do not have any individuals who have signed up to testify for this
particular agency hearing. Absent any further testifier, the Department would recommend
closing the agency hearing on this matter.
Chair Keawe: One last call. Anyone testifying? Come forward, please.
Maka`ala Ka`aumoana: My name is Maka`ala Ka`aumoana. I did not sign up to speak on this
item because I didn't get the word "lights". I'm conflicted. I love drag racing, but I also love
our native birds and I hope that this application includes every possible safeguard for the
seabirds. That is an area that they do fly over and I would expect the applicant and the
commercial endeavor to obtain and pay for some monitoring if they are going to upgrade any
lights to see the impact and in effect, we need to learn from each installation about whether it's
working or not as it relates to the impacts on our birds. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Mahalo. Thank you for your testimony. Any others for this item? If not, I'll
entertain a motion to close the hearing.
10
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to close the agency hearing.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second?
Mr. Lord: Second.
Chair Keawe: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
Continued Public Hearing
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.3. These are continued public
hearings. We have none.
New Public Hearing
Mr. Dahili . None for Item FA. under New Public Hearings.
All remaining_ public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, I do have nine (9) individuals who are signed up to testify for the
General Plan item pursuant to Item F.5. for public testimony. As is practice, I would ask that
they indicate whether they would like to testify now or at the agenda item when it's called. If we
could also, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, make a request to the public that if they do intend to
testify that they sign-up at the clipboard located to our left.
Chair Keawe: Their left.
Mr. Dahilig: Carl Imparato, now or later?
Carl Imparato: Now, please. Aloha, Commissioners. My name is Carl Imparato. I live in
Hanalei.
Mr. Imparato read his testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Imparato continued reading his testimony for the record.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Imparato: Thank you for your time.
Mr. Dahilig: Gabriela Taylor, now or later?
Gabriela Taylor: Now, please. Good morning, Commissioners and Planning Director. (Good
morning) My name is Gabriela Taylor. I'm 76 years old and have lived on Kauai over half of
my life. I am passionate about keeping Kauai, Kauai.
Ms. Taylor read her testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahili . Maka`ala Ka`aumoana, now or later?
Ms. Ka`aumoana: Now. Aloha, Commissioners. I am Maka`ala Ka`aumoana, Executive
Director of the Hanalei Watershed Hui.
Ms. Ka`aumoana read her testimony for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Ms. Ka`aumoana: The next signature on the sign up list is that of Presley Wann; I wrote it. He
had a medical situation that he needed to go to. I have his testimony; it's one (1) paragraph.
May I please read it?
Chair Keawe: Go ahead.
Ms. Ka`aumoana: Mahalo, Chair.
Ms. Ka`aumoana read Presley Wann's testimony for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Ms. Ka`aumoana: Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: John Moore, now or later?
John Moore: Now. Aloha. My name is John Moore. I'm the director of the Hawaiian
Sustainability Foundation. I'm here on behalf of the Kauai Community Coalition. Sixteen and
a half (16 Yz) years ago, I arrived on the island and I instantly fell in love with it and knew that it
was home and I've been a full-time resident ever since. I've been involved with the State and
County working on transportation issues since Roy was still an engineer, so that's at least eight
(8) or nine (9) years ago. I've been meeting with many of you. About a year ago, many
concerned citizens decided to gather all the neighborhood associations on the island together and
we got the nine (9) different neighborhood associations together. We weren't sure that they
would be willing to work together, but we wanted to see if there was some common ground
about how to work on the General Plan together if we had common interests. As you can expect
from Kekaha to Hanalei, there are quite a bit of different interests, but there were some universal
agreements on certain points.
17
The first thing was every neighborhood association felt that the governments — both the State and
the County were not representing the interests of their neighborhood. They didn't feel that
they were being heard. They felt that decisions were being made to leave them out. So
collectively, they decided that we would all work together, and that's how the Kauai
Community Coalition was founded, and we are trying our best to represent all the neighborhood
associations. We try our best to only speak when we know that all the neighborhood
associations are representing that point of view.
The next thing is everyone complained about traffic; that was universal. It didn't matter which
side of the island you were on. Everybody wanted a better traffic plan. We have a brilliant
Planning Director and a brilliant Planning Department, but I think that Mike had been briefed
incorrectly because the report that was submitted a month ago was not a bicycle lane only report.
It was how to reduce a percentage of the cars that were on the road by multimodal transportation
and how the State and County can work together to improve the roads. So I would ask you, if
those of you that have not read that report, to please go back and read the report.
The other issue that everyone agreed on was that we needed to reduce the growth of tourism, or
hold the growth of tourism to its current rate because every side of the island has found that their
infrastructure and their lifestyle are being pinched by the percentage of tourism that has
increased over the years.
The last thing that was universally agreed upon was that we need to focus more on education;
both from K through 12, as well as university [sic] education.
Those are the things that universally everybody wished the General Plan would go more in depth
(on) and work together. And we applaud—
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moore: Thank you. We applaud the proposal that was passed at the last meeting by Glenda
to come up with concrete vision and goals, and for some reason, we cannot find that and we're
wondering what happened to that report that was supposed to be presented today. Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Sharon Goodwin, now or later?
Sharon Goodwin: Now, please. My name is Sharon Goodwin, Wailua Homestead. I am reading
the testimony of Anne Walton. She is attending the Aloha+ Challenge seminar.
Ms. Goodwin read Anne Walton's testimony for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Please wrap up your testimony, please.
13
Ms. Goodwin: Thank you.
Ms. Goodwin continued reading Anne Walton's testimony for the record.
Chair Keawe: Thank you. We are going to take a short break.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 9:47 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
Chair Keawe: Let's go ahead and reconvene, please.
Mr. Dahilig: Jessica Fu, now or later?
Jessica Fu: Now, please.
Ms. Fu, William Kinney, and Mehana Vaughan performed an oli before the Commission.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Fu: Aloha mai. My name is Jessica Kau`i Fu. Thank you for listening to our oli. It's an oli
that was written by Aunty Alice Namakelua in 1959 and it speaks about the beautiful breeze at
Waninil`Anini, the landscape, how the coconut trees sway in the trade winds, and the love for
place. And that is reflective of the community there, those who are from there, from Hanalei, the
moku of Halele`a, and it's also a personal value, love for place, and reflection and practice of oli.
I'm a resident of Kilauea. My family has been living on Kauai for a very, very long time. I
plan to raise my family here on Kauai and no place else on earth. I gave my testimony a few
weeks ago. I talked about my grandfather who worked at the Princeville Ranch and in doing
more family digging, I found out that not only he worked there, but all of his brothers were
workers on the ranch, as well as my great-grandfather who was brought from China in shackles
to be a slave on the plantation, so me and my family understand what it takes in search of a better
life and to create a better future for this island. So I come here and again, I'm here to testify to
urge you guys, the Kaua` i Council, to consider removing Resort zoning from Princeville Phase
II. I don't feel we need any more resorts. There are many resorts, vacation rentals, and places
for visitors to stay on Kauai. We should take care of the visitor areas that we already have and
we need to be mindful before we allow any more to be built. There is a limit on everything here
on earth. This room, when it was built, it was planned for and it had a limit; the plate says
"occupant load: 94 And we know that bad things — irreversible damage — can happen when we
go above and beyond those limits and we ignore our limitations. So I'm opposing Resort zoning
in Princeville Phase II because I feel it makes the process easier for large developments and
structures to be built without—
Chair Keawe: Can you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Fu: —without consideration of ill effects. Basically, we need to know our capacity. Every
place is crowded. If you were to drive anywhere on the north shore right now, you would have a
hard time finding a place to park. I want to thank you guys, also, for taking the time to listen to
14
our voices, to also consider the big things. I know last time I heard a lot about sea level rise,
climate change, and affordable housing. I thank you guys for really working hard towards those
efforts.
One last thing, last time when I was up here I heard that many times our single -sided opinions
and issues are viewed as down here, they are in the now, and that we are inconsiderate of things
that are for the future and things that are long-term. I'd like you guys to know that I don't feel
that way. In my work that I do every day, I think about the future. I come from a hunting and
fishing family. We practice survival. We think for the future. We think for generation after
generation after generation.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Fu: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Eric Hansen, now or later?
Eric Hansen: Now. Aloha kakahiaka kakou. I'm Eric Hansen. I'm the program coordinator
and farm coach on Kauai for a beginning farmer training program that's island -wide known as
"Go Farm Hawaii". I strongly urge you all on this commission here to please remove the
designation of Resort expansion in the Princeville area. I know ... to quote Jerry Santos of
Olomana, "Change is a strange thing we cannot deny." So we know things are going to happen,
we have to prepare for the best. Development is not a bad thing, but we have to do it right. I feel
that if we keep this designation on the plan, we are creating more problems than solutions. The
idea of having a Planning Commission is to create more solutions than problems. Now, we all
know about our housing crisis — affordable housing, homelessness, all of that — that's going to be
exasperated if we keep this designation. As a farmer and someone who has farmed many
different islands, we have — on this island, as on every island — a farm -less epidemic. If we don't
keep things in Ag, we are going to ultimately hurt ourselves. So please repeal the designation of
the Princeville Phase II for Resort classification and I want to encourage you guys to think about
things outside of the box, maybe think about partnerships. Go Farm is an island -wide program.
We are part of the UH system. I have people in our program that are literally farm -less that are
trained and ready to go do stuff. I just want to, again, mahalo for all of your time, listening to
myself and many other people, and please remove the designation. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: William Kinney, now or later?
William Kinney: Now. Aloha, Commissioners. My name is William Kinney. Mahalo for all
you guys do as Commissioners, as well as in your personal fields and kuleana. I was born and
raised in Hanalei, in Princeville. My grandfather was the foreman of Princeville Ranch when it
closed in the 70's. Recently I helped with many of the anthropological ethnographic interviews
and community research done in `Anini and surrounding ahupua`a. I'm here to express my
support in the removal of the Resort designation from the future land use maps in the 2020
General Plan. There is more need for ag and food production than there is for resort acreage.
I�
There is more need for community presence than there is a need for additional visitor destination
areas. And there's definitely a dire need for us to retain a sense of place and not lose our rural
communities. If you ask me, I believe that Wanini was Kaua`i's last fishing village. It was a
community where everyone knew each other, everyone shared with each other, and they lived
carefree and comfortable because of the abundance of their shore fisheries, lo`i kalo, and their
fruit and vegetable gardens, but also an abundance of engaged, invested, and contributing
families. If you look there today, there's all but one family that's there. They are the only ones
left there and everyone else has been pushed out. It's important to look at the ecosystem health
because as many of you know and we know that health of place defines the wellbeing of the
communities, and places hold and foster the skills, the resources, the stories, and the memories
that we all share. I was fortunate to learn about Native Hawaiian limu from the late Henry
Chang Wo. He was a champion. He was a master in limu person and I've been fortunate to be
in a group that he helped form of limu practitioners. He was a champion for ecosystem health;
how it pertains to people. If he could, I think he would be here today to tell you that more resort
units and more visitors mean less fresh water.
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kinney: Less fresh water means less limu-
Chair Keawe: Can you please wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. Kiiuiey: Yes. -less limu and less fish and less families. I think we have to look at that in
the future land use planning of Kauai. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Mahalo. Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Rupert Rowe, now or later?
Rupert Rowe: Right now. Aloha kakahiaka. (Aloha) I once sat here talking about the General
Plan. I want to address some issues in the plan because the plan really doesn't have a great
vision of the future, just a theory that all of you commissioners would support this plan. First of
all, the most critical part of this plan, you guys don't talk about graves. Okay? Of all the people
in here, all you people, of different ethnic backgrounds, you don't have the suffering like every
kanaka that watches their graves get dug up, dumped on the side, and you guys would say "that's
the State's problem." That's not the State's problem, that's the County's problem. Do you folks
have an answer? Wi by should bones be thrown in a corner so you can make development? I
don't see them digging up Japanese graves. I don't see them digging up Chinese graves. That's
the only other two (2) ethnic groups that have graveyards in Hawaii.
Okay, let's move on now. There's a problem that is taking place. Prior to statehood, every
ethnic group in Hawaii can tell you they knew the Native Hawaiians had the title to the land
under royal patent. Okay? They all knew that. The day we became a state, the Hawaiians were
cast to the side. Every homeless person in Honolulu, you look at them, that's Native Hawaiians.
You look at the jail, that's Native Hawaiians. You look at the people out there suffering, that's
Native Hawaiians. What does the State of Hawaii do for them but talk shit. Okay? These
tb
things are very sad to our people. The General Plan does not address the seriousness of this
problem. Anytime you put development on this island, you destroy our past. We don't need any
more resorts. We can't even have our beaches and our people enjoy; nobody can enjoy. That's
only a joke and you guys are trying to push it. Keep pushing. Why do you push for? Now, we
who understand when somebody rests, they should stay resting, not dig them up.
Okay, now—
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. Rowe: Thirty (3 0) seconds, okay?
Chair Keawe: Got it. Go.
Mr. Rowe: Mahalo. Now, our future is important, very important. Let's look at the future. This
General Plan should be placed on the side. One last thing I want to make a comment on. Every
other General Plan, how does this Commission rate them? Thirty percent? Forty percent? Fifty
percent? What plan of the General Plans that we had that you can rate them today before this
plan goes forward? That should be in your guys' General Plan. Aloha.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Mehana Vaughan, now or later?
Mehana Vaughan: Now, please. `Ano`ai me ke aloha. Mahalo to the Planning Commissioners
and to the members of the Planning Department and Staff for all of your hard work on this plan.
My name is Mehana Vaughan. I'm a professor at the University of Hawaii, Natural Resources
and Environmental Management, and a lifelong Kalihiwai resident. We sent extensive testimony
regarding research we completed in 2015 on the ahupua`a of Kalihikai and the ili of `Anini,
where the Princeville Plateau is located. I'll just emphasize a few findings today, but we're
happy to answer questions later.
The first was that Princeville and `Anini have always been closely connected and impacted one
another. The second is the ecological impacts; very intense changes on the stream system
between the time that the golf course grading and the clubhouse construction began, before and
after that, and on the reef. This is a reef that kupuna say the limu was so thick, you couldn't
walk. You could fall in the holes because you couldn't see them. This was a healthy, healthy,
abundant reef that fueled the lifestyle of sharing and resilience. The third thing was the effect on
those families. We mapped twenty (20) families that lived on that coastline in the 1940s. Most
of them were there up through the 1960s; even through both title waves. Today, there are two
(2) of those families remaining on that coast. Twelve (12) of them, though, still own land, so we
are on the cusp, but they have tax bills ranging up to $480,000. Many of them told us that since
the current owner of Princeville took over and the new development pressures that are happening
now, it's gotten a lot harder for them to hold on, so this is a community just on the edge. One (1)
17
kupuna talked about going back to try to look for he`e. She lives in Anahola now. She hadn't
been back for ten (10) years. She said there were so many lights at night, we couldn't see the
he`e holes. We couldn't even see the stars. There used to be so many stars. She said I haven't
gone back since. They talked about the impacts of the Westin Resort and how that enhanced use
of the area. Lastly, we found that it was such a different time; 1983 when this was proposed, I
was six (6) years old. I have three (3) children now. It was a whole different time and it was a
different project. It was a mixed-use project, not just resort. The average price of a unit there
was $150,000. The most recent Discovery Land, Resort Group proposal, the average price was
between $1.5 and $15 million for a unit. So this Resort zoning opens the door for a completely
different type of development that Kauai has never seen; a gated, high-density, incredibly
luxury, attracting the wealthiest investors from around the world. The current landowner has
sold so much of the assets of Princeville since buying and you'll see; we sent charts on all those
sales and the prices, so there's a lot of money that has been made on this property already. They
also are not guaranteed expectations and entitlements. This property is far from entitled. Our
research at the Land Use Commission
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Vaughan: —showed that very clearly. So just to end
Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Vaughan: Yes, I can wrap up with four (4) recommendations that emerged from community
members. The first is to remove the Resort zoning designation on the Princeville Plateau. The
second is the plan doesn't say much about strategically protecting family, ancestral, and kuleana
lands on Kauai. There are many ways to do that; we submitted language. The third is the plan
talks about community management of fisheries and the amazing work at Hd'ena. What if every
ahupua`a on Kauai had community -managed lands where local families can continue to return
and have kipuka places to live their lifestyle, to be in their place together? The last thing is it
does not in the General Plan adequately, aggressively, and proactively pursue protection of the
remaining open spaces of Kaua' i; Maha`ulepu, the Princeville Plateau, those big open areas that
people can continue to go with their families and live the lifestyles of Kauai. Thank you so
much. Aloha.
Chair Keawe: Thank you. I know there was some concern whether we would see your
presentation; we saw it, we read it. It was very well done.
Ms. Vaughan: Thank you, Chairman Keawe. I'd like to thank the thirty (30) families of Wanini,
Kalihikai, Hanapai, and Kalihiwai who took time to be interviewed, as well as the policymakers
from this county, scientists, so many people, and the students who did the work. Thank you and
thank you for your time.
Ms. Ahuna: Mahalo.
Mr. Dahilig: Felicia Cowden, now or later?
is
Felicia Cowden: Now. Aloha. My name is Felicia Cowden. I am humbled by the testimony
that has come before me. I know you have heard me a number of times. I'm just going to touch
the places where I feel like have really been hit well. Carl Imparato's discussion on the tourism
and how it is underrepresented in this General Plan is so accurate. It's very important that that is
looked at. What I see is that — I live on the north shore — there is no down season anymore.
There is no down season. There is no place to park. The visitors are angry and grumpy and very
difficult to deal with. It's not even good for them. I want to support this repeal of the re-
designation of the Princeville Phase II. As has been said, development needs to solve more
problems than it creates. In this case, it creates more problems than it solves. These houses
won't be at a price that people who live here can afford it. I understand that maybe it's a bad
investment for the people who bought that area up on the hill, but they made that risk and to be
allowing them to be selling properties that are just too expensive for residents who work within
the limits of this economy, it brings in a fresh influx of people that adds to the overwhelming
level of the infrastructure. So we know that that's going to add to everything from the dying
reefs to the traffic to the established ag lands; there are a lot of pieces. I just want to throw in an
example here that I think plays on what Uncle Rupert was saying. What we're seeing with
Wailua right now, with the Coco Palms, where they were trying to create space there for, yet,
another hotel in a really high -traffic area. I have sat in this room and watched these extensions
on that entitlement that really should not have happened. What we are doing is we are placing
speculative investors who bought a distressed asset to prevail over a profoundly cultural site.
And that is ... I looked at that. There is so much that's happened there and these people, they pay
for fifteen (15) acres. I know that this is State land, but the County has to get involved in this
and support these (inaudible), these people who are protecting their space. These people, they
pay like $7,000 a year — total — in taxes and lease rent on that piece of property. We could
crowdsource that in a day to help these people who are really solving problems. I've gone out
there and I see lives being rebuilt on that property, and young people becoming empowered. I
don't see where this plan is looking at partnering to really create some rightful forward pathway
for our Hawaiian community that, as Uncle Rupert said, they have been literally
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Cowden: —tossed in the garbage.
Chair Keawe: Can you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Cowden: Yes. Thank you for looking at it. I don't believe we're ready to finish and pass
this on to the Council. We have very big issues that are not your fault, but it is your kuleana.
Please take the time. Please work hard. We can't let this go through the way it is right now. I
appreciate all the hard work that's happened, but we're not ready to confirm this General Plan
Update. Thank you so much.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Sandra Herndon, now or later?
19
Sandra IIemdon: Now. Aloha and mahalo. Thank you for listening with your hearts and your
minds to some of these brilliant ideas that have come forth. I fully support every previous
speaker. From the first one who talked about the tourism debacle to the last one who spoke of
the need to really dig in and look at this General Plan because it is not just your privilege to sit
on this Commission, it is your kuleana and you have a big choice facing you. Rather than sit
here and reiterate what I feel has been spoken very well, I would just urge you to look at this
General Plan with an eye to implementing some measures and some ways of enforcement to
really accomplish what the intention of it is. I think the community has a beautiful vision of
what our island is and what it can be. I think that if we could share that vision with you and ask
your full support in helping us create it. We do need to partner and I think that that partnership
will bring us all to a place where we are so grateful for what we, as individuals, have done. I
appreciate all of the work that's gone into this already. I also agree it's not complete and if you
could take more time to really make it something that is going to stand for the next twenty (20),
thirty (30) years, it would be such a blessing to all of us. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Sea Peterson. Sea Peterson, now or later?
Sea Peterson: Aloha and thank you. Thank you for all of your work. We recently returned from
Butan and in Butan, their gross national product is happiness. Every choice they make, they first
look at and talk to the people about what brings them happiness. Right now, I would say that the
traffic situation in Kapa`a is adding incredible stress on the residents. My husband and I have
submitted videos to you and to the Council and to the State. We have written letters in the
newspaper. We have done, I think, what we can just to try to bring this situation to your
attention. I come here because we've lived in Kapa`a for over thirty-three (33) years and we are
affected daily by traffic. Every decision we make to go out of our house and leave our residence
is based on traffic now. It used to be we could say oh, it's traffic in the morning going to work
and traffic in the evening coming home from work, but now it's all the time. It's not only the
traffic and the congestion, which we have documented on that video. I went out every single day
to show it's every day. It's not only that, but it's the noise, it's the smell, it's everything. I think
in my opinion that we need to hold on to a vision of Kauai. Wliat do we want for the people
that live here and the people that visit here? They come here for a reason and every choice we
make, we need to keep in mind that vision, and that's what they've done in Butan. I'm hoping
that listening to all these beautiful people and what they have to say, I'm hoping you're listening.
It's not about money. It's about a vision. It's about what do we want for the people here and the
people that come. We want people to come here that are going to nurture our communities, that
aren't going to rip us off, that aren't going to take, and in order to have that, we have to create
communities that uphold that vision. So you have a big responsibility; I totally agree. Take a
look and listen to the President of Butan sometime; just google it, just YouTube it. It will help
inspire you. It will keep you on the path that you need to be on in order to keep our community
healthy and to support our natural growers here and our air and our entire environment. I thank
you for your time. Aloha.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
20
Mr. Dahilig: Bill Peterson, now or later?
Bill Peterson: Now. Good morning still and thank you for allowing us (inaudible). My name is
Bill Peterson. I've spoken to the Committee before; to the panel before. We've submitted
videos, as my wife said. The family has lived on the island for thirty-four (34) years. We have
roots in the community. My parents are both buried out at the Veterans Cemetery near Salt
Pond. My daughter was Miss Kauai 2001. We've seen a lot of changes in the last thirty-four
(34) years.
We've seen a peaceful, healthy community grow more stressed by the increase in tourism, by the
increase in traffic, by noise, by pollution, by congestion. It's become much more difficult to go
to the beach. It's become much more difficult just to pass into Lihu`e. Traffic as everybody is
aware through the Kapa`a corridor has become nearly unsustainable and if we continue to go
along the lines we are of uncontrolled growth or growth beyond what we are planning for, we're
due to have some serious problems. I don't know how you would evacuate (the) north shore in a
tsunami condition. I do not know how you would evacuate much of Kapa`a in a tsunami
condition. These are things that could be of great impact on our communities.
Anyway, the infrastructure has not kept up with the expansion in facilities; we all know that. It's
not really a question about whether the highways are unsustainable; it's obvious. It's been
obvious for some time. The State has wonderful plans to expand the highways. The County has
talked about it as well. I've seen the same plans presented two (2) years ago, four (4) years ago,
ten (10) years ago. They've never been implemented because basically we just don't have the
cash flow, the money from the State to be able to build these highways, and it doesn't look like
we are ever going to get it.
So unless we can limit our growth, we're caught in this case of declining facilities, increasing
population, and a decline in the lifestyle that we have here. As my wife said, the visitors are
going to see this just as well. They are getting very frustrated with the traffic. We no longer
shop in Kapa`a. It's easier for us to avoid Kapa`a altogether rather than go downtown; to take
the bypass and try to get into town.
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. Peterson: Yes, sir. Even that is becoming unsustainable. So I really ask you to look at these
solutions, look at these problems, and help us out because it's not just us, it's our children, our
children's children, and we're losing the lifestyle that everyone came here for in the first place. I
cannot think what it's like for the Native Hawaiians to see this island change so much in this last
couple generations, to be forced out of their lands, be forced out of their homes because of the
taxes on lands and the congestion. Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Greg Crowe, now or later?
21
Greg Crowe: Later.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Beryl Blaich, now or later?
Beryl Blaich: Right now, thank you. Good morning. Aloha, Commissioners. It is really
exciting to see this full component of distinguished commissioners. Thank you very much for
your service. I just have three (3) requests.
Ms. Blaich read her testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Chair Keawe left the meeting at 10:38 a.m.
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Vice Chair.
Ms. Blaich continued reading her testimony.
Ms. Blaich: Thank you so much.
Mr. Dahilig: Greg Allen, now or later?
Greg Allen: Now. Aloha, Commissioners. My name is Greg Allen. I'm concerned that the
Planning Commission's recommendation that Hokua Place remain earmarked for residential
growth and alignment with the 2000 General Plan is not being followed in the current plan;
Section 2-40, paragraph 4. You guys should have a letter that says this. It says the future land
map moves forward with the 2000 General Plan's higher intensity designation for the area, then
there's a "but". But, it also updates and refines the designation. The new plan would change the
Urban Center to Neighborhood General and reduce its size to walkshed boundaries. This means
that only part of the affordable residential subdivision that is so needed in Kapa`a - the area
within a quarter mile of the existing Kapa`a Town Core - would be available for local residential
use. This leaves out approximately one-third of the area previously designated for residential
use; equating to a loss of about 250 planned housing units.
Chair Keawe returned to the meeting at 10:42 a.m.
Mr. Allen: If you look at the definition of "Neighborhood General", you'll see that it describes
that and then the next part is if you look at the map, Section 5-7, on the General Plan Draft, it
confirms that only part of this much needed affordable residential housing neighborhood that's
been long sought after will remain available. We request that the Planning Commission direct
the Planning Department to correct its redraft of this part of the proposed General Plan so it
aligns with the Commission's actions and to restate Hokua Place as a residential neighborhood
with boundaries consistent with the 2000 General Plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you for
your service.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
PX
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, that's all I have signed up to testify on the General Plan matter. Given
no additional testifiers, there is one (1) individual that had indicated, after the agency hearing has
been closed, that she would like to testify on the Coral Reef matter and that individual is Rayne
Regush.
Chair Keawe: Rayne, please come forward.
Rayne Regush: Later. Just so that my name is on the list. Later.
Mr. Dahilig: At the agenda item?
Chair Keawe: Do you want to do it at the agenda item or do it now?
Ms. Regush: Please. Agenda item.
Mr. Dahilig: For Coral Reef?
Ms. Regush: Please.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, given those testimonies, that is all I have signed up to testify on this
matter. I would recommend making a final call for any testimony on any other item.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Final call for additional people to testify. Please pull the mic up and just
give us your name, please.
Lia Sauzan: Welina me ke aloha. `O Lia Kamoiokalani Sauzan ko`u inoa. No Hd'ena mai ao.
Aloha. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Lia Kamoiokalani Sauzan. I was born
and raised on the north shore of Kauai; from Hd'ena to Kilauea. I stand here for the full support
of the removal of the Resort land use designation from the 2020 General Plan. We don't wish to
see this non -entitled resort area receive or to be granted the opportunity and opening under any
condition be developed. These developments would be parasitic to our north shore communities.
They would suck our resources and opportunities away from our communities for a gain of only
the resort rather than responsible agriculture which would benefit both parties; the business
landowners and the community. Our community has to deal with your decisions and the
development. This will affect our livelihood and we will be heavily impacted. Our
infrastructure and roads cannot support the rising numbers of tourists every year. They don't
have the same value system. The impacts they have are exponential compared to that of the
people of this place. Our value system of the land is so great, so please be cautious of your
decision-making, please think about us, and just be true to your kuleana, and remember aloha
`aina. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Mahalo. One last call. Anyone else? Oh, come forward and identify yourself,
please.
Presley Wann: Aloha, Commissioners. My name is Presley Wann. I wanted to thank Maka`ala
Ka`aumoana for submitting my written testimony. To me, Kauai has always been the separate
23
kingdom and we always were for controlled growth. I think, to me, it's perfectly clear whenever
I think about all these issues that are starting to impact us almost on a weekly basis. To me, it's
perfectly clear if you keep three (3) things in mind. Number one is taking care of that that feeds
us; our ocean and our land. Number one priority. Number two becomes us; the cultural people,
the cultural practitioners, and we, the general public. We are number two priority. Number three
should be commercial; tourism included and any developments. Basically, that's ... you don't
need to read my letter, but thanks again for all your time and efforts. Mahalo.
Ms. Ahuna: %lahalo.
Chair Keawe: Mahalo. Okay, one last call. Identify yourself, please.
Jeri Di Pietro: Yes. Good morning and aloha, Commissioners. My name is Jeri Di Pietro. I'm
a volunteer with ?�lalama Maha`ulepu, the Koloa Community Association, and Hawaii SEED.
Thank you so much for taking your time with this General Plan. I know we have looked forward
to its beginning for many, many years, and it's a very important document. so I do thank you for
taking the time to hear us over and over. As we talk about rooms and roads and infrastructure
and sewage, we must also think about food; food, food, food. The visitors, the residents, every
person in every car has got to be fed and we are way too dependent on the ships. I would love to
see something inserted. Challenge ourselves through the General Plan by having in every moku,
perhaps at every community park even just starting small a 40 -foot by 40 -foot section where
we can have volunteers growing vegetables. It becomes a beautiful situation for grandparents
and their grandchildren to talk story, to work together. Maui used their Michelle Obama Grant a
few years ago. They created nineteen (19) community gardens and they became real important
spots in the community for talking story and for sharing family to family, as well as burning
calories and eating healthier. I just want to really include that in. At Maha`ulepu, part of our
conservation efforts is because it is a historical agricultural spot. We would like to see food
produced there, as well as trails and fishing. We need to bring back the limu. We did a large
study a few years back and the limu has only decreased along with the fish. So please think of
food, also, and thank you very much for your service and for listening to my testimony.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Di Pietro: Aloha.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We'll take a short recess and then we'll come back and start with the
permit application for the adolescent treatment center.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 10:50 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 11:01 a.m.
Chair Keawe: Let's call the meeting back to order, please.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
24
Subdivision
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, per the amended agenda, I forgot to mention that we'll take the
Subdivision Committee matters before the permits for the Subdivision Committee Report.
Chair Keawe: Mr. Ho.
Mr. 11o: Three (3) items were on the agenda this morning; Property Development Center
approved, Commercial Properties approved, and a 3 -month extension, I believe, was given to
Aukahi Farms. And that (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: That was a deviation where a 3 -month extension was granted.
Mr. Ho: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Ho? Do I have a motion to approve?
Mr. Mahoney: Move to approve.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's moved and seconded to approve the Subdivision Report. All those in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-10, Use Permit U-2017-8 and Special Permit SP -
2017 -4 to allow development of a substance abuse treatment and healing center for
adolescents, involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Maalo Road in Kapaia,
approx. 0.75 miles north of the Maalo Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further
identified as Tax Map Key (4) 3-8-018:012, and affecting a parcel approx. 5.825 acre in
size = County ofKaua `i, Office of the Mayor. [Director's Report received 5/9/17.1
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now back to action on items under Agenda Item F.
This is an action on Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-10, Use Permit U-2017-8, and Special
Permit SP -2017-4. This is at TMK: (4) 3-8-018 Parcel 012 relating to the adolescent substance
abuse treatment center. Dale is the planner for this matter, but he had to unexpectedly tend to a
family matter so I'll be pinch hitting for him this morning, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: The permits that are required for this action are a Class IV Zoning Permit, Use
Permit, and a Special Permit. Our department has looked at the subject application and their
proposal is to construct approximately 14,524 square feet of structures on an approximately 5 -
acre site that would facilitate the construction and operation of an adolescent treatment and
25
healing center. The project consists of seven (7) buildings that are proposed and is being
introduced through the Life's Choices Agency of the County of Kauai. Of note, we should
mention that the project, because it is being sponsored by the County of Kauai, does have a 343
Disclosure document that was published in the OEQC bulletin for final Environmental
Assessment in September 2016. We have looked at the site and surrounding areas, and as some
of the documentation and images behind you may show that it is approximately '4 -mile away
from the nearest residential development. It is going to be accessed primarily from an existing
cane haul road from Maalo Road and the State DOT is the jurisdictional agency responsible for
Maalo Road. We do not see any traffic concerns at this time due to the small scale of the
proposal along with Maalo Road not leading to any major developments.
