The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Special Meeting 042717 MinutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 27, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Keawe at 12:36 p.m., at the Uhu`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. Wade Lord (left at 2:46 p.m.) Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert Absent and Excused: Mr. Roy Ho The following staff members were present: Planning Department - Michael Dahilig, 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 12:36 a.m. ROLL CALL Planninjg Director Michael Dahilig: Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Lord. Mr. Lord: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: Here. Mr. Dahilijg: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ho. Chair Keawe. Chair Keawe: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, you have six (6) members present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dabilig: Next on the agenda is approval of today's agenda. The Department recommends approving the agenda as is. Ms. Apisa: So moved. Chair Keawe: So moved. Second? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion passes 6:0. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We now have Receipt of Items for the Record. I believe we have circulated a number of written testimonies that have been submitted and we wish to have those included in the record as well. Chair Keawe: Can I have a motion to receive those items on the record? Ms. Apisa: So moved. Mr. Mahoney: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to receive. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 6:0. Approved. PUBLIC COMMENT 2 Mr. Dahili&. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on public testimony on any of the items for this afternoon. We do have twenty-nine (29) people signed up to testify at this time. We would recommend going into public testimony for today's agenda. Chair Keawe: We'll open the public testimony portion. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. John Moore. John Moore: Aloha. My name is John Moore. I'm the director of the Hawaiian Sustainability Foundation. I've been in policy development for over thirty (30) years. Today I'm here on behalf of the Kauai Community Coalition to give our recommendations of what we've been going through with you, the volunteered Planning Commission, and our wonderful Planning Department over the last year that we've been directly involved. Number one, the Planning Commission holds the responsibility and the authority to choose the direction that our island is going. Number two, the Planning Commission has the authority over the Planning Department for the direction of the General Plan. Number three, we ask the Planning Commission to take their time to carefully choose the direction of our island. Number four, we ask the Planning Commission to look at the transportation report that was released on Tuesday entitled "Integrating State and County Transportation Policy". This can be used as a model for how we want the rest of the General Plan to be. It's quite brilliant and this is why we need more time to create the entire General Plan in this kind of model. Number five, we agree with the Planning Director that there has been a lot of outreach from the community going into this plan. Number six, we agree with the Planning Director that many of the inputs of the community have shaped this plan and are in this plan. Number seven, we agree with the Planning Director that he and his incredible staff have worked very hard and talked to many people and all of us on this draft. Number eight, we agree with the Planning Director that the majority of the inputs that come in testimony have been localized interests. Number nine, we do not agree with the Planning Director when he stated on Tuesday that the Planning Department cannot do anything more with the General Plan. I repeat — we believe that the brilliant staff of the Planning Department can do a lot more given more time and more guidance. Number ten, we ask the Planning Commission to ask our brilliant Planning Director and his brilliant staff to take more time to work with the Aloha+ Challenge and work with the Kauai residents who have local, national, and international experience in planning so that we can work together on a vision summit in a solutions lab to create a plan worthy of our island. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Laurel Quarton, followed by Sharon Goodwin, followed by Sandra Herndon. Laurel Quarton. Laurel Quarton: Good morning. My name is Laurel Quarton, or Laurie. I would like to thank the Commissioners for taking on your phase of responsibility for the General Plan. It has become apparent to all of us, I think, that it is a bigger job than we had realized, and certainly, the community has begun to appreciate how complex and interlocking the plan sectors are and how critical it is at this time to seriously address the way Kauai will function as an integrated whole for the next twenty (20) years. There must be a level of overall framework at which we can agree to sit at the same table, define solutions, or we will face increasingly insoluble obstacles to living the life we all wish to live on Kauai. Because the Commission is coming into this process fresh, I want to describe some of the background for how communities have experienced the GP process so far. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak directly with you. But I do want to add that it is disturbing after hearing the Commission express that there is too much material from the public to absorb and that the plan should, therefore, go aliead and be approved as is. It is disturbing to think that my testimony this morning, which will not fit into a 3 -minute allotment, may never be read by the Commission, nor will Kaua`i's public hear more than 3 -minute soundbites about these critical issues. Until recently, the Planning Department has done a masterful job of incorporating much of the ideas into their drafts; and I mean masterful. It's been a huge job and we thank you for that. In the most recent iterations of the plan, referred to as Supplemental Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, there has been a confusing selection of recommendations added, amended, or deleted without clear reference to previous language in the plan. Several large development projects have received land use re -designation or permit renewal endorsements in the Draft General Plan without adequate justification. We respectfully request that individual development projects, either named or unnamed, be removed from the General Plan where they do not belong. In addition, recent explicit sector modifications developed by the Kauai Community Coalition, a community organization, have evidently been overlooked despite being asked for by the Planning Department. We see little acknowledgement of the recent community desire to satisfy Planning's requests. As of Tuesday's hearing this week, the Planning Commissioners are being led to approve a General Plan who's 350 pages some admit to not having fully read, which would be true for many of us. In addition to the Draft General Plan, there have been five (5) supplemental supplements with additional community input that has not been assimilated into the draft. Does the— Mr. Dahilia: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Ms. Ouarton: I will. Does the Planning Commission understand what it is they are being asked to vote on at today's hearing? Do they simply vote on it wholesale? Or do they scrutinize all the pieces to determine what works and what doesn't? The Planning Commission was designed as a separate authority to revisit and assess the General Plan the Planning Department comes up with. This is good planning to have more than one (1) body take responsibility. If the Commission rubberstamps without knowing what they approve, they are wasting their time and that of the community who has invested more than a year on this process. Please extend the time for this General Plan process and allow the communities to help. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. 4 Mr. Dahilig. Sharon Goodwin, followed by Sandra Herndon, followed by Pastor Tom Iannucci. Sharon Goodwin: Good afternoon, Honorable Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners. My name is Sharon Goodwin. I am reading the testimony of Anne Walton. She's unable to be here. Thank you for your continued interest in hearing from the community on the General Plan Update document. I think I can speak for many community members in saying that your willingness to slow down the process and carefully consider the issues facing our island is greatly appreciated and conveys your deep interest in continuing to work the General Plan until we all get it right. Let's all consider time and ally and continue to use it accordingly and wisely. In your packet, you will find a copy of the significant rewrite I have provided the Planning Department on the implementation and monitoring component of the General Plan. I took the time to carefully scrutinize this section as I believe it is fundamental to the success of the plan. 1 would like to summarize for you the key components of the proposed revised language. First, a General Plan without a clearly articulated framework and intention of where we, as a whole community, would like to be at the end of the next twenty (20) years simply leaves us at the mercy of the tides of change; a ship with neither a navigation plan nor a proper sail to get us wherever we may want to go. Growth is the centerpiece of the challenge we face; both in the present and in the future. How we approach, address, and manage growth depends on the framework we are using as our reference point. I've suggested an overall framework that includes the revised vision, goals, and policies developed by the Kauai Community Coalition working group last December. Second, building off of this revised framework, I've added additional components to ensure successful implementation of the plan. I believe we should use the Planning Department's suggested Kakou Committee as an organizing body to create working groups for each sector to develop both targets and milestones for each of the ten (10) sectors. Targets are "S" specific, "M" measurable, "A" achievable, "R" realistic, and "T" timely; S -M -A -R -T, smart outcomes that we hope to achieve for each sector by 2035 or earlier as appropriate. They set a standard for what we are aiming for in our plan and help to align and prioritize activities in the plan to ensure these activities are results -based. Milestones serve as indicators along the path, telling us whether we are moving in the right direction at the right pace, or if we need to make a course correction in order to achieve our targets. Twenty (20) years is a long span of time— Mr. Dahilig. Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Ms. Goodwin: Thank you. Twenty (20) years is a long span of time to invest in going in the wrong direction. So a General Plan at this duration demands sign posts along the way to make sure we are headed in the right direction. Targets and milestones also require accountability and timelines if they are going to function in any meaningful way. Mr. Dahilig: Sandra Herndon, followed by Pastor Tom Iannucci, followed by Len Wheatley. Sandra Herndon: Sandra Herndon, continuing the testimony of Acute Walton. Third point, regular and routine monitoring and evaluation are the key to ensuring a results -based plan. The revised implementation and monitoring component as revised lays out three (3) levels of monitoring and evaluation to correspondingly answer the following three (3) questions: Are the General Plan sector activities and land use components designed in accordance with the visions, goals, and policies? Second, are we actually implementing the activities laid out in the plan according to the schedule? Are we doing what we said we would do? Are we getting the kinds of results we anticipated in terms of achieving our milestones and moving towards our targets established for each sector? The revised plan suggests regular intervals for monitoring and evaluation for each of these three (3) levels indicated above, as well as reporting mechanisms and adaptive management responses. Finally, and outside of the revised General Plan component on implementation and monitoring, I would like to recommend that before we move toward finalization of the plan that we make use of the statewide Aloha+ Challenge to set standards for many of the sectors found in our General Plan. Our mayor has already signed off on the Aloha f Challenge and with the next statewide meeting being held here on Kauai on May 23rd and 241h, our General Plan may well benefit from the outcomes of this next meeting. Thank you, again, for your courage to do the right thing. Many of us have hope that Kaua`i's General Plan can support a sustainable and resilient future for our `ohana, and serve as a model for all of the Hawaiian Islands. Respectfully, Anne Walton. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Pastor Tom Iannucci, followed by Len Wheatley, followed by Scott Greenleaf. Pastor Tom Iannucci: Pastor Tom for the record; father, former Police Commissioner, a pastor. I'll try to be real quick. As a pastor, one of the things I get all the time is housing, housing, housing; and you guys are addressing that. I worry at times for my children who went to the same schools their mother and grandmother went to and I hope they can live in the same place their mother and grandmother lives. I worry about the housing. I see the plan. I live in `Ele`ele. You guys are doing a good job down the block. I'm all for it. I was looking at the General Plan at the Hanapepe meeting. There was I lokua Place in Kapa`a on the bypass road; it was there, it was taken out, it was put back, or back and forth. And I asked the girl, I'm like why is this out, now it's in, it's out. She's like oh, we want to go further up the hill, and I just said oh, you know what, I don't want to become a Maui or an Oahu, and that's something that I talked to Bryan Baptiste about as a Police Commissioner. The roads on the interior and using the roads for accidents and bypassing cars around, I said why don't we just pave it, Bryan? He's like the minute we go into the middle of the island, the land becomes valuable, and then we can't stop the progress. I worry about that and I like Hokua Place where it is. I think we should be smart like that. You guys are doing a good job. I'm concerned as a parent. I see a problem as a pastor and I see it's being addressed. I just want that to be done smartly. This one and the bypass makes sense to me; the location and proximity. But guys, thank you so much. I appreciate it. You guys have a good day. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig. Len Wheatley, followed by Scott Greenleaf, followed by Judy Shabert. Len Wheatley: Hello. My name is Len Wheatley. I've been a resident on Kauai for over forty (40) years and I'm here all for supporting the Hokua project. I think that housing is very important. It's a no-brainer that we definitely need housing and I think that will help boost our economy by giving local people places to work and also boost our supply of houses where they can by all the materials, so I'm all for the Hokua Place project. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Scott Greenleaf, followed by Judy Shabert, followed by Felicia Cowden. Scott Greenleaf: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good afternoon. Aloha. (Aloha) Nice to see all of you. My name is Scott Greenleaf; father of 6, live in Kapa`a Meadows Subdivision which was a Hawaii Housing Authority project which I was really happy to be able to qualify for. It was a great project at the time. I had limited access — one (1) entry— and eventually they opened up another one through Wai`ale`ale Estates when they developed that. And these kind of projects, I think, are wonderful. I've been watching Hokua Place. I'm in support of it. I've looked at all the aspects of it, all the things they've been asked to do; providing roads, bypasses, parks, future stores. Seems like a well done planned community. I can't find anything really negative with it. I've lived here since 1970. I worked for Princeville Court for a while. Been through a lot of protests and meetings there and development; Nukoli`i, some of you may remember that. A lot of protests on that one and it seems that the best thing to do is just apply wise management. An all or nothing approach isn't going to work, so it seems like everybody's asking for that in their testimonies and I support it, and my tax dollars help pay for everything. So far I'm pretty happy with the way things have been going. Can't please everybody. But I really encourage looking at this thing in an honest way and to fit the needs of the people. I got six (6) kids; three (3) live in the mainland. I've got two (2) adult children living at home. They tried to go out on their own; even two (2) of my sons went together and they couldn't afford it and they had to come back home. Housing is really, really expensive. I'm an electronic systems contractor and I do a lot of work on subdivisions and homes, and the costs are really, really high. So anything like this that comes along that can give something in a lower price range that our children can afford and in a way that seems to be well-planned, I'm 1000,0' in support of. I thank you for your time and aloha. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Judy Shabert, followed by Felicia Cowden, followed by Anne Punohu. Judy Shabert: Honorable Chairman Keawe and members of the Planning Commission, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify. My name is Judy Shabert. I am a retired physician who specialized in the care of women. In addition, I have a master's degree in public health. My comments arise from my volunteer work with the Kauai Community Coalition and includes suggestions for change on the sections Opportunity and Health for All and Public Safety and Hazard Resiliency. The changes I suggested in the General Plan resulted from discussions with Dr. Janet Berreman who was recently hired as the head of the Kauai District Health Office and Marie Williams from the Planning Department. This is the first time that the Planning Department has included a section on community health and the Planning Department must be congratulated in extending the planning to this area. In review of the document, there are some areas of the community health section that need improvement and support by the County and should be included in the General Plan. Teen pregnancy and teen births in Hawaii are higher on average than the mainland, and this is particularly true of the Hawaiian and Pacific Island teens. At the same time, reproductive health education in public schools is abysmal, and this needs to be changed and included in the General Plan as a public health issue. The University of Hawaii has developed a culturally specific program for 11 to 13 year olds called "Pono Choices". I would like to see the General Plan support the use of this important educational tool for Kauai public schools. Other areas that need inclusion in the General Plan are education on seatbelt use, the illegal use of cell phones, cell phones while texting and driving, drug and alcohol use as it relates to traffic deaths, and domestic violence. Food inadequacy, the lack of healthy food, and inadequate care of our growing elderly population is a major concern for many island families. The section on public safety and hazard resiliency has been reviewed and vetted by the Hawaii Civil Defense officials. They have done a stellar job in coordinating and training of staff in both public and private sectors to respond to the potential disasters on the island. I see no need for major changes there. Again, lack of affordable housing is a major public health problem here on Kauai as it negatively affects families in a multitude of ways. I am personally against the Princeville and Hokua Place subdivisions in any aspect of the General Plan; even if the names have been removed but the intent of these subdivisions is still in the plan. I would argue that subdivisions be approved if 700b' of the housing is affordable - Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Shabert: -for the median Kauai family and 300,0 of the subdivision be allowed for housing with houses that start at $400,000 as Hokua Place does. Commissioners, Chair Keawe: Please wrap up your testimony. Ms. Shabert: we're really talking about your families, so I beg you, please look at this issue very carefully. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Felicia Cowden, followed by Anne Punohu, followed by Charlie Bright. Felicia Cowden: Aloha. Felicia Cowden for the record. I'm going to speak in broad brushstrokes. First of all, I want to say I really appreciate the General Plan, all the work that's been done, and how many different aspects have been included. I say good job. There are many challenges and, really, it is the global economy. Last time I spoke about that; how the major aspects of our economy... basically, the drivers of our economy drive the people off the island and it's a challenge, so we have an economic game of musical chairs. The people speaking before, whether they're for or against Hokua Place, they're basically talking to that same problem. There's not room for people who live here and, at the most, grew up here, and I wore this shirt today with a smile. This is the Mand Wainiha shirt. I think that that's like the bullseye of the target when we look at our indigenous population that is absolutely being displaced in the cultural pieces, so those are all big issues. It's very difficult for a plan to solve that problem. But I just want to really put in there that this plan doesn't solve that problem. It's very difficult, but when we don't really emphasize how our economy is being driven by these elements that are replacing people and removing people, it's a tough challenge and it's actually not easy for me to tell you how to get that right. But I would say I worry in there that when we aren't realistically envisioning what the impact is when it doesn't say almost all the houses being built are being built to be sold to somebody who never lived here. When we don't have that really highly defined as a goal, it makes me nervous, but I want to have gratitude for what has been in there. And it probably really does need a little bit longer time to talk about it and to look at it, but it isn't easy. You guys have been selected to really take that close, fine-toothed comb and look at it, and it still needs some fine-toothed work. So thank you for all your work. Thank you, Planning Commission, for an excellent job, and we have a rough current to swim in, economically. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Ms. Cowden: Oh, I know one last thing I wanted to say. My image of Kauai is like it has a giant "For Sale" sign on it, you know? It feels like the whole place is basically being sold, being sold, being sold. So we have to be careful. Mr. Dahilig: Anne Punohu, followed by Charlie Bright, followed by Eileen Bright. Anne Punohu: Aloha, Chair. Aloha, Commissioners. I turned in my testimony to you in handwritten form so you may not have it before you, but I'm going to try and get through just a couple of pages because I want the general public to see how I feel. So I'm going to start on page 5 of my testimony and I also want to support the testimony of Anne Walton. It was excellent. Ms. Punohu read her testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Keawe: Mahalo. Mr. Dahilig: Charlie Bright, followed by Eileen Bright, followed by Jason Asher. Charlie Bright. Charlie Bright: Aloha. My name is Charlie Bright. I'm a retired Honolulu firefighter for over thirty-three (33) years and I've lived on Kauai for the past two (2) years. I am in favor of the Hokua development and project. I'd like to thank Hokua for the building of the solar farm and the water well, and I'd really like to know what other projects have donated that and helped the project move forward. I thank Hokua for their resources of land, building, a bike path, swimming pools, and roads, and giving us other opportunities. Without Hokua, there is nothing on the plate towards the housing for locals or affordable housing. I hear a lot of people saying that it's being overdeveloped. I was always taught this by my parents: you can never stop progress. You can slow it down, but it's been slowing down this Hokua project for so long. I think we need to do something to help the locals. True, there's a lot of influx of outsiders and mainlanders coming in. flow are you going to stop that? You can never stop that. All you can do is slow it down. Last of all, I'd like to thank the Commission and I look forward towards your approval for the Hokua project. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Eileen Bright, followed by Jason Asher, followed by Brendan Rittenhouse. Eileen Bright: Aloha. My name is Eileen Bright. I am a resident, homeowner of the Kapa`a area, graduated Kapa`a High School; just your common, everyday working-class girl. I'm going to work after this. We need to develop homes for our youth because twenty (20) years from now, when you start the process after studying it for twenty (20) years, my children will be gone, my grandchildren will be gone, and this place will be nothing but a tourist town. If you wanted to stop progress, you should have done it before Kapa`a Town looked like a bar in Mexico. I drive through that and I'm saddened because that is not what Kauai is supposed to look like, that is not what you've worked so hard to try and keep. We need to keep our youth here, keep those who have learned the Hawaiian traditions. My children can do imu, they teach, they work. They work with other youth and they develop my community. They need somewhere to live. It's great, I can pass them my home. I have ties to kuleana land; all the way back. My grandparents were here. They lived here. We're working on trying to'fix a house - our house — which was built on blue rock stone as the foundation. My husband's mother built it. That is what Kauai needs. You need to provide so we can teach and grow. Directed, yes, but it's not the house that's evil or that's going to direct the path; it's what you do in it. If you guys want to develop this and make Hokulani [sic] grow the Hawaiian community, have classes there. The house got to be there first. Twenty (20) years from now, you start this process again after you study it for twenty (20) years, I'll be dead and in my grave. My kids will be gone, my grandchildren will be in the mainland. They won't be on Kauai because Kauai will just look like another tourist town; the whole island. Take this time now. You guys have it in your hands and the power to make a difference. Let Hokulani [sic] build, but just oversee what's done with it. Let it grow and develop, but you cannot wait forever. As my husband said, you cannot stop progress. If you could, we wouldn't have Mexico in the middle of Kapa`a Town, we wouldn't have developments in Princeville which used to be Hawaiian land, we wouldn't have developed Anahola, we wouldn't have Hawaiian homes at all because it would all be Hawaiian. You want to preserve this for Hawaiian ancestry, work with the Hawaiian homes people and develop it. There is so much that can be done if we work together, but do not stop development. We need to provide houses. You guys have all of the statistics available to you. You know that we need housing. I () You guys have the hand on the helm, you can guide where it's going. But do not remove the opportunity for housing because when the next one comes along, we may have no say and it's going to be a hotel. It's not going to be family homes. We need that. Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Bright: And I thank you for your time and for listening to me, and I'm glad that you are here and representing. Mahalo. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Jason Asher, followed by Brendan Rittenhouse, followed by Arlen Minerho. Jason Asher: Thank you for having me, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jason Asher and I believe in the Hokua Place just because of the fact that I, myself, when I graduated high school, my father lost his place because of rent hikes. We never owned anything. I lived on the streets for about 4 or 5 months, got back on my feet, served sometime in the military, lived in a few other states. Eventually, I would want a place to call my own and I have not had a family or not had an interest of family because I don't have the opportunity towards me with affordable housing. With the price bracket that Hokua Place offers, it's well within reach for me because I'm already paying rent above that right now. For years it just feels like I'm not being able to get headway. Everybody wants that feeling of gratification of having their life started. I'm still waiting for it, a lot of people are waiting for it. I know it's just a matter of choice, but unfortunately, without that many options in front of me, choices are limited and I'm just surviving. I have a roommate who's a single parent and unfortunately, he's in the same predicament. He cannot afford a place on his own and he's doing the best he can. I was raised by a single parent, too, and I see a lot of my father in him, wanting the best opportunities, but if opportunities aren't presented before you, where are you going to go? What are you going to do? So just to cut it short and simple, I don't reiterate too much on what's already been said, I think that having this housing opportunity will also bring down the rest of the competitions' prices around the island as well. That's it. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Brendan Rittenhouse, followed by Arlen Minerho, followed by Luther Yam. Brendan Rittenhouse: Thank you, Council [sic]. My name is Brendan Rittenhouse. I'm a single father of two (2). I'm not originally from fiawai`i, but my mother was born and raised here on Kauai. I'm just a simple worker of five (5), sometimes six (6) days a week, and I'm especially for Hokua Place and what it affords to ... not necessarily me, but to my children down the road; something I could afford now to leave behind to them. The closest thing I found to Hokua Place prices is a house built back in the 30's, something that needs a lot of work, rundown plumbing. I think it would be nice for younger kids from my generation, many of whom have moved off of Kauai back to the mainland in places like Washington, Arizona, Vegas, as such, just because they can't afford anything here. I can't afford most rental places. I'm 30. I still live with my father just because rent prices are so high. I think $1,700 for a single bedroom is ridiculous for most working families here on Kauai. I just fully support this and believe that it's the closest chance anyone my age in my generation is going to have to make anything to leave behind to my keiki. Sorry, I'm not very good at public speaking; this is my first time. But I do highly support Hokua Place, especially with all the implements being done and the future plan that comes with it. As far as the bypass road, having the solar farm built, that's a great thing; a lot of it's off the grid and fully sustainable. I'm for the future walk paths and all. That's how my family used to get around a lot of times. My father gave up everything just to keep a roof over our heads. He gave up his car, he biked to work day and night in the rain, it didn't matter; anything to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads. When we didn't have a car, that's how my brother and I would get around; we couldn't even afford bus passes. We just got on bike and we would ride from Hanamd'ulu all the way to Lihu`e or to Kapa`a. I'm sure if you've seen people bike on the highway, you've seen how dangerous that can be. So just having anything affordable, close where our kids can walk to school is just a great thing that all families, at one point, need to experience and enjoy. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Arlen Minerho, followed by Luther Yam, followed by Chet Hunt. Arlen Minerho: Aloha, Commission. I'm in favor of Hokua Place. Again, I came up here a few weeks ago speaking of Hokua Place and what it means to me. Exactly as Mrs. Bright talked about, twenty (20) years from now, where will my children be? Will there be something for thein to have, for them to own? As many of us said that live here, that are born here, that are raised here -- we usually only have a chance to own a home if it's passed down to us. Even as hard as we all work, you guys all know what milk and eggs cost here; it ain't cheap. So for an opportunity for our youth and even ourselves to purchase something for our family. And Hokua Place, where it's at, the idea of it, the community behind it, the infrastructure and how it's going to be built, I'm for it. I'm grateful for your guys' commitment to looking at everything that we have on Kauai. I know it's not easy, what you guys do, but I want to thank you guys for all the hard work. Aloha. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Luther Yam, followed by Chet Hunt, followed by Robert Castle. Luther Yam: Aloha. My name is Luther Yam, a father of seven (7). I'm for this project because my kids ... my oldest two (2) kids, they're in the mainland already. They said they don't want to come back because there's nothing here for them. I work seven (7) days a week and I still can't afford a house; I rent. So I'm just for this project. If it's going to help our kids get a place to come back and call home, that would be good for, I guess, everybody's kids. I'd like to thank you guys for having us here, g;ving up your guys' time. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Chet Hunt, followed by Robert Castle, followed by Chad Deal. 12 Chet Hunt: Chet Hunt. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It will probably be the shortest speech you hear. When the original plan that I saw back in, I think, November in Koloa showed the road between the Beach House and Spouting Horn as being rezoned VDA, and I understand that has been taken out. There seems to be a lot of opposition to vacation rentals. They bring tourists to the island. I think they're good. They offer a different experience than staying in a hotel. So I would like to see that put back in. I think the reason that people don't like VDAs is it destroys neighborhoods. I'd like to point out that the forty-two (42) years I have been here, the properties along Lawa`i Beach Road have always been vacation rental, so you can't put it back to a neighborhood that never was. It's not a neighborhood. You don't go next door and ask a neighbor for a cup of sugar. There are no neighbors across the street except the 1,000 acres of VDA. So I question the logic in removing that, which was originally recommended as a VDA area. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Robert Castle, followed by Chad Deal, followed by Ian Jung. Robert Castle: Hello. I'm Robert Castle, father of nine (9). I work in construction here and I'm in favor of Hokua Place. I just would like to know that someday my kids could have a house here. I don't own a house. I'm renting, so I have nothing to hand down to them. But at some point I'd like to think that they wouldn't all make plans to leave the island. It sounds like that's what they're all telling me. The three (3) older ones had said they'd like to be here but they can't. I'm all in favor of this and also working construction, I'm sure that it would help me with my family in more ways than one. So I'm in favor. Thank you for your time. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Chad Deal, followed by Ian Jung, followed by Wayne H. Souza. Chad Deal: Aloha. Mr. Chair and fellow Commissioners, my name is Chad Deal. I am here as the director of the Kauai Board of Realtors, Government Affairs Committee. I am the Government Affairs Director and I'm here today to ... you have a copy of my testimony submitted to you as of yesterday. If I can, since time is brief, I'll just make a few points. Mr. Deal summarized his testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Deal: So with that, I would like to, in closing, thank you all very much for all the work and time and effort that you've put into this. Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Deal: It's been a long process and we wish to thank you very much from the Kauai Board of Realtors, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Chair Keawe: Thank you. 13 Mr. Dahilig: Ian Jung, followed by Wayne Souza, followed by a break at the bottom of the hour. Ian Jung: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Ian Jung, representative of PRW Princeville Development Land Company. I was asked that I read ... Mr. Fujiki and Mr. Crowell weren't able to be here today, so they asked that I read testimony into the record for them. First of all, we'd like to thank the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, as well as members of the community who have been involved in the General Plan process. PRW is in support of many of the policies and believes that there's more work to be done and that it's time for moving this document up to the County Council. Mr. Jung read the testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Dahilijg: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jung continued reading the testimony for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Jung: Thank you, Chair. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Wayne Souza and then we'll take a break, and then followed by ... after the break, Jean Souza, followed by Juliana Cherry, followed by Bridget Hammerquist. Wayne Souza: Good morning. My name is Wayne Souza. I am speaking on behalf of the Hanapepe-`Ele`ele Community Association. We are testifying in opposition of the use and the designation of certain agricultural lands as Provisional Agriculture. Provisional Agriculture implies that those agricultural lands are being held in a holding pattern for a distant future change in land use designation. That future is beyond the 20 -year period of this General Plan Update. It is in the future of our children and those others who follow us. It is their future and they should be the ones making those land use decisions, not us. Don't limit or bias their future land use options like ours have been by entitlements. What might have been good decisions back then is not the case today. Conditions change over time. What was good back then certainly is not good for us today. Let's learn from our history. We should not assume that our current situation will continue into the future beyond the 20 -year period of this General Plan Update. Time and conditions change. The only constant is change. We appeal to you to do what is right for our children and those others who follow us. Do not unnecessarily limit the future land use options by designating certain agricultural lands as Provisional Agriculture in this General Plan Update. Leave it Agricultural. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. We will take a short break now. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 1:30 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 1:41 p.m. Chair Keawe: Let's reconvene. 14 Mr. Dahilig: Jean Souza, followed by Juliana Cherry, followed by Bridget Hammerquist. Jean Souza: My name is Jean Souza and I'm testifying on behalf of the Hanapepe-`Ele`ele Community Association. The prior positions of the Hanapepe-`Ele`ele Community Association, as reflected in our prior written and verbal testimonies, still stand. In addition, I have two (2) final comments. One, in the Hanapepe Town area, the land use maps in the General Flan Draft indicate that the Neighborhood Center designation for the Hanapepe Town Center only applies to that part of Hanapepe Town that lies east of Hanapepe River. This is an error as the Planning Department has ignored the entire western half of the town, which is home to Anahola Granola, Aaron's Kitchen, Mariko's, Salt Pond Country Store, Kauai Kookie, Salty Wahine, Island Gym and Fitness, and Dr. Kanna's Dentistry, among other businesses. Please designate that part of the town that lies west of Hanapepe River, mauka of Kaumuali`i Highway and along Hanapepe Road as Neighborhood Center. Number two, in the `Ele`ele area between Port Allen and Wahiawa Gulch, if the Planning Department no longer feels this agricultural area — currently actively cultivated in coffee is no longer important for agricultural uses in the next twenty (20) years as evidenced by the recent deletion of its Agricultural designation, we recommend that a coastal strip of not less than 200 yards in width following the coastal cliffs be designated Natural or Parks and Recreation. This is consistent with the Community Association's past proposals to the County that these lands be set aside for public use as open space, as recreation areas, and as meaningful public access to support the many recreational and open space needs of the tremendous urban growth reflected in the Hanapepe-`Ele`ele area by the latest General Plan Departmental Draft. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. We've got a person who wants to go now, and this is very ... we don't normally do this, but does anybody object to this woman here going? She has to go pick up kids or grandkids or something. Is that alright? Does anybody object to that? Ana Mohamed Des Marais: Thank you so much. Chair Keawe: Okay. Now, don't do this again. (Laughter) We very rarely do this, but thank you. Go ahead, please. Ms. Mohamed Des Marais: Thank you. Thank you so much. Chair Keawe: And your name, please. Ms. Mohamed Des Marais_ My name is Ana Mohamed Des Marais. I'm so grateful for this opportunity and for the Planning Commission to be here to do this. I just want to reference a very general point that the arguments being made very intelligently and eloquently by certain commissioners on Tuesday would be valid if this was a balanced economy. But I'd like to make an argument for economic disparity being caused by exploitation which is symptomatic of drug abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, and crime increase. The County Council is working on fixing these problems, but it's like putting Band-Aids on gushing wounds. Although the Band - 15 Aids do need to get put on, we need to go to the root of the cause and heal this wound. It was an (inaudible) wrong that was committed that I feel this General Plan for the next twenty (20) years should have a portion for reparation to exist. My example of economic exploitation and disparity - one of the many that I have - is that a surgeon being the highest paid profession on island, having spent years on education and invested high amounts of money, being that they hold the lives of people in their hands, giving many a God complex cannot afford a golf membership at Kukui`ula and can only go on Kama`aina days or be invited; Kama`aina should be for us common folk, not necessarily the surgeons of the island. People migrate to the U.S. in search of opportunity for a better life given by our democracy, which in my opinion is the only offering freedom as a birth right. Capitalism ensures the success of democracy because it means that no matter what poverty level you are born into, you have the opportunity through perseverance, the sweat of your brow, and novation in creativity to rise out of any situation you are in and leave a better life for your kin. The opportunities afforded to mainlanders buying up land and raising prices are not equal to the opportunities afforded to islanders; therefore, the disparity, the exploitation, and the symptomatic situation that we have here that is severe. I also would like to state that there's an increase in the budget for Fire and Policing, which one of the crime symptoms of exploitation is that, but also tourism has a negative effect on the island a negative impact - being that there's so much rescue that needs to happen because people don't understand the laws of nature and they should be educated upon entering such situations that are life- threatening. I also feel there should be a visitation tax that could possibly happen in the airport to help supplement the funds because I feel that visitors have a different mentality than the islanders do, and even the water consumption in other areas of their moving about would be helpful. Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Okay, wrap up your testimony, please. Ms. Mohamed Des Marais: That's it. I really appreciate you guys giving me this opportunity and I'll continue with this. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Juliana Cherry, followed by Bridget Harnmerquist, followed by Doug Wilmore. Juliana Cherry: Thank you. Juliana Cherry, resident of Weliweli Tract in Po`ipu, K61oa. Although there are many aspects of the General Plan which interest me, I live in the Po`ipu- K61oa area and work in the visitor industry; therefore, I will address my concerns about proposed south shore development. The General Plan is a mighty, all-encompassing work in progress, but I urge you to defer approval of it as it stands, and the following is an example. I question the details on future residential and resort units which have been approved, permitted, or are under construction. The South Kauai Plan, Table 3-15, which gives potential visitor units, did not include the Village at Po'ipu Kai, which was 51 units, or K61oa Landing Estates, 323 units. Appendix G of the General Plan does not include Wainani at 70 and the K61oa Landing Estates, 323, and also two (2) Knudsen Tract [sic] parcels totaling 278 units, which were originally noted in the SKP Table of 3-15. Thus, if we add the total of the 1,613 units in the General Plan and an 16 additional 671 units, which I'll point out is a 42° o increase, you now have a total of 2,284 approved units. In addition, in the South Kauai area, there are 1,040 residential units already approved. So we now have a total of 3,324 new units plus 209,200 commercial square footage, all of this is potentially approved, and we need to absorb that into the given infrastructure and what kind of an impact on our daily life on the south shore is this going to have. How can we consider including in the South Kauai Plan the Po`ipu Gateway Mixed Use Village, which endorses 1,100 residential units plus commercial usage. We need to absorb the already approved development before inviting more growth. Realistically, this "village" will not answer the affordable housing problem, nor will it create a walking, friendly community. Most likely the outcome will be more high-end houses for second homes and more visitor -oriented shopping. As stated in the GP introduction, a successful plan relies on the community's ability to accept factual circumstances, assess future challenges, and craft coherent solutions. Adding more development is not a coherent solution in this case. There are many good ideas in the plan; infilling K61oa, more creative services — Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Cherry: Okay. Chair Keawe: Please wrap up your testimony. Ms. Cherry: Yes. Anyway, there are a lot of good things in it, but I urge you to continue to refine the GP Plan and to go back to the South Kauai Plan and the others plans, and please remove this Po`ipu Gateway Mixed Village. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Bridgette Hammerquist, followed by Doug Wilmore, followed by Luke Evslin. Bridgette Hammerquist: If the Chair will allow, may I please be recalled when Councilwoman Yukimura is on the list. She has a meeting to go to and I have agreed to yield my time. Chair Keawe: You only have one (1) session for three (3) minutes. Ms. Hammerquist: Well, I think she's on the list as well. Chair Keawe: She's on the list for her own testimony. Ms. Hammerquist: Right, but can she use my time slot? If that's agreeable with you. Chair Keawe: You want to change places? Ms. Hammerquist: Yeah, that's all. She just had to go to a meeting and she has to — Chair Keawe: Okay, fine. If you're willing to give up your place, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. 17 Councilwoman JoAiui Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: JoAnn Yukimura, followed by Doug Wilmore, followed by Luke Evslin. Councilwoman Yukimura: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Before the clock starts ticking, I'd like to ask two (2) things actually. I'd like to ask that I be able to complete my 2 -page testimony even though it exceeds the three (3) minutes and I would like to ask that I be considered a resource person rather than just a public testifier as I was Planning Committee Chair of the County Council as far back as 1976 and for most of my twenty-four (24) years on the County Council, I was Planning Committee Chair and also ... that's one (1) request. And the other request is that I want to invite Commissioners to ask questions if they have it because I think we can get at the heart of the matter, if you do have questions, if you ask them. Chair Keawe: Well, first item, how many pages do you have? Councilwoman Yukimura: I just have two (2) pages. Chair Keawe: Two? Alright. I don't want to deviate from the policy and procedure that we've had for quite a while, so if you want to go ahead and do the two (2) pages ... does anybody have an objection to Councilwoman Yukimura doing that? Okay. Go ahead. Councilwoman Yukimura: Thank you very much, Chair. As I stated before, the General Plan is the most important planning document in the County and it isn't just a values document that states what our values are. It's meant to guide the growth and development of the County for the next twenty (20) years. Section 14.06 of the Kauai County Charter says the General Plan shall serve as a guide to all future Council action concerning land uses and developmental regulations and expenditures for capital improvements. By necessity, it must also guide the mayor and various departments of the County, and by statute, it's supposed to guide State agencies as the Department of Transportation. The General Plan is a planning document put together by professional planners based on planning principles and transmitted to the County Council through you - an appointed board of lay citizens, the Planning Commission — whose job it is to review and recommend to the Council a General Plan for adoption by the Council. According to Wikipedia, the outcome of comprehensive planning, which is the process we've been going through, is the Comprehensive Plan or General Plan which dictates "public policy in terms of transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing" what the plan draft has been calling sectors — to guide actions and decisions. The General Plan cannot be a catch-all of ideas and actions designed to please everyone, nor can it contain goals or strategies that contradict each other. The Plan needs to make informed integrated choices on behalf of the community with input from the community and articulate those choices in a way that provide good guidance to present and future decision makers. This is not an easy task. When we say we do not want to grow everywhere because we cannot grow everywhere and have a good community that means we must say "no" to certain proposals and landowners. How do we do that fairly? I.e. based on clear planning criteria and not whether commissioners or councilmembers like or dislike someone. How do we make sure we are not making good decisions based on good intentions but 18 wrong assumptions? How do we make sure we are taking into account future generations? We are on the right track when we acknowledge that growth will happen and needs to happen to a certain degree, but we want to manage it to ensure that it happens in a way that protects and perpetuates the things that we value dearly and the things that make life worth living on Kauai; environment, culture, and aloha. And we cannot protect these things without addressing sustainability and equity. I have said before, this overarching vision in the plan draft works beautifully, but it is only the beginning. The Draft Plan has to show us how to get there by guiding the multitude of decisions that will be made over the next twenty (20) years. This is a very challenging task that cannot be done lightly or quickly. The General Plan needs to ensure that the plans and planning for each sector aligns with the overarching vision. I'd like to focus on the Transportation Sector, but I want to say I heard Mrs. Bright's testimony and many others about the need for affordable housing. We all know that. How to provide affordable housing is the question and it requires a really good affordable housing policy which I could spend another hour talking about, but that's the kind of time I think we are going to need. So going to Transportation in the plan draft, the policy section is on page 2-23 of the plan draft. It consists basically of two (2) paragraphs. It covers only the areas Lihu`e, South Kauai, and Wailua- Kapa`a. It does not include in the titles of the two (2) policies, No. 7 and 8, the concept of multimodal, which is the core concept of the Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, which is one of the few sectors for which there is a detailed long-range plan that has been developed. And I bet if you voted right now, all of you would agree that we should put multimodal in that language and I don't know why the Planning Staff has not done that. It doesn't include a discussion of the inextricable land use transportation connection that is the core concept of the Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, and about planning in general. It talks about managing residential growth, but doesn't mention managing resort growth, which is a traffic generator. Policy 8 cites the Kapa`a transportation solution recommendations as a way to address Wailua- Kapa`a congestion when that report is primarily a car only solution and is a contradiction to Policy 7 which says that multimodal is the only real solution. If this is the policy recommendation that you, the Planning Commission, feel comfortable in sending to the Council, you should vote to approve this one policy statement. But it seems clear to me that it is not a clear or comprehensive transportation policy, and to send it to the Council is really premature. Luckily the Planning Department and the Consultant, SSFM, had the foresight to request Charlier and Associates, the author of the Koloa-Po`ipu Traffic Circulation Plan and the Kauai Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, to develop recommendations for the Transportation Sector of the General Plan Update. The report entitled "Integrating State and County Transportation Policy" presents a very well -structured policy statement, including actions and indicators for the Land Transportation section of the General Plan, and could be used as a basis for a transportation policy section in the General Plan Update if the Planning Commission wants to request the Planning Department develop such a section. Finally, if the Commission feels a need to continue discussion and development of the General Plan Update, I would like to suggest that you review the plan draft sector -by -sector at your meetings, which would allow you, the staff, and the public to focus the discussion in a more in-depth and meaningful way. Given the importance of the General Plan, I hope you will see the wisdom of continuing this discussion so that you can come to a draft that is well-written and clear in its direction for future decision makers. Chair Keawe: Thank you. 19 Councilwoman Yukimura: Thank you. (Applause) Mr. Dahilig: Doug Whilmore, followed by Luke Evslin, followed by Greg Crowe. Doug Whilmore: Honorable Chairperson, Honorable Commissioners, and fellow residents of Kauai, my name is Douglas Whilmore and I've lived on Kauai as a part-time resident since 1991 and as a full-time resident since 2002. I am a retired physician and now a fruit farmer. I am a member of the Kauai Community Coalition and have worked on the General Plan for the past nine (9) months. This group has worked to integrate the individual components of the plan so that each segment is assimilated with other portions of the General Plan. That being said, I want to discuss with you this afternoon the effects of climate change in the role of energy for the next twenty (20) years on Kauai. Planning for climate change is extremely difficult because we don't know the extent of the changes or the timeframe in which they will occur. For example, ocean rise in the General Plan is conservatively placed at levels of 1 foot by 2050 and 3 feet by 2100. Others have placed these levels at 3 feet by 2050 and 6 feet by the end of the century. To date, the plan proposes that the County responds to climate change through an adaptive management. Now, if I were to ask all of you what "adaptive management" means, I'm sure we'd have a whole variety of definitions. Rather, I would refer the Commissioners to the University of Hawai`i's report from 2014 entitled "Climate Change and Coastal Hazards for Kauai". This document has been reviewed and discusses in great detail the problems that Kauai faces. To answer the challenges that that document has put in place, Ruby Pap and her associates with the Planning Department have provided us with a variety of adaptive approaches in the plan, such as how the County can use zoning procedures and investment to mitigate many of the known hazards that will occur. These valuable and authoritative suggestions, if followed, will allow adaptation to occur on Kauai with the climate change. The County is doing well in terms of sustainable energy. Not included to any extent in the plan is the transition that will take place as we move from automobiles powered by fossil fuels to those powered totally by electricity. In addition to cars, electric trucks are planned to become available, commercially available, in the next eighteen (18) months, and that should greatly impact Kaua`i's movement to electric vehicles because of our truck/SUV culture. Given these projections, plans need to be made for charging stations. If 20% of the automobiles are going to be electric in the next twenty (20) years, we need charging stations all over the island. In closing, it is important that in planning for the next twenty (20) years, the Commissioners keep in perspective -- Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilmore: —that the decisions that they are making are for the people of Kauai. They are not for developers, they're not for financial interests, and they're not for the Director who I'm sure wants to get this document off his desk. By serving the people who live here, we can move into a somewhat unknown future as a resilient and a sustainable island community. oil: Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Wilmore: Thank you very much. (Applause) Mr. Dahilig. Luke Evslin, followed by Greg Crowe, followed by Beverly Muraoka. Luke Evslin: Hi. My name is Luke Evslin. I was a member of the CAC, and I just want to say two (2) things real quick. One is that I strongly support the direction of the plan. I think it's a good document. I think it does a really good job of highlighting sort of an interrelated nature of the problems we're facing and their solutions. Two, I think that the specificity of the policy recommendations are really powerful and that it gives our County Council and our Administration a sort of clear path forward in how to implement the plan which is really a guidebook. But I have one (1) main concern. It's that I think it's clear that we are on Kauai facing sort of the limits to the growth of tourism. There's definitely certain months of the year that we are over capacity for tourism and I feel like all of us here... probably if you were to go back thirty (30) years and redraw the land use maps, the original land use maps, there would be less Resort land use designations in there. Given that, I think this is a real good opportunity, or maybe the only opportunity, to eliminate any sort of remaining vacant, unentitled Resort lands. So just given that, I strongly support what was in the original Draft Plan; changing the 252 acres at Princeville Phase II from Resort to Ag. I hope that makes it into the final document. But thank you all for your work, thanks for the Planning Department's work, and the Consultant's work on what I think is a really good plan. Alright, thank you guys. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Greg Crowe, followed by Beverly Muraoka, followed by Dr. B. Blackwell. Greg Crowe: Good afternoon. My name is Greg Crowe. First, my aloha and admiration to all of you and great respect to the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, as well as all the concerned citizens who have been showing up for this somewhat daunting task of updating the General Plan. I won't go into the details of it for time purposes, but I have a lot of (inaudible) backgrounds in this and I have been working with the Kauai Community Coalition on looking at the details of the General Plan. At the end of your Tuesday meeting, there were some statements about the differences between 50,000 -foot views and 100 -foot or ground -level views, or differences between short-term needs and long-term objectives, or the issues of sea level rise that may be 1 foot or 6 feet, and maybe that happens in twenty (20) years or a hundred (100) years or maybe not at all. And there was some question if therefore we should not have set objectives, plans, or particularly specific actions in the General Plan because we don't know for sure what's coming, and this plan is only for twenty (20) years, but issues like sea level rise are just forecasted to what may happen in fifty (50) to a hundred (100) years. Those and many more are of course challenging issues to harmonize into any plan and particularly into actions, but time and tide waits for no one. Rising sea levels will not wait. Lack of affordable housing makes residents -- particularly skilled workers -- move away and leaves others with no options but to tolerate increasingly substandard housing and crushing economic and social consequences. While there may be uncertainty about how much sea level rise there will be and how and when, or how much affordable housing we 21 need and where and when to build it, decisions and actions ... or lack of decisions and actions we make now do have impacts that can and will last for fifty (50) to a hundred (100) years, or even longer. This General Plan is not just a plan until 2035. What we do or don't do now, what it is or is not in the General Plan Update will have impacts far beyond the 2035 goal. Sea levels will rise, storms will become stronger and more frequent, our children and local working population will continue to move away because they can't find affordable housing. Our fanners - particularly our food farmers — will die and no one will replace them. It's understandable that you may not feel comfortable yet with having this General Plan include specific objectives, goals, measurements, progress, and set timelines to achieve progress, and mechanisms to adapt the plans and actions to achieve important goals. Please pick at least a couple of the high priority or crisis situations, such as affordable housing or sustainable, affordable, and resilient food, energy, critical infrastructure. Affordable housing is a crisis, climate change and sea level are impending crises that we can avoid if we plan and act now. To gain more comfort in these difficult decisions, please take more time to get the information you need to set specific goals, timelines, and progress measurements so we can adjust course to achieve our highest priority goals on time and on budget. With affordable housing as one of many examples, we can't do the same as the 2000 General Plan with great ideas and general goals, but no good change in twenty (20) years since the 2000 General Plan. In fact, we have a worse affordable housing situation now than in 2000. Now we have a housing crisis that needs immediate effective action. We can't just wait and hope. Good intents and hopes are not likely -- Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Crowe: —to produce the positive changes we need. Chair Keawe: Can you wrap it up, please? Mr. Crowe: Okay. Other government bodies do have specific long and short range (inaudible) plans with adaptive management to measure progress and make corrections. We can and should do that for Kauai to actively create a better future for the majority of our residents. Thank you very much for your time and care in this challenging effort. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Beverly Muraoka, followed by Dr. B. Blackwell, followed by Bridget Hammerquist. Beverly Muraoka: Aloha. Beverly Muraoka for the record. Honorable Chair and Commissioners, I was invited to attend this meeting. I have been a resident here almost seventy (70) years on this beautiful island of Kauai. I didn't know exactly what was being discussed, but I can see that this was the Kauai General Plan and I'm here particularly to address the situation of the Hokua Place, which is in the Kapa`a area which I was born and raised in. We were talking about how it's a domino effect and I realized that when I saw a truck coming up where I live in Wailua Homesteads and I thought now that truck has a driver and that driver picked up some building materials and that truck is going to drop it off to somebody's lot and then there's going to be, probably, journeyman carpenters will come there and build that house. 22 And they will be calling tapers, they will be calling an electrician and a plumber and a painter, and on and on, and all these people will be employed and they will be having paychecks. So I thought this would be so grand if this can continue for our island, for our people to have these types of jobs and maybe this subdivision or this planned community up in Hokua might give us the same benefit. I would love to see that happen. We haven't had something like that occur within the Kapa`a area given the fact that we do have traffic challenges, but it's all over the world. So I would like for you to think about this and I know it has been mentioned it's a very hard task for you to decide, but I'm certain, when history will repeat itself, you wouldn't want to be guilty and say that on your watch, it was failed. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilia: Dr. B. Blackwell, followed by Bridget Hammerquist, followed by Bard Widmar. Dr. B. Blackwell: Aloha. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. I've been sitting on the edge of my chair, not because of the excitement, but because I'm hearing challenged and I read lips, so please forgive me for any intrusion with regards to that. My name is Dr. B. Blackwell. I am a University of Hawaii professor, working still with the University, but I'm also here today as the chair of the governing board of a public ... Alaka`i o Kauai Public Charter School. I was unable to attend the General Plan meetings because they were on the same evening as our board meetings, but I was appalled when I read all 357 pages and education is only mentioned five (5) times and barely. One of the mentioning was KCC, which I do love and (inaudible) Kauai Community College, but in the plan as dormitories for KCC so that we can have more, perhaps, international population. Even though I'm a University professor and this is my 51" year in education, I'm here for the K-12 kids. I'm here for Kauai keiki and that is why in 2003, I was able to come here and make a difference with teachers; started growing our own teachers on Kauai. We've educated seventy-two (72) teachers and they are still teaching; that was a need. We had the lowest turnover of any island for teachers; that's because we believe in our own. And what we now need is a different kind of school. This is what my doctorate is in, how children learn, and I've been leading this so that we can offer, especially to our working families, a quality education that will prepare them for the 21" century. We will not have desks. We'll have tables for collaboration. We'll have only project -based arts, critical thinking, and be able to prepare our students. Culturally, we'll have Hawaiian, Japanese, and sign language to bring them into a global market. So to present this plan for the next twenty (20) years and not have an educational plan, it is not a State problem. We're a State entity, but this is a local problem. We can't get land because of all the Special Use Permits and zoning, and it takes over a year so you're going to see that we can't open this year. I guess I'm upset because I had to let 111 families know last night -- Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Dr. Blackwell: --that we're not going to open. Chair Keawe: Could you please wrap up your testimony? 23 Dr. Blackwell: With that, I'm closing to just say that we need some social justice of the County involved, the Planning Department involved, we need it locally for Kauai to care about the future of our youths. Thank you. Mahalo. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahlig: Bridget Hammerquist, followed by Bard Widmar, followed by Greg Allen. Bridget Hammerquist: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Bridget Hammerquist. I appreciate your taking the comments today and I appreciate how very difficult coming up with the General Plan must be. It's a huge document. It's got a lot in it. I want to start by saying that I was glad to see that in the south shore, some of the changes have been made and the important agricultural lands at Maha`ulepu are now recognized and entered. There's also no entry of a dairy near the ocean and we're hoping that won't happen under the current gain. I don't know ... the Commissioners are probably aware, but we've had a court revoke permits and approvals, and the proposed dairy project has pulled their permit application and their final Environmental Impact Study. We're hoping it stays that way and I'm here to ask the Commissioners to consider putting some guiding language into the plan that would recommend that any large-scale operation, whether agricultural, industrial, or otherwise, consider preservation and potential contamination of water and the ocean before they seek approvals for an operation in a location so close to the coast. I'd also like to second and support Ms. Cherry's comments. We have a lot of units already approved for the south shore. The unit across from the 1,100 Gateway unit is now up and developed. Po`ipu Kai has close to 500 units on 5x the land mass planned for the 1,100 Gateway mixed unit. That's going to be on one-fifth of the land, but more than 2x the number of units. Whenever there is a hurricane warning and there's an evacuation, the south shore has a real limited area to get out onto the highway and out of that coastal area. Adding 1,100 units to an already approved nearly 3,000 units yet to be built would really severely impact. So if the plan has not been approved, I'm not sure why it appears on the General Plan because it is a shoe in the door for that project that hasn't yet submitted plans or obtained approval. So I'd just like the Commission to consider adding language that limits development near the coasts to consider preservation of water and the ocean. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilix Bard Widmar, followed by Greg Allen, followed by Ken Taylor. Bard Widmar: Aloha. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bard Widmar, small business owner in Kapa`a. For the record, I'd like to state the reason I'm here today is to state my support for the Hokua development. I support intelligent growth and development: that's why I support Hokua. Growth and development, obviously inevitable. I feel like Hokua addresses that inevitability in an intelligent way; addressing a lot, in fact, as far as I can tell, all of the issues brought up by the Commission, hence I'm behind Hokua. Our small family business is here to serve local people that has always been our principle; our food service establishment. We procure the majority of our ingredients locally from Kauai, and we place a very good value on our product, our food. In 24 other words, we keep our prices low in order ... so that the local families could come out and get a decent, nourishing meal that we provide without breaking the bank, so to speak. So those are our principles in our family business and I feel like Hokua is addressing issues at that same level; supporting the community and going about things locally and intelligently. That's my statement here today. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Widmar: Mahalo. Mr. Dahilig: Greg Allen, followed by Ken Taylor, followed by Dominique Cordy. GregAllen: Hello, Commissioners. Thank you for your time. I wouldn't want to be you and have this project. (Laughter in background) I don't want to be me sometimes and have this project that I inherited. Years ago the County said would you please build housing? Hokua is a housing development that you've put in the GP. I appreciate that. I thank you. It's been in there since the 80's. It's been a smart place to grow. Housing for our Kama`aina, which is needed. It's the only project that I know of in the eastside that's for housing for people and not for tourism. It provides a road, the bypass road, another road, a well. It has a solar farm. In fact, that solar farm, curiously enough, was the biggest solar farm in the State at one time and it put Kauai on the map and got Federal funding for batteries, which allowed us to get a whole lot more funding and now we're like one of the places in the United States with the most solar anywhere; that was the seed that started it. It was a survival tactic to try and survive the long planning process; we did the farm to try and make money to pay the mortgage. Anyway, I just wanted the public to know, I know you guys know, this is a plan. It's not specifically about Hokua, but there had been some resistance and we were advised to talk about it and share our support and our reasons. After this, of course it goes to the Council. Hokua would end up before the Land Use Commission. It would come back to the Planning Department. It would come back to the Planning Commission. It would go back to the Council. There's a lot of periods along the way where we are going to design how this thing looks. But my goal, the goal of my partners, is that we do good, and whether that ends up being all townhouses, townhouses and single-family, tiny houses, some retirement community, it's all a part of the Plan that continues on. What I do know is we have the big three (3) things solved. We have water, sewer, and roads. We are out of the flood zone. We support Kapa`a Town. I thank you for your support. I thank the public for their support. If anybody has any questions, I ask them to reach out to us and if they have ideas, we'll entertain them and try and do the best thing we can for the community. Thank you for your work on this General Plan. Thank you for your volunteer effort and the time that you take to be here. I appreciate it. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahili . Ken Taylor, followed by Dominique Cordy, followed by Randall Honjo. Ken Tam Chair and members of the Commission, Ken Taylor. First, I'd just like to say thank you to the Staff for doing a real yeoman's job on getting this plan to you. I also would thank most of the community that has come out and spoke and made recommendations for you to 25 consider as you move forward. Thank you for your time and volunteering and taking on a major job that nobody will ever appreciate how much time and effort you all are going to be spending on this activity. I'm going to read a little bit from a paper I gave out on 3.28 this year about housing and traffic. The housing area in Kapa'a Town is underutilized and with the right mix, could almost double the population in Kapa'a. We must also remember that between Highway 580'Kuamoo Road and over to Kawaihau on the upper west side of the Wailua-Kapa'a planning area is a potential for about 4,000 housing units; no zoning change needed. This January, the Council passed with a 7:0 vote to second reading of Bill 2634, which became Ordinance 1008, allowing multiple -family dwelling units in all Residential zoning areas. What I see there is that most of those small units that are added to existing properties would become affordable units. By keeping the hills west of Kapa'a Town in Agriculture, this openness adds to the rural ambiance of Kapa'a Town, Wailua-Kapa'a planning area, and Kauai in general. With what zoning and ordinances are in place now, I see no need to change or rezone any Ag land in the Wailua-Kapa'a planning area. Traffic is another reason that no rezoning or approval of any projects over ten (10) units in the Wailua-Kapa'a planning area, or even north of Kapa'a, should take place until we solve our problem. Over the last forty-four (44) years, we have dug ourselves into a hole and we cannot get out of that hole by continuing to do what got us there. Mr. Dahilix Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Can you wrap up your testimony, please? Mr. Tam Winding up. We have a similar problem on the west side. Until the traffic problem is fixed coming into Lihu`e, no rezoning or projects larger than ten (10) units should be approved west of Lihu`e. Rezoning should take place in the Lihu`e core planning area; down here. This area should be up -zoned to thirty (30) or forty (40) units per acre. With Ordinance 1008, it will more than care for our affordable housing needs. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Tam And I'd just like to say, also, that I have had an opportunity to read the papers that JoAnn turned in and she's made some really good recommendations. I hope you all will pay attention and move forward with those recommendations. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Dominique Leu Cordy, followed by Randall Ilonjo. Dominique Leu Cordes Aloha. My name is Dominique. I submitted testimony already. I live on the north shore. I'm originally from Oahu. My great-grandmother is from Hanalei. I have a daughter. I read the General Plan; it's really big. I agree in so many ways with the intent of it and there's just really wonderful language in there. My concern is the policy maps, which is what kind of implements all this intent that you guys put into the General Plan. My background is ... I use GIS. Actually, right now I'm doing research for CTAHR under NSF Grant with one of the professors at UH, and my focus area right now is to look at land use changes, land value changes, land ownership changes in `Anini, Kalihikai, and Kalihiwai Ahupua`a in Halele`a, so 26 Hanalei side, kind of, from the 1850's — from the Mahele - all the way `til now. The idea is to get a baseline so we can understand where we are at with land use, land ownership today. So I think this is really relevant for you guys because everyone is like affordable housing, affordable housing, but you guys cannot just be like okay, you know, you can't give that. But a big thing that's impacting that is resort use and that's something that the General Plan policy maps can affect. So my issue is the 250 acres that's in Hanalei and Kalihikai; 177 acres of that is in undeveloped land in Kalihikai, which isn't in Princeville. So Princeville, geologically, is Pu`upehu; is the plateau above Hanalei. These 250 acres is more Kapa`a side of that; across `Anini River in Kalihikai Ahupua`a. We call it Princeville... or the project is called Princeville, but that land is not in the geological area of Princeville. I can make more maps; I submitted some. One thing I don't believe the County has access to is a geological distribution understanding of where the vacation rentals are today. Mostly because CPRS are on the State - level, so when you divide up a tax map key and then, like ... on the County data I took from the Assessment Office, it has vacation rentals. So when a property can be divided into five (5) parcels, two (2) can be vacation rentals but there's no map showing exactly where they are. So I mapped this area around this 250 acres, and I'm not pau yet because I have to georeferenced pieces and draw it all in, put in the data, but there's over thirty-four (34) legal vacation rentals so far along the coast and around the area of this 1983 designation for Resort. It hasn't been made Resort. I was 3 years old when that was made Resort and I would really like to see it taken out because it doesn't take into account all this data about vacation rentals today and how that is Resort. The resort is inside of our community and all around our community. Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Ms. Leu Cordy: So I just really want you to consider that there's more information that maybe hasn't been weighed about this and that we have to consider the impacts, taxes, everything. But mahalo. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Ms. Leu Cordy: Mahalo for you guys being here. Mr. Dahilim: Randall Honjo. Randall Honjo: Aloha. My name is Randall Honjo. I'm like everybody else, I want to speak about housing. I don't think the plan covered enough or looked into the people that are near homeless; that's my concern. We have a lot of people out there that have two (2) three (3) jobs and they would probably never have a house because they have a lot of children, or they have some children and they have to make a decision whether they are paying their electricity bill or food for the table, things like that. There are solutions. The easiest one I can think of is to form villages and I want to use yurts as an example because it's a cheap way to go. It's made out of canvas, infrastructure -wise. Porta -Potties for every family. They can manage their own money on that because they would have a cheaper rent, they would have more disposable income to spend on other things; that's great for the economy. As far as having a village for kids, a lot of 27 kids leave the island and go to school. We have a great college over here. I don't know too many kids that want to stay home with mom and dad as they grow older, but by having these little villages, you could have age-appropriate kids living in that area, growing and learning, and still being here in the community that's affordable. Also, ten (10)/fifteen (15) years ago, every time you'd hear on the news, the baby boomers are coming, the baby boomers are coming. The baby boomers are here, okay? I look around and I go, hey, yeah, we're all here. We are living longer. As we live longer, the housing market dwindles; not all of us will have a house to live in. Have you addressed this? Also, as we live longer, chances are we are going to be living alone. And what comes with living alone is having pets to be your companion. Who's going to rent a unit to you with pets? If you had little villages, such as this, you can have a small community; you can have your pets, you can do just about anything you want with few rules. I heard that oh, the Fire Department is going to worry about burning and everything. Well, you live in a canvas house. The largest one is ... what? 30 -foot circumference? If that burns, ten grand down. It's canvas. But it's also manufactured to withstand 140 -mph winds. But then again, who wants to stay in a canvas tent during a hurricane? So that's something you have to look at, too. So you have it on decks. People can go underneath for shelter and that's your Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Mr. Honjo: Okay. So please look into alternative dwelling units and look at villages. It solves a lot of problems and costs very little to everybody. There are landowners out there who's willing to do this as long as the zoning fits, they can get a tax break, or collect rent. It solves a lot of problems for our population immediately. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Honjo: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, those were all the individuals I have signed up to testify for today's agenda. I would make a final call for anybody that has not testified if they would like to make some testimony on today's Chair Keawe: One last call for anybody that hasn't testified that would like to testify. If not... 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, deferred 3/28/17.1 Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F. This is Unfinished Business. This is Zoning Amendment ZA-2017-3 relating to updating the General Plan for the County of Kauai 28 and technical amendments relating to the definition of Development Plan. The hearing was opened and continued on January 31, 2017, hearing closed and deferred on February 28, 2017, deferred on 3.14.17. and deferred again on March 28, 2017. Just as a recount for the Commissioners before we get into some explanation for the Commissioners where we are at at this point, a motion was made to approve the plan by Commissioner Katayama on February 28, 2017. Commissioner Mahoney seconded that motion and there was an amendment to the original motion to approve and integrate Addendum No. 1 into the Draft Plan. So at this juncture, the motion that is before the Commission is to approve the plan with the amendments as proposed under Addendum No. 1. Since February, over the past two (2) months, our department has proposed three (3) more batches of amendments, or addendum, to be considered by the Commission. Just to give, again, a little bit of background as to where these addendum have come from, they have been generally based off of testimony from the previous meeting. So as testimony has come in, our department has evaluated every single piece of testimony or every single piece of oral testimony that has come before the Planning Commission. We have taken each one of them and compiled them and made a recommendation based off of whether further amendments to the plan need to be made, and those were presented to the Commission in subsequent batches called addendum. For the Commissioners' information, we have an Addendum No. 2, 3, 4, and 5, but Addendum No. 2 has been folded into Addendum No. 5. So we have three (3) addendum before the Commission that is largely based off of the community testimony that has come through the Chapter 92 and the public hearing process before the Commission. If there are any questions concerning how the community's input is being integrated into the General Plan in real time, it is reflected based off of our recommendations in each of the addendum. I think at this point, as we talked about it on Tuesday, part of where our department is, I think, needing further guidance is a disposition on those addendum, and because it has raised questions concerning ... and you've heard a