When we look at Special Permits, we have to ensure that Special Permit requests align with a test
of five (5) points for consistency that it shouldn't be contrary to the objectives sought to be
accomplished by Chapter 205 and 205A; it would not adversely affect the surrounding property;
it would not unreasonably burden public agencies and provide roads, sewers, water, drainage,
school improvements, etc.; unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district
boundary amendment rules were established; and the land which is proposed is unsuited for the
uses permitted in the district. These are the elements that we have to look at for consistency with
the 205 Special Permit and we believe that each of these five (5) elements have been properly
evidenced as being met underneath the submittal infonnation from the Life's Choices Agency.
Beyond the Special Permit, we look at the Use Permit and as required under code, we naturally
follow the Class IV Zoning process to ensure the consistency. We have to essentially look at a
4 -point test when we look at the Use Permit so that it must be a compatible use, it must not be
detrimental to persons or property in the area, it must not cause substantial environmental
consequences, and it must not be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance. We believe that the proposed development is being designed to be integrated with
the surrounding area which is zoned Agriculture. Because of its proximity to the residential area,
we believe that that is enough distance so that it is not considered detrimental to those people
that are living in that area. The project site has been previously developed, and when we say
previous developed, it was former sugar cane land so we believe that rare, endangered species or
a sensitive habitat will not be affected given the construction of the project. This is a
development that is promoting health, safety, and welfare for our community by providing a
substantial environmental area for the healing of those that are addicted to substances, and then it
also looks at whether or not we are consistent with our State Plan, County General Plan, and
Lihu'e Community Development Plan. All these things, from a usage standpoint, seem
consistent given the 4 -point test.
Given those considerations, Mr. Chair, the Department is prepared to make a recommendation to
the Commission; however, we would suggest hearing from the applicant and having their
presentation before the Commission.
Chair Keawe: Is the applicant here?
John Kirkpatrick: Aloha, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I'm John Kirkpatrick from Belt
Collins Hawaii, LLC, acting as agent for the County of Kauai on this matter. With me here is
26
the Managing Director who will speak in a moment and others who can speak about the project.
We will, today, discuss the vision behind the adolescent treatment and healing center, go on then
to look at what it's going to look like and its surrounding, and we'll be able to answer questions
about the operations but I think we should really respond to your questions on that, and then
move on to deal with the good issues that were picked up by the Planning Department and other
departments. On the issue of the vision, this was Mayor Baptiste's project, then it was the
current mayor's project, and this has been an important County objective for some time and I'd
like the Managing Director to speak to it.
Managing Director Wallace Rezentes Jr.: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Keawe and
Commission Members. Thank you for allowing us the time to speak about the ATHC, the
Adolescent Treatment and Healing Center. The ATHC is a vision of well over a decade ago of
Mayor Baptiste. That vision carried forward to Mayor Carvalho and many members of current
and past County Councils. We also want to acknowledge the support from our Kauai
Legislative Team who provide the majority of the funding for the proposed project. Last, but not
least, the support of Grove Farm for the land donation. The bottom line with this project is that
we believe that our youth should have the opportunity to heal on Kauai with the support of their
`ohana, and that is really the impetus behind what we are proposing here today. We believe we
are dotting all the is and crossing all the t's, and our hope is, in the near future, to have this
opportunity for our residents of Kauai. On behalf of Mayor Carvalho, we humbly ask for your
support of this ongoing vision.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I'm going to ask Marc Ventura, our project architect, to walk you
a little bit through the site. Marc, do you want to take the...
Marc Ventura: Good morning, Chair Keawe and Planning Commission Members and Director
Mike Dahilig. Thank you for your time and all that you do and listening to our presentation
today. Can everybody see the boards here? Are you guys okay with that? I'm going to start
here and I'll move down along through here. I'll try to be brief but give you a description of the
project and sort of the design process to date.
My first image here is kind of a Google overview image of the site and the surrounding areas.
The red circle you see here is about a 0.62 -mile radius to the nearest subdivision at Hanama`ulu.
The center here is the facility on Maalo Road. Here is the main highway coming down through
Hanama`ulu Town and down towards Wilcox Hospital, which is here. We're about a mile from
Wilcox Hospital, which is important because that is a part of our support structure for the facility
with the doctors and the in-depth medical facilities there. I think importantly from the site being
a fair amount away from Hanama`ulu Town, which is the nearest Residential zone, there is some
pretty serious drain between these areas; it's some valley and some pretty forested areas there.
Here is the cemetery as you come up about halfway through, and the other landmark here is the
KIUC power plant which is right across the street. So we sit on an intersection of Maalo Road
and a cane haul road that will access the site. One other thing here, here is the north direction
just to get you sort of sited on that.
Here's a blowup of the general site floor plan of the facility. This is turned sideways so here my
north direction is up this way. We spent quite a bit of time going through a programmatic
17
development of the project, as well as the site design. The site is roughly 5.8 acres. Right now,
our concept started ... we had a couple of concepts where we had a tight building and then we
kind of opened up and sort of spread out, so we've got kind of a U-shaped building here. There
are seven (7) components to the building but we are under one (1) roof, so we could call it a
single building; actually there's a small farm shed building off to the side there. Our project size
is ... under roof is approximately 15,000 square feet. Our lot coverage is about 20%, which is
well below for an agricultural parcel. Maalo Road comes here - I'll walk you through a brief
sort of...how this facility operates — to the cane haul road and access to parking here. The pink
area is our paved parking stalls. We have ample parking; more than is required, plus overflow
on an as needed basis. The components are ... first and foremost is our residential component
which is a 16 -bed facility currently at this time. We've fluctuated quite a bit on that. Our
strategy in designing this structure was to really allow for flexibility; matter of fact, for the whole
project. We know we have funding approved right now. We're looking to do as much as we can
for the available funds, which is always our strategy, but we sort of laid this thing out for
flexibility. We got some covered areas here that we could expand. I think a point was brought
up about that earlier. We are in a position to be able to expand bedrooms fairly easily, but we
have fairly substantial bathroom facilities that could accommodate an additional... probably
anywhere from ten (10) to fifteen (15) beds with the existing plumbing facilities that we have.
So the residential component is where the overnight clients will be staying; that's this wing here.
In the corner here, we have a commercial kitchen and a small dining area off of that which will
be for feeding the facility. We've got a laundry room facility in the back of there as well. In the
center here is sort of our entry area which is a large, covered, kind of an open air, multi -use area,
and that's really kind of a gathering space that sits off of the dining area and could be an
expansion area. We've got the administrative building here which are offices and a conference
center; really pretty small. There's a couple offices and a conference and some support staff
areas, and then our assessment area where the incoming clientele comes in for psychiatric
evaluation. We have support services component to the bottom here as we turn the corner. And
finally we've got an education and training outpatient classroom, essentially. We've got a farm
ag shed here where we'll have a bathroom and some sort of wash up facilities, and then a sport
court. We're looking at basketball on a paved surface out on this area here. That's generally the
building. The idea of this was to ... one of the things we did in preparation and as we were
designing the project was we went to newer facilities on Oahu; took a couple of trips over there
and looked at various similar operations. They all worked a little bit differently, but one really
interesting part of this was the ag components of a lot of these facilities that we looked at. As far
as this whole healing process was to get these ... our clientele to come in and get involved with
these programs and really get involved with the working of the land, and that's a huge
component of it. This dotted area — I'm not sure if you can see it but that's an agricultural area,
so a large portion of this open part of the property is sort of slated for agricultural development
for these kids in these programs to really get involved and get really involved with (inaudible)
and all that kind of stuff. This is a terrace, lo`i here. We've got a real natural slope that comes
down and we're proposing to farm taro in that area. This is a proposed drainage basin which
appeared to be a natural drainage basin from agriculture in the past, so we've got that as part of
that and our whole site sort of naturally drains out to that area; all self-contained on the site. We
are providing circulation throughout the property for fire and just for access in general. Our
sewer is all on-site. We`ve got septic systems for the project; all contained on-site. That's the
general layout of the building.
M
This is a roof plan showing the roof, as well as more of an agricultural landscape plan. We want
to be conscientious of water usage and what not, and this is really just going to be ... but we also
want to screen the building. And then, again, the agricultural areas are there for the surrounding
building.
Okay, I'm going to move back here and I'm going to talk a little bit about the architectural
design and aesthetics of the building. These images here are depicting the character of the
building. Really what we wanted to do was really kind of reduce the scale of the building here.
It's all single -story. It's really a simple architectural style; (inaudible) looking arch and sort of
plantation elements. We've got a metal roof. We've gone back and forth between stucco
and ... we'll probably end up having a HardiePanel type exterior for low maintenance and
terminate resistance and that kind of thing. Our overall building height is at about 20 feet right
now; well below the 30 -foot minimum single -story requirements, so we really have a low -scale
building. We want to create a residential feel for these kids coming in so they feel comfortable
and they feel at home, more so than a real institutionalized type structure and feel.
Chair Keawe: Can we ask you questions as you go along, Marc?
Mr. Ventura: Sure.
Chair Keawe: On that second one in the middle, where is the Sporting Clays field from that?
Mr. Ventura: Pardon?
Chair Keawe: Where is the Sporting Clays field?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: (Inaudible) the bigger map. Oh, it's in the clouds. Okay, Maalo Road goes up
like that and the ... we're on a cane haul road and then this is Ehiku Road back towards Uhu`e. It
turns and it's down about there, roughly, so it's at least a half a mile I'd guess. I haven't—
Chair Keawe: So it's a half a mile from the Sporting Clays?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Yes. We talked to the operator of that about whether there was an issue there
and—
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Ho and I had a chance to go up there and look, so we just want to
try and orient ourselves as to where it is.
Mr. Lord: Chair, it looks like it's actually further given the radius here.
Mr. Ventura: That's 0.6, just in this circle, so yeah, we're probably over a mile.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Ahuna: Did they have any concerns?
29
Mr. Ventura: Who's that?
Ms. Ahuna: The Sporting Clays people.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Just the opposite. I went down to see them and asked about security, and he
told me about how, basically, every gun there is behind two (2) locks and two (2) cameras.
They've got real controls and frankly, he thought the program when I was talking about it
was exciting. I don't want to commit the operator to anything that he's not committed to, but the
attitude he had when I talked to him was that he'd like to support this project.
Mr. Dahilig: Just to add, Commissioners, that particular operation is also subject to a Special
Permit and Class IV and Use Permit from this Commission. There are conditions when the
Commission heard that particular permit that required them to have high levels of security
regarding storing the ammunitions and firearms, so those protocols ... I believe we have not
gotten any complaints concerning them not following those protocols.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Continue, Marc.
Mr. Ventura: Okay, thank you.
Chair Keawe: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: One question, Marc. Are you going to use the cane haul road as your entrance and
exit?
Mr. Ventura: That is correct, yes.
Mr. Ho: Is that private? Is that a private cane haul road?
Mr. Ventura: Is it private now? I know it has been discussed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: It's under State and County review because it's being looked at for, eventually,
being part of the alternative roadway. Part of our project would involve paving it for... basically
to our entrance. So the access would be along Maalo Road, turn right, and on the cane haul road
there.
Mr. Ho: And you will have to be responsible for paving that portion to your—?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Yes. The County and Grove Farm have worked that out to the satisfaction
of...well, at least to the County and Grove Farm.
Mr. Lord: Marc, I have a question. The overall height of the building only looks to be 20 feet at
this architectural feature; majority of the building looks to be lower. Is that correct?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah, well, this is a little confusing. That right there reads the maximum building
height is 30 feet, but the actual height is — to the highpoint there is 20 feet, 4.5 inches.
Kic
Mr. Lord: Right, but most of this building (inaudible).
Mr. Ventura: Everything else is ... yeah, we have one highpoint and that ... what we're looking to
do is allow for fire truck access and if we did raise that covered area up—
Mr. Lord: So the majority of the building is below 20 feet?
Mr. Ventura: Yes. Majority of the building is probably a good couple feet below that, or more.
Ms. Ahuna: Are we asking questions now, or no?
Chair Keawe: Yeah, you can ask him related to this part of the presentation.
Ms. Ahuna: Are there wahine and kane facilities, or-- ?
Mr. Ventura: That's a really good question. The way we've designed this for the residential
component of the building is ... I've got one (1) overall building. These are actually all developed
full size, so there are available detailed images of the schematic design. But if you look at the
building here, we basically have the right side, which is four (4) beds will be dedicated to the
wahine and the other side will be for the men. In the middle of this, we have our sort of staff
area which has a small kitchenette and study area and a television, kind of a common area.
We've got a center corridor that goes through which is really going to be kind of our control
point and there's multi -bathrooms on both sides of this area. Not only do we have sort of a
communal type bathroom, but we also have individual unisex bathrooms on each side. These
could be for a pregnant woman, for transgender clients, anybody that needs more privacy,
perhaps, is all available. As a matter of fact, throughout the facility, our strategy... except for in
the residential area where we have a larger sort of communal bathroom facilities, we have
individual unisex bathrooms spread throughout the facility. So it's really ... we're getting away
from the whole ... where just every bathroom is kind of an individual bathroom. I think we have
seven (7) on-site, plus each of the men's and women's sides there are three (3) stalls and three
(3) showers in there.
Ms. Apisa: Are there two (2) beds per room?
Mr. Ventura: Two (2) beds per room, yes; all handicapped accessible. The idea, again, is if
there is ... it's always numbers — how many beds — but we'd like to be able to dedicate one (1)
bed to an individual if we need to do that. So again, we can add another four (4) bedrooms pretty
easily on either side and accommodate that.
Mr. Lord: So Marc, if you reach full capacity and with the expansion of that small area, like you
said an additional ten (10) or fifteen (15) clients, is there another area that that building could
expand?
Mr. Ventura: We can expand up ... yeah, well, if we kept it sort of balanced, we do have a small
sort of individual study space in there so I think we could expand probably up to twelve (12)
bedrooms if we wanted to, and then we could ... we have plenty of land on property if we wanted
31
to extend further we could; we'd have to redesign it. We designed these rooflines as simple
gable ends, so relatively cost-effectively, we could ... we'd have to add all walls and foundation,
but it's a very efficient, general core design — dormitory style so we could pretty easily add if
the need were to arise. Keeping in mind, though, that as that clientele rises, the support staffing
requirements also will rise, so we've kind of designed those for a little bit more of a future
expansion right now. I think we can accommodate a fair amount more of that.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Since you're serving both drug addiction as well as mental health, are
you separating them out in any way? Or how is that going to be working out?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Why don't you let Theresa answer questions about program because I'm a
planner and he's an architect, and you really don't want to hear our expertise in this matter.
(Laughter in background)
Chair Keawe: So we'll reserve our questions to architectural questions first.
Mr. Ventura: That's a good question though.
Ms. Ahuna: Marc, you said there's that shared space. Is that like a halau (inaudible)?
Mr. Ventura: This is like a large ... so we went to Oahu. We went to ... there were these just
large, open areas where they were actually doing all kinds of activities. You're talking about this
big covered area, yeah?
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, so is that like a big halau space?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: Like big place where they can do arts and crafts or whatever?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah, arts and crafts. I was going to say canoe building is what they were doing
on Oahu.
Ms. Ahuna: Hula.
Mr. Ventura: Hula, all that stuff. Family gatherings. They could have luaus here. I mean,
there's all kinds of...but yeah, that's the intent of that space; just a large, open, covered area. We
want to get them outside as well. Part of the program requirement was really to provide the sort
of outdoor areas where they could get outside. This is—
Ms. Ahuna: I guess my concern would just be the kane and the wahine being so close together in
a residential treatment center. Culturally, we wouldn't mix the two.
32
Mr. Ventura: That's a really good point. That's really about staff control, I think. I mean, that's
how we're kind of addressing that now. So this will be staffed 24/7, more so at night when
they're ... I mean, the whole facility will be—
Ms. Ahuna: We're talking like youth, you know?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: Teenagers.
Mr. Ventura: Well, we're going to have alarms set up. I mean, we really don't want to have this
big, high -security feel for the place, but we do plan on having secure windows and cameras at
these control points at the door, so we'll be able to see whose coming and going; that's really the
plan. And that whoever is manning this overnight is ... we're going to shift out and have those
people ... they're fully aware of that and they're going to be paying attention. That's the plan.
Somebody will always be there paying attention to that; that's as the plan is now
Chair Keawe: Marc, who's going to be handling the operational part of your presentation? We
have a lot of questions about the operation itself.
Mr. Ventura: Yeah, good question. That's—
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. We'll reserve those, let you go through yours first, and then we'll
let the planner go, and then we'd like to talk to the person that's actually going to run the facility.
Mr. Ventura: Okay. I'm going to take this off. I can bring—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Before you get off of that one, could I ask one more question? It looks
like if you're in the residential area and you need to go to the dining room, you have to go
outside to get to the dining room. Is that correct?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah, for half of the facility, you would have to, but we do have a covered
walkway area to get over there. From the ... probably the women's side, you will be able to go
out through a covered area, protected to get to the dining room, which is over here.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Which would then go through the kitchen before you get to the dining
room?
Mr. Ventura: No, no. A direct shot to the dining room. So you come down ... the kitchen is
there, but you wrap around and come in to the dining room. They'll have a separate entry point
at the dining room.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert, did he answer your question?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry. Yes, thank you.
13
Mr. Ventura: Okay. If more questions come up, I'll pop these boards right back up.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Oh, I do have one more question. I'm sorry.
Mr. Ventura: Okay, go ahead.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I think treatment also includes educational programs and training, not
just in the agriculture but all over the place. So if you're in the residential program, then the
training rooms are all the way on the other side of the building. Is that correct?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: No. For the clients in the residential program, the actual educational classes
can be right there near their area.
Mr. Ventura: There is a classroom dedicated for that.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: The other classroom area could be for them, but it also could be for outpatients.
It also can be for mental health trainers.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So you would have two (2) separate trainers or two (2) separate
educators at all times?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: There would be one (1) person from DOE there for the residential program.
Any other would depend on how the... basically how the program develops.
Mr. Ventura: That was something that they really stressed. You want maximum separation in
that, so hence, we're completely on opposite sides of the facility for that.
This is a graphic that sort of depicts an overview of what the building looks like and the
components of this. It's set onto a blow up of Google Earth, so Maalo Road comes back in here.
Here's this existing cane haul road. That is a shrimp farm; it's just off of the electric power plant
over there. But this kind of generally shows how this slopes down. There's the taro lo`i. What
we're looking at is a terrace gardening area and then the drainage basin over here.
Okay, and this is the final image here. This is sort of a 3D rendering of what the facility would
look like as you come to the entry point. This is the large, covered, open area. The
administrative center here. This is the assessment area. Each of these areas have covered,
protected entry points that are separate. The support services area, and then the kitchen and
loading are back to this side, and the residential is to the back and the classroom to the back.
And that, for the most part, concludes my presentation. So any other questions we can
(inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Any other questions for Marc Ventura`?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: What kind of security do you have for both the residents, as well as for
people who are outside who may want to come in?
34
Mr. Ventura: That's a very good question and somebody will ... but let me take a ... just briefly, a
comment on that. This is something that we've gone back and forth on; do we put a fence, how
big of a fence, do we put a 6 -foot fence, a 10 -foot fence, or the barbed wire. We don't really feel
we can be all that effective with a fence; although we are planning on, perhaps, a perimeter fence
to keep the pigs out so we can have our agricultural adrift. If we do fence it, as far as the entry
goes, that will not be under fence. We've got some infrastructure items - water meter - that will
be on an easement, so this whole parking side will be open. If we fence it, we are going to come
across, probably on the sides here with gates to allow for circulation throughout. The focal point
of our ... at least from an architectural standpoint for us is really to secure this overnight
residential facility. During the daytime, most of the clientele will be with groups of counselors
and that kind of thing. Well, within the building here, as I mentioned before, all of our entry
points will be alarmed and so they'll know if a door is breached or if a window is breached, and
they'll be keeping an eye on them. So our idea to really be effective on that is to sort of manage
the overnight clientele and make sure that they are under control. These are not criminals; they
are young children. You guys know that, but—and we're trying to—again, we don't want a
feel ... and this was something that a lot of the members of various operations and the panel that
we worked with in developing the program talked about to have more of a natural setting but
certainly secure. The other thing is landscaping. So we are considering maybe bougainvillea or
just having a fake hedge around, perhaps, a low fence that will really discourage people from
going on the run, and then we're quite a ways away from the neighboring communities.
Ms. NoRami Streufert: I'm also thinking not just of the people who are there, but also people
who might be selling drugs from the outside.
Mr. Ventura: Yeah, good point.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And how do you protect people who are trying to get off drugs from
something like that because that may be part of the issue here.
Mr. Ventura: That's a good point. Something we've talked -
Ms. Nogami Streufert: For security.
Mr. Ventura: Yeah. We've talked to the Police Department. I know that -
Mr. Kirkpatrick: I would simply point out the residential area is really separate from people
coming in for other reasons. Can we assure that nobody could come in from outside and pass
something to somebody in the residential area? No. Management and management of people's
cell phones and things like that will obviously have to be part of the whole treatment program.
But the point is to have a very controlled environment, but it also should be a healthy and
positive environment which is why every time we think about fencing we go, uhh, this is not a
prison, and also, fencing isn't terribly effective because we're talking about people who can high
jump.
Anything more on the architecture?
35
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Motion sensors or anything like that?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Motion sensors are -
Ms. Nogaini Streufert: Rather than a fence. Would that work?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Well, look at the size of this area. We're talking about motion sensors at
the... basically at the doors. We're talking about having staff watching them when the kids are
outside. There will be a very close and good relationship with the Police Department as needed.
The Police Department has been part of the planning of this all the way along. Really, the
answer is yes, there may be some high-tech elements. I don't want to prescribe them. You can
try. And whoever is managing this will have their own additional thoughts.
Mr. Ventura: I also think it's ... and I'd also like to note that if a kid comes in and they are an
extremely problem kid, I mean, they may come into assessment and from the start, if they are not
being handled, they're gone; they're going to take them out. They're not going to bring them in
if it's extremely initially noticeable at least that's how I understand it problem kid who is out
of control, which is not the kind of people I think we're looking for. But if we had somebody
that was dangerous, they are not going to be brought into the facility as I understand it.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: The treatment components were developed after consulting with medical and
mental health professionals, others in treatment, and recovery fields. As I say, everybody from
social workers and psychologists through the police and through people at Wilcox Hospital have
given us a great deal of input. Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Adolescent Treatment and
Healing Center was formed. We keep on talking about this as the Blue Ribbon Panel. This
really is the set of people who really had the mana`o we needed. Committee members and the
staff from the Mayor's Administration visited treatment agencies throughout the State and held
community meetings throughout the island. The Blue Ribbon Panel has worked together with
the Hanamd'ulu Community to gather input and address any concerns because we were very
aware of the security issue as being potentially a neighborhood issue that we wanted to do our
best to help people on.
Chair Keawe left the meeting at 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: The County will not be running it itself. The County will select a qualified
vendor to oversee the components of the center's operation through a competitive request for
proposal process. This is the kind of thing where you have professionals and you also have
oversight on behalf of the County by other professionals. Theresa Koki, who's with me here, is
the Life's Choices Coordinator for Kauai and she's here to answer any questions about
operations and treatment and the like.
I have a couple more things to say about how we're doing at responding to questions from the
departments. but why don't I turn this over to Theresa who knows all and can answer your
questions about treatment and operations.
36
Life's Choices Kauai Coordinator Theresa Koki: Thank you. Good morning. Is it still
morning? Good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Theresa Koki. I'm the Life's
Choices Kauai Coordinator. We are grateful for, first of all, Grove Farm for donating the five
(5) acres of land which we now own and also the Hanama`ulu Community Association and it's
community who has welcomed us with open arms. They have submitted a letter that we've been
keeping them abreast of everything. Also, we couldn't have done this without the funding from
the Governor, State Legislator that put it in the package, our Administrative team, our Blue
Ribbon Panel, and also our County Council. Thank you so much for this opportunity today. I'm
not sure if you want me to just do a brief overview of what the facility will entail and then you
ask me questions or ... what's the pleasure of the Commission?
Mr. Ho: Give us your overview of it.
Ms. Koki: Okay. We first started out with identifying the gaps in services for both youth and
adults. It was of the medical and treatment professionals that some adults need to go off -island
and get away from the devastating things that they created for their families, but we felt that the
youth should heal here with ... as you've heard earlier that nobody wakes up at age 21 and says
I'm going to be a drug addict and wreak havoc on society. They start at age 11, 12
experimenting with whatever their feeling; some of them have trauma. We have this evidence -
based thing called ACEs, which is scoring of what you give a child of what they incurred by age
10. In fact, our youngest drug addict was age 8 that was in the Emergency Room at Wilcox
Hospital with a drug overdose of methamphetamine. So the more curious they get, the more they
are exposed to, then ... you know, it starts from a young age. All of our adult addicts that we
work with have admitted that they have used from when they were in their teenage years. Here
at the facility, the gap in service we are trying to fill is an integrated treatment and healing center
with the capacity to provide a comprehensive, collaborative, community-based, clinically sound,
culturally appropriate, and family -centered infrastructure for the delivery of mental health and
substance abuse issues and related support services to the adolescents. Later on, our vision
became larger than just the residential beds. We thought if we move some services to its ... the
whole continuum, so we start with an assessment center where we've never had before except for
individual agencies if you call them, they'll do an assessment but this is one place where any
parent can drop off their teen if they have suspected use, doctors can refer, including our School
Resource Officers or any Kauai Police Department Officers on the street that can bring in the
kids and have them assessed. They might not have to go to residential. They could go to
outpatient services there. They might have to go to the YWCA for anger management, which is
off -property, but we have a whole collaboration of people who said they would move to the
center as well as other people who still wants to be involved. So community-based is what I
want to stress that it'll be a whole continuum of services that no matter what the child is
experiencing, whether it's substance abuse or even the mental health aspect of it, that they can
come to this center which is created for them in a holistic approach; a community. It's like a
second house for them. The importance I want to stress in this ... we are going to put it in a
request for proposal to a professional person who runs treatment centers and the family
component is going to be mandatory; whether the family has to be involved in the treatment of
the child, whether the family themselves need help. Also, there will be a big aftercare
component where whatever the individual child while he's going through recovery -- wants to
experience, we'll call ... if he wants to do football, she wants to do cheerleading, she wants to
17
volunteer, they want to go to KCC already, you know, we'll have them with all of that resources,
including the family, the coach, the teacher. We have a promise from Bill Arakaki, our District
Superintendent, that there will be a teacher that they will be paying for and providing in the
classroom for the residential section. The additional classroom, we're still looking at having that
for education for people who are or want to become substance abuse counselors or want to
continue and we can work with the college here, distance learning, as well as have meetings for
the staff, and the other people that are in the outpatient services can use that classroom as well
for their trainings.
Chair Keawe returned to the meeting at 11:45 a.m.
Ms. Koki: Also, the agriculture component is a big thing with the taro lo`i where healing is a
cultural practice where parents will come and plant taro with their children. It might not be the
same family harvesting, but it's a whole healing aspect. We want to have them participate in the
DOE structure, the calendar, everything, and also the entrepreneur opportunities where they are
going to be farming farm to table -- and giving their families nutritious things from their
garden, doing Kauai Made products, and even with the certified kitchen, they can do jams,
jellies, and become self-sufficient. The culinary arts program will be big in that aspect. The kids
will be participating in making lunches and having it sold to the staff that are there on the
property itself for a minimal price so they can learn how to take care of that and the people don't
have to leave the buildings to go off property to get lunch and stuff, or dinner. The residential
section is away from the outpatient services because we want that to be a quiet area; that's why
the second classroom is down lower where they can use that even if the kids are ... it's in the
evening and they have classes there that they can utilize those buildings that won't be
interrupting the students. In the middle of the residential area concerning the boys and girls,
there will be awake leaders; one (1) adult per four (4) kids in that area. A couple to take care of
the boys if it's full to capacity and a couple to take care of the girls. Any questions?
IVIS. Nogami Streufert: For the day program...I'm sorry.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert, go ahead.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: For the day program, is this just for teens, also? Or is this for adults?
Ms. Koki: I'm not sure if you know, but the day treatment program in schools were cutoff
because of funding, but we're looking into other funding opportunities from the Juvenile
Justice... Federal government for funding because when you get caught with drugs on campus,
you get suspended for ninety (90) days. Teachers usually don't prepare lessons for ninety (90)
days, they cannot access the campus because they're suspended off property, and also they can
go after school if they even can be brought there at 2 o'clock to access the Hina Mauka treatment
services, so it's a situation where if they come to school during the day there if they're
suspended, they can still get their treatment services there as well.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Do you anticipate, then, having transportation for these kids?
Ms. Koki: Yes.
38
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. So there will be transportation on that road going to and from?
Ms. Koki: We will probably get a couple of vans for that. The first time we went to Salt Pond,
which the community opposed and we had to ... we used the grants to get some vans for the Hina
Mauka Teen Care because we could transfer the grant there, so we're looking at getting a couple
of vans for the transportation. They are going to be on a reward system as they progress, so they
will be able to go to field trips and do more cultural activities out with the public, community
service, they'll do beach trips, so we'd like to be able to transport them in an unmarked van to
several ... I mean, the Bobby Benson Treatment Center, I believe, and the Marimed Center on
Oahu both participate in the George White canoe races up there. They just have a shirt; nobody
knows who they are. They're in an unmarked vehicle. They participate like normal kids and
that's why we want them to get integrated back into their culture, their families, and the
community.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Thank you. One of the prior testifiers had mentioned that he thought that the program
would be full immediately. Was there a capacity analysis done?
Ms. Koki: Yes. We did a feasibility study. It was in 2010, I believe. The Blue Ribbon Panel
and experts in treatment and medical services did not fully agree with the results, neither did the
judiciary. By the time the study was done `til today, I think one other person said we studying,
we keep studying, we keep studying, and in the meantime, I can actually tell you that ten (10)
kids took their life because of drug addiction since Mayor Baptiste. There is at least one or two
every year. The study actually came out to say no girls, just boys, seven (7) beds, and we have to
secure funding, which is an illegal procurement. It's a violation if we do that first, but we have
been talking to the Department of Health. The Mayor and I visit the prison every six (6) months.
We see more women in there, incarcerated than men now. We see levels of families -
grandfather, father, son — in the prison. As soon as they are 18, that's where you put the kids. In
our discussion with the judges, they said that ... 16 and 17 year old boys were in the feasibility
study. They said that's really too late because they start in judiciary for a long time. The Family
Court judges themselves had said that ... first of all, the Native Hawaiian population is the highest
and we are still trying to figure that out. The judges say they send them to Oahu Youth
Correctional Facility. There are two (2); there's a detention home and the Hawaii Youth
Correctional Facility. They leave our Kauai kids there longer because there is no place for them
to come back to; no family treatment component as a whole. So we feel that, again, this will fill
a gap in service and be ... so yes, we did have a feasibility study, but some experts did not ... and
they were interviewed, but not all of that information came out as they believe it to be and to be
today.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Can I add a little bit to that?
Mr. Lord: Yeah.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: We started out focusing on residential treatment because that was clearly a gap,
but the more the Blue Ribbon Committee has discussed this, the more there's been outreach to
39
the professionals and to the people who care, including the prison and the police and the schools.
It's clear that assessment leading to smart treatment options is going to be very important.
Residential is one of the treatment options and it's probably rarely the first option. Is that fair
enough? So yes, there is space being identified for residential treatment, there's space for
assessment, there's space that can be used by clinical practitioners for outpatient treatment. Also
keep in mind that we're looking at a situation in which insurance coverage is hopefully six (6)
months sometimes it's less - and after treatment, after care, family involvement are things that
have to happen for healing.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: No, I just wanted to say "Mahalo, Theresa" for all your guys' work because the
cultural approach to this is very, very important. The day treatment... when I was in the DOE,
my husband and I, but he ran the day treatment at Kauai High under Kelly Knudsen and we had
high levels of youth in that, but we also worked it with - and Uncle Sean Chun was a part of this
- with Ho`ola Lahui Hawaii where we ran an afterschool and in -school program where we took
the kids out into the lo`i and worked the farms, and they took that food that they produced home.
It was very, very successful. So having this on our land, on Kauai, is awesome and that you're
taking that approach to get them back onto the `aina and learning who they are, and like you said,
there is a high rate of Native Hawaiians, so mahalo. I think this is great; you know, some small
tweaking here and there, or adding to the curriculum part of it. I'm glad to hear that
Superintendent Arakaki is on board and putting that school-based behavioral health part is really
important because it's not really about the residential, it's getting our kids on that prevention
before they hit residential. The volume should be there on the other side versus the residential.
Ms. Koki: Thank you very much for mentioning that and also for your and your husband's
contribution to our keiki and the future.
Chair Keawe: I have a question for the planner. The projected cost for construction.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: You really should ask an architect about that. (Laughter) But the projected
cost is in the range of $5 million+. We start off from the Legislature having identified $5 million
for this project.
Chair Keawe: Marc, is it going to be funded by a legislative grant? That's number one.
Number two, what about the maintenance of the facility and ongoing costs? How are those
funded long-term?
Mr. Kirkpatrick: The ongoing cost, she's going to speak to because that (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Okay. That's fine.
Mr. Ventura: I'll speak to the construction cost. Right now, $5 million, as I understand it, has
been secured for the project. The program ... it's been a moving target in developing the program
as well as the size, and it's kind of gone more, more, more, so our initial budget was $5 million
for 10,000 square feet; we are at about 16,000 square feet now. Our current estimates are a little
no]
over $6 million. We do have strategies in place ... we're actually looking for additional funding,
but the way we are going to approach this and the way we've designed this for flexibility will
allow us to value (inaudible) down to get to that target range—
Chair Keawe: Like a lot of government projects, you start off at "x" amount and then it never
ends up there. There are always change orders or other things that come in. So you've got a
secured grant for $5 million, you're still looking at $6 (million) now and you haven't even
started yet. Right?
Mr. Ventura: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Ventura: But, we know how to get to the $5 (million). (Laughter)
Chair Keawe: (Laughter) You are going to need more than $5 million.
Mr. Ventura: Right, right.
Chair Keawe: Okay. I don't know if you covered this while I was out. These are under 17 years
old as far as the typical clients that would come to the treatment center. Do you have kind of a
real quick profile that would give us an idea of the typical person you work with? Because we're
not talking about hardened criminals here. We're talking about individuals that are addicted to
drugs for whatever reason and then coming through the system. So do you have kind of an
individual profile and give us some idea of what you're dealing with on a daily basis?
Ms. Koki: We're going to service the adolescent ages 12 to 18; that's what DOE takes. You can
be a senior and be 18. We're not taking any felons, any sex offenders, any dangerous people.
They all have facilities for them on Oahu. So we can have a typical person who, perhaps, is
self -medicating with marijuana, alcohol because they have a mental health disorder that hasn't
been diagnosed, like bipolar or something, or we could have someone who is on
methamphetamine who has drug-induced bipolar now. It's either you had the mental health and
you self -medicate or you did drugs and then you have mental health disorders. A lot of our
adults and even teens have to take medication for the rest of their life once they're in recovery.
Some of the kids are doing recreational drugs. They don't have to live at the facility. They can
just do outpatient services, continue to go to their regular school. So its kids with mental health
and substance abuse order. Sometimes it can be double; dual diagnosis, they have both.
Chair Keawe: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other questions for any of the applicants? Okay,
thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Chair Keawe and members of the—
Chair Keawe: Yeah, go ahead.
41
Mr. Kirkpatrick: I just wanted to add that the various departments identified what they wanted to
see and the various conditions, and the County accepts those conditions and is working to fulfill
them. For example, external lights on the facility will be downward facing and shielded; Best
Management Practices will be taken to minimize erosion, dust, and sedimentation during
construction; County and Grove Farm have worked out an agricultural water agreement to
reduce any use of potable water. We have also taken a drainage plan to the County and have
submitted water calculations to the Department of Water and the Department of Water has given
conditional approval for the meter that was requested. So basically, the conditions that were put
before us by the departments were sensible conditions and we're doing our best to meet them.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Mike, can you go over the Department's recommendation, please?
Mr. Dahilig: Sure. Given the body of evidence that has been submitted both through
questioning and the testimony, as well as the submittals today, we do conclude and would
recommend to the Commission that the proposed facility is consistent with the standards of
issuance of a Use Permit. Class TV Zoning Permit, and a Special Permit within the Agricultural
district. We do not find that there should be any adverse impacts to the enviroiunent or
detrimental effects to persons or property in the surrounding area and would recommend
approval of the three (3) permits. We are recommending eleven (11) conditions to be attached to
those permits as part of the proposal. Based off of the representation from the applicant, it
appears that they do not have any objections to the eleven (11) conditions that the Department is
proposing as part of this, so we would recommend approval, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioners, any more questions for the applicants or for the
Department?
Mr. Lord: I have one (1) question.
Chair Keawe: Yes, Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Marc, the water source for the ag, is that through Grove Farm? Is that non -potable
water?
Mr. Ventura: That's correct. (Inaudible)
Mr. Lord: And that will service the lo`i?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Ventura: Basically, all -
Mr. Lord: All of your ag needs. Okay. Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
42
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, I move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-10, Use Permit U-
2017-8, and Special Permit SP -2017-4 to allow for a substance abuse treatment and healing
center for adolescents.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this motion?
Mr. Mahoney: I'd just like to say one thing. Not often sitting on these commissions do you hear
collaboration and cooperation from the State level; the County level; Grove Farm; a flexible,
good design from the architects and planners; and such community support for something that's
been needed for a long time. "Bravo" to all those that got that together to make this happen. It's
just something that we need desperately and I think it's going to be a great asset to our
community.
Chair Keawe: So we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote)
Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Good job guys.
Mr. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Commissioners.
Ms. Koki: Thank you so much.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We are going to take a lunch break and we will be back at 1:15 p.m.
Thank you.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 12:04 p.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 1:14 p.m.
Chair Keawe: Call the meeting back to order, please.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2017-3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -
2017 -11, Use Permit U-2017-9 to allow additions to the existing Coral Reef Hotel that
includes (4) hotel units, two (2) apartment -hotel units, and associated site improvements,
and Variance Permit V-2017-4 to allow deviations from several requirements of the
Kauai County Code (1987), including Section 8-13.1 relating to Nonconforming
Buildings & Structures, Section 8-13.2 relating to Nonconforming Uses, Sections 8-
9.2(a) & (b) relating to Open District Development Standards, for a parcel located on the
makai side of Kuhio Highway in Kapa` a Town, further identified as 4-1516 Kuhio
Highway, Tax Map Key 4-5-011:046, and containing a total area of 0.592 acres = Pixar
Development, LLC. [Director's Report received 5.9/17.1
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, we are on Item F.2.b. for action. This is Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U)-2017-3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-11, Use Permit U-2017-9, and
Variance Permit V-2017-4 at TMK 4-5-011 Parcel 046. Applicant is Pixar Development, LLC.
43
Mr. Chair. there was one (1) individual that had elected to testify at the agenda matter; that was
Rayne Regush. That would be appropriate at this time.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Rayne, come forward, please.
Rayne Regush: Good afternoon, Commissioners and Chair. Rayne Regush for the record. I'm
here today providing comments on behalf of the Wailua-Kapa`a Neighborhood Association for
which I chair. We understand the urgency for Hotel Coral Reef to make these improvements so
that they can secure their land lease extension with the State to continue their operations;
however, I wanted to point out to the Commissioners that the draft EA did include grossly
misrepresented conclusions by the former hotel GM who WKNA - the Association -- had invited
to present the project at our public meeting, and that was in June 2015. The numerical tally of
people supporting the project that he provided was blatantly inflated and those who did offer
positive comments about the hotel, they never specifically referenced the project's third story.
We all like this hotel. It's the third story that is controversial. He also implied in his conclusions
that WKNA favored the project, which was wrong as well.
So what we're concerned about is increasing resort density on leased land that does not have
County Resort zoning; the zoning is Open. Also, the third story expansion will more than double
the height of the existing building, which we feel is not compatible with the aesthetics and
characteristics of the Special Management Area. We prefer that the hotel retain its unobtrusive,
low profile particularly because it's located on public land and it's in an environment where
residents seek respite from the hustle and bustle of the commercial corridor of Kapa`a Town.
It's a place to really enjoy uncluttered views, both mauka and makai. It's also a neighborhood
surrounded primarily by one- and two-story structures, the Kapa`a Library, Kountry Kitchen, the
canal.
The property is already nonconforming and expanding its nonconforming use is inconsistent with
permitted uses in the CZO Open district and the Special Planning Area designation of the
Kapa`a-Wailua Development Plan. I think rapid growth development of Kapa`a Town over
these decades is the result of granting Use Permits and Variance Permits that allow for
unnecessary deviations from the standards required by law. Recently, in fact, Sunday -
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Regush: I'm closing.
Chair Keawe: Can you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Regush: Thank you, Chair. Recently, this Sunday, we had an initial meeting with Mr.
Harrah and Mr. Bobo. They expressed a willingness to redesign the split hip roof and lower the
roof height to a 6/12 hip roof; that does bring it down about 5 feet. We also discussed mitigation
measures from a historic preservation perspective whereby we're looking at the Kapa`a Stone
Lantern monument in the beach park which now needs professional cleaning and repainting and
reinstallation of a replacement glass ball on top, so it's been about ten (10) years, almost ten (10)
44
years since that restoration. Commissioners, please give your attention to these foregoing
concerns. Mahalo.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Regush: Any questions?
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Regush: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Are there any other individuals willing to testify on this item or wanting to testify
on this item? Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Dahili&. Okay, Mr. Chair. Again, just to go over what is before the Commission this
afternoon, there are four (4) permits that are being proposed for entertainment and suggested
approval by the Department, and that's a Special Management Area Permit, a Class IV Zoning
Permit, a Use Permit, and a Variance Permit. I want the Commission to pay particular attention
to the fact that this is a Variance Permit as the variance standards as outlined in the Director's
Report are going to become critical to the Commissioners' analysis on whether or not this is a
deviation from the Zoning Code that is warranted based off of its standards and the equitable
description that is laid out pursuant to the Code.
What is being proposed is the alteration of a structure that was built in 1966.. The structure in
1966 ... that date is important because it was constructed before the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance was placed into effect. In as much as construction of a hotel may or may not have
spatially been warranted, it was put there before there were any type of spatial regulations by the
County to regulate where particular uses go, so this is something that has been pretty much an
established use there at that site for over fifty (50) years.
What has been mentioned by Ms. Regush in her testimony is that the application came to us as a
consequence of a renegotiated lease between the operator and the State of Hawaii, Department
of Land and Natural Resources.
Mr. Lord: I have a question. So the Open zoning was put onto that property after the fact?
Mr. Dahilig: After the fact.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: So the Open zoning was placed after the fact.
The lease that was executed between the operator and the State, Department of Land and Natural
Resources has, in effect, necessitated this application to the Planning Commission because they
are now obligated to provide funds to improve the property and promote its competitiveness as a
45
facility in that area. So that lease is and was included as part of the materials that was submitted
to the Commissioners as part of the report that was transmitted two (2) weeks ago.
Wllat they are proposing is the addition of a third story. The third story would be on the lot in
question and that is Lot No. 46. The hotel consists of three (3) lots as an aggregate, but for the
purposes of analysis for this particular application, only Lot (No.) 46 is being analyzed and that
particular area for the lot is 0.59 acres, and that is going to come into play when I recount how
we arrived at the decision on whether the density being proposed is equitable or not. This
application to go to a third story on a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use is
highly unusual. I want to impress upon the Commissioners that the Variance Permit that is being
requested is simply to do that; to vary from the nonconforming structure and the nonconforming
use statute, as well as the current use statute, as well as the current zoning maps that are in play.
I want to make no mistake that this particular request is asking for a myriad of variances from the
Code that were disclosed as part of the public notice that was read earlier this morning. What
they are asking to do is to add a total of four (4) hotel units, as well as two (2) apartment -hotel
units. Why that is key is because in the density calculations, the hotel units count for half a
density when you're looking at dwelling units. The ones with kitchens, or the apartment -hotel
units, count for one (1) density. Currently, there are sixteen (16) hotel units in the structure and
the addition of these four (4) units, or six (6) if you want to look at it that way, would bring the
total up to a level that is comparative to the density in not adjacent but in the immediate
vicinity of resort areas that have been designated RR -20. RR -20 zoning currently is in, most
closest, at the Pono Kai Resort and that is an example of an area that is built to RR -20. We
believe that at least the density proposal that is being put forth is equitable to what the density is
allowed for existing resort uses up and down Kuhi6 Highway in that stretch of Kapa`a Town.
Let me go through the standards of review just so that we are clear from a Commission analysis
standpoint where everything lies. Let me start first with the use evaluation. Again, as in the
previous permit, the use must be compatible, it must not be detrimental to persons or property in
the area, it must not cause substantial environmental consequences, and it must not be
inconsistent with the intent of the CZO and the General Plan. Now, as we go through all four
(4), we believe the hotel usage from an expansion standpoint is compatible. It's an existing hotel
operation. You are just adding rooms to the existing hotel operation. It is not a new use. From a
compatibility test, we believe that that is okay. When it comes to being detrimental to persons or
property in the area, again, we are looking at the addition of six (6) doors. I'll put it that way just
to make it simpler. Six (6) doors; two (2) apartment -hotel, four (4) regular hotel rooms. The
addition of six (6) doors to that particular property, we do not believe is going to be to a scale
that would exacerbate any type of environmental conditions in that area. And that leads to the
third point. There was a FONSI that was issued back in 2015 that the Department of Land and
Natural Resources did accept that reflected the State's belief that there was no significant
environmental impacts that needed any further study or disclosure. The FONSI that was issued
by the Department of Land and Natural Resources in 2015 was not challenged by anyone via a
lawsuit to the Circuit Court, so it's a standing FONSI. Now with respect to being inconsistent
with the intent of the CZO and the General Plan, it is inconsistent with the spatial policy in the
CZO. But when you look at the General Plan and the accompanying Kapa`a-Wailua
Development Plan, this area is earmarked as a resort. So we believe that there is enough
evidence to meet the fourth point of the test that relates to it being consistent with overall general
46
policy of the County. Again, the General Plan was last amended back in 2000. The map that
this is inconsistent with is a map from 1972. So keep those items in mind.
Let me, next, go to the Variance Permit standards and I want you to pay particular attention to
the variance standards because this is what, essentially, is the permission to deviate from the
Code. One, are there special circumstances including shape, size, topography, location, or
surroundings that would necessitate a varying from the Code? Is there by strict application of
regulations a deprivation of the property of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity? Will granting the variance result in harm to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or harmful environmental consequences? Or, and if those three (3) conditions
were found to not create an impact, the variance shall be a minimum departure from the existing
regulations necessary to avoid the deprivation of privileges enjoyed by other property to
facilitate a reasonable use. Just for the Commissioners' sake, if you want to follow along, that's
on page 807 of the PDF; in terms of the four (4) standards. So again, special circumstances, is an
equity item, is it going to cause harm to the area, and what is proposed, is that a very big
deviation from what they are asking for. We believe, after looking at the situation, this is a
special circumstance. As taxpayers within the State, we have an interest in ensuring that those
assets that are held by the State government are at a level that allows them to be maintained
properly and also remain in good upkeep. Like it or not, the conditions in the resort market have
changed over the past fifty (50) years; whereas a hotel that was very small, but also had a
business model that may have worked back in the 60s, these days may not be able to yield the
same result. So what we are concerned about is that special circumstance where an asset of the
State may fall into an antiquated state and may not be able to sustain itself and maintain proper
upkeep. We believe that that does fall under the special circumstance category. Now, it doesn't
lead to an irregular size, shape, topography, or location, but we feel that that fact concerning
what and where this asset is is a special circumstance. We also look at, again, the privileges that
are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, and that's key going back to my earlier comment
when we're looking at RR -20 as being the resort density standard up and down that corridor of
Kuhio Highway by other hotels. This property, due to its grandfathered status, is not able to
operate as a resort to the level of density that has been, I guess, afforded to other properties in the
immediate vicinity of that particular property. As stated previously under the use condition
standards, we do not think that the addition of six (6) doors is going to create an environmental
consequence that would lead to an injurious state in that area. And stated previously again, the
amount of density that would be proposed in this third story would not exceed an RR -20
calculation, so we are not going to be deviating from the Code that would be beyond an RR -20
item. So we feel that the 4 -point test laid out under the variance standard is sufficient.
We now move on to SMA Use considerations, and again, this is of particular interest because the
SMA Use considerations are of importance when looking at compatibility with the form and
character of the use of an area within the coastal zone. You heard comments concerning the hip
roof and whether or not that roof pitch is too high. That is a consideration for the Commission to
take a look at in the evaluation of the SMA Permit, but essentially, there are six (6) standards
under the SMA Permit regime that need to be considered by the Commission; whether there are
impacts to cultural and historic resources, whether there are impacts to coastal hazards, whether
there are impacts to scenic and open space resources, whether there are impacts to public access
to coastal recreational resources, whether there are impacts to the coastal ecosystems, or whether
47
there are impacts to the coastal economy. Let me start off with cultural and historic resources.
This area was historically a commercialized area. Going back to the time of sugar, when sugar
was king in the islands, this area was immediately adjacent to the railroad system, the wharf
system that helped deliver the sugar cane from that area, so it does have some degree of
significant historic and cultural resource. There are two (2) railroad bridges across in the
Mo`ikeha canal that is adjacent to the property. Both of those bridges served the pineapple and
sugar industries from the late 20s through the 60s and one of those bridges was modified to
accommodate the Ke Ala llele Makalae, the bike path. The addition of a third story, we do not
believe is going to affect any of those cultural or historic resources in the area. They are not
proposing additional trenching, which would be a 6E concern for us. They are not digging, so
that...digging into the sand is always of concern to us. Because they are not digging in the
sands, they were able to get a clearance from the State Historic Preservation Division as part of
the FONSI that was issued back in 2015.
Mr. Lord: So Chair, the additional structure can sit on top of the existing building footprint?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes. And I can get into that later on, but just as a response, the current structure
was designed for the addition of a third story.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: So that is ... from a structural standpoint as well as an accommodation standpoint,
that was what was planned.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: With respect to coastal hazards, the second point of the SMA test, the area can be
subject to extreme coastal hazards. The coastal erosion study does have that area at 0.07 feet a
year. However, the probability of this area falling within a coastal flood ... it does designate it as
an AE area, which means that there is a one percent probability of a 100 -year flood impacting the
structure. We take it one step further as part of the analysis to look at okay, what does the flood
look like? The base flood elevation for the area is 8 feet, so this addition to the structure would
be well -above the 8 -foot limit. However, for them to maintain compliance with the County's
Flood Program, they have to meet certain standards with respect to the valuation of the addition,
so they are responsible for making sure — independently of this - that they are going to be able to
meet those floodplain standards to ensure compliance with the County's Flood Code. The third
point of the test with respect to scenic and open resources, this will not negatively impact the
open space resources on the property. With respect to scenic views, the height limitations within
the Special Treatment Area that this sits in ... actually, the addition of this structure would fall
beneath that height limitation, so that's why you are not seeing a variance from height in this
particular proposal because the Code, from an overlay standpoint, does already allow for the
height addition to be compatible with the Code in that area. However, form and character, if you
feel that treatments may be necessary; let's say, for instance, shake roof or roof color or those
types of things or a lower roof height. If those things are of concern to the Commission that is
something that certainly we can discuss to mitigate that by a condition. Public access to coastal
and recreational resources, that's the fourth point of the test. We believe that this actually will
48
enhance the usage of the Ke Ala Hele Makalae. One of the conditions that we are going to be
proposing is that they provide bikes for people to use. This adjacency next to a great community
asset will hopefully spurn people that are going to come to the island to not rent cars and actually
use the bike path to traverse up and down that area. It's a hope and we think that there may be
an opportunity to use that. So we do not think that this is going to impede coastal access or those
types of things. Coastal ecosystems, we are not looking at any type of additional runoff that's
going to be created by this. The reason why is because the current roof ...it's the same footprint,
so we are not going to be creating additional runoff or any type of digging again or any type of
soil disturbance. And then, again, from an economic standpoint, this does help keep a coastal
transient accommodation facility in good standing and repair.
That covers our analysis with respect to the SMA Permit, the Variance Permit, and the Use
Permit. Just as a follow up, the Class IV Zoning Permit is a necessary function of the Use Permit
and the Variance Permit, so it's a procedure that is in there. With respect to parking, we do not
see any issues concerning parking. They actually have more parking stalls than they need for the
density that is on the property. We believe that with the condition concerning the bikes, again,
that we would be able to mitigate any traffic or any parking concerns in that area.
Mr. Chair, I think that's pretty much the Department's evaluation of it. We can hold off on our
conclusion and recommendation. I'm available for any questions. I think it would also be
appropriate to have the agent for the applicant to also—
Chair Keawe: Right. Before we call the applicant up, any questions for Director Dahilig?
Ms. Ahuna: Director, if the applicant... well, I'd rather talk to the applicant.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. If there are no questions, can the applicant please come up?
Ian Jung: Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. Ian Jung on behalf of the applicant, Pixar
Development, LLC. The applicant is with me here today in the back in case you do have
questions for him directly, but I'll try and (inaudible) our application and the report that was
submitted.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: The request that was done by Mrs. Regush in regards to the — I mean, 5 feet is a
huge difference — to lower the roof. Is that something that the applicant would be open to?
Mr. Jung: Absolutely. We sent the application to the Kapa`a-Wailua Neighborhood Association
and subsequent to that, the applicant and Ms. Regush have met, and in discussions today, there
has been some resolution to that where the applicant is willing to bring the pitch of the roof down
6 feet.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay.
Mr. Jung: That will mitigate that impact.
49
Ms. Ahuna: Ms. Regush, who takes care of that Japanese monument there? Is it the Kapa`a-
Wailua Neighborhood Association?
Ms. Regush: That was a project that was between the Kapa`a Business Association and a
Leadership Kauai Class of 2006 which I served on, and because I live on the east side, I have an
infinity for that special project that we co -managed. I do have a donation for a replacement glass
bulb. It is so close to proximity to this hotel. It's wonderful that they have an interest in historic
preservation as well, so that's
Ms. Ahuna: Do you know about the cost of when you guys
Ms. Regush: I just spoke with the concrete conservator in Los Angeles that we had used nine (9)
years ago and she's sending an estimate. It may be between ... I think in the ballpark of $5,000 or
$6,000. We have $1,000 in the kitty with Kapa`a Business Association. They were our fiscal
sponsor to do that restoration which actually was funded by a Community Block Development
Grant back in 2006.
Ms. Ahuna: As a Leadership Kauai graduate, is that something that the applicant might share
some, maybe, support for to continue restoration for that?
Ms. Regush: Thank you. That would be great.
Mr. Jung: Yeah. Actually, the applicant actually went ahead and took it one step further. They
saw that the orb was missing the glass ball and they actually, on their own initiative, went out
and researched what a replacement ball would be and actually brought it with them to present to
the Kapa`a-Wailua Neighborhood Association. So we are one step ahead going there. We are
evaluating the maintenance and the possibility of putting that back on and the construction cost
for that.
Ms. Ahuna: That would be awesome.
Mr. Lord: Excuse me. Ian, so the ... I just want to jump back for a second. The proposed roof
height was 38 (feet) and change. So with this agreement between the parties, you are going to
take it down to 32 (feet) and change?
Mr. Jung: 32 (feet), that's correct; by 6 feet.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
Mr. Jung: And just in the conditions that are proposed to be applied, in Condition No. 2, they do
allow for the overall development form of the structure to be reevaluated by the Planning
Department before that comes in, so we can work that out at that point as well.
Mr. Lord: Okay, thank you.
50
Chair Keawe: I just had one question, Ian. This was all triggered by DLNR's request to
generate more income off of their leases. Is that true?
Mr. Jung: Yeah. So what happened was ... the story of the hotel is really interesting actually and
the story starts with the hotel taking over and converting the old fire house in Kapa`a Town, and
that was on a separate parcel. In 1953, they converted the fire house and then in 1964, they
realized that the vacant, open spot along the canal there was available for use through a State
lease. So the Matsumura Family — who operated the hotel at that time — went ahead and got the
lease in 1964. In 1966, they actually went ahead and constructed it. It was always intended to be
a three-story structure, but the problem was they just ran out of money, apparently — this is just
going from oral narrative on it — but they ran out of money and couldn't do that third level. The
structure itself has buildouts ready to put a third layer on. At the time thereafter, it just continued
to run and as the lease neared its first 55 -year term in 2006, the applicant then went ahead and
acquired the interest in the property. As a part of the lease negotiations, when they started
thinking about what's going to happen next, the Legislature at the time — and this was all due in
part to what was going on in Hilo where there was a lot of oceanfront, State -leased lands for
hotel usage — they realized that a lot of the leases are getting bounced out and nobody taking
them over. So in order to allow for an upgrade in the facilities of the State -leased lands, they
actually required by law, under Act 219, to go through this protocol and process to do substantial
improvements to the structure. So not only does the State bring in more money off those lease
rents, but it also upgrades the aging facilities that are on the sites. As Mr. Harrah went through
this process, they went through the alternatives analysis with DLNR and came up with the best
solution of going through the whole process of doing it up versus out. Because as we know, this
is the Open district and with the Open district, it's pretty well -constrained to use, land coverage,
as well as density. As they evaluated those alternatives, this was the best alternative to go up
because it was already prefabbed to allow for that third layer. Once the Board approved it, based
on the Environmental Assessment that was done, the State required the applicant to go through a
development agreement and as a part of this development agreement, they have timetables to get
the project done within a certain period of time and what that timetable is, is twenty-four (24)
months. One of the conditions is that they obtain County required permits, so that's this phase.
From 2006 and 2008, it has taken quite some time to get to the point of where we are now. The
variance, as the Planning Director and Ms. Regush notes, it is a very extraordinary permit and it
takes extraordinary circumstances to meet that test, right? But given the circumstance where it's
a State asset ... and I did some research into the old Kapa`a-Wailua Development Plan, trying to
figure out what was the intent of these canals. We all know the canals were there to kind of
abate the flooding issue that was happening in the early 1900s and these were built in the 1940s.
So interestingly, what happened, though, was they actually encouraged commercial, residential,
and retail along the canal fronts to, I guess, allow for a revitalization at the time of Kapa`a Town.
I have it here if any of you want to look at it, but it shows ... I took a stroll on the bike path with
my kids, going by just to see what it was like from a whole stretch. There are three (3) canals in
Kapa`a Town; the first one starts next to the new Waipouli Beach Resort. On each north bank of
each of those three (3) canals, starting from the south, you go up. First, there on the north bank,
you have the Waipouli Beach Resort, which is a five -story structure. As you continue along, the
second canal has the Pono Kai Resort, which is also RR -20 — same with the Waipouli Beach
Resort — on that same north bank. And then
51
Mr. Lord: How many stories is that one?
Mr. Jung: That one is three (3) stories.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Jung: And then as you progress northward, you end up on the Mo`ikeha Canal, which has
the open space lot which the subject property is on. Looking at it, what may have triggered the
CZO at the time of the inception to put it into the Open district ... I think it was only located in the
Open district just because it was a State-owned parcel. Similar with the Kapa`a Library site and
the Kapa`a Beach Park site, that was all in the Open district. So from a variance standpoint, I
think it certainly qualifies to meet the standards. The new case law that we all try and work
around now, which is the Kyo-ya case versus Surfrider, the whole issue is evaluating alternatives
and with the process that ensued prior to where we are today, they looked at those alternatives
and found that the best alternative was going up versus out in order to meet the commitments
under Act 219.
Ms. Ahuna: Mahalo.
Mr. Dahilig: Just as an internal matter from an evaluation standpoint, we did ask the question, is
this an action that is more appropriate to put the open zone into RR -20? Given the size of the
particular lot, which is 0.6 of an acre, we are concerned about something that from a Federal
standpoint is actually a more overarching legal concern which is a consideration with spot zoning
using our police powers. So that as an alternative also seemed a bit awkward for us to go back to
the applicant and say you know what, don't come in for the Variance Permit, come in for a
rezoning action. We felt that that actually leads us to a deviation from a police power exercise
that would actually be more of an unusual situation versus something that goes through a quasi-
judicial analysis with the Variance Pen -nit.
Mr. Lord: I have one more question. It calls for an asphalt comp roof. It's just a matter of
aesthetics. That, to me, is not an aesthetically pleasing roof and I don't want to put my own
aesthetics on things, but I guess in this case I will. Would the applicant have any willingness to
change it out for, say, a cedar shake roof? Or something more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Jung: I can certainly check with them, but like I said with Condition No. 2, if that's
something the Planning Department is directed to, we can sort of work that out with them. I
think your point is to be non -reflective. Is that the idea?
Mr. Lord: Yes.
Mr. Jung: Yeah, so that's actually a consideration of the SMA which we are willing to work
with that and look into it.
Mr. Lord: I think that that might fit in much more in the area than having something that has
much color in it.
52
Mr. Jung: Sure.
Mr. Ho: Wade, what is on the roof now?
Mr. Jung: What's on the roof now... It's a flat roof.
Mr. Ho: It's flat.
Mr. Jung: Yes.
Mr. Ho: So this will be
Mr. Jung: This will be the addition up top. Did everyone get a chance to get a look book?
(Yeah) Okay. I think we distributed them earlier today.
Mr. Ho: Roy, it's got a parapet with a flat roof behind it.
Mr. Jung: Right. So from a design element, it starts with the existing concrete. Moving upward
to the third floor, we have T1-11 with — as of what's proposed right now — is the composite roof
on the top with a pitch that's been reduced.
Ms. Apisa: A composite roof doesn't have to be bright colors though.
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, it could be brown or something.
Ms. Apisa: It could be natural colors, too.
Mr. Jung: Right.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: As I understand it, the cost of the improvements is going to be over 500 ..0
of the—
Mr. Jung: Yeah, so there's a little bit ... I see where you're going because you have to reconcile
what the substantial improvement is as required under Act 219 and what the substantial/non-
substantial improvement is under the FEMA Floodplain Management Regulations, so I had to go
through those numbers and crunch them myself. So what happened when the lease was coming
to its end term in 2013, the State did an appraisal, which came back at $644,000. The
improvements proposed are still locked in between $322,000 and $455,000 within the
development agreement, but once the lease was garnered, we subsequently had another appraisal
done in 2016 that would show the actual value with the lease extended to fifty-five (55) years
and that value that places the building now at $1,820,000, so it jumped substantially near the end
term.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: At the end of fifty-five (55) years or as it is now?
Mr. Jung: As it is now as of 2016, and this was an official appraisal report.
53
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So therefore, you are less than 50% so therefore you don't need to do the
FEMA.
Mr. Jung: Right. We were fine at 50% moving into the new lease term, but now that we are in
the new lease term, subject to the development agreement of these permits, moving up through
the lease term, there's value. But the State reconciled this and realized that for developers who
may come in, obtain the lease extension, if you want to assign it, you got to get their approval
and then there's this quantified assignment evaluation policy that requires a deduction of the
price if you try and assign it out once you get the improvements done. So they reconciled that
with the idea that with Act 219, people might upgrade them and then try and sell it as a value, but
the State will then be subject to ... or if you try to get out, it will be subject to that State
Assignment Evaluation Policy, which reduces the possible price.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Jung: But all that are still yet to be worked out with Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So then the FEMA Floodplain Management Ordinance, you are still
going to be considering that until you know for sure what your costs are and what the appraisal
value is going to be.
Mr. Jung: Right. Just one other point for Act 219, it also allows for on-site and off-site
infrastructure. So as a part of the conditions of this permit, we will have to upgrade the water
system, put in backflow preventers, and what not, so those costs can actually go toward the
amounts that were identified in the original development agreement.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Is that all improvements ... will go toward this appraisal?
Mr. Jung: The appraisal is for the building value itself, but for the purposes of substantial/non-
substantial improvement for FEMA standards, that's on the building. But for the development
agreement, we can recapture some of the costs that are going to be for improvements on the site,
including water and what not, can go towards the amounts necessary for the development
agreement.
Mr. Ho: And the fonner permit that allowed you to put the pool and the shutters and that ... goes
toward this -
Mr. Jung: No, that does not count because that was pre -extension of the lease.
Chair Keawe: Any other questions for the applicant? Can you read the recommendation?
Mr. Dahilix Given the testimony and the evidence presented at the agency hearing, as well as
during this discussion, Mr. Chair, the Department is concluding that because this proposed usage
54
and addition is in the public interest, we would recommend, then, an approval for all four (4)
permits. We believe that the public/private partnership nature of this particular operation
necessitates the investment as required by the State law and the lease, consequentially. We
believe that the proposal is consistent with the test standards for all three (3) permits that would
require that analysis; the SMA Use Permit, the Variance Permit, and the County Use Permit.
Given the testimony, we would recommend the permits be approved with thirteen (13)
conditions. However, we would suggest an additional amendment to Condition No. 2; this is on
page 812 of the PDF. The current condition states, "The Director shall conduct a final design
review prior to submittal of building permits to insure design compatibility with the surrounding
area. Treatments and color of the existing structure and proposed construction shall appear
uniform, and reflect neutral colors to minimize glare or detract from the coastal area.
Landscaping should also reflect a neutralization of the heightened building form for mauka-to-
makai views from Kuhio Highway." We would add an additional sentence that says, "The
Director shall also ensure the height of the building shall not exceed..." I'm going to put 33 feet
given that it's 32 (feet) and change. "...33 feet and the roof shall reflect a non -reflective material
and be neutral in color." to address the concerns that came across from the community, as well as
that was discussed around the table.
Chair Keawe: So Mr. Jung, are you in concurrence with the proposed recommendations,
including the change in the roof s height?
Mr. Jung: Yes, Chair, we are.
Chair Keawe: Your client, also?
Mr. Jung: Yes. He nodded his approval.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: Given that, Mr. Chair, we would recommend approval with the thirteen (13)
conditions as modified.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioners?
Mr. Ho: Move to accept the Planning Department's recommendation.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Planning Department's
recommendation with the thirteen (13) conditions plus the alteration to Condition No. 2.
Anymore discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None)
Motion carried 7:0.
Mr. Jung: Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
55
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2017-2 to allow electrical and lighting
upgrades to the Mand Drag Strip facility, situated on the makai side of Kaumuali`i
Highway and immediately east of the Kekaha Landfill site, affecting a 20 acre portion of
3 existing parcels, further identified as Tax Map Keys (4) 1-2-002:009 (Por.), 036 & 040
= State ofHawai `i, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Mr. Dahilig: We are now on Item F.2.c. This is Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2017-2 to allow electrical and lighting upgrades to the Mdna Drag Strip facility,
situated on the makai side of Kaumuali`i Highway and immediately east of the Kekaha Landfill
site. This is TMK (4) 1-2-002 Parcels 009, 036, and 040. Again, this is the DLNR that has come
in for this request and Jody is our planner for this matter.
Chair Keawe: Okay, Jody, you're on.
Staff Plaruier Jody Galinato: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I'll
try to be as brief as possible. It's been a long day.
Ms. Galinato read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Ms. Galinato: On the Preliminary Conclusion, I can hold off on that until after the applicant
speaks, and the recommendation.
Chair Keawe: Any questions for Jody? Jody, just to recap, this is the installation of lighting,
pretty much.
Ms. Galinato: It's lighting, electrical power lines -
Chair Keawe: Electrical power to the drag strip.
Ms. Galinato: -and a scoreboard.
Mr. Lord: Jody, I have a question.
Ms. Galinato: Sure.
Mr. Lord: It notes in the application that its down -lighting, but it doesn't say whether that's LED
down -lighting or metal halide, or what style is being... The scoreboard is LED, right?
Ms. Galinato: The scoreboard is LED. I would defer to the applicant. The exact lighting is a
stadium -type lighting. It went through U.S. Fish and Wildlife... there's a 400 and some -page
Environmental Assessment and I basically took a lot of those recommendations -- most of those
if not all — plus what DLNR... and conditioned everything into this.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
56
Chair Keawe: Okay. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Come forward. Please pull the
mic up and state your name.
Kyle Kaneshiro: Good afternoon, Chairperson and Planning Director. My name is Kyle
Kaneshiro with The Limtiaco Consulting Group, representing the applicant. I am the authorized
agent.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Kaneshiro: The applicant is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Can you kind of give us an overview of...a little bit about timelines
subject to approvals and when you—
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Go ahead.
Mr. Kaneshiro: I guess pending the approval of this Board [sic], the State and the project is
ready to move forward with its permitting through the County and once that is accomplished,
then we are also ready to start construction of the project.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Anything else you'd like to say about the project itself? So this is
basically to put in ... night light is for night drag racing, right?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct. As Jody mentioned in our application, the facility currently uses
temporary power; they bring in generators and they have temporary lighting that they bring in for
the monthly night races. Again, these night races are not done during the fledging season. In
order to help improve the environment, the Garden Isle Racing Association wanted to move
forward into bringing permit lighting to provide a longer term, safer environment for racing.
Chair Keawe: So Garden Isle Racing Association has an agreement to operate the drag strip
from the State.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct. They have a lease.
Chair Keawe: Is that correct?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct.
Chair Keawe: Do you know how long that agreement is?
Mr. Kaneshiro: I do not know how long the agreement is.
Chair Keawe: Okay. So all of these improvements are funded by the State.
57
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct.
Chair Keawe: Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: The current lighting that's being used, what is the height of that current
lighting?
Mr. Kaneshiro: The current lighting, it varies from ... I think a typical height is about 20 to 30
feet to the really temporary drag -in type where it's 10, 15 feet at the most.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And this will now be 50 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Correct, 50 feet.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And there's a lot of protection that has already been put in place for the
hoary bats, for the turtles, and for the fledglings.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is there anything for the people?
Mr. Kaneshiro: For the people as far as?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Who may be on the beach or anywhere else. Are they going to be
affected by this?
Mr. Kaneshiro: The lighting—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Because the lights are going to come down, people are down underneath
it.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes. So the lighting is situated on the makai side of the racetrack and faces
mauka. It is also lower than the existing tree line that is on the mauka and makai sides of the
racetrack, so the lighting should be shielded from the existing foliage in that area.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And you are about a mile, I think, from Kekaha.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes, from the town.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Will the Kekaha residents be affected by this?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Not any more than what is normally ... or is there or happening now. Again, it is
shielded by the tree line and it is within that area below the tree line that is currently done with
the temporary lighting. As far as the sound, it would improve from the generators, but the
generators are a lot softer than the cars, so I don't think that's an issue.
U -1i
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I noticed that in some of the documents that were submitted, it has
"SAMPLE" in there that's overwritten on it, and I'm wondering, does that mean that these are
samples? Or that these are actual documents?
Mr. Kaneshiro: As far as the lighting types, I believe.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: The Environmental Assessment... On several pages of the ... that were
submitted, there is an imprint; I'm not sure if it's an imprint or whether it's... But it says
"SAMPLE" on it and that confused me.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Well as far as the lighting is concerned, because it is a State -funded project, we
can't stipulate the exact type of lighting. We do have specifications on what that is.
Tony Richie: Can I answer the lighting question?
Chair Keawe: Come up. Please state your name.
Mr. Richie: I'm Tony Richie, President of the Garden Isle Racing Association. Because it is a
State -funded project, like he was about to say, they can't specify what type of light the contractor
has to use, so it's a fair bidding when it went out. But the lighting that is being used is specific
for sporting events and in our case, specific for racetracks. The cone of the light is literally
targeted to be 3 feet over the guardrail on one side and 3 feet over the guardrail on the other side.
When we changed the height, they had to recalculate the bulb and the cover, and they
specifically shoot it right on the track and the reason is we can't have the spectators blinded by
the light, or the driver, so it's very specific that there is not a lot of overcast light like a baseball
stadium or tennis court. It's a beam that's shot straight down so we want you to still be in the
dark so that you can see and the racer can't have any glare. Okay? So there's not a lot of
extemporaneous light moving around.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm referring to some letters that came from Limtiaco Consulting Group
and many of them have the imprint "SAMPLE" on them.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Okay.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm wondering are these samples? Or are these real letters?
Mr. Kaneshiro: I'm not too sure. I would have to (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Jody, would you know?
Ms. Galinato: What I'm thinking is maybe those were what was on the disk that was submitted
and then I have ... it was a pretty large application.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yeah, it's probably your transmittal to ... is that -
59
Ms. Galinato: And the Environmental Assessment was amended so I'm not sure. I scanned
through this and I didn't see "SAMPLE" on any of these.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Ms. Galinato: And this is the SMA application, and I scanned through that and I didn't see that
so something might have ... from the time it was originally submitted to (when) we amended this
-- what was on the disk - may have changed is what I'm -
Chair Keawe: So the concern, Commissioner Streufert, was is this a real letter or just a sample.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right, because it just says "SAMPLE" on a lot of my letters here and I
didn't know whether it was real (inaudible).
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yeah. I believe ... like for example, the letter that I read on your pad, it looks like
it's part of the transmittal letter that came from our office to the agencies, but those are real
letters. (Laughter)
Ms. Galinato: They are all signed in here.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. These are signed, also, but they still say "SAMPLE". (Laughter)
Ms. Galinato: Without "SAMPLE".
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Alright, Great.
Chair Keawe: Any other questions for the applicant or for Jody?
Mr. Lord: Tony, do you know if that lighting is LED or metal halide?
Mr. Richie: I was going to call Dan (laughter) to find out, but then I ran up here -
Mr. Lord: Dan Lord is doing the -
Mr. Richie: Yeah, Dan Lord has the contract. So the scoreboard is LEDs and the ... it's the same
Mosco lighting that they use at the tennis courts in Kekaha and the ball park. I don't think ... it's
not an LED, but it's a ... it's not a vapor bulb either. It's a special bulb.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Richie: And part of that is that it doesn't create the heat because of the shield that's also part
of the shearwater and that directional light.
Mr. Lord: Right.
.E
Mr. Richie: Okay. But I don't know the actual ... I can get it for you. I can call Dan when we
are done with this and find out though.
Mr. Lord: Okay, thank you.
Chair Keawe: Does that answer your question, Commissioner Wade?
Mr. Lord: Yes, sir.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. We are at this juncture. Any further questions? If not
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry. Once more.
Chair Keawe: Go ahead.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: There is a Health Department concern about discharge into the Kekaha
Bay which already does not meet standards and they are afraid of the turbidity. I presume at
some point in time you are going to have to have bathroom facilities or something like that for
your drivers. How does that work?
Mr. Kaneshiro: In regards to Department of Health and erosion runoff, the project does have an
NPDES Permit for construction activities. In regards to wastewater or sanitary, I do not believe
that it's ... the facility doesn't have permanent plumbing or sewer fixtures so most of the time
they bring in porta potties.
Mr. Richie: Yeah. We use porta potties and then they are pumped and taken away, so we don't
have any gray water
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So you are not discharging anything into Kekaha.
Mr. Richie: No, nothing. No.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Any other questions? If not, Director, do you want to...
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, I'll turn it over to Jody and—
Chair Keawe: Let's kind of...concise and...
Ms. Galinato: Okay.
Ms. Galinato read the Preliminary Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendation sections
of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Chair Keawe: We have them.
61
Ms. Galinato: Yeah. And the applicant does, too. (Laughter)
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do you guys agree with the conditions?
Mr. Kaneshiro: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Yes? Alright. Commissioners?
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve SMA(U)-2017-2.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous
voice vote) Motion approved 7:0.
We'll take another short break.
Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you very much.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 2:31 p.m.
Chair Keawe: Let's call the meeting back to order, please.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports
Director's Report(s) for Proiect(sj Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 6/13/17
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-12, Use Permit U-2017-10 and Special Permit SP -
2017 -5 to operate a green waste compostingfacility acility involving Units 69 & 70 of the
Moloa`a Hui I Condominium, on a parcel situated along the makai side of Kuhi6
Highway in Moloa`a, approx. 1,000 ft. east of the Koolau Road/Kuhio Ijighway
intersection further identified as Tax Map Key (4)4-9-009:012 (Por), and affecting a
portion of a larger parcel containing 281+ acres = Green Earth Matters, Inc.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item G.2. These are our Consent Calendar items
for Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-12, Use Permit U-2017-10, and Special Permit SP -2017-
5 at Tax Map Key (4) 4-9-009 Parcel 012, a portion. This is for receipt by the Commission and
set on 6/13/17 as part of the Consent Calendar. Mr. Chair, per the Commission's rules, if there's
no desire to discuss this particular item, we can move on to the next item.
62
Chair Keawe: Right. Alright, thank you.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Notice to Appeal the Anininina, LLC, Shoreline Setback Determination SSD 2017-52, for
real property situated at 7214 Alamoo Road, Hd'ena, Kauai, Hawaii, identified as Tax
Map Key (4) 5-8-008:040.
Mr. Dahilig: Item I. This is 1.1. Notice to appeal the Anininina, LLC Shoreline Setback
Determination SSD 2017-52 for a real property situated at 7214 Alamoo Road in Hd'ena, Tax
Map Key (4) 5-8-008 Parcel 040.
Mr. Chair, this was a request for appeal of the Director's decision. Mr. Roversi is representing
the Department. I believe the appellant is also present; that's Ms. Diamond.
Chair Keawe: Caren.
Mr. Dahilig: I think it's just typical for action ... this would be just for receipt and set, but I
believe that there may be some proposal concerning deadlines in the matter of disposing the
matter. I know Mr. Roversi wanted to...
Chair Keawe: Okay. Which one of you wants to go first?
Deputy County Attorney Adam Roversi: Adam Roversi, representing the Planning Department.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Roversi: I spoke with representative for the applicant as well as Caren prior to the meeting.
We had a request to the Commission regarding scheduling of this matter. By mutual agreement,
we'd request that this matter be set for hearing on Tuesday, July 25th or the first available
meeting thereafter that prehearing briefs, including the exhibits and witness list, be presented two
(2) weeks in advance of that meeting at the—
Chair Keawe: Two (2) weeks prior to the 25th of July.
Mr. Roversi: Correct. Which would be, by my calculation, July 11 th. Also, for the record, in the
interim, the parties will meet to discuss possible settlement to this matter and perhaps avoid the
necessity for the hearing, as well as discuss issues regarding the current Planning Commission
rules. If the parties come to an agreement regarding the Planning Commission rules, the
prehearing brief will address only the substance of the application. If the parties fail to reach an
agreement regarding the Planning Commission rules, the prehearing briefs submitted to the
Commission will address both the procedural adequacy or inadequacy of the rules, as well as the
substance of the application. It's the intention of the parties to inform the Commission of any
agreements reached between them in advance of the briefing deadline that we propose for July
11, 2017.
63
Chair Keawe: Alright. Ms. Diamond.
Caren Diamond: Aloha, Commissioners. What Mr. Roversi laid out is okay with me.
Chair Keawe: You concur with him?
Ms. Diamond: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Diamond: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Commissioners, obviously this issue wants to be argued in front of the
Commission; hopefully it can settle before that happens. They are looking for a date of July 25`x'
and briefs on July 11 `". Anybody have any questions for the applicants [sic]? No? No? Okay.
I'll go ahead and entertain a motion.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, just for clarification and just so the record is clear, the recommended
motion would be to receive the appeal and set pursuant to the agreement by both parties.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: Can I just go back and ask a question? (Inaudible) Just to ask a question
before ... just to, kind of, refresh my memory on what is Anininina.
Ms. Diamond: Anininina is a development in Wainiha that is asking for a shoreline setback
exemption, or received a shoreline setback exemption and it's a house that's being built.
Ms. Apisa: I think it was prior to my being on the Commission, so I just wanted...
Ms. Diamond: It's a new name of a project.
Ms. Apisa: Alright, thank you. I would make a motion that we receive the appeal and set the
date for July 25`h
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All those in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you. Thank
you.
IIs. Diamond: Thank you.
Update of Application for Princeville Hanalei Plantation, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, re Shoreline Setback Application and Determination SSD -2017-33, for
64
real property situated at Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii, identified as Kauai Tax Map Key
(4)5-4-004:013. (Deferred 4/11/17.1
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item I.2. This is update of application for
Princeville Hanalei Plantation, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, regarding Shoreline
Setback Application and Determination SSD -2017-33 for real property situated at Hanalei,
Kauai, Hawaii; Tax Map Key (4) 5-4-004 Parcel 013.
Again, this is a recurring matter with the Commission concerning, I guess again, a similar type of
appeal. I believe Mr. Graham has an update concerning the status of the application.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Graham.
Max Graham: I'm Max Graham. I represent the applicant in this matter. If the Commission
recalls, we initially had a schedule set where we would be submitting briefs on May 9'h and have
a hearing on the procedural issues set for today. In the meantime, the parties have been trying to
fashion a stipulation for withdrawal of the Shoreline Application, which would resolve these
issues. We haven't been able to finalize it yet. I've talked to attorneys for all the parties --- the
appellants and the County — and what we would like to do ... what we propose to do is continue
this matter for the Planning Commission meeting of June 27`h, so that's the second meeting of
June. And if no stipulation for withdrawal has been filed before June 01', then briefs on the
procedural issues will be due June 13`h and arguments on the brief matters will be held June 27,
2017. But what we are hopeful for is that we will work out the wording on the stipulation to
withdraw and then we won't have to worry about this appeal.
Ms. Apisa: That would be nice. (Laughter in background)
Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Bronstein.
Harold Bronstein: Harold Bronstein. I represent the appellants; Limu Coalition, Hanalei
Watershed Hui, Carl Imparato individually, and Caren Diamond individually. It's all up to Mr.
Graham. He started the suggestion that his client is going to withdraw the application. We
certainly don't have any objection to that. The language is only words away, if that. I don't
know what the problem is, but we support the withdrawal.
Chair Keawe: Alright. You have no problem with the dates that he has outlined?
Mr. Bronstein: No.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Okay. Adam.
Mr. Roversi: Adam Roversi again.
Chair Keawe: Do you agree with the other two (2) parties?
Mr. Roversi: Yes. We are fine with the schedule proposed by Mr. Graham.
M
Chair Keawe: Alright. Commissioners, does everyone understand what we are asked to do?
Okay. So do I have a motion at this point to continue to June 271n and briefs by the 13`n, if not a
settlement prior to that, is my understanding, around June 61n
Ms. Ahuna: I'll make that motion.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? If not, all those
in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham: Thank you very much.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
Zoning Amendment ZA-2017-3 relating to updating the General Plan for the County of
Kauai and technical amendments, related to the definition of Development Plan.
[Hearing continued 1/31/17, hearing closed and deferred 2/28/17, deferred 3/14/17,
3/28/17, deferred 4/25/17, deferred 4/27/17.1
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item L.1. This is Zoning Amendment ZA-
2017-3 relating to updating the General Plan for the County of Kauai and technical
amendments, related to the definition of Development Plan. Hearing continued on January 31,
2017, hearing closed and deferred on February 28, 2017, deferred on March 14, 2017, deferred
on March 28, 2017, deferred on April 25, 2017, and deferred on April 27, 2017. There is a
Supplemental No. 6 to the Departmental Draft on the General Plan Update.
Mr. Chair, we do have one (1) individual that signed up to testify this morning that did not have
a chance to testify and that's Greg Crowe. I think it would be appropriate to call him up at this
time.
Chair Keawe: Greg, would you like to come up and testify, please?
Greg Crowe: Good afternoon. Aloha and mahalo to everyone who has put so much into this
very important General Plan Update. My name is Greg Crowe. I first moved to Kauai almost
thirty (30) years ago. In previous testimony I've described other relevant details about my
background so I'll skip that old history due to the short time allowed and probably just as well
that we move along here. More recently I've attended the old Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee for over a year and now the new committee that began meeting last week. In this
most recent General Plan Update Draft, there are great improvements since the first draft was
released just before the holiday season. Thank you to all who have worked so hard and
contributed those changes, but there are more essential improvements that are still needed. I've
66
given testimony previously on affordable housing and particularly the need for affordable
housing for farmers on ag land. A previous speaker today pointed out that we not only have an
affordable housing crisis, but also a farm -less crisis as he called it; all the more tragic because we
have trained and willing farmers who cannot find affordable places to both farm and live. I
personally know several farmers with decades of experience who have left Kauai and many who
are struggling to survive; that is counter to all our mutual goals and long-term best interests.
Increasing local food production is a priority in both the Kauai General Plan and the Aloha+
Challenge, and both the State and County have endorsed and said they support the Aloha+
Challenge, so where are the plans for effective actions to produce desirable results for local food
production and the other goals of the Aloha+ Challenge. I was happy to see the Aloha+ goals
included in the most recent draft of the General Plan and more performance measures are
proposed. The Aloha+ Challenge contains six (6) major goals with performance measures to be
regularly taken and displayed on a public dashboard online; however, the most recent draft of the
General Plan Update only mentions measures for two (2) of the six (6) focus areas, and all six (6)
are critical to a better future for Kauai. In addition to the six (6) focus areas already in the
Aloha+ Challenge, Kauai needs to add affordable housing and traffic with plans for significant
improvement with performance measures taken and frequently published, not every two (2)
years as this draft proposes for affordable housing which is in a crisis situation. A health crisis
goes to the ER and then to the ICU, if necessary, with constant monitoring and interventions, not
we will take your temperature and check back in two (2) years. In general, as seen in the Aloha+
Challenge, key factors to a plan actually creating the improvements we want and need are regular
performance measures and adaptive management to modify plans and actions that are not
producing desired results. A crisis situation needs constant monitoring and adaptive
management until the crisis is resolved. That's just one example of necessary changes in this
General Plan Draft to help us achieve our goals. In regards to affordable housing, this General
Plan Draft on page 4-8 suggests measuring new affordable housing units; that is an inadequate
measure that can even be misleading. New affordable housing units were built since the 2000
General Plan, but we lost more affordable housing units than we gained because previous
affordable housing stock went back to market rate and, of course, immediately became
unaffordable for the majority of Kauai residents. We need to measure the increase in new
affordable housing units, not just new units.
Mr. Dahili . Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Crowe: And hopefully find a way to keep them affordable in perpetuity.
Chair Keawe: Can you wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. Crowe: I will. Thank you. Please have the Planning Department include in this General
Plan Update, detailed plans for implementing, not just two (2), but all six (6) of the Aloha+
Challenge goals, and also add the application of the Aloha+ model to at least two (2) more high-
priority areas for Kauai; affordable housing and traffic. We can plan and achieve a better
Kauai for all of us. Thank you and mahalo for your care and time in this plan.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
67
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, just as a follow-up, there also was an additional handout that was
distributed from Jean Souza just now concerning suggested amendments to a few of the policies
for implementation, so just to be aware that that is around as well.
Other than that, Mr. Chair, we do have a Supplemental No. 6 as part of the Departmental Draft
for this particular General Plan Update. I'd like to turn it over to Marie Williams to present
Supplemental No. 6 for the Commission.
Chair Keawe: Marie.
Staff Planner Marie Williams: Good afternoon to all of you. Yes, as the Planning Director
mentioned, Director's Report Supplemental No. 6 has been transmitted and is before you. I do
not have a PowerPoint presentation today, so I'll just go directly into the report.
Ms. Williams read the Director's Report Supplemental No. 6 for the record (on file with
the Planning Department).
IIs. Williams: I think that, at this point, it's up to the Commission. I can answer your questions.
If you want, Lee can come up and provide an overview of what's contained in Exhibit 4 as well.
Chair Keawe: Which one were you talking about, Marie? Exhibit 4?
Ms. Williams: Yes, Exhibit 4 is our analysis of how the white paper procured by Charlier
Associates was used.
Chair Keawe: Okay. And that was the Charlier Associates integration into the plan?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Just as a background for the Commission, it's page 1638 of the PDF. Just for the
public's information, the Commission has about 1700 pages of material, not including the plan in
front of them.
Ms. Ahuna: Marie, the Aloha+ Challenge ... so this would be considered Exhibit 1 or 4.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: That would be implemented directly into the plan`?
Mr. Dahilig: So that's Exhibit 2. I'm sorry.
Ms. Ahuna: How would we implement this? The whole thing is just going to be put in here?
Mr. Dahilig: The purpose of the Director's Report...this particular analysis was meant to
highlight the parallels between the targets adopted in the Aloha+ Challenge with what already
exists in the plan. The clean energy target and the waste reduction target from a numerical
standpoint are already targets that have been folded into the plan from a statistical standpoint.
However, as Mr. Crowe did mention, there are statistical targets that have followed subsequent
to the agreement of that resolution pertaining to local food, national resource management, etc.
that they are only developing the targets now. The concern with having those targets be
prematurely folded into the General Plan Draft is that it still does not have what we would
consider statewide concurrence with respect to those specific numerical numbers and because
our public process has been to try to have this information be vetted publicly, we do not, at this
time, feel comfortable folding in targets from the Aloha+ Challenge that have not, in effect, been
vetted publicly as part of our community outreach process. The Director's Report is really meant
to just show alignment with where we have many, many elements of our plan aligned with the
Aloha+ Challenge items because we knew that that question would probably come up with the
Commission concerning where the plan comes in with respect to alignment. Just to reiterate
what Marie did mention, there were questions concerning the Charlier plan, the Multimodal Plan,
as well as the Southside Multimodal Plan, and the white paper that Jim Charlier did for our use
as part of our department's work product. Lee Steinmetz has provided some further white paper
information to provide the Commission a glimpse of the analysis that went on with respect to
how the Multimodal Transportation Plan and the Charlier supplemental were integrated into our
analysis for transportation. Again, it's just more for supplemental items. The only action item
that does follow concerning what Supplemental No. 6 would entail is on pages 1635 through
1637, and these are grammatical changes that really provide no direct substance to the change of
the actual General Plan as it stands with it having Supplemental Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5; right, Marie?
Ms. Williams: Yes, correct.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, that have already been folded into the plan. So this Item No. 6 really just
entails grammatical changes and we would ask that this be adopted as part of the standing motion
on the floor as it stands presently. Our department is comfortable with recommending the
amount of material and the analysis and the language in the General Plan at this point, if
Supplemental No. 6 should be adopted; however, we encourage — through the discourse --- that if
other commissioners want to place amendments to the plan on the floor that we would be happy
to support that language and information as discourse would go on today. So our ask would be
to amend the motion to include the language from Supplemental No. 6.
Chair Keawe: Okay. I, just as a recap, remember the last time we got together to talk about the
General Plan - I think it was in April — and about thirty (30) days have gone by since then to try
to digest (inaudible) couple more meetings. Back then, I think the issue was just to make sure
that everyone was comfortable at that point going forward with what had already been proposed.
I think at this juncture we will kind of throw it on the floor and begin a discussion as to where we
are now with regard to the General Plan from each of your perspectives.
Ms. Ahuna: Chair?
Chair Keawe: Yes. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: What Marie just shared is Supplemental No. 6 and that would have to be adopted as
an amendment, correct?
.S
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Ms. Ahuna: In reference to the five (5), six (6) months we've been doing this and four (4), five
(5) deferrals already, I'd just like to put it out to the Commissioners that we have enough
testimony and I think a lot of community members and experts within their community those
who know their community — that we can identify, now, different types of edits and revisions
that have been proposed to us that actually the community has put a lot of work into that Marie
and her staff doesn't have to actually go and figure it out. They have actually presented it to us
and there are so many different concerns on the table. For myself as a Commissioner, to sift
through and be able to really get a strong sense of where these concerns are and really read
through them and really understand them is difficult, especially a working mom and "no get paid
for being one commissioner" (laughter in background) and still after-school sports. So I would
like to propose that we really take each of these testimonies that have already been drafted out to
show edits. For example, the Kilauea Neighborhood Association actually has already identified,
and instead of just a testimony, they presented things on the table that have the General Plan
word and verbiage with what they are really interested in identifying of edits. So has ... right
here, what Jean Souza just presented to us. She has also presented direct edits that is not just
testimony, but revisions that they would like to see that maybe we can more fine tune if we break
out into subcommittees. I would like to suggest that we take maybe two (2) commissioners at a
time, spend a month just identifying specific concerns and being able to really look at those edits
that the communities are presenting.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do we have any other opinions?
Ms. Ahuna: If not, I'm going to snake a lot of amendments right now. (Laughter in background)
I have them all worked out right here.
Mr. Mahoney: If I can, Chair, in fairness to Commissioner Ahuna and the community, if we are
not quite at that place yet, maybe some of her suggestions
Ms. Ahuna: Well, I don't feel as a commissioner that ... I mean, there's so much information
here and the community has done so much work within their own community, so it's not like
Maka`ala is going to Hanapepe-`Ele`ele side working on ... she's specifically an expert at
Watershed and her community, and that's what I'm looking at; like really taking what the
community has presented to us. I mean, we've heard these for five (5) months now over five (5)
times and we have not taken one (1) action on these testimonies. Yeah, we've made actions on
making edits and stuff, and Marie has done a great job and her staff, but how do we really look at
these and move in a sense of "I feel good that I'm taking this".
Chair Keawe: How would we do that?
Ms. Ahuna: My suggestion is to break into... identify subcommittees with the direct concerns.
Chair Keawe: What direct concerns? You've got two hundred (200) pieces of testimony.
Ms. Ahuna: Right, right, right.
70
Chair Keawe: So how do you -
Ms. Ahuna: For me, how I identify my testimonies is I break them into groups; so we have
Hanalei -Princeville -north shore. We have ten (10) subsections within the General Plan, so we
can take them by two (2) commissioners at a time.
Chair Keawe: And the assumption would be that we would know better as commissioners than
the planners?
Ms. Ahuna: Well, no, it's not that at all. It's just hearing the voice of the community and really
fine-tuning and looking at these as a whole and bringing back a report from that subcommittee.
So if my subcommittee is just myself maybe ... an example, Commissioner Ho and myself are on
the subcommittee of the North Shore Land Map Section or the Land Use Section, we'd really
look at all the concerns within that section and any of the edits or revisions that that community
has presented. and then be able to break them out.
Chair Keawe: And that process
Ms. Ahuna: And then present a summary to the rest of the Commissioners.
Chair Keawe: Okay. And that process, you think, could be done in thirty (30) days?
Ms. Ahuna: Well, we have enough testimonies on board right now. I mean, I don't know if its
thirty (30) days, but I'm just throwing it out there because I know we want to move on this.
Chair Keawe: Right. And the other thing is
Ms. Ahuna: I mean, for me, it could be longer, but I'm just suggesting. I don't feel comfortable
in approving this plan today.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: My feeling is that a tremendous amount of work has gone into the plan from everyone
concerned — community, staff, the Commissioners - and we are never going to have a perfect
plan. We are going to get it as close to perfect as we can and that's been the exercise. I don't
know when you, at some point, have to -
Chair Keawe: Cut it off.
Mr. Lord: —make the decision to make the vote. I'm certainly open to anything substantive that
needs to be addressed, but when I start looking at, like, edits between sentences, I really look at
that to be more of a staff function than my function; not that I can't do it, I just ... I don't know
that that's a really good use of time.
Chair Keawe: Right.
71
Mr. Lord: So that's just my feeling is that I'd like to find a way for us to move our process
forward.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: I think we are getting close, but I don't think ... I'm not prepared to make a decision
today. For example, Greg Allen. I don't really understand Greg's letter today about Hokua
Place where he said it's approved but not the whole thing. I don't know. That's got me a little
bit confused there. And I guess being from the north shore, a little more clarity on the north
shore. Those are two (2) areas that I sort of have a little question mark about. But I agree, we do
need to kind of get it together and at some point draw a line, but I don't think I'm prepared
today.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: I have no comment right now, but I reserve my time to speak. (Laughter in
background)
Chair Keawe: Are you running for office, Commissioner Ho? (Laughter in background) Thank
you. Commissioner
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Can I say "ditto"? (Laughter in background)
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: There has been an awful lot of work that has been done on this by the
Department, as well as by the community. Trying to resolve all of this when you hear it from
both sides - one is strongly yes, the other is strongly no - makes it a little difficult. However, I
have also a problem with this; not a problem. I have a concern with this and that is that I'm not
as tied into the geographic sectors as I am the overall General Plan for the entire island because I
don't think that any solution that is proposed for Hanalei and the north shore doesn't have an
impact upon all the other ones. It's sort of like the traffic situation in Kapa`a-W'ailua. You can't
solve that without solving the entire island. So I'm interested in looking at the overall
perspective; maybe that's the 20,000 -foot level that we were talking about versus the 500 -foot
one. But on the basis of that, I would agree with Commissioner Ahuna that maybe we need to
look at this in a more concentrated way with smaller groups of people. My only concern with
that would be the Sunshine Law. I don't know how that would work with that, so I would have
to defer -
Chair Keawe: I guess, Jodi, can you give us some indication of -
Deputy Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: Just to clarify, there are two (2) options, I
think, if I can decipher what the request is. There's the option to form a Permitted Interaction
Group. You have to put it on the agenda to form the PIG, as what you refer to. So that's one
option. We'd have to put it on the agenda, the possibility of forming a Permitted Interaction
Group, or a PIG, and then you'd have to define the scope of what the investigation will be, so
72
define the scope of the group, and again, it's less than the majority so four (4) or less. And then
the meeting after that would be a chance to meet and investigate and then reconvene, disclose the
findings and recommendations, and then a separate meeting to memorialize or decide on an
action. So there are three (3) meetings from now `til then. That's one option. The other option,
under our rules, you can form a subcommittee. It is sort of an outgrowth of this item today, so I
think at the minimum we need to have some sort of motion to form a subcommittee. Again, I
would think you would have to really define the scope of what the subcommittee will have to
investigate and meet, and the meetings of the subcommittee have to be agenda'd.
Chair Keawe: If I understand, the meetings of the subcommittee have to be agenda'd and there
will be an open session.
Ms. HiQuchi Save sa: Yes, similar -
Chair Keawe: In a venue like this?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes, similar to the Subdivision Subcommittee; that's a subcommittee.
Under our rules, it could be a standing committee, so something that's sort of ongoing, and then
a select committee with a defined purpose and I think that's what it sounds like we are thinking
of going. The meeting of the select committee for the purposes of going through all the public
testimonies or what have you, that meeting would have to be agenda'd at another meeting.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Well, we've got some interesting ideas and I'm all for discussing the matter
further, but you know ... and due respect to the planners that have been going ... I think them not
being part of it and us sifting through it as non -planners is ... we might be creating a little chaos or
redundancy on it. I like the idea of talking about it more, but as the subcommittee ... well,
depends how the meeting goes, like if the ... and then we open this up again. We can move
forward. We're going to take another step sideways and a step backwards. I mean, there's
enough factions that are happening on this island that the people that come here have their
opinions and their ideas and a lot of great testimony, and there's a lot of people that don't come
here that may be diametrically opposed to everything that was said here, so we have to take that
into consideration, also. It's not only that thirty (30) people get to talk and make the whole plan
for everybody; how many letters you can generate or how much testimony ... I think we have to
evaluate a lot of things. Going forward, if we have a subcommittee meeting or something like
that, I would like the planners to be on it if it goes that route.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We need to take a recess real quick.
Mr. Dahilig: How many minutes?
Chair Keawe: Five (5) minutes, ten (10) minutes.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 3:23 p.m.
73
Chair Keawe: Let's reconvene, please.
Mr. Dahilig: Just from a forward progress standpoint, I understand, Commissioners, that there's
a diversity of suggestions on a path forward. If I could just ask from a start, if we could get
disposition of Supplemental No. 6 concerning that so that we are not stacking up on additional
amendments, and then whether or not that's okay with the Commissioners at this point.
Ms. Apisa: I'm ready to make a motion that we
Mr. Dahilig: It would be to amend the current motion to
Ms. Apisa: Amend the current motion to include Amendment No. 6. Is that—
Chair Keawe: Supplemental No. 6.
Ms. Apisa: Supplemental No. 6 so that Marie and the planners are authorized to make
grammatical corrections.
Chair Keawe: Do we have a second?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (;~Ione) Okay, motion passes 7:0. Alright.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, Mr. Chair. Given what we've been hearing from the public and from
discourse amongst the Commissioners, there are, I think, points that simply need an up or down
vote to provide the Department some guidance on okay, where do we go with these issues
because we continue to get the same genre of testimony on certain items and we need, I think,
some degree of guidance on where certain items either need to be disposed of or continued for
discussion. I've made a list and it's not exhaustive, but I believe items concerning... what to do
about the Princeville Plateau, what to do about Hokua Place, what to do about the amendments
proposed by the Kilauea Community Association, what to do about the amendments proposed by
Jean Souza, as well as changes to the llanapepe maps I think are five (5) items that ... from a
departmental standpoint, if we can get some official guidance from the Body, that will be
helpful. For example, the current plan draft shows Princeville being in the Resort designation
with a caveat that it is fully entitled within ten (10) years. I think it would be helpful for
everybody, including the public, to understand whether or not the Commission is for example
okay with that or if there is a desire to remove that designation from the map as you've heard
from many testimonies. I think that's the kind of guidance I think for us where we are wanting
to understand and have the discourse amongst the Commissioners because at this point, we are
kind of not sure what to do with the testimony as it comes in for analysis before each meeting. If
that's okay, Mr. Chair, if we could ask for some guidance first with the Princeville testimony, the
Princeville issue, what's coming up with that, and see where the Commissioners stand on that
item.
74
Ms. Apisa: Well, I guess just general discussion on it, I feel like we've had ... what? Thirty (30),
forty (40) testimonies, and I feel like it may have been weighted, I think for ... I don't know that
we're hearing necessarily the general community, but I don't know.
Ms. Ahuna: I'd like to remove it; the Resort designation of Phase II, that whole pink thing on
the Wainini area side. If the Resort designation demonstrates just what's there now is fine, but
not for (the) future. It could be Open, just like how ... not Open, but it doesn't have to
demonstrate it on the Land Use Map. I want to move to remove it from—
Mr. Dahili . So you are suggesting a motion to remove from the North Shore Land Use Map,
that area—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: What page is that?
Ms. Ahuna: Page 5-8. This section right here.
Mr. Ho: Kanoe, you are at (page) 5-8? (Page) 5-8?
Ms. Ahuna: (Page) 5-8, yes.
Mr. Dahili . So all of that currently is in State Land Use Agricultural zoning, County Open and
Ag, but this Resort designation has stood for, I believe, two (2) General Plan integrations. So
your suggestion, as the Department would interpret, is to remove the eastern most coloration, just
below the word "Princeville Center" in the map.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes. As well as the language in the narrative.
Mr. Dahilig: As well as the language in the narrative.
Ms. Ahuna: On page 2-10. Well, because this is not consistent with the land maps where it
states on (page) 2-8, on the very top. It states, "Consistent with the policy to not expand the
Visitor Destination Area (VDA), Resort Designation was removed or reduced in unentitled areas
(without County Resort Zoning or Visitor Destination Area) and where there was little
community support for resort expansion such as Nukoli`i." So that doesn't match up with the
map, so I want to remove the Land Use Map of that section on the east ... yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So it would be (page) 2-8, that language that refers to Princeville.
Ms. Ahuna: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: It's also in reference to (page) 2-7. "Entitled or partially entitled resort
development could add more than 3,000 resort units to the existing visitor unit inventory. Most
of these entitlements have no expiration date. Given concerns regarding stressed infrastructure
including roads, wastewater systems, and parks, the policy is to prohibit expansion of Visitor
75
Destination Area (VDA), and where possible, to reduce VDA boundaries and remove Resort
areas where entitlements do not exist. Many in the community desired a shift toward a `use it or
lose it' approach toward resort development." It's not consistent.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So we would ... if I can interpret, your desire is to remove the land use
designation on (page) 5-8 concerning the Princeville Plateau, as well as strike the word
"Princeville" from (page) 2-8 to be consistent with the language in paragraph H.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Do you want to restate it?
Mr. Dahilig: Your intended motion is to amend the plan to, again, remove the designation on
(page) 5-8 and then strike the words "Princeville and" on page 2-8 to be consistent with the rest
of the language in paragraph H on page 2-7. Right?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Everybody understand the motion? Do we have a second? No second?
Motion dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Ho: I'll give it a second.
Chair Keawe: Roy, will you second?
Mr. )`Io: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Ho. Let's do a roll call.
Mr. Dahilig: (Inaudible)
Chair Keawe: Yeah, we can discuss it obviously. I just want some clarity, Mike, on, again, what
Commissioner Ahuna is asking.
Mr. Dahilig: The effect of this would be that the landowner would not be able to apply to the
Land Use Commission to change the designation from Agriculture to Urban. What it would also
mean is that they are not eligible to ask for this area to be placed into the Visitor Destination
Area if there is no Land Use Commission change. If there was a Land Use Commission change,
they would be able to apply for Resort zoning, but removing this does not allow them to go to the
State Land Use Commission and have that put into Urban designation.
Chair Keawe: Okay. And can you clarify the vote?
76
Mr. Dahilig: If you were to support the motion by Commissioner Ahuna, it would be to remove
this and therefore, the consequences... they would not—
Ms. Ahuna: Phase II.
Mr. Dahilig: Phase II. So they would not be able to apply for the Land Use Commission Urban
changes—
Ms. Apisa: It's Phase III, isn't it?
Mr. Dahilig: Is it Phase III?
Ms. Ahuna: Phase II.
Ms. Apisa: Phase II is already there.
Mr. Dahili . It's Phase III.
Ms. Ahuna: No.
Mr. Dahilig: It's the most eastern blotch that looks like a—
Ms. Ahuna: Right here. So this is Phase II and this is all part of Phase II, correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, it's the one that looks like a mutated rooster.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is there anything pending on that right now? That area.
Mr. Dahili . There is nothing pending at this point that would up -zone the property. There are
other land divisional entitlements that are on the property, but right now there is nothing that
would be to up -zone it.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is this private property?
Mr. Dahilig. This is private property. It's owned by the Princeville Corporation.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Do they have any rights to this in terms of how they develop it or is that—
Ms. Ahuna: They have ten (10) years, right now, on it. If they don't use it in ten (10) years,
currently, they lose it. But I'm making a motion to take it off of the Land Use Map.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: If we do that, then what happens since they have that 10 -year sunset
clause?
Ms. Ahuna: They have to go through the process like any other developer would.
77
Mr. Dahilig: I just want to clarify that the 10 -year sunset was meant as, I guess, a balancing
throughout the discussion process. In our community discussion draft, before we even made
recommendations to the Planning Commission, we had actually taken this item out, initially. But
then in our discussions, we put it in, along with Kikiaola's Resort designation to do what was
called the "use it or lose it" policy based off of what we've heard from some of the public
testimony. It was a way to try to balance and say okay, you have not come in yet to apply for
your Land Use Commission designation, you have not come in to apply for zoning, you have not
come in to change it to the VDA, it's been twenty (20) years, it's been thirty (30) years. If you
are not going to do this, why do we continue with this? So the people that had own those areas
had said well, out of fairness, give us a chance to apply. So that's where the 10 -year came in as a
suggestion to balance the removal but also the overall... yeah, to balance the desire of the
landowners to be given a shot we realized this is serious stuff but on the flip side, to attempt
to draw down the amount of potential Resort designated areas that could lead to expansion. It
was that balancing act there. There is no firm permit or there is no finn zoning amendment that
would require a sunset at this point. They do not have Resort entitlements to operate at this
point.
Mr. Lord: So Director, the
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Sorry. The net effect, if I understand that correctly, is that if the motion were to pass
that the landowner - and the adoption of the General Plan the landowner would not be able to
come in at any point; there is no 10 -year.
Mr. Dahilig: There is no 10 -year.
Mr. Lord: Got it. Thank you.
Ms. Apisa: I feel like, in fairness, I would like to have a little bit more information from the
stakeholder and what are the plans or ... I don't know the...
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is there a requirement that they have to have some kind of notification
ahead of time that this is going to end and ... I mean, it can't just end today or whatever else. Or
if they -
Ms. Ahuna: It can end today if we all vote on it.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Well, I mean, but once it's set that ... in other words, if this were to pass
and it were the 30`h of June or I" of July and this passed, and they come in with something on
June 30th, will they still be able to do that?
Mr. Dahilig: That really becomes a judgement call with the first discretionary approval. At the
end of the day, if...let's say they were to come in under the wire before the Council were to, let's
say, approve and give their white smoke to the plan. What would happen in that circumstance
(is) the Land Use Commission if they wanted to change it to Urban - would still have to go
78
through that process of evaluating whether something is or is not consistent, so you would have
conflicting documents, essentially. This is not a hard and fast zoning entitlement. This is a
spatial policy of land to say where we want certain uses. This document is, again, required under
State law for us to exercise our zoning powers. If they were to make a map change at the State
level, they are also required under 205 to ensure that any changes that the State makes for their
zoning layers is consistent with our current plans. It's hard to say where the Land Use
Commission may or may not go, but they are going to have all the information in front of them at
that point.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Thank you, Chair. Director, so this particular area has been in two (2) prior iterations
of the General Plan?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
Ms. Ahuna: Correct me if I'm wrong, Director, the landowner still can come in and request for
certain parts or whatever they want. This change doesn't mean that they still cannot do a
development on it. Correct?
Mr. Dahilig: This does not preclude economic use of the property.
Ms. Ahuna: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: It allows for agricultural subdivisions. It allows for uses associated with the
Agricultural district. This, again, does not provide the right to build. It provides the right to
apply; that's the difference. You have a right to apply versus a right to build.
Chair Keawe: So currently what's listed is a right to apply.
Mr. Dahilig: What's listed right now is the right to apply.
Ms. Ahuna: It's, like, basically a free spot right now for the developer to just build without
having to go through the process, correct? Somewhat?
Mr. Dahilig: No, no. This would not allow them to build resort usage or resort structures. What
they can build is agricultural housing is what they are allowed to build right now. This ---
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, but changing it...
Mr. Dahili . Changing it would preclude them from being able to apply for permission to build
and use the land as a resort.
Ms. Ahuna: Right.
79
Mr. Lord: Excuse me. What I think Kanoe is looking for is clarification on if they - if I
understand you right, Kanoe — the ... right now, they don't have the right to build in there; they
have the right to apply.
Ms. Ahuna: For a resort, yes. Got it.
Mr. Lord: So that's different than the right to build.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes. Right.
Mr. Lord: Okay. It's not an automatic granting.
Ms. Ahuna: For resort, yes.
Mr. Lord: No. That doesn't mean it'll be granted.
Mr. Ho: Mike, so their right to build now is based on an Ag/Open?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. Their right to build now is based on Ag/Open designations.
Mr. Ho: So that would be about, what? One (1) unit per five (5) acres?
Mr. Dahilig: It's a complicated situation where it depends on how you draw the lines. But in
general, it caps out at five (5). Because this has not been ... well, actually there is a standing
subdivision right now, right? I forget. In theory, each parcel, if it reaches a certain size, you can
build up to five (5) farm dwelling units on the property, but it's also subject to whether or not the
parcel has been already subject to the one-time subdivision rule. I could not off the top of my
head give you a read exactly what can be built here given the current zoning, but it's one of those
things where if you cut the pie, the pie will allow you to put five (5) units per size of the pie, but
you can't cut the pie any further anymore.
Chair Keawe: I guess in short, removing the zoning would preclude them from the right to
apply.
Mr. Dahilig: The designation, not the zoning.
Chair Keawe: The designation would preclude them from the right to apply, and the other would
be they would have the right to apply at some future date. So I think Kanoe's motion is to
remove that right to apply, correct?
Ms. Ahuna: For resort.
Chair Keawe: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
80
Mr. Mahoney: Could I ask a question? If that 10 -year rule is in effect ... the "use it or lose it",
would that still be in?
Mr. Dahilig: Based on the current motion on the floor, the way the Department would interpret
it would be that no, this would not be subject to "use it or lose it"; they've lost it.
Mr. Mahoney: Yeah, they lost it.
Chair Keawe: If the motion was passed.
Mr. Dahilig: If the motion was passed.
Mr. Mahoney: But if it didn't, the...
Mr. Dahilig: The current language allows them to apply, but they must complete those
entitlements in ten (10) years.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Everybody understand what the motion is? Okay, roll call vote, Mike.
Ms. Ahuna: So we have a second, right?
Chair Keawe: Roy, yeah.
Mr. Lord: Point of clarification.
Chair Keawe: Yes.
Mr. Lord: Do we then have an opportunity to give our opinion as part of the vote?
Chair Keawe: As part of the vote?
Mr. Lord: Yeah, when you do the roll call.
Mr. Dahilig: That's now.
Chair Keawe: That's right now. You can give it before we vote.
Mr. Lord: Okay. Can I give my opinion?
Chair Keawe: Absolutely. (Laughter)
Mr. Lord: Thank you. I think, for me, it's a question of fairness to the property owner. This has
been in two (2) prior General Plans, and to remove it with no opportunity for that property owner
to come in and apply for ... just apply now, we're not saying that they would be approved, seems
totally unfair to me. If I owned a piece of property and it were zoned R-4 and the General Plan
was to change it to R-2, suddenly removing half of my economic opportunity, I would be taken
81
aback by that. I think that, secondly, it doesn't give the property owner the right to build or any
assurances that it would get approved. All it does is gives them the opportunity to apply. Then
that application has to be vetted and stand on its own; so whether it's valuable or not, valuable to
the community. Thirdly, I think, the community has a lack of resources and sometimes
developments are done that can become a win-win down the road whereby the community can
get needed things in exchange for those approvals, and to tie the hands of future Planning
Directors and/or County Officials simply by wiping them out of something that's been there
twice doesn't seem right to me. So I'll be voting against it.
Ms. Ahuna: I'd like to respond to that. I personally feel that, on the other side, the kuleana lands
and the `ohanas that were part of that community have already lost a lot of their lands and access
to their shorefronts and the ocean. I mean, this was just right here; this is what was shared over
several `ohanas and kupunas that have shared within this book right here, as well as the surveys
and the testimonies of what Dr. Blaich had shared earlier ... or Dr. Vaughan, I should say, earlier
had shared in regards to their research that they've done for the last two (2) years under Sea
Grant and CTAHR. So for me, in response to that, I mean, we're looking at one (1) landowner
versus several `ohana, so Resort versus a place for our people to live.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Any other opinions before we vote? If not, Mike, can you call the vote?
Mr. Dahilig: The motion on the floor is to remove the reference in page 5-8 of the Policy Map
concerning the Princeville Plateau, as well as the words "Princeville and" from page 2-8
concerning the Resort section under paragraph H. A "yes" vote would be to remove their right to
apply.
Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ilo: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
82
Mr. Lord: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe.
Chair Keawe: No.
Mr. Dahilig: 2:5, Mr. Chair.
Okay. The next item — if I could propose something, Mr. Chair — would be to get a read on
Hokua Place if we could. Right now, the plan currently has it in the designation for
Neighborhood General, as well as a portion — a sliver -- in Residential Community. You've
heard, from the public, concerns about the traffic, as well as the intensity of demand on the
infrastructure and whether or not the development is appropriate in that place. Right now, the
plan currently does show it in, so we want to just confirm with the Commissioners whether or
not leaving that in the plan is appropriate given the copious amounts of public testimony that
have come in over the past few months and whether or not this is something that needs to be
removed.
Chair Keawe: I had a question. I know Commissioner Apisa had a question, also. We received
written testimony from Mr. Allen regarding the line that apparently cut out a certain portion of
that and I'd like a clarification on that.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah. His testimony that was given here today kind of raised questions for me. He
seems to say that the terminology, the wording, kind of cut back something. I'm not clear about
what his comments are. His comments confused me.
Mr. Dahilig: If I could clarify, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: What the Hokua Place testimony indicates is ... the original 2000 Mass General
Plan shows the whole plateau being in, what's called, "Residential Community".
Ms. Williams: It was "Urban Center".
Mr. Dahili . "Urban Center". Sorry, "Urban Center". Because of the new designations that
have been given to certain areas as part of place typing exercise for better walkability and
connectivity consistent with the Multimodal Transportation Plan, certain radii were applied
across the island and also applied in the Hokua Place situation. There's a certain portion of the
plateau that was originally in Urban Center that falls outside of that multimodal connectivity
analysis, so we've extended it as far as we could and lopped off the most mauka piece that we
felt was not going to be well -serviced by multimodal infrastructure. So that's what Mr. Allen is
referring to is that the area is smaller than what was approved in the 2000 General Plan, but we
believe, at the same time, that the integration of mixed-use, as well as applying a form based
code regime as it's prescribed in the plan would still allow for and yield similar, if not more,
83
density in that area with respect to prescribing more multi -family, duplex -style homes versus
single-family tracks as he is referring to.
Ms. Apisa: So the density could be the same, they would just be a different type.
Mr. Dahilig: It would be a different type.
Chair Keawe: Yeah. Initially, I think the number was 750 and I think you're going to lose about
250 of those units, so the net would be about 500 units.
Ms. Apisa: So the net would be 500 instead of 750.
Mr. Lord: Chair, that would be only in the event that it stayed single-family?
Chair Keawe: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Theoretically, yes.
Ms. Apisa: But duplex, they could be back up to 750.
Mr. Dahilig: Right. They would still have to undergo a zoning process which could prescribe
more density, but smaller product. That is something, from a footprint standpoint, we are
particularly interested in because it allows for a better spectrum of product for people to equity
jump from house product to house product, as well as concentrate density along County -serviced
corridors leading to more people on less infrastructure. That's why we essentially... and I do
confirm what he is saying that it is a smaller area than what was initially put in the 2000 General
Plan.
Ms. Apisa: And multimodal is a part of that decision?
Mr. Dahilig: Oh yes it is. It's very important for us in terms of our proposals that we include
things that are consistent with the Multimodal Transportation Plan.
Ms. Ahuna: So that is why it was removed initially.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, that's why it was ... well, why it was removed wholly initially was this
tension between traffic and housing. The concern was the Wailua-Kapa`a traffic corridor is such
an island -wide issue. Do we exacerbate it by placing 500 to 750 homes north of that bridge, and
whether or not it was going to operate like a bedroom community or not. So we feel that moving
it into a more walkable and multimodal -style development would encourage less commutes
across the Wailua Bridge and we feel that the outpouring of testimony over the past few months
concerning people wanting housing, this provides that balance between housing type, as well as
not trying to exacerbate traffic to a degree of hurt.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But the fact that it could be made into duplexes doesn't mean that it will
be, and if it were put into duplexes, you would still have the same number of units, so
84
theoretically, you would have the same number of cars but it makes it for possibly more
affordable housing. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Dahilig: That's the idea, and also
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But it doesn't mitigate the problem; the traffic problem.
Mr. Dahilig: It doesn't mitigate, but it lays a foundation that we can better service things like
public transportation because there's a critical mass around an area that has tighter population
versus something that is spread out.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Do we know that the builder would be amenable to doing something like
that?
Mr. Dahilig: He has stated a number of times that he is interested in affordable housing. Now, I
look at his testimony and I'm not sure if I can reconcile product that people can afford or be
entry-level into and have it be an 8,000 -square foot lot with a 2,400 -square foot house. I mean, I
think the reality in our market is that it doesn't support that. But nevertheless, we think that by
regulation — and that's why we, instead, put an overlay of it being considered "Neighborhood
General" versus "Urban Center" — that it forces a typing where denser product is going to be
consistent with the plan, so that's as best as we can do to try to provide guidance if they move
forward with the zoning application. They still will have to go to the Land Use Commission.
They still will have to go to the County Council for zoning. And our recommendation based off
of this would give those bodies the message that we want it, not in the traditional track -style of
development, but we want things that are multimodal, mixed-use, and integrated tightly.
Chair Keawe: Kanoe, are you going to make another motion for Hokua Place or just put it on the
floor?
Ms. Ahuna: (Inaudible) put it on the floor.
Mr. Ho: Can something else besides homes be built in there? Like a neighborhood center, pool,
rec center?
Mr. Dahilig: It would become as a community by design type of situation where we would have
to go through a coding exercise, and that's where you would come down from that 30,000 -foot
level and actually design it almost block by block. That's the kind of envisioned regulation and
exercise we want that area to go through. So like a pool, or even like the neighborhood store on
the corner, that kind of stuff.
Ms. Apisa: I would need a little help in forming it, but I think I'm ready to make a motion. I
support the Planning Department's recommendation on that to have a higher dense, encouraging
multimodal transportation. I'm not sure exactly how that should be worded.
Mr. Dahilig: I guess to make it simple, if you were wanting to leave the plan as is with respect to
Hokua Place, I would make a motion to leave the plan as is.
85
Ms. Apisa: So that would keep it as is? Alright. I make a motion that we keep the plan as is
with regard to Hokua Place.
Mr. Lord: I'll second that.
Chair Keawe: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this particular item?
If not, roll call vote, Mike.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. This is on a motion to keep in the designations and language related to
Hokua Place and leave that in the plan.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Seven (7) ayes, Mr. Chair.
We did get testimony from the Kilauea Neighborhood Association on May 12`h and I'd like some
guidance on this one. There is suggestions to expand the Town Center to provide for resident
and it would suggest striking the word "visitor needs".
Ms. Apisa: What page is it in the—?
86
Mr. Dahilig: I'm just reading off of the thing.
Ms. Williams: You can refer to page 2-54 in the May 23rd Departmental Draft.
Mr. Dahilig: (Page) 2-54?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Page 2-54. Marie, if you want to, maybe, run down what the changes are.
Ms. Williams: Yeah. Just to give a little bit of background, previously Mrs. Blaich did provide
— I think about two (2) months ago did provide some recommended edits to the section and we
internally did review those and we incorporated those edits into Supplemental No. 5 and that's
what you see in the May 23rd draft. Many of those recommendations are, in fact, in line with the
testimony you received today from the neighborhood group, but there are two (2) new actions
that are not included in this draft and we can go over that.
Maybe what I can do is I'll go over the changes that are before you right now that are
recommended in the draft and this is on page 2-54 under Kilauea Town and under the goal
"Provide for modest growth of Kilauea Town with improvements to accommodate resident and
visitor needs." A. Expand the Town Center to provide for resident and visitor needs. The
testimony from the neighborhood association would be, as Mike mentioned, to strike the
reference ... to basically focus on resident needs first and prioritize that. Lowercase "a" was
already changed and it now reads, "Ensure there is an adequate neighborhood -serving
commercial space." The previous language said "provide additional commercial areas targeted
towards local serving business" and the concern was that the existing project that is currently
being developed would essentially provide that additional commercial space and there was
concern that the policy in this plan would further allow increases in commercial space when they
already have a large project that should be coming to fruition soon, so that was adjusted already.
The previous language under b. said "Provide additional capacity for housing to accommodate
up to 350 new homes in the Town Center area." It was recommended that we, instead of
providing a hard and fast number - 350 that we refer to the existing Kilauea Town Plan, which
was approved in 2005, and that kind of provided a range of 200 to 240 homes, and to be
consistent with that plan. So our proposed language is to "Provide additional housing in the
areas designed Neighborhood General and Neighborhood Center. Prioritize the water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements needed for this to occur." Finally, if you go to e., the
previous action was "Incorporate visitor parking areas with shuttle service into the expanded
Town Center." Based on the recommendations we received, we did change that to read,
"Continue to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to address the need for traffic reduction
in Kilauea Town and at the Refuge by establishing visitor parking area(s) and a shuttle service."
So rather than restricting that potential parking area to the Town Center, just acknowledge that
perhaps that parking area or maybe more than one (1) parking area could occur at other locations
as well.
There are two (2) new actions provided by the testimony you received today. Sorry, Mike, I
don't have those actions before me, but one is pertaining to the expansion of the Kilauea Ball
87
Park, and we support that. That is, in fact ... we checked over lunch and that is consistent with
the Parks and Recreation Department's Master Plan, so we would support that as an additional
action. We did have a little bit of concern with the recommended action to create a spur road off
of the potential bypass road that would run from the highway to the Town Center. We had
concerns about who would actually build that and also that essentially would require a
subdivision action that could incentivize development in that area when we are clearly saying
through our policy is that the expansion of Kilauea Town will be very small and very focused.
But that's our read of the recommendations provided by the neighborhood association today.
Mr. Dahilig: Just to recount to the Commission what Marie hashed through from a rationale
standpoint, there is a recommendation regarding paragraph A.a. We believe that's already
addressed. There is a recommendation to change A.b. We believe that was already addressed
based on previous testimony that came in as well. In terms of A.c., this is a spur road item.
They want the language "in order to bypass the busy center of Kilauea Town, obtain land to
build a spur road that would connect Ala Namahana Road and Kilauea Road in the vicinity of the
Quarry Road." The Department does not support that recommendation; however, it's up to the
Commission whether they would like that language in.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry. This is A.c.?
Mr. Dahilig: A.c.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So you are saying to strike it out?
Mr. Dahilig: No, no. What they would like is they would like the addition of the language on
top of that - "in order to bypass the busy center of Kilauea Town, obtain land to build spur road
that would connect the Ala Namahana Road and Kilauea Road in the vicinity of the Quarry
Road."
Chair Keawe: So they are asking the County to obtain that land.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. So they are asking (for) that to be additional language in the paragraph c.
Our department does not support that, but again, that's their suggestion. Items -
Mr. Lord: And the reason you don't support that is?
Mr. Dahilig: We believe -
Mr. Lord: Because you don't want to have to acquire the land?
Ms. Williams: We also have our Transportation Planner here. This was something that we
actually discussed internally several months ago because the Community Association did bring it
up. Lee Steinmetz. I think he's here. He can probably best explain the rationale.
Transportation Planner Lee Steinmetz: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Lee
Steinmetz, the Transportation Planner with the Planning Department. Actually I think Marie did
F -IN
a good job of explaining it, but there's a few concerns that we have. The way that c. is currently
written talks about having a new Kilauea entry road that would go from the highway to the area
where there's the new shopping center development. What the proposal is from the Kilauea
community is to extend that road further towards Kilauea Lighthouse and connect to Kilauea
Road closer makai to the lighthouse. This has actually been in previous plans and also been
something that the Kilauea community has asked for which we fully acknowledge. Our concerns
are, one, as Marie mentioned, that that area where that extension would go, there's the potential
for that to be growth -inducing because there would have to be some type of subdivision and
either a dedication of land or the County would have to acquire that land, which we have
concerns about funding to do that, so that's one concern. From the funding perspective of
actually building that road, there is some concern that we may not be able to use Federal funds to
build that because it's basically going to be a low volume road and it may not qualify as Federal
fund eligible, so that would be looking at entirely County funds to acquire and build that road.
Even if we could use Federal funds, there are so many other priority roads that we have that we
are looking at that are included in the General Plan - including the northerly leg of the western
bypass in Koloa, the potential Lihu`e mauka road, that first part of the Kilauea road that is
included in the plan from the highway to the commercial district - that we're concerned within
the lifetime of this plan that there just will not be funding available to actually build that second
part of the spur. So those were the reasons that we are suggesting that, at this time, we don't
really feel it would be appropriate to put in the plan.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: I guess this question might be for Marie. If that language were to be left out and
circumstances were to change and funding were to become available, could it still be done? That
second leg of that spur. Would it be consistent with the language in here?
Ms. Williams: You mean if funding suddenly did become available for the spur?
Mr. Lord: Yeah, things change, funding became available.
Ms. Williams: Yeah, and something to consider as well is that many of our planning districts'
specific actions and projects in what is now Chapter 2, we do consider them "draft" meaning that
we acknowledge that we need a much more intensive public process to update the community
plan and really, the only reason we include anything specific to our communities in the General
Plan - for example, there are many other General Plans that do not even go down to the
community level at all is due to the age of our existing community plans that are about (thirty)
30 to forty (40) years old at this time. So it is very possible that through the update of the North
Shore's Development Plan, which we will eventually call the North Shore Community Plan, that
these will be refined and the projects will definitely have to be evaluated again. But yes, if
funding does become available specifically for that spur road ... I'm not sure through which
means that funding would become available for that, but it could. So I mean, if that's
anticipated, it would make sense to include that as an action but right now I guess what we're
saying is we don't anticipate the funding being there.
Mr. Lord: Yeah. I guess my question is leaving that language out doesn't (inaudible) -
:5
Ms. Nogami Streufert: It doesn't preclude it.
Mr. Lord: —from being able to do that road.
Ms. Williams: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: Right. Lee, can you give us some idea, just in your experience, what are we
talking about as far as funding to actually do that project for that length of road?
r. Steinmetz: Oh gosh. I don't know that I have an estimate for that.
Chair Keawe: Just a ballpark.
Mr. Steinmetz: I mean we are talking about millions of dollars -
Chair Keawe: Millions of dollars?
Mr. Steinmetz: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: Question.
Chair Keawe: Yes, Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Is it realistic that the new road connection from Town Center to Kuhio Highway will
become a reality?
Mr. Steinmetz: So that one I think is more realistic. I'm certainly not going to say that
everything that is in this plan is going to get built. But as an example, on that road, there's an
ongoing process to look at a dedication of that land, and that dedication of that land can then be
used as a soft match to apply for Federal funds, so because there's the potential of a local match,
that is much more likely to be done.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Anything else for Marie?
Mr. Dahilig: I'll just go through the rest of the items. Under paragraph d., they are okay with us
retaining the language. Under paragraph e., we actually took something a little bit more
elaborate and is using the phrase, Continue to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to
address the need for traffic reduction in Kilauea Tov,11 and at the Refuge by establishing visitor
parking and a shuttle service. Their suggested language was "Determine visitor parking sites for
shuttle service to and from the Kilauea Point Wildlife Refuge." So we feel that the changes are
similar and were actually a lot more detailed in explaining where, so we feel that we already
addressed that. Item f., they are okay with us retaining the language and Item g., they are okay
90
with us retaining the language. Under Item h., they are asking that the additional language,
"With public and private partners, build a sewage treatment system to accommodate commercial,
industrial, residential units and to replace aging cesspools and better protect the environment."
We feel that this is already addressed in the plan; however, if the Commission wants to have this
language in this section, we don't feel it adds or detracts from the language in the paragraph so
we are okay with that; if that's what the Commission would like to do. And as Marie mentioned,
they want another paragraph under Section A., "Obtain land to expand the Kilauea County Ball
Park." and we feel that we are comfortable with that. Under Item B., they do want the language,
"utilizing roundabouts and other traffic calming measures..." They want the phrase
"roundabouts" added under Section B.b. I think at this point, Mr. Chair, the Department is okay
with the changes with the exception of, again, Item c., but again, we believe it's a judgement call
on behalf of the Commission if they'd like to do that.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: What are you adding in B.?
Mr. Dahilig: Well, we wouldn't be adding in anything.
Ms. Apisa: Oh.
%Ir. Dahili . It would be ... I think c. is the only point of discussion between our department and
whether we agree with the Community Association's testimony or not. But I think everything
else --- with the exception of a., b., and c. — we are okay with.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But is h ... you said that was for sewage and stuff like that. Does that not
come under A.b.? Under wastewater infrastructure.
Mr. Dahilig: It does, and that's why we say it is not
Ms. NoRami Streufert: It's not necessary.
Mr. Dahilig: It's not necessary, but if it helps from a detailed standpoint, and that's what the
Community Association is wanting for that area, we generally support a better sewage treatment
plan across the island if it's possible, so I think it's...
Ms. Apisa: Just grammatically, instead of having A.h., it's incorporated into b., "Prioritize the
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, including a sewage treatment plan" or
something more specific so you don't have another...
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
91
Ms. Apisa: I mean, just an idea.
Chair Keawe: Can we just incorporate the two?
Mr. Dahilig: So just add that language to b.? Yeah, I don't think that's a ... that shouldn't be -
Ms. Apisa: I mean, to me, that would make more sense and that way it's not redundant.
Chair Keawe: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Alright.
Mr. Dahilix And then Item i. would be at h. And then I think it's just pretty much whether or
not item c.
Chair Keawe: Yeah, we're talking about the road, right?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, the road.
Chair Keawe: So I don't know how you feel, but I mean, obviously when we are talking about
millions of dollars for an acquisition of a road, I think it might be prudent to leave that out and
like Marie said, subject to potential future funding; we got funding, then fine.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Because this does not preclude that if funds became available.
Chair Keawe: Yeah. It doesn't preclude it, Glenda. Okay. So are we good with the changes for
the Kilauea... Kanoe.
Ms. Ahuna: Just the title, "A. Expand the Town Center to provide for resident needs."
Mr. Dahilig: I would say the Department is not going to object to it if that's the will of the
Commission.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay. Can we just make a motion to accept the changes that were discussed?
Chair Keawe: Alright.
Ms. Apisa: What was the last one? Just remove "and visitor".
Ms. Ahuna: They just want to take out "visitor".
Ms. Apisa: Take out "and visitor".
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, so just want to provide for resident needs.
Ms. Ahuna: The community wants "resident needs".
Chair Keawe: So Kanoe made a—
Mr. Lord: (Inaudible), too, right? Under "GOAL".
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Kanoe has made a motion. Do I have a second?
Mr. Lord: I'll second that.
Chair Keawe: Okay. By Commissioner Lord. Yes, Donna.
Ms. Apisa: The motion, Kanoe, includes—
Ms. Ahuna: Is to accept the changes that were all discussed.
Ms. Apisa: All of the changes?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and seconded. Anymore discussion?
Mr. Dahilig: If I could just clarify one more time just so we are getting this right, strike the word
"and visitor" both in the "GOAL" and in the title of "A". We would amend paragraph b. with
the language that's proposed under h. concerning the sewage treatment plan. We would add a
new h. that talks about obtaining land to expand the Kilauea County Ball Park. And under B.b.,
add the words "utilizing roundabouts and other".
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Can I ask a question? What would be the intent of taking out "and
visitors"?
Chair Keawe: What was that, Glenda?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: What would be the intent of taking out "and visitor needs"? Because the
Kilauea Lighthouse is really for visitors.
Ms. Apisa: I can only guess at that being a north shore resident that the intent is probably that
the shopping center that's under construction is not geared as tourist shops. It would be more
resident shops, I think. You've already got Kong Lung there, which is pretty much a tourist
93
shop, so I think that's the intent that it's not overrun with tourists; that it's more geared to
resident shops, I think. I don't know.
Chair Keawe: It's like one of those stickers that say "For Locals Only". (Laughter)
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But c. and e. are about Kilauea Lighthouse.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah, I'm thinking of how to word it without specifying resident or visitor; how to
word that so it's just generic. To accommodate
Ms. Nogami Streufert: How about just say "to accommodate needs"? I mean, if that's what
your intent is.
Ms. Vaughan: Is it possible for a community member to answer a question?
Chair Keawe: Yeah. Mehana, go ahead; stand up and just
Ms. Vaughan: This is language from the KNA and part of it was to try to be consistent with past
town plans — you talked about that and Kilauea was one of the first towns to have a town plan
on our island. My understanding of this issue is that the commercial was supposed to make it a
more walkable town so that people could have services within the town, not have to drive, say, to
Princeville Foodland, so that was the thing; not to be exclusive, but to try to serve the needs of
residents and also to provide for local business opportunities for area youth. So that was the
intent and I think that you all are so thorough. You are amazingly thorough and you are taking
so much time and it's quite incredible. I think that the community was just trying to say that they
wanted to make things consistent with the community desires over all of these years and with the
existing plan, and that some of the changes they felt that had been made were out of keeping
with the past without, sort of, proper study and process to look at those, such as the sewage
issues.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But e. does say it is traffic reduction in Kilauea Town and the Refuge, so
I mean, there is the reference to the Refuge which is a visitor destination.
Ms. Vaughan: Yes, and that's exactly the reason... that's a great question. That's exactly the
reason for the spur you were talking about; was to try to bring the traffic to the Lighthouse more
directly to the Lighthouse, rather than ... because for residents who live on Lighthouse Road,
that's a tremendous problem. They can't even get out of their driveways because of all the
visitor traffic going to the Lighthouse.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But it is improvements to accommodate both resident and visitor needs,
then. Is that correct? I mean, if you did that spur, that would be for both resident and visitor
needs.
Ms. Vaughan: I think that that's fair as far as the roadway goes and I think that those people will
be able, then, to access the shopping center as well.
94
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And be more consumers (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Vaughan: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Yes.
Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura: As Transportation (Committee) Chair, I just want to let you
know that there are plans afoot to be more multimodal because the problem with cars going
down to the Lighthouse is a serious one. There is no parking really. They are lacking parking.
don't know that the vision is to have more cars going down there. They have plans for a shuttle.
There is a shuttle study going on, too, right now. So I just wanted to put that in the pot
because ... just so you know there is that dynamic going on.
Chair Keawe: Thank you. Okay, so I think we've got a motion on the floor by Kanoe. Any
other questions in regards to that?
Ms. Apisa: Well, I don't know that we've resolved how to word ... are we eliminating
Chair Keawe: (Laughter) I guess the bottom line is thank you are we taking "visitor" out or
leaving it in?
Ms. Ahuna: I think we are taking it out; that was the motion on the floor because that's what the
Kilauea
Chair Keawe: That's what they want.
Ms. Ahuna: - community wanted. Yes.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Okay. Mike, go ahead.
Mr. Dahilig: Do you need me to read—
Mr. Ho: Can you read the motion again, please?
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. The motion on the floor, as stated by Commissioner Ahuna, is to remove
the words "and visitor" from both the "GOAL" and the heading under paragraph A., to add the
language under the Association's proposal regarding sewage treatment plans to the end of
paragraph A.b., to add an additional paragraph A.h. to say "Obtain land to expand the Kilauea
County Ball Park", and to add the language under `B.b.", "utilizing roundabouts and other traffic
calming measures".
Chair Keawe: Okay. Everybody clear on that? Call for the vote, Mike.
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Ho.
95
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Nis. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dabilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: 7:0, Mr. Chair.
The next item, if okay, Mr. Chair, if I could ask for guidance, is on the handout that was
distributed to the Commissioners concerning Ms. Souza's recommended changes to the policy.
This is on pages 1-22 and 1-23. What she is suggesting is an additional paragraph
concerning... and it would state "Improve traffic conditions by implementing congestion
management projects, including network intersection and bridge improvements, as well as
careful growth management and taking steps toward dependence on carbon -emitting
automobiles." She would also strike the first line of the bold, italicized header and instead
replace that with "Reduce congestion conditions". She is also proposing to remove all of Policy
8 which is "Address Wailua-Kapa`a Traffic", so that would totally be eliminated from the plan,
and I presume correspondingly throughout the whole document as a policy alignment matter.
And then under paragraph 9, it would be "Protect the island's natural beauty..." she wants the
words "beauty, distinctive landforms and other distinctive visual resources by" "...preserving the
open space and views..." "views within and between towns and along roadways." I think from a
departmental standpoint, we do not have any objections to Item 7 and Item 9, if the
Commissioners want to move forward with Item 7 and Item 9. However, we would raise
concerns with (Item) 8, and I think that's for the Commission to, I guess, make final disposition
on, but we believe, based on the public process, that this has been pretty much the number one
concern that has come across through our outreach process - it has been this one - so we molded
a lot of the plan development concerning this particular issue. We are open for -
Chair Keawe: Let me have her come up. Jean, can you come up? Just explain your changes and
the rationale behind them.
Jean Souza: I acknowledge that the Wailua-Kapa`a traffic is bad, but the plan doesn't recognize
that we have other hot spots as well. We have submitted comments in the past about
acknowledging that. So the intent of modifying (Item) 7 to be inclusive and therefore,
eliminating No. 8, that is the intent. Many folks live on the east side, they are familiar with that.
Some of us that live on the west side can tell you about other places. So does that mean that the
exclusion of areas outside of Wailua-Kapa`a don't get addressed? So this was meant to be
inclusive; let's address wherever the hot spots are, let's work those things out and not just say
Wailua-Kapa`a is the only place.
Chair Keawe: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Jean?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Could you see including some of (Item) 8 in (Item) 7? For example, if
took the first sentence in there, "Community members have repeatedly highlighted
congestion...", and take out the Wailua corridor, "...as the County's highest transportation
concern. In addition, residents have expressed that transportation infrastructure has not kept
pace with the increased development." Okay? And then taking the last two (2) sentences,
"County and State cooperation to implement the highest priority projects that contribute most to
managing congestion is necessary.", where the corridor could be somewhere else. "At the same
time. recognizing the community's concern about increased growth that could worsen
congestion." So you take out anything that refers to a location, but still takes their concerns into
account. Would you go with that?
Ms. Souza: I have no problem with that.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So it could include that; I mean, it could be the highest priority. It just
doesn't necessarily have to be that (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Jean, are you good with that?
Ms. Souza: I'm okay with that.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Souza: Do you have any other questions?
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, if I could suggest - because this does rely on some scribing if we
could, maybe, jump to the next item and we can have our staff try to merge the language for
these items and then we can go from there and we'll see (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Okay.
97
Ms. Apisa: Before we move off of this on -
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: On page 1-22, No. 7, just to be consistent, the heading says, "Build A Balanced
Transportation System", but the body of it has been changed to talk about multimodal. If we
could just build "multimodal" into the heading; "Build A Balanced Multimodal Transportation
System". It's just to incorporate the heading to be consistent with the body.
Mr. Dahilig: I don't think the Department has a concern
Chair Keawe: Yeah, Marie. Are we good?
Ms. Williams: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Dahilig: If we can, maybe Mr. Chair, get a chance to maybe give a proposed merger and try
to delocationize I don't know if that's a word.
Chair Keawe: Lee. do you have something to say?
Mr. Lord: We get it. (Laughter)
Mr. Steinmetz: I just wanted to request a clarification (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Come up to the table.
Mr. Steinmetz: Thank you. I just wanted to request a clarification on what you are requesting
and did you want to be more general and not have the language specific Wailua-Kapa`a traffic
and just to back up for a minute, through all of the community meetings that we had, that one
issue probably stood out more than any other issue and that's honestly why we put this
language -
Chair Keawe: And that's why you put the name in because everybody talked about Wailua
Mr. Steinmetz: Because everybody wanted us to address this, like, now. We have been working
really hard with HDOT to try to work on this, so I just ... that's totally fine, we can do that, but I
just wanted to make sure that you understood that the reason this is in here is this was the
number one thing that got brought up at every single community meeting.
Chair Keawe: Right. Now, is there some other area within the plan where it could be
specifically addressed with the Wailua-Kapa`a corridor?
Mr. Steinmetz: Yes, I think it could. Kind of what we did is we elevated it to the level of one of
the goals, but yes, that could be addressed in the actions.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
«:j
Mr. Steinmetz: And does not have to be a level of goal. I just wanted to make sure that the
Commission understood.
Chair Keawe: Yeah, we understand. I think the point was not to forget there are other parts of
the island that have traffic issues, also.
Ms. Apisa: For clarification—
Chair Keawe: Commissioner.
Ms. Apisa: We would take it out of...No. 8 would just say "Address Traffic" and be general,
and then somewhere else we would specifically address Kapa`a-Wailua?
Chair Keawe: That's what Lee said. That's why I asked him the question, if it's specifically
addressed in other parts of the General Plan.
Mr. Steinmetz: What I understood is you are asking us to look at combining (Item) 7 and (Item)
8 into one thing—
Chair Keawe: Yes.
Mr. Steinmetz: Take out Kapa`a-Wailua and then put Kapa`a-Wailua somewhere else, not at the
same height level.
Chair Keawe: Right.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Ms. Apisa: Are we combining (Item) 7 and (Item) 8?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Lord: Yes.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But taking out anything that says "corridor".
Chair Keawe: Okay. JoAnn.
Councilwoman Yukimura: I'd like to point out that in the Charlier study, there's a clear goal,
which is called "Manage Congestion in State Highway Corridors", and then it has strategies that
say a State highway corridor management program, work with DOT to develop corridor
management programs, and then it names these areas: Kuhio Highway from Kapa`a to the
Wailua Bridge, Kaumuali`i Highway from Puhi to Maluhia Road, Kuhio Highway from Wailua
River Bridge to intersection with Kapule Highway, and Kuhio Highway from Kilauea to
Hanalei. This is a much longer ... I mean, Wailua-Kapa`a is now, but this is a 20 -year plan and
this shows the more thoroughness of a policy that does address what you want to do. That's why
to put the transportation policy into two (2) or one (1) short paragraph is really not giving the
kind of direction that we could give with this more detailed kind of policy direction.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you.
Councilwoman Yukimura: So I would like you to consider that in order to do a more policy
plan, which is what the General Plan calls for, this would be a better way to do it.
Chair Keawe: Thank you. Rayne.
Ms. Regush: Rayiie Regush for the record; last name is pronounced "ree-gush". Having served
on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Kapa`a transportation solutions and the ten (10)
priorities that were designated for that east side -- five (5) of them short -tern, five (5) of thein
long-term I think there is a need to sort of elevate that focus area as a goal because then it
encourages the funds and the partnerships with the State to address that problem area for traffic
congestion.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Regush: So I would disagree with my friend Jean.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Thank you.
Ms. Regush: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilix While we are working on...
Chair Keawe: Jean Souza's.
Mr. Dahilig: And trying to figure out how to reconcile that. Yeah, I think for ... that is Ms.
Souza's one.
Chair Keawe: Right, right, right.
Mr. Dahilig: Maybe I could check with the Commissioners concerning... it's page 5-4.
Ms. Apisa: Of the new one?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, 5-4 of the plan. This is concerning HanapepVEle`ele Land Use Map. This
is a map that we've had a number of discussions on, including ... if you look on the next page,
also, you'll see this phrase "Provisional Agriculture" and so that has raised some question, as
well as how, from a spatial standpoint, should the policy be concerning where Neighborhood
General goes. If you look at where the word "Halewili Rd" is, you'll notice that the changes thus
far in the plan have moved the Neighborhood General more eastward towards, I believe, that's
Wahiawa Gulch, and you'll notice that there is a portion of area that is called "Provisional
Agriculture". There has been a lot of testimony on both sides of this issue; whether or not it's
100
appropriate to have it extend as far as Wahiawa Gulch or whether it should be limited, especially
in terms of intensity of usage. We are proposing it to be "Neighborhood General", which is our
most intense residential proposal that we have on the table right now, and the area above that is
called "Provisional Agriculture". The reason why we did this is that Wahiawa Gulch acts as a
natural barrier and that barrier... again, this is just for the HanapepVEle`ele map. If you look at
south Kauai, there's a different analysis there. But for the HanapepVEle`ele map, what we
were concerned about was if we create too much of a concentric usage, are we essentially
creating de facto agricultural land that is not going to be useable from a critical mass standpoint?
If, let's say, we were to cut the Neighborhood General in half, the area east of cutting that in half
would be between there and the gulch, and so whether land like that would, in effect, be still
arable and useable from a critical mass standpoint. We had talked a lot about this in-house,
whether we want to leave a sliver there. The same analysis goes to the items that are above that,
which is the Provisional Agriculture area. The reason why we did that is because we have, as
you notice from the language, the Lima Ola Workforce Housing area that is being proposed to be
put in the plan, but again, we run into Wahiawa Gulch as that barrier for critical mass agriculture.
By adding the affordable housing, which is going through the petition now, do we have to look at
that area as being something that needs to be retooled from a usage standpoint? That is the
question, I think, from the Commissioners we would like to get some clarity on because I know
that there have been many members of the public, including the Community Association, that
have raised concerns about this becoming intensified in this manner. So I think our analysis is
that we feel this is meant to address that natural barrier issue that we are trying to figure out
around, so we would like some guidance on that, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Well, we need some kind of recommendation.
Ms. Apisa: We need guidance to give guidance.
Chair Keawe: Yeah, yeah, we need guidance to give you guidance.
Mr. Dahili&. Yeah. Our recommendation is to leave it as is because it provides ... the Provisional
Agriculture, again, is meant to keep things in agriculture until they go through a community plan.
We are expected to put in the bond issuance if the Council does approve the budget and earmark
for monies to do plans for Hanapepe and `Ele`ele, as well as Kekaha and Waimea. So those
community plans ... we feel it's appropriate to provide a stub out in this plan for those residents as
part of their community planning process to have their land use desires implemented sooner than
later, instead of having to wait another twenty (20) years for the General Plan Update.
Chair Keawe: Addressing that, so could that be addressed in the community plan?
Mr. Dahili&. Yes.
Chair Keawe: We could leave it the way it is now, but address it in the community plan.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, so that's what the Provisional Agriculture section would do.
101
Chair Keawe: Right. You said that you are waiting for a bond issue or whatever to fund that.
How long are we talking before we can start a community plan for HanapepV
Mr. Dahilig: It depends on, again, whether the bond issuance goes as expected; the revenues
come in and then the Council goes and appropriates the money out of the bond issuance for the
community plan updates. We expect that to happen during the next fiscal year.
Chair Keawe: During the next fiscal year?
Mr. Dahilig: During the next fiscal year is what we are going to be asking the money for. So
our expectation is if we are able to get the money appropriated, we would see the formation of
community advisory committees as early as the calendar year of next year.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: The wording "Provisional" is there so that it can be open to discussion in a regional
plan?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: How large is that area?
Mr. Dahilig: Just eyeballing it ... Lima Ola is seventy-five (75) acres, so if you look adjacent to
that, you are looking at something that is in the order of
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Seventy-five (75) acres.
Mr. Dahilig: More than seventy-five (75). I'd say less than one hundred (100).
Chair Keawe: Jean, do you want to add something? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: So this is a placeholder for the regional plans of the community groups to then decide,
during their planning process, how they want to see the use of this land be dedicated (inaudible).
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Go ahead, Jean.
Ms. Souza: Gosh, I don't know where to start. We feel that the Provisional Agriculture
designation is premature; both in the lands next to Lima Ola to the east of Lima Ola — as well
as on the lands to the west of Numila. Yes, we are looking forward to the community plan
process, but in effect, designating these uses on this map for this General Plan does give them a
de facto entitlement. Just as Mr. Lord mentioned that Princeville has been on the General Plan
for two (2) cycles already, there is an expectation that something is going to be done. We think
it's premature at this point to designate it on this General Plan. One of the points that I wanted to
make regarding the Princeville situation as it also applies here is that to get on the map for this
ItIN
General Plan, the information that the County considered was pretty sparse compared to an
amendment to the General Plan, which could happen at any time. So for communities to
evaluate projects, we'd like to have more information than what we have been provided through
this process. So for the lack of the sufficient information and the process to come up with the
community plan, we feel that Provisional Ag should stay in Ag, which is the current General
Plan designation.
Related to the Neighborhood General designation in the current draft, which extends from Port
Allen to Wahiawa Gulch, we feel that with a 20 -year timeframe for this General Plan, there is no
need. For example, Lima Ola, which is proposed as Residential Community, that seventy-five
(75) acres with 550 housing units will nearly double the population for `Ele`ele. In addition, this
Draft General Plan has as Residential Community on the Hanapepe side — you see where it says
"Hanapepe Heights" and there's two (2) yellow blobs — that's going to be Residential
Community developed by Department of Hawaiian Homelands. As you look at the 20 -year
timeframe for this, we are potentially going to be doubling the population in `Ele`ele and
possibly in (the) Hanapepe side as well. So do we really want a mixed-use area to Wahiawa
Gulch?
One of the things that you haven't addressed yet are the policy statements. One of the policy
statements says that we want to preserve agriculture and we want to preserve open space
between communities. In effect, you are allowing urban development to encroach upon
agriculture and also to possibly — especially with the Provisional Ag on the Numila side — create
strip development, or linking communities together when many of our community members love
the open space. So we've been taking all of those things into consideration and we hope you will
keep both of those places in Agriculture.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Souza: Thank you.
Councilwoman Yukimura: I just want to add that if you are changing General Plan designations,
if it were not done through the General Plan, they have to do an Environmental Impact Statement
— correct me if I'm wrong — right? To do a General Plan amendment as a separate effort.
Mr. Dahilig: Only if it's done by a non-governmental body.
Councilwoman Yukimura: Correct. So here we are doing a favor for A&B; they don't have to
do a ... if you give a General Plan (designation) like Neighborhood Commercial, and as Jean
pointed out, the public doesn't have enough information; it's not a focused docket item. So to do
it through the General Plan is really not advisable.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. DahiliK. So Mr. Chair, given the testimony, I want to just emphasize to the Commissioners
that the phrase "Provisional Agriculture" does not provide any permission to apply for anything.
103
Ms. Ahuna: What's the difference of leaving it Ag, though? How would that affect...
Mr. Dahilig: What we are concerned about is a situation where you are going to have that
impending community plan and the community plan can only be effectuated or implemented by
law unless there is consistency with the General Plan. So what we are saying is if the desire is
wanting to have the community plan implemented sooner than later ... and again, I don't know
what the community plan is going to come up with. I think we owe it to the community
members out there to actually have the discussion. Like Jean is mentioning, they haven't had the
information, they haven't had the discussion, they haven't had the opportunity to design their
community or let their wishes be known because this is a high-level plan. What we want,
though, is an opportunity for the plan elements of that community plan to be consistent with the
General Plan sooner than later because if...they have to go through a process of approving the
community plan, which is going to take two (2), maybe three (3) years, and then they are going
to have to come back and amend the General Plan for consistency, which will take another two
(2) to three (3) years again. So if the community wants something from Day 1, it would be Day
365 times 6 that you can actually start applying for zoning entitlements at that point. Our desire
is that if the community wants something to happen in their community, they are going to want it
sooner than later. They may come up through the community process and their community plan
may say, you know what, we don't want any of this. We don't want any of this. But we need to
give them the fair chance to do so and we think that by providing this designation called
"Provisional Ag", it shaves two (2) to three (3) years off of that General Plan amendment process
to try to implement their community plan process. So we do not view this as ... and I see
Councilmember Yukimura disagreeing with me and she can disagree with me if she wants, but I
do not believe that this — and I will state that for the record - provides them an opportunity to
come in and apply for up -zoning to Urban designation based on what our policy is here. I want
to state that for the record clearly.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So this gives them more options.
Mr. Dahilig: This gives them—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: It goes all the way from staying Agriculture to going to an Urban Center
because it doesn't preclude anything because it's Provisional Agriculture. Is that correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, and it provides temporal options; that's what we are after here. It's not
zoning options, it is temporal options. So I would suggest that ... I want to just clear up any
misinformation that the phrase "Provisional Agriculture" conveys an entitlement to anybody. It
does not convey an entitlement. It provides for the community through their community plan
process to have their stuff implemented earlier, if they choose so; that's all it is.
Mr. Lord: So, Director, if...I'm trying to understand this. So if we were to ... so you're saying
that it's specifically for a placeholder effect for the community plan to be effectuated.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Lord: Can that be stated in the General Plan and for no other purpose?
104
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, and -
Mr. Lord: That way a developer can't come in and say I want to rezone that.
Mr. Dahili . Right.
Mr. Lord: Okay.
Mr. Dahili . What we can do is we can pull the language that we have that corresponds with this
map just to reassure the Commission that that's what our intention is in making this proposal. If
stronger language is needed, we are amenable to stronger language, but I want to be clear from
our department standpoint, again, just to clear the air, Provisional Agriculture is not meant to
convey the option to apply. They need to go through a community plan process first.
Councilwoman Yukimura: I'd like to say something, please. First of all, until now, there has
been no category called "Provisional Ag". I don't even know what that means. Secondly, if it's
just Ag, it can be changed in a community plan. And thirdly, when you say the community can
get something faster, I think it means the landowner can get something faster. I haven't seen the
community say they want this. It has mainly been A&B saying they want this.
Mr. Dahilig: And at the end of the day, a (inaudible) adopted community plan is going to be the
only thing that unlocks this. I'm not in the business of trying to say well, it's a landowner thing
or it's not a landowner thing. Landowners are also part of the community process when we go
through the discussions and they indicated they wanted to have this discussion. If this is
something that the community doesn't want and doesn't pass muster with the Council, it's not
going to be unlocked. I mean, I think that's the message. It's really an opportunity for us to say
have the discussion. It would be difficult for us to supplant our judgement for the community if
they haven't gone through a community process either. I mean, as much as we appreciate the
feedback that comes in from the Community Association, there needs to be a process that goes
forward, and they haven't gone through a localized process yet, and that's all we are saying.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: What was it designated prior to this General Plan?
Mr. Dahilig: These areas were designated Agriculture.
Ms. Ahuna: Prior to this General Plan; in the last General Plan.
Mr. Dahili&. Yes.
Chair Keawe: Jean, quick one.
Ms. Souza: The General Plan is a policy document, and through the Land Use Map, it expresses
what the policies are for this area. If we are going to have the chance to participate in a
community plan, wouldn't it be prudent to leave it Agriculture and allow the community to have
105
a discussion? If, at the end of that process, they decide it should remain in Agriculture - both the
Provisional Agriculture area and the Neighborhood General area - what does the community
have as its options to delete it from the General Plan map? They don't have any options. And
for the next twenty (20) years, that is going to show as a green blob and a gray blob there, and
the community may not want it. I think it's more prudent at this point to leave it in Agriculture,
especially when there are other areas that will be developed or are proposed for development that
is going to create a substantial amount of growth for this area anyway.
Chair Keawe: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Souza: Thank you.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Could I ask a question on that?
Chair Keawe: Yeah, Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: We've had several requests for agriculture land and for building farm
dwellings on agriculture land, and many of them look like large gentlemen farm estates, which
that would allow if it stayed Agriculture. Is that correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, it would.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So by putting it as Provisional Agriculture, does this provide more
opportunities or options for the residents of Hanapepe so that it doesn't become someone selling
off those seventy-five (75) acres and then making fifteen (15) 5 -acre faun dwelling residences?
Mr. Dahilig: Right. It could be an option that they want to look at and putting this in Open.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Or putting other overlays that are there. All we are saying is that the spatial
element of the gulch being there and the existing and proposed construction is going to create
this tension in that area. It's going to happen, and I think that's what our message from the
Department is, is that some discussion is going to have to happen on how to treat that area
between Lima Ola and the gulch because there is going to be this spatial pressure there. Below
Halewili, we still stand by that just because we are, again, trying to support multimodal housing
that is close to our work centers. Port Allen is meant and is earmarked to be a secondary work
center to Lihu`e, so we want to be able to provide more integrated, denser uses close to that port.
But everything that is north and between the gulches, between Wahiawa Gulch and Lima Ola,
we are saying that needs to have some real discussion because whether it be in Ag or whether it
continue in Ag, there is going to be this pressure to do something with it because of the sprawl
that's happening. Whether it's appropriate to put it into something like a park, it may be
appropriate to be it in a Park, it may be appropriate to put it in Natural, but some distinct decision
has to be done regardless of what's happening there because of the Lima Ola project now
encroaching towards the gulch. It's going to squeeze it and the critical mass of agriculture is
going to be diminished because of that narrowing along the corridor.
106
Chair Keawe: Okay. Well, let's see if we can move this along here. We have Jean Souza's
comments with regard to the plan and also the Hanapepe policy maps.
Ms. Ahuna: There is also language in the narrative section of the Hanapepe-`Ele`ele... which is
in reference to page 2-23. Here. Some recommendations for changes or revisions to that coming
from the Neighborhood Association of that community as well. So we can either go down
through this. I mean, in general, not every single ... but in general, look at it. It's much easier to
see it visually than to just take it ... or we can just ... but I think a lot of this answers some of the
requests to change the land map request.
Chair Keawe: Kanoe... oh, I'm sorry. Are these primarily language changes or this is
substantive kind of
Ms. Ahuna: Well, that's why I would like to see how it may relate; some of these changes to the
request that's being made now.
Ms. NoRami Streufert: Could we have a couple minutes to review this?
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, that's why ... like, the visual.
Chair Keawe: Let's take a recess. We've got, I think, three (3) more items to cover; two (2) in
Hanapepe and one (1) with the Aloha+ Challenge.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 4:58 p.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 5:-- p.m. with six (6)
commissioners present; missing was Commissioner Apisa.
This portion of the meeting was not recorded.
Ms. Ahuna: ...Neighborhood Association. I think it's important to integrate or hear their voices
and the work that they've done, and it's within their community, so if the Department is okay
with that, I'd like to move forward with making a motion to accept ... adopt this language into the
General Plan; these revisions.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I have a second?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second.
Chair Keawe: Second by Commissioner Streufert. Any questions? Anyone have any questions
with regard to any of the changes contained in here? If not, can we have a roll call vote?
Mr. Dahilig: Roll call vote is to adopt the language on pages 2-22 through 2-27.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
107
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa is not here. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: 6:0, Mr. Chair.
Given this language, the Department would still like a read from the Commission concerning the
map. Our department would recommend keeping the 1-lanapepe-`Ele`ele map as is. That would
be our recommendation and would appreciate a read on that from the Body.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: To me, I know the Department is standing on that. I just don't see the difference in
where just leaving it as is - as Ag - if it's been Ag, just leaving it as Ag. So I'd like to make the
motion to change it to Ag. If it's been Ag this whole time, it should just stay Ag.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I have a second to that motion? The motion is to change the map to
Ag from Provisional Agriculture.
Mr. Dahilig: Just to clarify, this would also include the area below Halewili as well? Or just the
area above Halewili?
Ms. Ahuna: Can we go back to that map so I can understand?
Mr. Dahilig: So this is on page 5-4.
Ms. Ahuna: It would include the Provisional Ag; that whole section right there of the green
Mr. Dahilig: Above Halewili?
M
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: What's the difference between Neighborhood General and Neighborhood Center?
Mr. Dahilig: Neighborhood Center is the most intense use we are proposing. So those are
highly intense... Marie, if you can maybe just describe that a little better. But it is ... on a scale of
things, that's our most intense proposal.
Ms. Williams: Neighborhood Center is essentially our town cores. So as we all know, it's more
of the main street feel and it's a very different form and function to the rest of the area, and that's
why we designated it as something separate from Neighborhood General which might have some
mixed-use, but essentially it's serves homes. Its more homes for people and parks and facilities
related to the community as well. So that's essentially the difference between Neighborhood
Center and Neighborhood General.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Could I ask a question on that to Marie?
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Will there be a definition of this somewhere in this?
Ms. Williams: Yes, it's included in Chapter 2. I can -
Ms. Ahuna: Inland use.
Ms. Williams: Yeah, I can get the section.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Oh, I got it. Yes.
Ms. Williams: Okay. On page 2-6, under D. and E. are the descriptions for Neighborhood
Center and Neighborhood General.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess the definition that you gave was a lot more complete than we
have here; that they would be much more intense population centers and that stuff. If that could
be included in there because that makes it very clear as to what the intent is, or what the
difference is.
Ms. Williams: Okay. Yeah, definitely Neighborhood Center is where we support more infill
development, yes.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Okay. So we had a motion made. Do we have a second?
Us:
Mr. Dahilix I guess, Mr. Chair, just to clarify whether the motion is to include the stuff below
Halewili. I think that's—
Nis. Ahuna: When you say "Halewili", you are saying...
Mr. Dahilig: Anything --
Ms. Ahuna: I'm just saying the whole Provisional Ag.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, Provisional Ag, that's the stuff mauka, but I know that Ms. Souza has raised
stuff concerning the stuff that's makai.
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, that was my question regarding what's the difference between Neighborhood
Center and Neighborhood General, and the reasoning for the General Plan to designate that area
Neighborhood General.
Ms. Williams: Neighborhood General definitely is a growth tool. It's indicating where future
housing demand ... that we would need it there.
Chair Keawe left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Ms. Williams: That it, essentially, is where we support moving forward with potential State
Land Use Urban District, then of course would be followed through County zoning action.
Ms. Ahuna: So does that affect open space in Neighborhood General?
Ms. Williams: Neighborhood General in that specific area to the east of where Port Allen is right
now, yes. It would be changing the existing General Plan which shows it in Agriculture and
saying we do support this area for intensification of use and to meet future housing needs there
as well. as Port Allen expands. So to include it would support the expansion or intensification of
the Port Allen area. To remove it would be to not support that use and intensification there.
Ms. Ahuna: Near Port Allen?
Ms. Williams: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: Can I ask Ms. Souza a question really fast?
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair has it.
Ms. Ahuna: Oh.
Mr. Ho: Oh, I'm sorry.
IVIS. Ahuna: Can I ask Ms. Souza a question real fast regarding ?
110
Mr. Dahili . Kimo is not here, so she's asking --
Ms. Ahuna: I'm asking you, Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Please. I'm sorry. Do you want me to recognize her?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Mr. Ho: Yes, please. I'm sorry, Jean.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay.
Ms. Souza: Thank you.
Ms. Ahuna: I just wanted to know what your guys' reasoning was behind your request to keep
that Neighborhood General, Natural; that big space right there, underneath the Provisional.
Ms. Souza: Let me differ in opinion to Marie. We believe that the development of Port Allen,
which includes some higher density uses, is not dependent on the Neighborhood General
designation for the lands with the bubble numbered "11" makai of Halewili.
Ms. Ahuna: Because that's just like a large space—
Ms. Souza: That's a large space, exactly, so I do want to differentiate between that
Neighborhood General and the intensifications with Neighborhood Center and Industrial uses at
Port Allen. We believe that the Port Allen intensification can happen without the Neighborhood
General makai of Halewili.
Chair Keawe and Ms. Apisa returned to the meeting at 5:18 p.m.
Ms. Souza: One of the things that we have talked about and taken action on is to advocate for a
swath of land along the coastline from Port Allen to Numila to be in Natural just for open space
and recreation; that's 14.
Ms. Ahuna: Is that kind of where Palama Pond is as well? Like where Palama Pond falls?
Right there.
Ms. Souza: That's more—
Ms. Ahuna: More to the right.
Ms. Souza: More to the right and off the map, correct.
Ms. Ahuna: So it would be a little bit more to the far right after that section here. Okay.
Ms. Souza: Okay. Wayne said we don't go that far, so it's off the map and beyond our
designated area.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay.
Ms. Souza: But those are two (2) separate ... the proposal to make this Natural is Item 14, and
keeping it in Ag and not Neighborhood General is (Item) 11 if you have this map with the little
bubbles on it.
Ms. Ahuna: Right. So it's not that big section there that you're concerned about.
Ms. Souza: Those are two (2) separate.
Ms. Ahuna: Right.
Ms. Souza: Yeah, actions. Does that answer your question?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: So do you want to reiterate what the motion is?
Mr. Dahilig: Just the stuff mauka?
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, like, if it's already Ag, then I don't know why we leaving it Ag.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So this just pertains to the mauka piece?
Ms. Ahuna: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: Because it would be separate items.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to remove the Provisional Agriculture
designation mauka of Halewili Road.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Mahoney: Was there a second?
Mr. Ho: One moment, Mike. Could you explain it again?
Mr. Dahilig: Was there a second? There was no second.
Chair Keawe: Do we have a second?
112
Mr. Lord: I'll second the motion.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Wade seconded.
Mr. Ho: And the motion is?
Mr. Dahilig: The motion is to change the current Provisional Agriculture in the map on page 5-4
and remove that and just leave it as Agriculture.
Chair Keawe: And the Department's recommendation is to keep it the way it is.
Mr. Ho: The Department's recommendation?
Chair Keawe: Yes.
Mr. Dahili&. The Department's recommendation is to leave it as is. The motion on the floor is
to take it out.
Chair Keawe: To take it out.
Ms. Ahuna: And just leave it "Ag". Right now it's Ag. In the General Plan it's Provisional.
Right now it's Ag. Currently it's Ag.
Ms. Apisa: And again, "Provisional Ag" means?
Mr. Dahilig It means that discussion needs to happen about that area because it is going to be
spatially squeezed by the development of Lima Ola, and it being bounded by the gulch, so that's
why we made that recommendation that it needs to be discussed.
Ms. Apisa: And being squeezed because that's the housing that's just ... it's growing?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. There's a sprawl that's going to happen. There is a whole explanation why
there is going to be that sprawl, but especially the sprawl is going to happen based on the Lima
Ola project. So because of that, we are trying to say we need to discuss this area because it's
going to get squeezed by the natural boundary and the sprawl that's happening. But the motion
on the floor is to remove that Provisional designation and leave it just as Agriculture, which
would be that light green on the map.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
113
Ms. Nogami Streufert: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: No.
Mr. Dahilig: 1:6, Mr. Chair.
Okay. If we can go back to ... Lee, I believe, has the language that was being proposed to merge
No. 8 into No. 7, and if he can distribute the language. Just to tee up, Lee, what would happen,
as if there was a desire to take the suggested amendment, would be to ... if you're looking at
pages 1-22 and 1-23, would be to merge Item 8 into Item 7 and then renumber the rest of the
policies, so there would be nineteen (19) policies instead of twenty (20). So the proposed
language that Lee and the staff has worked on, based off of Commissioner Streufert's suggestion,
is meant to achieve that and I don't know if you -
Mr. Steiiunetz: Do you want me to just read it?
Mr. Lord: Excuse me, Director. I have a question.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Wade.
Mr. Lord: But then I also understood that that Wailua-Kapa`a corridor would then get
highlighted somewhere else, prioritized within the plan.
Mr. Steinmetz: I can address that, also. So maybe I should just read this. Would that be
helphzl? Okay. Part of this is also based on the suggestions from Ms. Souza. Okay, so adding
"Multimodal" to the title.
7. Build a Balanced lIfultimodal Transportation System
114
Reduce congestion conditions through strategic infrastructure improvements and
increased multimodal transportation options.
Then this next section comes from Section 8 and has been moved over to Section 7.
Community members have repeatedly highlighted congestion as the County's highest
transportation concern. In addition, residents have expressed that transportation
infrastructure has not kept pace with development.
The next paragraph, then, was already in (Section) 7.
Past studies and efforts have demonstrated that trying to "build our way " out of
congestion through a focus solely on road widening and construction of new roads is
neither feasible nor sustainable, and threatens our unique rural sense of place. As an
example, the Federal Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Kaua 'i
identified $3.1 billion in roadway projects for Kaua'i, with an anticipated funding of
$630 million over the same timeframe. In other words, only 20 percent of the funding
needed to complete all projects envisioned in the Federal Aid Highways Plan is
anticipated to be available. The County's Multimodal Land Transportation Plan,
adopted in 2013, provides a balanced solution that addresses the needs of all
transportation users, including freight, cars, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
And there was a recommendation to put "pedestrians" after "bicyclists". And then this last part
comes, again, from (Section) 8 moved over to (Section) 7.
County and State cooperation is needed to implement the highest priority projects that
contribute most to managing congestion.
Then in reference to the issue of where would the Kapa`a-Wailua corridor go, it actually is
already in the actions if you look at (page) 3-41 b., "Support completion of the priority projects
in the Kapa`a Transportation Solutions Report to include the following:" and it lists the highest
priority projects.
Mr. Ho: Where are you?
Mr. Steinmetz: Page 3-41, small letter "b" at the top of that page. And then I just also wanted to
mention the issue that was brought up by Councilmember Yukimura about the planning of
corridors is also addressed in slightly different language, but that is also on (page) 3-41 under
4.d. This language actually comes from HDOT; that's why we used it. "In collaboration with
HDOT, develop a process to apply "least cost planning" and "practical design" into
transportation planning and projects with a focus on congestion management..." oh, I see we
have a little typo we need to correct. "...for Kuhio Highway and Kaumuali`i Highway. Select a
pilot project to test the process and outcomes." So that's the same as the corridor management
planning that was recommended in the Charlier report.
115
Chair Keawe: Okay. Any questions with the proposed No. 7, which incorporates (No.) 7 and
(No.) 8 together? Is that right, Lee?
Mr. Steinmetz: Correct.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to accept the (No.) 7 as amended.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I have a second?
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this item?
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, if I could just clarify the motion so that we're clear. So it would be to
accept this and also remove all corresponding references to address Wailua-Kapa`a traffic as a
policy throughout the whole document.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: That's correct.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Except where Lee had just said --
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, yeah. So it's only from the symbol standpoint where we remove these
references.
Ms. Apisa: Correct.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Everybody understand the motion? Alright. Mike, do you want to call for
the vote?
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
116
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilix Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig- Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahili&. Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: 7:0, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Dahiliw. The next one is just for us to get a bearing on the Aloha+ Challenge initiative. As
you've seen from our Director's Report, we feel that the plan has already been integrated to a
point where we believe that the document is consistent with those goals; those six (6) goals. I
did have Marie prepare stronger language in the event that the Commission would like to see
more of an emphasis on this. This is not something that the Department is recommending. We
feel that it is consistent and that provides the implementation section. The plan does provide a
stub out for future integration of those specific metrics once they are actually, statewide, agreed
upon and implemented. But we, at the same time, are hearing from the public that there is a
desire to have this folded into the plan, so we've ... just for the Commission's entertainment and
to be clear on whether or not the Commission wants stronger Aloha+ language in here or not,
we've drafted this proposed amendment that we are not proposing, but it would be at the
Commissioners' behest whether or not to integrate this into the plan.
Chair Keawe: So you are not proposing it.
Mr. Dahilig. We are not proposing it, but we are dropping it for Commissioners—
Chair Keawe: For consideration. To integrate into the plan?
Mr. Dahilig: If the Commissioners' desire is to want to have stronger language for Aloha+, we
do not feel it's necessary, but we are hearing what the Commissioners are hearing and would like
to just be clear on where the Commission stands on the asks concerning the Aloha+
Challenge.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Any comments?
117
Ms. Ahuna: I'd like to make a motion to adopt this. I kind of like it. (Laughter)
Chair Keawe: (Laughter) But if we adopt it, where do we put it, Marie?
Ms. Williams: The amended language before you replaces the narrative section under the
Sustainable Island goal on page 1-13. So, essentially, it would delete all the language on pages
1-13 and 1-14, and replace it with the text.
Chair Keawe: With this text?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. Do we have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Dahilig: There is a motion.
Chair Keawe: Did somebody second Kanoe's motion? It's getting late in the day. (Laughter)
Ms. Ahuna: This beautiful thing that Director just made for us.
Chair Keawe: Okay. So can we have a second to that motion?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second, just to start (inaudible).
Chair Keawe: Alright, second. It's been moved and seconded to accept the Ianguage as drafted.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And this substitutes for everything under 1.2.1?
Ms. Williams: Correct.
Chair Keawe: Right.
Mr. Mahoney: 1 -point what?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: 1.2.1. But there's a lot more in here.
Ms. Williams: It definitely... what I tried to do was, I realized that the existing narrative section
did talk broadly about what sustainable development was, so I tried to tie it down to the fact that
not only must we think sustainable as ... that Kauai needs to become sustainable and it also has
an impact on how people lead their lives and the choices they make, but being sustainable also
means we must partner with other partners throughout the State and also move forward ensuring
that Hawaii as a state that we can become a more sustainable place; kind of looking at the
broader picture. Sorry. I'm not sure that clarified too much, but I did try to tie it into what's
happening on the State level because the State really has become a leader in moving forward
sustainable plans and initiatives like the Aloha+ Challenge. I also referenced the Hawaii 2050
Sustainable State Plan. It was completed in 2008. To be honest, not too much has ... the State
118
has not really moved forward with that, but that is still in place and I wanted to acknowledge that
statewide initiative as well.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Anymore questions? Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Rather than substituting this, can this be added to this? Or is that...
Ms. Williams: It could be.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: As I read it, it's different from what is in here.
Ms. Williams: Yeah. I definitely condensed what was in here. What we attempted to do was to
keep the narrative section to one (1) page. So the goal of...just for the layout purposes, but of
course it could be added to and it could be a two-page section. Yeah.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Because I like the thoughts that are in here—
Ms. Williams: The existing content?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: —to begin with. It's pretty straightforward.
Ms. Williams: Yeah.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: This is also good, but it's not that (inaudible).
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Ho.
Mr. Ho: The motion on the floor is to...?
Chair Keawe: Is to adopt that and incorporate it into the plan.
Mr. Ho: Has it been seconded?
Chair Keawe: We have a second. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Mr. Dahilig, can you
call for the vote, please?
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to adopt this in its entirety to replace the
language in Section 1.2.1 regarding "Sustainable Island".
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
119
Ms. Nogarni Streufert: Abstain.
Mr. Dahili&. Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Nis. Apisa: Actually, I need to abstain because I kind of missed something when I went out
there.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: I missed some of the discussion so I'm not up to speed here.
Chair Keawe: Go ahead and finish the vote.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Nay.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. There's no decision so we are going to need to
Chair Keawe: Redo it.
Ms. Ahuna: It's just strengthening the language of Aloha Challenge, really, with Marie's
suggestions.
Ms. Apisa: Bring me up to speed a little and maybe put a new motion on the floor.
Mr. Dahilig: So the Aloha! Challenge is something that has been brought up consistently
through the public testimony over the past few months. It's something that we had concerns
about with respect to it still being in process, essentially, because there's some metrics that are
still being worked on. However, you know, there was testimony again today wanting a bigger tie
into the Aloha+ Challenge goals and so we to help the Commission along came up with some
language to try to facilitate that. Again_ we are not recommending the language, but at the same
time, if the Commission feels that having the Aloha+ Challenge highlighted as part of
120
the... highlighted stronger in the plan is something that the Commission as a body would want to
do, then that's why we drafted this language here.
Chair Keawe: It's already in the plan.
Ms. Apisa: So we're taking out 1.2.1 entirely?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Ms. Apisa: And substituting this?
Mr. Dahilig: Substituting it with that language.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Can it be that we take the last paragraph of this one that has Aloha
Challenge and put that as the last paragraph on 1.2.1? Can we combine them? And just takeout
the first two.
Chair Keawe: Yes. At this point, we can, if that's—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And then that way it will still fit on two (2) pages.
Ms. Ahuna: What are you suggesting?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm suggesting that we leave it the way it is right now, okay? And just
add the last paragraph, which starts with "Sustainability also means recognizing the County's
role in the larger world." This is where they talk about ... we can talk about Aloha+ Challenge.
And let's just add that part of it into 1.2.1, then you have exactly what you have to begin with but
something about Aloha Challenge.
Chair Keawe: So that would combine... preserve what we had in there already, plus combine
that last paragraph.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: That's correct.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Is that clearer? Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: So we're keeping—
Chair Keawe: We're keeping what's—
Ms. Apisa: Everything that's there.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: That's correct.
Ms. Apisa: We are adding only the last paragraph of the proposed new one.
121
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. Because the first two (2) paragraphs are pretty similar to the
paragraphs that you have already there.
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Don't you have to retract the motion and -
Chair Keawe: The motion failed.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Technically
Mr. Ho: Oh, failed already.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Sorry, under our rules, a silent vote goes to the affinnative.
Mr. Dahilig: Or majority. Affirmative or majority.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Well, I'm looking at Rule 1-2-14, Voting, (b) the last sentence
"Upon the request of any member of the Commission, the Clerk shall call the role. Unless a
member is excused from voting, his silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But abstaining is not a silence.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay. Okay, just a clarification, then.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We're back to -
Mr. Dahilig: I mean, it's up to you to rule as the Chair on the rules.
Chair Keawe: As far as the ... well, let's do it again. Kanoe, do you want to make your motion
again?
Ms. Ahuna: Wait. So we're not taking this whole thing. Your suggestion, Glenda, is to take
only the last paragraph, add it to the ... take out the last paragraph?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Just add the last paragraph from this onto all of this that's already there.
Nis. Apisa: We are keeping what's already in the book and adding the last paragraph of the
proposed.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay. I'm fine with that.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move that we keep Section 1.2.1 as is but amend it with adding the last
paragraph that is on the Aloha+ Challenge additional sheet.
122
Mr. Mahoney: Second.
Chair Keawe: So we have a motion and a second. Any questions about what this is?
Ms. Ahuna: No.
Chair Keawe: If not, Mike, roll call.
Mr. Dahilig: The motion on the floor is to add the last paragraph of the circulated document and
add that to the end of the existing Section 1.2.1.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahili . Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Seven (7) ayes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, that's my punch list. (Laughter in background)
Chair Keawe: You can't put anymore items on the agenda. I'm sorry. (Laughter in
background)
123
Mr. Dahili&. Commissioner Ahuna, is this something you wanted to circulate?
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, sorry. These are requests that I personally wanted to add to this that came
from testimonies; specific testimonies that were redundant. Under View Planes, 2-1. Marie, can
you help me find where this would go in regards to construction and new homes? Do you have
it? My request.
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay.
Ms. Williams: In the May 23`d Departmental Draft, the Landmarks and Scenic Resources
subsection is now on page 3-111. Any action relevant to that, this would definitely fall in the
permitting actions and code changes. It would be included as a new action; Action l.c.
Ms. Ahuna: Action l.c. Oh I see. Yeah. That was my suggestion in reference to testimonies.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Jodi, do you want to give us a legal reading on that? 2-1.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: 2-1. It is a very specific condition; kind of a request. But I guess it is
sort of up to you folks. I mean, this is getting real specific and real ... drilling down, and not just
overarching policy, but really, perhaps, like a building permit sort of requirement.
Ms. Ahuna: In regards to view planes. So it would be (on page) 3-112 under "PERMITTING
ACTIONS AND CODE CHANGES" and Marie is suggesting it would fall under l.c.; a new
one. But perhaps we could just add a slight language on it to not make it so specific. But my
suggestion is — through testimonies — to add the language, "New homes or construction built on
valley walls, ridges, or coastal bluffs shall be set back so that they are not visible from the beach,
valley, or lands below." So they are not, like, right on the ridgeline.
Mr. Ho: Wouldn't that be some kind of building permit restriction?
Ms. Ahuna: That's why it's falling under permitting and code changes.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yeah, I mean, it is sort of drilling down on specific ... and I guess one
concern, also, is ... it may be more appropriate as permits come in, you know, if it's a wide swath
of a condition or an overarching condition that applies to all sorts of properties, if there are types
of properties that only have ... or entirely within ridges or coastal bluffs.
Ms. Ahuna: They are not, like, right up to the coastal wall.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: And that's the only possible concern. It's sort of a condition that may be
looked at per property and so to have this—
Ms. Ahuna: It's just a discussion. I'm putting it out there.
124
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes, but I'm just—
Ms. Ahuna: This is a discussion. I'm not making a motion on it.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Mr. Ho: This might be—
Ms. Ahuna: I'm just... It's open for discussion.
Mr. Ho: This might be just something that ... rather than building on the edge of your property,
you have to set it back twenty (20) feet.
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, there's no ... I'm not ... it's out there. It's been in public testimony a few
times.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yeah, but if that's the case, then Hanapepe Heights would not be allowed
according to this.
Mr. Mahoney: Right.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is that correct? I'm just looking at it. Or anything else.
Ms. Ahuna: Future development.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Right. So that's something for you folks to weigh and consider if you're
looking at this. I mean, it—
Ms. Ahuna: It was in several public testimonies. It's the only reason why I'm putting it out
there.
Ms. Apisa: I could see where there's a setback, but not so that they are completely not visible
because that really restricts
Mr. Ho: Your view, too.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah, I mean, you could have binoculars and say that house is visible. It's not
realistic that it's not completely visible. I can see having some kind of setback, but yeah.
Mr. Lord: I think I see it as a zoning issue for the Department versus our issue for a General
Plan. I mean, it's very specific and I would think it would have to be vetted out and thought
through, all the consequences of that kind of thing. I think that's a department thing.
Ms. Ahuna: What's your take on that, Mike?
Mr. Ho: I think what we are looking at is how do you enforce this, too?
125
Ms. Ahuna: No, it's a general.. -like a provisional thing within the General Plan, not necessarily
a pennitting thing. I think people are concerned about that that's why.
Mr. Dahilig: Based off of what the attorney has been alluding to, we do run into a constitutional
issue when it comes to prohibiting economic use of a property. So if, let's say, the whole parcel
is visible from the beach, valley, or lands below, we run into an issue that you cannot have a
setback that would allow them to do that. We could look at language that says, "New homes or
construction built on valley walls or coastal bluffs shall be mitigated so they are minimally
visible from the beach, valley, or lands below." So that way there's an intent through the
permitting process, as been alluded to, that we need to evaluate minimization of (inaudible) like
let's say screening with plants, that kind of stuff. So that would be our suggestion if that's
something you would like to—
Ms. Ahuna: Well, I'm just putting it out there because it was in several testimonies. But Mike,
would it be similar to when the County makes recommendations and in that ... you know how we
always have the ten, or whatever, things at the end of the recommendation stating that the
building should have natural... yeah. Similar to that.
Mr. Dahilig: It provides direct guidance for the Department that when they are evaluating permit
applications that the scenic resources along bluffs and ridges or valley walls should be
minimized as much as possible. Again. we cannot preclude usage, but we could
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But when some lots are only 10,000 square feet, how reasonable is that?
Ms. Ahuna: I guess (the) community is putting this out there so there's no huge mansions that
are right there; eye sore, big, right on the coastline. I mean, that's just my thought of why (the)
community is putting this forward. I mean, if you read it, it's in quite a few testimonies.
Mr. Lord: I wonder whether we don't run into a constitutional thing because I mean, (if) you are
going to buy a view lot, you are buying it for the view, and then if you can't put your house to
take advantage of the view. you damage the economic value of the lot. I mean, I don't know.
Ms. Vaughan: Is it alright to make a comment?
Chair Keawe: Yeah, come on.
Ms. Vaughan: I know I submitted some language related to this at one point and I've seen other
community members do the same. I think it's not so much Hanapepe Heights and those kind of
projects where there's a lot of homes built already on smaller lots, but I think it is a bit what
Commissioner Ahuna has said. It is new areas; those Zuckerberg properties on Pila`a, those lots
on Kealia where there's a single house all by itself and it's built as close as possible to the edge.
Commissioner Lord, that's a really important question about the economic effects. I think what
community members are saying is, not that people shouldn't have a view, but if they are back a
bit, they can still have quite a great view but not steal the whole view from the beach and change
the whole experience of that beach. So I think that's what people are asking for. The language
126
that Planning Director Dahilig had suggested, as far as couching that, seems like it would be a
good compromise.
Ms. Ahuna: I think so, too.
Ms. NoRami Streufert: The problem is that there's no way of identifying... (Inaudible) not
discriminating against people who have large lots, it would be very difficult.
Ms. Vaughan: Well, I think with a large lot there's a lot of room to move back and still have a
lot of space.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But for smaller lots.
Ms. Vaughan: Yes, and so that maybe you want to say something. I'm not sure about that. But
I think the idea of avoiding setbacks, etc. is, of course, to have the general language of the
General Plan that then sets out direction which permitting, zoning, all of those things can follow.
Mr. DahiliK. The suggestion to use the word "mitigated" is meant to take out the specific tool of
setbacks as a means of trying to shield views.
Chair Keawe: So you take "set back" out and put "mitigated" in?
Mr. Dahilig You put "mitigated" in and then instead of "not visible", you leave it as "minimally
visible". So that that way there is ... and in fact, it is, in effect, one of the principles that we look
at when we have to apply an SMA analysis anyway. Our analysis has to look at, okay, where
can you see it from the beach, where can you see it from the valley floor if it's ... so it's not a
process that our department, through regulatory evaluation, does not go through. We do this
regularly with SMA analyses; particularly when we have to go through minor analyses on
homes.
Ms. Apisa: I know this was put into practice when the Westin was built in Princeville. I
remember they had to set back. They could not be on the bluff because of `Anini views. So I
think in practice, it's sort of already there.
Ms. Ahuna: So by putting it in the General Plan, it will just align with what's in practice.
Mr. Dahilig: But, in effect, it would broaden it because right now, whereas an SMA analysis is
limited to just that area within the SMA zone, this says from the beach, valley, or lands below,
and it talks about valley walls, ridges, or coastal bluffs. So it does now incorporate an element of
makai evaluation.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And mauka, too.
Mr. Dahilig: Sorry, I meant mauka. You're right. Mauka evaluation. So it does expand that
element of review. Now, whether the platform of review is going to be triggered based off the
base zoning layer is not going to be automatic because many of the mauka lands are already
127
subject to non -discretionary permits; they are ministerial permits. So an evaluation like this
would come into play when you're dealing with a discretionary permit. For us, unless this is
actually adopted as a development standard across some type of overlay — let's say like a
treatment area, like an open treatment area or whatever not — we would not see this robustly done
on the mauka lands, but it could be applicable for the discretionary permits.
Ms. Apisa: Just since I like to put things in a positive rather than a negative, and just to throw
this out there, so "shall be mitigated to protect the view from the beach, valley, or lands below."
That way it's still general. Instead of saying "not visible", saying "to protect the view from". I
just ... I don't know.
Mr. Dahilig: The phrase I was suggesting was "they are minimally visible" and take out the
word "not".
Ms. Apisa: Oh, okay. Yeah. Just trying to get that "not" out of there. Minimally.
Mr. Dahilig: If this is something that the Commissioners would want to adopt, the Department
would not have any objection to this.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: This would mean that everything that's in Kalaheo would not be allowed
because they are on a—
Ms. Ahuna: It's for future planning.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. But I mean there are still lots up there.
Ms. Apisa: But as an example.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yeah, because you can see that from the road, you can see that from the
beach. I mean, it's on a bluff; it goes up.
Chair Keawe: Mr. Ho.
Mr. Ho: You know, if you follow this and you move your house inland but you want to build an
ADU and you qualify for it, you're pretty well stuck. (If) you have to move the ADU unit back
on your property, you may have this thing stopping you from building it.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: This just limits more land for affordable housing. Doesn't it?
Mr. Dahilig: Well, that's the integrated discussion that all these things have a cause and effect.
From a judgement call standpoint, if view planes are something that are important to the
Commission, then I would say take a look at this as a means of inserting the plan through the
permitting process. If you feel that there's a cause and effect of it that would be detrimental to
other competing goals and policies in the plan, then don't put it in. I think our only suggestion
from a legality standpoint is we would suggest widening the applicability of the tools and the
goal so that we are not left with an absolute so that we end up with a potential taking situation.
128
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I think as proposed, the amendments that Director Dahilig proposed, that
would be fine with me I think. It's sort of just mitigation and also striving to comply with the
statement. So taking out that "set back" and inserting "minimally" in there, I think, would be
okay.
Ms. Ahuna: How would you read it?
Mr. Dahilig: Again, it would state, "New homes or construction built on valley walls, ridges, or
coastal bluffs shall be mitigated so they are minimally visible from the beach, valley, or lands
below."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: If they are minimally visible ... I'm trying to visualize this. If they are
minimally visible from the beach, valley, or lands below, anything that's mauka would be seen.
Anything that's mauka of Kaumuali`i or any of the beaches would be seen because this island is
sort of like a cone and everything is built above. Is that how—
Ms. Ahuna: Well, the word "minimally" implies that ... just don't put an eye sore out there. I
mean, it's not ... tome, the language is not saying you can't do it. It's just saying just be cautious
and respectful to the other people. That's what I see. It's not like a rule ora law.
Ms. Apisa: It could be very controversial in interpretation.
Chair Keawe: Yeah. Why don't we...Kanoe, do you want to make a motion? And then let's
just vote on a motion.
Ms. Ahuna: I motion to add to page 3-112, under 1. Permitting Actions and Code Changes, to
add I.c. "New homes or construction built on valley walls, ridges, or coastal bluffs shall be
mitigated so that they are minimally visible from the beach, valley, or lands below."
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second?
Mr. Lord: I'll second it.
Chair Keawe: We have a second. Any discussion on this issue? Ready to vote? Call for the
vote.
Mr. DahiliK. Okay. Motion on the floor is to adopt the changes as proposed concerning view
planes to page 3-112 under a new subparagraph l.c.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: No.
Mr. Dahiliw. Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: No.
129
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: No.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: I appreciate the intent there, but I have to say no.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Nay.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: No.
Mr. Dahilig: 1:6, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ahuna: Pretty soon I'm going to be dead already. (Laughter in background) (Inaudible)
stay murdering me.
Mr. Dahilig: I think there's one more, right? The Hawaiian one.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes, one more.
Chair Keawe: The Hawaiian Culture one.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes. This is one that I feel very strongly about that has come up in several ... and
that's under Hawaiian Culture, (page) 3-106. I feel like — and Marie, correct me if I'm wrong —
that this could be a place for this. It relates to kuleana lands. I think it could be in a place within
the paragraph under "To recognize and protect the resources and places important to Kaua`i's
history and people." I'll just read it; it's all in front of you guys. "Prior to 1850, kuleana were
"plots of land given, by the governing ali`i of an area, to an `ohana or an individual as their
responsibility without right of ownership."" Which was taken from Puku`i and Elbert 1975.
"When land was privatized in 19850, less than 1% of all lands in Hawaii were awarded to
Hawaiian maka`ainana families who lived on and tended the land. Extensive information was
recorded about these parcels including family and place names, information on surroundings,
hydrology and cultivation. These lands are house sites, taro patches, some fish -ponds or salt
pans, and often contain iwi. Lands were Hawaiian families continue to care for and live on lands
in the same areas as their ancestors are increasingly rare. Those families which continue to hold
kuleana and other family lands on Kauai are finding they no longer can due to rising property
taxes tied to value, forced partitions, outstanding debts and focused efforts at acquisition by
130
surrounding property owners. Additional protections and measures to help families keep their
ancestral (family) lands are supported including additional county level tax relief, limitations on
moving kuleana lands, family land trusts and other." So this is actually a request to put this in
the paragraph, not as a specific itemized action, but just to—
Chair Keawe: So this is just a narrative you'd like to include in that section.
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, just a narrative that I think should be honored. I mean, our county already
gives tax relief to kuleana lands, so it aligns with the County. (Inaudible)
Chair Keawe: And then we're talking about (page) 3-106?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Is that where it goes?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: On that specific page, where—
Ms. Ahuna: I mean, I think that's an appropriate place that I feel it would go.
Chair Keawe: Marie, do you know where it is?
Ms. Williams: Yeah, perhaps after paragraph 4; after we talk about burial sites. This would also
possibly be an entire new section and we add a heading to it as well.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Do you have an issue with that? Are you fine with that?
Ms. Williams: Oh, no. This is very well done. I think this would be a great addition.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. Do you want to make a motion, Kanoe?
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to adopt this, the paragraph that I just read, to the
narrative under (page) 3-106.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second?
Mr. Mahoney: Second.
Chair Keawe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Commissioner Apisa, did you have any
questions?
Ms. Apisa: Well, I do have a concern, I guess, where we are saying why they are having a
problem holding onto their land; rising property tax tied to value, forced partitions ... I mean,
that's usually a family thing where the siblings don't agree. Outstanding debt, I know one
131
particular case where they need it for aging medical bills and that, but I don't know that forced
partition, outstanding debt ... focused efforts at acquisition by surrounding properties, that's just
means that somebody is offering them money and they take it, so it -
Ms. Ahuna: Can we take out that sentence? Would you feel okay with that?
Ms. Apisa: Yeah, I have a problem with that sentence because we're
Chair Keawe: Just go ahead and strike it out.
Ms. Ahuna: Strike out that sentence and then just start back at "Additional protections and
measures to help..." because the County already does provide kuleana tax relief if they were
(inaudible).
Chair Keawe: So Kanoe, do you agree with that?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Donna, any other changes?
Mr. Ho: You are going to strike out which sentence? "Those families which continue..."?
Ms. Ahuna: The second to the last sentence where it says "Those families which continue..."
Chair Keawe: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: I have a question for the Director. Mike, what are limitations on moving kuleana
lands? What is the effect of that?
Mr. Dahilig: You know, I think the most recent illustration of the system of moving, as well as
the system of quiet titling, is most apparent with what happened with the Zuckerberg situation.
That in and of itself is, in effect, a forced partition type of situation. What will happen a lot of
times, too, is developers have ... they do have the rights to move the kuleana to a location that is
adjacent to a road and that has come into question, also, whether that is appropriate or not
because the kuleana was meant to be place specific and not just a house site. So we do have
those mechanisms, but the mechanisms may not necessarily be culturally sensitive with respect
to, again, quiet titling and kuleana relocations. The way that we look at the language, it gives
just pause to understanding some of the effects of what the actions may have from a historical
standpoint. I would agree with Marie. I don't see us having issue with the exception of
removing that one line; second to last line. We don't have any objections to that.
Mr. Lord: And then the ... but the idea of moving it can be beneficial for the owner of the
kuleana.
Mr. Dahilig: It should be
132
Mr. Lord: If it becomes, then, usable, right?
Mr. Dahili . And I think that's the ... the utility of the land in a western sense is a very different
thing from the utility of the land in a cultural and spiritual sense. So the idea that moving it
closer to the road is providing them a better economic benefit may not necessarily comport with
the cultural sensitivity of leaving it where it needs to be. The problem with our land use system
is that through the ages, because of the land ownership and how that's been disseminated over
generations and generations, the quiet titling action forces this discourse of whether you have
family members wanting to keep it because it's an ancestral place versus family members that
want to build a home and gain value out of it. So it inherently places at odds families by having
the competing western needs versus the Hawaiian spiritual and cultural needs, and then it comes
into play in a courtroom situation. I think the best we can do is be respectful of that tension and
recognize that in our actions, and that we need to be cognizant of how the interplay between our
permitting actions is at least sensitive to it. But at the end of the day, we are subject to western
land use law and that western land use law does need to prevail at some point.
Mr. Lord: Thank you.
Chair Keawe: Donna, anymore questions?
Ms. Apisa: Another question is what are we saying by the last sentence there? "Additional
protections and measures to help families keep their ancestral family lands are supported
including additional county level tax relief, limitations on moving kuleana lands, family (land)
trusts and other." What are we saying there?
Chair Keawe: Kanoe, what are we saying?
Ms. Ahuna: It's just stating that the County acknowledges this in our General Plan. I mean, you
can speak to that in regards to exactly what Mike just shared earlier, and our county also
provides tax relief already, so it aligns with what the County is already doing.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So this would be an additional tax relief in addition to what they are
already getting?
Ms. Ahuna: No. It's just acknowledging this.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So if you took out the two (2) "additional" on that sentence, so it just
starts with "Protections and measures to help families keep their ancestral family lands are
supported including already existing county tax relief—
Chair Keawe: Just take out the two (2) "additional".
Ms. Apisa: Just take the two (2) "additional".
Chair Keawe: Yeah.
133
Ms. Ahuna: I guess acknowledge. Can we...
Chair Keawe: Take out the two (2) "additional" and you'd have -
Ms. Nogami Streufert: And then "county tax with limitations on moving kuleana lands, family
land trusts and others." Does that work?
Ms. Ahuna: I guess what the community, or myself, is even trying to say is that this General
Plan acknowledges this; what I'm saying, what is here.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: So whatever you guys feel. If you don't, I mean...
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Because "additional" would mean in addition to an already existing one.
Chair Keawe: Right.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So if you just take out the two (2) additional, then it means that we would
support County tax relief and the limitations, etc. Is that
Chair Keawe: So let me recap. So we would strike the sentence "Those families..." and then
ending with "...property owners." We'd strike "additional" protections and "additional" county
tax relief. Is that right?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Take out the first "additional", too, instead of -
Chair Keawe: Right. So it would be rather than "Additional protections...", just "Protections
and measures..."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Chair Keawe: And rather than "...additional county tax relief...", just "county tax relief'.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: I agree with that and I would like to also change the word "including" and say "are
supported..." with or by "...county tax relief, limitations on moving kuleana..." I don't know
what "family land trusts and other"...
Chair Keawe: So what else would you want to change, Donna?
Ms. Apisa: What do we mean by "family land trusts and other"? What are we saying there? I
don't know what we're saying.
134
Chair Keawe: I think there is some case law with regard to family land trusts and kuleana lands,
especially on the island of Oahu, and how they use the family land trust to further their interest
on kuleana lands.
Ms. Apisa: Oh, to maintain it.
Chair Keawe: Yeah. Because, you know, they have 135 people in their family and they are all
not going to agree so they use the family land trust. They had an administrator who happened to
be an attorney who basically goes through the islands to instruct people on how to do that. Is
that right, Mehana?
Ms. Vaughan: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Ahuna: Can we just put "Protections and measures support families to keep their ancestral
family lands...
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But we don't want to support limitations on moving kuleana.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah, that's contradictory.
Ms. Ahuna: "Protections and measures to help families keep their ancestral lands are supported
by additional county level tax, limitations on moving kuleana lands, family land trusts and
other."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But we don't want to support limitations on moving.
Ms. Apisa: Supporting is a positive and limitation is a negative so it's kind of...we need to
rephrase that.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: (Inaudible)
Ms. Ahuna: Does that make ... Mehana, you want to...?
Ms. Vaughan: I think you're definitely making the language better, so that's great. (Inaudible)
When we talked to families, there is a County tax break and it's $25 a year if you get that
kuleana tax break; two (2) of the families at `Anini actually have that. As we go around the
community, that's more and more true that many, many families have kuleana lands and they
can't get it. One of the reasons is you need a complete line birth and death certificates - and
the paperwork requirements are really hard. So if you lived in Hd'ena, if you lived in `Anini.
you weren't birthed in a hospital, so a lot of families don't have the documentation and
paperwork. Many families on this island have applied and if you look at the number that actually
have it, it's very low because many can't get it.
135
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So it's actually removing the limitations as opposed to supporting the
limitations on moving -
Ms. Apisa: No, but the limitation applies to moving the kuleana around so that your kuleana is
not here, now I'm going to move it here and move it here. See, that's what the limitation is on
moving it; the location of the kuleana. That's what I read.
Chair Keawe: That's usually part of a partition action, though, right? They are going to move or
take certain kuleana lands and then exchange it for something else within that parcel.
Ms. Apisa: My understanding is, originally, kuleanas could be ... they had a right to the land, but
the landowner couldn't move thein around, as long as they always had access to it. But I think
that's what they're saying is that the landowner cannot move the kuleana to a new spot.
Chair Keawe: I don't know if we can do that in this document.
Ms. Apisa: That's what I'm reading.
Mr. Dahilig: Maybe I could suggest language, and I hate starting sentences with the word "to",
but I'm going to do it. If you were to say something along the lines of "To help families keep
their ancestral lands, current tax and land use regimes impeding retention should be revisited."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Revisited.
Mr. Dahilig: Revisited.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So it's just to revise ... to look at it, not to do anything.
Mr. Dahilig: So leave it broad so that you should look at tax, we should look at our land use
regime, and say how do we allow these families to keep their ancestral lands because what's
happening is the current tax code and the current land use regulations are impeding their ability
to do that easily.
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: And so I think—
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But it doesn't support it. I think you want to support doing that. This is
just looking at what they are doing and how to do it.
Mr. Dahili&. We can add the words "to support families" instead of "to help". "To support
families keeping their land..."
Nis. Nogami Streufert: Then you would what?
136
Mr. Dahili . "...support families keeping their ancestral family lands, current tax and land use
regimes impeding retention should be revisited."
Ms. Nogami Streufert: "...should be revisited" is just reviewing it.
Mr. Dahilim: "...revisited and revised."?
Ms. Vaughan: I think you were really close on that earlier. Mike, you had made a really
articulate point about the moving of kuleana lands and I think Donna is on to that, too. It's a
really important thing because it makes them targeted in a different way because there is not
value, necessarily, to a lo`i in the middle of a valley to a large developer, but if they can move it
to a bluff with a view next to the highway, then all of a sudden, getting that property, there is
value, and then you get the forced partition, which isn't within a family, but whereas just where a
developer has acquired a share and now they can force the partition. So it makes them extremely
vulnerable and we have a number of cases on Kauai where it has happened, and on other
islands, they actually are much more tough about regulating it.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Have we agreed on language? Are we still talking about language?
Ms. Ahuna: Read it one more time.
Mr. Dahilig: "To support families keeping their ancestral family lands, current tax and land use
regimes impeding retention should be revisited..." and I'm going to add the words "and
revised."
Ms. Apisa: Just because this is going to be around for ten (10) years, I would take the word
"current' out.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: And maybe start it, "In order to help..."
Mr. Dahili . In order.
Ms. Ahuna: In order to support.
Ms. Apisa: In order to support.
Chair Keawe: In order to support.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But does that mean that all they are going to do is to study this?
Mr. Dahilig: And that is why I added the phrase "and revised".
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But we don't know how they would revise that.
137
Mr. Dahilig: Do you want me to read it again?
Chair Keawe: Yeah, read it again.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Possibly it should state, "In order to support families keeping their ancestral
family lands, tax and land use regimes impeding retention should be revisited and revised."
Chair Keawe: Okay. (Laughter)
Mr. Mahoney: I'll buy that. (Laughter in background)
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Should be supported?
Ms. Ahuna: Should be revisited and revised.
Mr. Dahilig: And revised. Accordingly?
Ms. Ahuna: Accordingly.
Mr. Dahilig: Accordingly.
Mr. Ho: Is there a motion before us?
Ms. Ahuna: Yes.
Mr. Ho: Please.
Ms. Apisa: ghat if we said, "It is important to help families keep their ancestral..." It is
important to...
Mr. Lord: Mike, you rewrote it, didn't you?
Mr. Dahilig: Huh?
Mr. Lord: You rewrote it, didn't you?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah. That's fine.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: What if you just said, "Protections and measures to help families keep
their ancestral lands are supported."? Make it real simple.
Ms. Apisa: Yeah, without saying that we ... we support ... yeah. It's..."Protections and measures
to help families keep their ancestral family lands are supported."
138
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Ms. Ahuna: No, I rather have Mike's. I would say, "Protections and measures to help families
keep their ancestral lands -
Ms. Apisa: He started out, "In order to help families..."
Mr. Dahilig: "In order to help families..." So it would strike the whole last sentence and it
would just say instead, "In order to support families keeping their ancestral family lands, tax and
land use regimes impeding -
Ms. Ahuna: If you just add these words to the front of yours, "Protections and measures in order
to support..." Add that in the front. "Protections and measures in order to support..."
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: In order to protect and support? (Laughter in background)
Mr. Mahoney: Let's finish one sentence first.
Mr. Dahili&. Okay, so -
Ms. Ahuna: Read it now.
Ms. Apisa: This is all one sentence.
Mr. Mahoney: I know, but -
Mr. Dahili&. "Protections and measures in order to support families keeping their ancestral
family lands, tax and land use regimes impeding retention should be revisited and revised
accordingly."
Ms. Ahuna: Yes. Perfect. That's good.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I think we already had a motion and a second on the previous version.
So we can either retract the second and the motion, and just do a refreshed one...
Ms. Apisa: Who made the motion? Let's retract it and put a new one in.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay. I make the motion to...
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Oh, I'm sorry. We still have a motion and a second -
Ms. Ahuna: Oh, we have a motion on the table?
Ms. Apisa: So you have to retract.
139
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: —on the un -amended version from the last time.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay. So I retract the initial motion
Mr. Mahoney: I retract the second.
Ms. Ahuna: —on (page) 3-106. I want to make a motion under Hawaiian Culture, page 3-106, to
state, "Prior to 1850, kuleana were "plots of land given, by the governing ah'i of an area, to an
`ohana or an individual as their responsibility without right of ownership." When land was
privatized in 1850, less than one percent of all lands in Hawaii were awarded to Hawaiian
maka`ainana families who lived on and tended the land. Extensive information was recorded
about these parcels including family and place names, infonnation on surroundings, hydrology
and cultivation. These lands are house sites. taro patches, some fishponds or salt pans & often
contain `iwi. Lands where Hawaiian families continue to care for and live on lands in the same
areas as their ancestors are increasingly rare.
Mr. Dahilig: Protections and measures in order to support families keeping their ancestral family
lands, tax and land use regimes impeding retention should be revisited and revised accordingly."
Mr. Mahoney: I'll second that.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Donna, are we good? Wade?
Mr. Lord: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: (Laughter) Alright. Are we ready to vote? (Yes) Mike.
Mr. Dahilig: Motion on the floor is to add this language to page 3-106 between the "Identifying
and Preserving Wahi Pana and Archeological Resources" section and the "Perpetuating Cultural
Practices through Restoration, Stewardship, and Education" section with a new paragraph header
as stated on the floor.
Vice Chair Iio.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa.
140
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahili&. Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. DahiliK. 7:0, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: Good job.
Chair Keawe: Anything else?
Mr. Dahili&. My punch list is pau.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Dahili&. I don't know about other commissioners.
Chair Keawe: Are we ... go ahead, Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Can I go to page 1-24?
Chair Keawe: 1-24.
Ms. Apisa: On the latter part of No. 10 at the top of the page. I guess in the middle it says many
areas like Ila`ena, Wainiha, and Hanalei have their character... The sentence I'm concerned
with, "This impact has left Kauai with sharp decreases in the amount of owner -occupied units
and a clear increase in traffic during peak tourism..." I have a problem with the words, "This
impact has left Kauai with sharp decreases in the amount of owner -occupied units..." I would
like to strike that and simply say, "This impact has left Kauai with a clear increase in traffic."
Because I think our tourism is increased because we have higher occupancy, not necessarily that
we have sharply decreased the number of owner -occupied units. We still have just as many
people living on the island and, in fact, it's growing. But I have a problem with that first part of
that sentence.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
141
Ms. Apisa: So I would say strike "sharp decreases in the amount of owner -occupied units and
a". So it would read, "This impact has left Kauai with a clear increase in traffic during peak
tourism seasons." Although I heard in testimony today that it's not only peak tourism season,
it's just increase in traffic. Maybe even strike "during peak tourism". It just has "clear increase
in traffic."
Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, I like that.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Do you want to...
Ms. Apisa: So we're striking "during peak tourism seasons", also.
Ms. Ahuna: Do you want to snake a motion?
Chair Keawe: Do you want to make a motion, Donna?
Ms. Apisa: Alright. I make a motion that that sentence be made to read, "This impact has left
Kauai with a clear increase in traffic impacts not sustainable to our island." I guess that would
be "and impact" because it's now singular.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Lord: Right.
Chair Keawe: Is that it?
Ms. Apisa: That's it.
Chair Keawe: Do I have a second for the motion?
Mr. Mahoney: Second.
Chair Keawe: Moved and seconded. Any questions? Alright, are we ready to vote? Mike.
Mr. Dahilig: This is an amendment to page 1-24. This is now Policy 9 instead of Policy 10
relating to the second to the last sentence in the description. I'll just make a note over here.
Vice Chair Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilix Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney.
142
Mr. Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig- Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna.
Ms. Ahuna: Aye.
Mr. Dahili&. Commissioner Lord.
Mr. Lord: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Keawe.
Chair Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: 7:0, Mr. Chair.
Chair Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay, I have one more discussion. On page -
Chair Keawe: You already had one more discussion. (Laughter)
Ms. Ahuna: Sorry. I'm not dead yet. (Laughter in background) Page 2-10. I just had a
question for Director. What does it mean under North Shore where it says "Residential
Community at Princeville Airport changed to Transportation."? Under Table 2-2, Major
Changes by Planning District.
Mr. Dahilig: Um... (Laughter)
Ms. Ahuna: Underneath it says, "Resort designation makai of highway limited by policy..."
What is that document, "Actions by Sector VI Economy Section 1 Permitting Actions"?
Mr. Dahili&. Okay. I'm only laughing because this is why the Princeville guys have hung
around, so they are earning their money. (Laughter) The reason why we changed Residential
Community at Princeville Airport to Transportation is because that area ... there's a concern about
the airport, essentially, right? I mean, there's the concern that the airport is going to be expanded
and people don't want the airport to be expanded. However, it's also, right now, an opportunity
for a transit hub and it's also an opportunity for uses that are related to the current general
aviation that are out there. So rather than reflect it being an airport, we want to give it a more
general explanation that it's Transportation. Marie is staring at me, so I'm sure she wants to
dump in.
143
Ms. Williams: I'll also just add that we do have a clear action to not support expansion of the
Princeville Airport. Previously in our Discussion Draft that was released in November of last
year, we did include an action to possibly look at expanding it as a means of hoping to reduce
vehicle trips — getting tourists directly to the north shore - and that was struck down very fast.
So we felt we had enough testimony to remove that and reverse our sentence to say do not
support expansion of the Princeville Airport, but at the same time, community members did see
potential for this area being a transportation hub where a possible future shuttle service could be
launched as it has through the pilot shuttles that have occurred last year.
Ms. Ahuna: Okay. That's all I wanted. I just wanted clarification that wasn't for transportation
in the air, but on the ground possibly.
Chair Keawe: Anything else, Kanoe?
Ms. Ahuna: The last one was, what is that document, "Actions by Sector VI Economy Section
Permitting Actions" under the last
Chair Keawe: What page?
lyls. Ahuna: Right there under the same ... (page) 2-10, in reference to "Resort designation makai
of highway limited by policy". What does that refer to?
Chair Keawe: Marie, do you have it?
Ms. Williams: Yeah, that simply refer,,... and you're right, it's no longer in ... A no, it still is in
Sector V [sic], but that was referring to, basically, the timeframe, the ten (10) years placed upon
what is known as Princeville Phase II for them to reach their entitlements. So it's simply
referring to that; that this is an area designated for Resort per that condition.
Ms. Ahuna: What is that actual document, though? "Actions by Sector VI"
Ms. Williams: Oh, sorry. I can see why it's confusing. It's simply referring to what is now
Chapter 3; Chapter 3, page 3-88, Action l.d.
Ms. Ahuna: 3- what?
Nis. Williams: (Page) 3-88, Action l.d. under Permitting Actions and Code Changes.
Mr. Dahilig: l.d.
Ms. Williams: Yeah.
Ms. Ahuna: So maybe, Marie, can you put that there instead of that Actions by Sector IIII or
whatever?
Ms. Williams: Yeah, we can
144
Ms. Ahuna: So you can refer to (page) 3-88, l .d.
Mr. Dahilig: I guess from a conformance standpoint, we can put a page number there if that
makes it easier. I think our—
Ms. Ahuna: Because it kind of makes you feel like oh, what are they hiding?
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, no. I think our concern was that this also applies to other places on the
island; this use it or lose it approach, and not just to Princeville. But we wanted to, from a
conformance standpoint, highlight the change by the planning district to show that that's also
applicable. So if it's a matter of just tying into it for a more clarity standpoint, we can put the
page number if that's not objectionable to the Commissioners instead of that—
Ms. Apisa: What is the section that it applies to? Do you have that?
Mr. Dahilig: It's on page 3-88.
Ms. Apisa: (Page) 3-88?
Mr. Dahili . Yeah, (page) 3-88. Section l.d.
Chair Keawe: If we all agree, can we just go ahead and do it, Marie?
Ms. Williams: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: Alright.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: One of the things that I've ... and I've talked to Marie and some others
about this, is that I think that the community values, which are spread all over this thing, are not
in any specific area. There was a section in the old General Plan that has community values that
were put together and they are very similar to what it is in the entire thing, but a lot of the
comments that are coming in are based upon not finding these community values. For example,
protection management and enjoyment of our open spaces, unique natural beauty, rural lifestyle,
outdoor recreation and parks. I mean, these are really general kinds of community values that we
have.
Ms. Apisa: What page are you on?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: It's not ... it's in the old one.
Ms. Apisa: Oh, the old one.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Preservation of our cultural, historical, sacred, and archaeological sites.
Respect and protection for the values and rights of our many cultures and compliance with our
laws and responsibilities as citizens. Government that supports and encourages business.
Balance economic growth, development... promoting, providing good jobs and a strong economy
145
without sacrificing our environment or our quality of life. I mean, it just... protection of Kaua`i's
unique character. Whatever we've already found and these may not be the ones that we have
in here - but if we can find them in here and put them into a section that looks at community
values because this is the important part about why we are doing what we are doing; why we are
coming up with it. These are the values that the community has, and apparently, in talking to
Marie and the staff, it appears that it is ... those are the kinds of things (inaudible) and they are all
over the place in here. It's just putting it into one (1) section that shows this is what we are
trying to do overall and this is how we are trying to do it; how we are trying to support the
values.
Chair Keawe: Marie.
%'Is. Nogami Streufert: And these are community values. These are not values of -
Chair Keawe: Right, right. These are community values. Is that a possibility?
Ms. Williams: Yes. If it helps, I'll just explain how we ... we definitely began with Chapter 1 of
our existing General Plan, which is kind of a thick chapter that not only includes the community
values, but a vision statement that elaborates on the vision statement as well. It's quite a long
chapter. That was our starting point, but what we found is that it was a little too much and we
heard from our CAC and the community that ... let's streamline and get to the point of what our
vision is, so that's what you have now before you. We did go tlirough, not only wordsmithing
with our CAC, but through the public as well. We were at the Farm Fair and spent several days
having people actually wordsmith and change the words and tweak it. We had an Instagram
contest as well. We did a white paper and publicly released that and got feedback through that.
Yeah, it's true that we don't explicitly say what the community values are. We do feel those
value statements are woven throughout the updated vision and goal statements, but it's up to the
Commission if you feel it's something that should be kept or retained from our existing General
Plan and carried forward.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: If these could be validated in the data that you have now ... if they are not
validated in the data that you have now, then don't leave it in there. But if those community
values and more - if there are other ones that are now that explain what it is that ... how did we
come up with the vision and the goals because this is what we're looking at. It's kind of like
what we heard today. There are a lot of questions about why aren't we considering "x", "y", or
"z". Well, we are. It's just hard to find as the community values because it's spread over all the
places. Not that it should be taken out of there; it shouldn't. It's just that this an additional... just
a summarization of all of the values; whether that's in the text or whether that's in a summary
statement in the back or index, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But I think if there
is something that shows that these are the values that the community has and this is how we are
going to implement it, it makes it a little easier to follow.
Chair Keawe: Okay. We are going to need to. ..we've been talking so much the video guy ran
out of tape, so we need a caption break.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
146
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Chair Keawe: Before we went on break, we were talking about community values,
Commissioner Streufert.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Chair Keawe: And you had some suggestions on how we want to incorporate that into our new
plan.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Mr. Dahilig had a very good suggestion because it's already referenced
in the booklet and it's just adding these community values in there in a bulleted form.
Chair Keawe: Bulleted form to what's already in there.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah.
Chair Keawe: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig- What the Department would suggest... given Commissioner Streufert's suggestion,
I will refer the Commission to page I A 0 and would refer the Commission to the third paragraph
of the plan. The first line says, "In response to this concern, the plan focuses upon creating
clarity in policy and direction built upon many of the still -valid foundational visions and ideas
found in the 2000 Plan." So what we would suggest is striking the words "visions and ideas"
and replace that with the word "values".
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Community values.
Mr. Dahilig: "Community values". And then what we would do is, instead of a period, add a
colon after "2000 Plan" and then we would list and incorporate all the bullet points from the
2000 General Plan into the document so that they are clear for reading. And then we would start
off a new paragraph that says, "The structure of the document..."
Chair Keawe: Will that do it, Glenda?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: That will be great.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Any questions (on) what Mike went over and what he discussed?
Everybody understand what we are doing?
Mr. Mahoney: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Do we need a motion, Mike?
147
Mr. Dahilig: It's up to you.
Chair Keawe: If we --
Ms. Apisa: Do you want me to move?
Chair Keawe: Well
Ms. Apisa: Or don't need to?
Chair Keawe: I guess, does everybody agree? Do I have any dissenters?
Mr. Mahoney: I think it's a good
Ms. Ahuna: Fine.
Chair Keawe: Nothing? Nobody is going to dissent? Alright, let's just go ahead and get that
done.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Apisa: Very good, though.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: If you could just state for the record, approved by acclimation.
Chair Keawe: Approved by acclimation for the record.
Is there anything else to come before the Board?
Mr. Dahilig: That's all I have.
Chair Keawe: Anything else to come before the Commission? If not, this meeting is adjourned.
What?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Sorry. (Laughter in background) So sorry. We still need to vote on the
adjourning, but in addition to that, I think we still need to decide what to do with the whole
Mr. Dahilig: So you are back on the main motion right now to approve the plan. (Laughter in
background)
Chair Keawe: Alright. So I guess it's moving forward with what we have tried to accomplish
today. And just to reiterate, we covered a lot of issues, a lot of controversial issues, and I think
we've got a lot more clarity for our staff to put it together. So I guess the next thing is to
compile all of the changes that we have gone through today and all the input that we have and all
148
of the verse changes and come up with a schedule of when we might be able to see something
that we could vote on to forward to the County Council.
Mr. Dahilig: I mean, it is ... given the changes that are on, it really is a preference of the
Commission whether they want to see this in edited form with all the changes that have
happened today one more time. We can certainly provide that as a complete document again. I
would suggest, however, that if we do that, we would have to probably extend the time on this.
But if all the edited changes that we have, and we have a complete record; Darcie has been
keeping notes for the past eight (8) hours. We have enough here that we can enroll it if the
Commission is satisfied with the content that is here at this point. So we can provide either
option. We can either provide a complete draft based on all the changes that the Commission has
voted on; that's twelve (12) items. Or we do have enough to enroll at this point. So it depends
on the comfort level from the Commissioners.
Chair Keawe: So what's the pleasure of the Commission?
Ms. Apisa: I would kind of like to see it one more time.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Okay.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Keawe: Everybody else? Second. (Laughter) Alright. So let's go ahead and defer
to ... give me a date.
Mr. Dahilig: The next meeting.
Chair Keawe: The next meeting, which is June 13`n?
Mr. Dahilig: June 13`n
Chair Keawe: Alright. So we will defer this item one more time to June 13`n and at that time, we
would expect to see a copy with all of the changes that we may be able to—
Ms. Apisa: Will we get it like a week or so ahead of time?
Mr. Dahilig: We will get it to you a week ahead of time.
Chair Keawe: Marie.
Ms. Apisa: So we'll have to be ... whenever we're here we could stop by to pick it up or
something?
Mr. Dahilig: We will find you. (Laughter in background)
Chair Keawe: Marie, can we do that?
149
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. Does everybody agree on what we are going to do?
Ms. Apisa: Is everybody going to be here on June 13"i?
Chair Keawe: Anyways, why don't we go ahead and ... I need a motion to defer.
Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to defer.
Chair Keawe: `til June 13`x'.
Mr. Mahoney: To June 13`h, the next meeting.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Keawe: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Alright.
Is there anything else, Mike?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, there is. (Laughter)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00
a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room
2A-213, 4444 Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, June 13, 2017.
Mr. Dahilix I have circulated the batting orders for the upcoming meetings, so that's for the
Commissioners' entertainment. The announcement I have is the following regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter in this building on
Tuesday, June 13, 2017.
Chair Keawe: Alright. Now, you are not going to be here.
Mr. Dahilix I know.
Chair Keawe: Where's Kaaina? Kaaina, are you ready for this? (Laughter in background)
Ms. Apisa: We could get our copies on June 131h and vote on it on the 27`h. (Laughter in
background)
150
Chair Keawe: Alright. Anything else to come before the Commission? If not, meeting is
adjourned.
Mr. Mahoney: Do you need a motion?
Ms. Ahuna: I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Mahoney: I second the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Chair Keawe: Okay, (inaudible). We're adjourned again for the third time. (Laughter in
background) Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keawe adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
rcie Agar
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.
151