number of community discussion concerning things being taken out of the plan, put in the plan, and taken out of the plan again. And you're seeing those not necessarily as actions based off of this body making the call on it, rather it's been based off of our real time recommendations essentially swinging based on what we're hearing and being retooled. I think, as I mentioned in the Tuesday meeting, part of where our department is seeking some guidance is in situations where we clearly are at a choice between two (2) options on many different issues; things like, do we include in the spatial policy things like Hokua Place? I think you've heard a lot of that testimony today. Do we include in the spatial policy things like HanapepV You've heard that also. Do we include in the spatial policy things like Princeville? Or do we leave it out? And so you're seeing the community's testimony essentially being reflected in what we've essentially gotten over the past two (2) years, which are these choices being narrowed towards some type of decision. Unfortunately ... and I do take a bit of an issue concerning the statement by the Community Coalition saying that I cannot do anymore because my premise to the Commission has been we can do more. We need to, though, have some guidance and some choices because I think the community testimony has reached a point where choices have to be made, unfortunately, in order to move to the next step of discussion. Because I think as we start getting into some of the other policy discussion items, some of these items do need to be settled, in effect. So I do not want to give the impression that we are trying to tell the 29 Commission to make a decision today on the plan. No. I think what we're trying say is we need to get some guidance from the Commission concerning some of these pretty heady issues relating to things, like do you want more language concerning the Transportation section in there? Councilmember Yukimura brought up the Charlier plan. Does that need to be integrated further into the plan or not? We have things related to sea level rise. Do we want sea level rise more prominent in the plan versus something that is integrated? At the end of the day, our department has presented to the Commission, over the past three (3) months, essentially a guidance on how we've been attempting to balance all these competing issues. Discourse and disagreement is healthy and we want that, but at the end of the day, people have interests and those interests may not align with what may be perceived as the best choice for the general public. So while our department has been doing much of that lifting over the past twenty-four (24) months or so and with the community process that has lasted eighteen (18) months and a commission process that is now running onto its fourth month now, I believe we're at a juncture where our department needs some guidance from the Commission concerning how the plan and the revisions, based off of the public input that has come directly through the Corrunission-led process, should be handled so that we can essentially present further drafts for the Commission to then entertain and move forward on. So Mr. Chair, I think that's our, I guess, recount of where we think, from a departmental standpoint, we are and would ask that the Commission entertain an action or direction concerning Addendum Nos. 2, 4, and 5. Marie is happy to answer any questions concerning what is, again, contained in Addendums Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and how those addendums should or should not be integrated into the final draft that is currently on the floor. Chair Keawe: Okay. Does everybody understand what's being asked? I have a question. Can the addendums be approved without the General Plan being approved? Mr. Dahilig: So what happened is that the addendums are actually amendments -- Chair Keawe: To the General Plan. Mr. Dahilig: —to the General Plan. So because the General Plan has to be adopted as a function of law, like an ordinance, we're treating the verbiage and any changes almost in a Ramseyer fonnat so that we have to go in one -by -one and strike out and add based on that. So the way that the addendum have been proposed to the Commission has been in that method to provide both for the historical context to the Commission, as well as make it clear that this is what we're changing as the actual black letter languiage in the ordinance. Chair Keawe: Okay. So I'll throw up to the floor for discussion. We've heard a lot, obviously, over the last ... what has it been? Six (6) months? November, I think, was the first draft that came out. Contrary to what many of you assume. many of us spent countless hours into late hours of the night reading through all of this and the testimonies. Sometimes it's very difficult when we start a meeting and we get handed 50 pages of testimony right there before we start. So that means we have to go back and read them all, and some of us have the ability to do it and some of us don't, but I want to rest assure that you all know that we take this very seriously. I want to make sure that people don't just (inaudible) it off; well, they never read that stuff tic, anyway. We do. If we didn't, the plan would have been done a long time ago and just discounted a lot of the things that have already been shared and said, but this is truly a kakou kind of thing; it's for all of us. Not just you, it's for all of us. So I'd like to go ahead and throw it on the floor for comments. Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: Can you clarify, Director? So the plan has actually been approved, so to speak, on the 28`h and then we're now just dealing with addendums? Mr. Dahilig: No, you have an open motion. Ms. Ahuna: Okay. Oh, got it. Mr. Dahilig: So you have an open motion, so ... the Commission's call at that time was because these addendums were coming in sequence based off of each meeting, community input, creating more amendments that to keep organization, it was suggested that the public hearing be closed and that a motion be dropped on the floor so that it can be handled systematically. Ms. Ahuna: Okay. Mr. Dahilim: No final vote has been handled yet, but there is an active motion on the floor. There was a vote on integrating the first batch of changes, which was approved by voice vote by the Commission. So that is where we stand right now, but nothing has been "approved" in final form. Ms. Ahuna: Okay. Could we hear the three (3) addendums on the table? Mr. Dahilig: Sure. Marie can, again, walk the Commission through Nos. 2, 4, and 5 concerning the genre and if there's any specific questions concerning some of the ... again, they range from things like grammatical changes, all the way to some reorganizational changes, but I think that's the method. So maybe, Mr. Chair, if we can maybe take Addendum No. 2 first and see if there's any questions. Chair Keawe: Okay. Go ahead, Marie. Mr. Lord left the meeting at 2:46 p.m. Staff Planner Marie Williams: Thank you, Chair Keawe. Okay, so Addendum No. 2, which was transmitted to the Commission on March 14`h. I'd also like to let everyone know that all of these addendums are available online and current as well for any member of the public that would like to look over the proposed changes. But what this packet of changes dealt with was not just one thing, but a range of ..it covers a range of topics from public art to defining things, such as what food miles traveled means. A formatting change was to include an index in the back of the plan so people could more easily identify the topic that they wanted to find since many of the topics do, in fact, cross several sectors and are in our Land Use chapter as well. There was some rewriting having to do with integrating our housing jobs and transportation policy. Other 31 changes were made to the Water Shed section and there also is ... a presentation was provided on March 14`h for this as well and that PowerPoint is also available online and I believe it has been transmitted to the Commission as well. Some changes were made to the Agricultural section to talk more about Kaua`i's long tradition of agriculture. And then, finally, we did incorporate additional information and actions recommended by our Civil Defense Agency as well. And then, finally, we did seek to clarify how the implementation of the General Plan works by identifying who the priority partners in implementation are on the County and State side. Okay, and I think that pretty much summarizes Addendum No. 2. Do you have any questions on that? Or I can move on to ... I'm going to skip over Addendum No. 3 because that was integrated into Addendum No. 5, and I'll go straight to Addendum No. 4. Addendum No. 4 deals primarily with our spatial policy in the Future Land Use chapter and it really had to do with a recommendation to integrate back in the area around Kapa`a Middle School, which is known today as a project called "Hokua Place". In order to do that, we did have to make other changes to the policy for the East Kauai Community Planning section. We also wanted more specific policy guidance about how we intend to meet East Kaua`i's future housing needs because there was a connection to whether or not it is appropriate to intensify Kapa`a Town given what we know about sea level rise. So we did provide more guidance for community planning and whether or not we should ... and how to consider in the future, through our community plans, how we possibly intensify our town cores that are, in fact, low lying and in the future will be impacted by flooding or sea level rise. That primarily summarizes Addendum No. 4. Did you have any questions on that? Okay. Finally, also on the floor is Addendum No. 5 and that was described in some detail when we last met on Tuesday and there was a presentation as well. But again, similar to Supplemental No. 2, the changes did not revolve around one topic or change, but tried to incorporate a whole range of changes -- seventeen (17), in fact -- that came about largely from the testimony we heard. And that does have a hefty formatting section where we seek, again, to improve the user-friendliness and the flow of the plan as well. It incorporates Addendum No. 3 which basically established objectives for each subsector. We felt it was appropriate to do that to have ... that it was a little bit too much of a jump to go from our broad policy to the more specific actions, and this was meant to bridge the two and explain how our vision and goals relate to the policy, and thus informs the actions. I also will mention that the revisions from Supplemental No. 1 through Supplemental No. 4 have been integrated into a track change version of the Departmental Draft that's been available online for about a month now. Mr. Dahilig: But just for the Commissioners' edification, officially right now as it stands, the plan only reflects the changes in No. 1, one amendment. So for example, as Marie mentioned, without a motion by the Commission to consider Supplement No. 4, Hokua Place is not in the spatial plan, so that's where we kind of stand right now. Chair Keawe: Just to clarify, the amendments are improvements to the working draft. Is that correct? 32 Ms. Williams: That's correct. Chair Keawe: That's what I'll make sure that everyone understands. It's still a working draft. It is not the final document. Ms. Ahuna: So should we adopt or approve the addendum, then we're approving these to be worked into the final draft. Chair Keawe: Into the final plan. Just so that there's no confusion that if we approve the addendums as presented, they will be worked into the final plan. So it's not approving a final plan as a zoning amendment. It's just approving these amendments to the working draft. Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: If I could ask a question, then. Since you said that it is an open motion, what exactly is the motion? Mr. Dahilig: The motion is to approve the zoning amendment and send it up to the Council for its consideration. Ms. Nogami Streufert: To send it to the Council immediately? Mr. Dahilig: Well, not immediately, but just to send it to the Council. A zoning amendment is required by County Charter to be approved by this body before it hits the Council, so essentially, it's to approve the plan. Ms. Nogami Streufert: To approve the plan, the General Plan? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: So I guess just ... I'm sorry, go ahead. Chair Keawe: No, no, go ahead. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Just to clarify. Again, per the Charter, part of the duty of the Commission is to review the General Plan that was developed by the Planning Department, make any recommendations, but ultimately, you folks are transmitting the plan and any recommendations through the Mayor to Council for its consideration and action. Ms. Ahuna: So can we start having discussion on the addendum items and then move to add or revise or do whatever we want in regard ... not whatever we want, but to take action on these? Mr. Dahilig: Because our department has transmitted the supplements' addendums to the Commission, we are implicitly saying these are our recommendations, so we implicitly are asking for approval of these to be integrated in. We feel it's appropriate to have the discourse amongst the Commissioners, whether or not you feel comfortable changing the draft based off of 33 the testimony you've received and based off of the evaluations that we've had of that testimony, this is what we're recommending to the Commission to be integrated in. Chair Keawe: Or the other option is not to approve it as it was submitted. Mr. Dahilix That's correct. Ms. Apisa: Question. Chair Keawe: Go ahead, Donna. Ms. Apisa: So it's to incorporate these amendments, these addenda, into the General Plan, but not necessarily approve the General Plan. Chair Keawe: Let me read what the minutes say; that might clarify it. It says I move that we approve the Kauai Planning document ZA-2017-3. It was seconded. The motion on the floor has been moved and seconded. Do you wish to add amendments to the motion? I move to include Supplement No. 1 to the Department Draft of the General Plan. And there was a second. Moved and seconded, all those in favor, and the motion was carried 4:0. Now, Supplement No. I ...Mr. Dahilig said Supplement No. I is now included as part of the working draft for the amendment. If there is no further discussion, the Department would recommend deferring the item to March 14th; that's why we kept deferring the meetings. Because basically what we were doing is ... like Mike said, we needed to start with something and the amendments in the first one were approved. And then every time we had another meeting, there were more amendments. Remember we had No. 2, and then it was No. 4, and then No. 5? So basically, that's how it was set up. Ms. Nogami Streufert: If we now approve or we vote "yes" to the motion on the floor, the open motion on the floor, which would accept Nos. 2, 4, and 5, does that go directly now to the Council? Mr. Dahilig: No. All you are doing is amending the motion. Chair Keawe: You are just amending the motion. So yeah, it's kind of confusing. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yeah, so that Supplemental No. 1, the motion that was handled prior, it was considered like a subsidiary motion; something as an aside to be handled and decided prior to addressing, again, the main motion which is ultimately whether you folks want to recommend approval to the Council, through the Mayor, the General Plan. So that's the ultimate action, but what we have to address now are the other supplemental recommendations provided to you by the Department. Ms. Ahuna: Jodi, can we have a discussion? Because what I hear from testimony are three (3) really hot topics, which are land designation/zoning, transportation/traffic, as well as housing, so how can we now take these supplemental items on the table and kind of define them I guess is 34 my question. I'd like to try to define them so that we can respond to testimonies with Hokua Place in regards to transportation/traffic. Can we put a little bit more specifics to these? Mr. Dahilig: I think my suggestion would be to maybe take these supplemental items in sequence. And because the subject matter is already pre -described in what we've transmitted, if there are things that you would like to insert or change as part of that language, if you're getting to ... let's say we're handling Supplement No. 2 right now, then that's the time to do it. But there's also the opportunity beyond just what we're proposing as supplements for the Commissioners, each and of themselves under their own motion, to make changes if they wish to make changes, and then it would be voted up or down based off of what each Commissioner would like to see. Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry. I'm trying to ensure that I understand exactly what we're doing here. By approving the motion now, nothing goes to the Council. This stays still a draft document that the Commission can review in the future. Is that correct? Before it goes to Council. Or does it go to Council immediately? Mr. Dahilig: There is no motion right now to add Nos. 2, 4, and 5; there is none right now. So it's a secondary motion to the main motion. The main motion is to approve, and then each Commissioner can make secondary motions to amend that main motion. Only one (1) secondary motion has been approved at this point. To integrate these things, you need more secondary motions (inaudible). Ms. Ahuna: So technically, can we ... I want to lomi these supplementals still. How can we do that? Chair Keawe: I guess the other ... Donna. Ms. Apisa: Take them one -by -one? Chair Keawe: We can do them one -by -one. I guess it's more a question of are we prepared to go into detail with each of them one -by -one because it may take a while to do that. Mr. Dahilig: I guess my suggestion would be, in terms of ..on the controversy meter, because we've seen the discussion, Supplemental Nos. 2 and 5 tend to be more of the cleanup items. Supplement No. 4 is one that you've heard of. Now, there are other items that have been included in the Departmental Draft that were done at release. So for instance, things like Princeville; that item is not in any supplement at all. So if the Commission wishes to, let's say, remove the suggestion concerning Princeville, then that's something that would need to be made as an additional motion beyond what we are proposing. Chair Keawe: So I guess the other point is are we prepared in this session to approve any of the amendments, or -- 35 Ms. Ahuna: No, I'd like to read all of these. Chair Keawe: Well anyway ... you know, are we prepared to approve any of the amendments? Or do we need to take more time to go through that? That's what I'm trying to get on the floor. The motion was pretty clear. I mean, it was move to approve... include Supplement No. 1 in the Departmental Draft. But if we want to reexamine each one of those amendments, are we prepared to do that now? Ms. Ahuna: Well, I was just given all of these testimonies literally right before I sat down, so I don't feel prepared to be able to respond to these testimonies; only the ones that were presented before us today. So I guess my question is, can we make a motion to extend or give some time to review and then really define what we want to do with these supplemental items? Chair Keawe: Okay, and the other part of that is what Mike said. They are going to need some direction of where do they go with all of the things that are kind of hanging. I think that's also a legitimate concern from his side. I mean, he's asked several times. We've gone as far as we can. It doesn't mean they can't do more, they just need ... what do we do? Commissioner Apisa, your thoughts? Ms. Apisa: So basically we are to approve or not approve each addendum as presented as recommended by the Planning Department, and then that does not necessarily move it to the Council? Chair Keawe: No, because we're approving - Ms. Apisa: Is that correct? That is correct. Chair Keawe: We are approving addendums to a working draft of the General Plan. It's not the Final General Plan that we would send to the Council, as I believe it. Is that correct, Jodi? Ms. HiQuchi Sayeg isa: So again, you just have to decide what you folks want to do with those supplementals; approve or not approve. And then, ultimately, you are going to have to do another separate action to address the plan itself and what you want to do with the plan; i.e. recommend it up to Council with any recommendations. Ms. Apisa: Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying it. Chair Keawe: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: If we wanted to add another amendment, an amendment to an amendment I guess, which would be to look at a reorganization or a reformatting of the report so that it looks at two (2) separate parts of it, which are now combined which is more of a general plan versus the specific actions; general plan tends to be for a 20 -year timeframe, the specific actions tend to be problems that are identified now, whether it's very specifically an area with the Kapa`a traffic or something like that that it's very specific to an area. A general plan is i generally more nonspecific; it's for the entire County. If we wanted to then have an amendment that would say would the Department look at it to revise and possibly reorganize the contents into two (2) or more sections — one of them which would be the general planning section and another one that would be more specific actions, but they would be cross-referenced so that it would be related to each other — that could be added to it. Right now, we have a document that most people, I think, are either interested in the General Plan with a 20 -year frame or they are interested in very specific actions, and they are so combined it's very difficult to tease them apart. It's like going through the supplemental right now. There are so many parts to it. If they could be separated out into a general plan, which is only guidance for the next twenty (20) years on how, not just this commission, but future commissions and future departments are going to make the decisions. It's the "how" of making the decision as opposed to the "what" of the decisions. Chair Keawe: So logistically, how would you do that? You'd have the General Plan section and then an appendix that— Ms. Nogami Streufert: No, not an appendix, but another section that would be more specific plans like this - Chair Keawe: Another section that would be more specific as far as how do we get to -- Ms. Nogami Streufert: And right now it's in there. Both of them— Chair Keawe: It is in there. Both of them are in there. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. Chair Keawe: So you are talking about separating them? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Separating them out so that you can look at the General Plan, so these are the directions that you're giving to the future Commission and the future Department versus these are the kinds of actions that need to happen immediately or in the near future. But they have to be cross-referenced because obviously they are related to each other, at least for right now, because that way it might be easier to go through some of the supplementals or addenda that we have right now. Chair Keawe: Mike, how do we go about doing that? Mr. Dahilig: If our department were to take a look at what Commissioner Streufert is considering, I think its premise on the presumption that the content has been settled. I think we would be amenable to having that discussion, but I think before we even get to that point, we would need the content to be settled. I think that's part of what Item Nos. 2, 4, and 5 are meant to address before the Commission. And then also whatever other content the Commissioners would like to add in or take out of the plan I think is something that, from a reorganizational standpoint, we would want to have, I guess, an idea of because if we're going to have to separate the content and then re-lay them, it's like a Rubik's cube, essentially. If, let's say, later on then 37 we were to add more content, that may affect the order of the universe when it comes to the structure we're trying to build here. I think our ask would be that if we were to move forward with an action like that, that the content be at least almost all there then at that point. Ms. Ahuna: So can ... if I want to make a motion now to just add to Supplemental No. 5, which is really Addendum No. 5 ... because there's a lot of stuff in the supplemental that responds to the testimonies. So if we can just respond to some of the testimonies by making motions within the supplemental, like for instance, the Charlier report. You brought that up. Since Supplemental Nos. 4 and 5 to me ... actually there's a lot in there already that Marie has already added the additions to. So to be able to not ... maybe use the format of the Charlier report in reference to transportation as a means to ... I don't know. Apply the Charlier report to make it appropriate to the General Plan, I guess should say. Not adopt the whole report totally - Chair Keawe: I understand. Ms. Ahuna: But how can we take action on integrating it? Chair Keawe: Can I ask Marie to respond to that? Marie, tell us about the plan and what you folks have done to try to incorporate it. Ms. Williams: First of all, with the Jim Charlier report, even though it's ... as Councilmember Yukimura mentioned, it has been placed ... it is available on the plankauai website now. We have had that report for over a year and it actually has been the core concepts and the more specific actions have been integrated into the Departmental Draft. We did definitely work on calling out or reemphasizing ... doing a better job at emphasizing some of the components where we show the policy where land use job centers and transportation are, in fact, connected, especially as shown in our Future Land Use Map. But I believe that the format shown in that report, it does reference a different way of explaining what policy is. It shows a policy then a policy objective and then actions follow each policy objective. That's a little bit different than what we have in this Departmental Draft where we have...we basically took all the policies and synthesized them into the twenty (20) statements and then we have an objective for each sector and then immediately follow up with the different actions. Chair Keawe: So in essence, it's more a question o£..it's just style as opposed to substance. Ms. Williams: Yes. Ms. Ahuna: But to me, it doesn't respond to ... like for me, I think when reading this report, it kind of holds the State accountable as well to respond to our general plan in a sense. So how do we implement that into ... to make it more pronounced that in order for this to take place, this has to take place. It lays it out right here in the priority implementation process when you read this, so how can we get that language inputted into the General Plan? Otherwise, to me, in this part of the report, it's just kind of fluffy sounding. It doesn't really have the meat to make that happen, like to define it. I don't know. I guess. -.1 don't know, make it more policy -oriented. 38 Mr. Dahilig: We had a good discussion in-house concerning the phrase "partnership needs" and in our mind, "partnership needs" is synonymous for okay, the State has to do this in order for this to happen. But understanding the universe of personalities and personas and politics, some of those needs are incumbent on things like appropriations in the State budget or the Governor saying Department of Transportation Director, go ahead and down - Ms. Ahuna: Well, they were part of this. Mr. Dahilig: Right. Ms. Ahuna: This report. Mr. Dahili . And so they were a part of that and I think that's the ... that was the ... where we tried to, from a sequencing standpoint, address some of the sectoral desires and the actions that are needed to achieve that and understanding that at the end of the day, the County has only a fraction of the decision-making authority and a fraction of the resources necessary to make those visions happen. We can certainly be stronger than characterizing things as "partnership needs", but we felt that we wanted to be positive in the plan by discussing things as partnerships versus State requirements or Federal requirements; we felt that that was a better way to characterize things. I will also say, with the Charlier supplement, that supplement actually is meant to be read together with the Multimodal Transportation Plan, and the Multimodal Transportation Plan was one of seven (7) documents that our department had to weigh from a factual standpoint in order to help craft some of the recommendations. So if we were to adopt a wholly -based transportational framework and if it was Jim Charlier that was in charge of our plan, everything would be bike lanes. And it's not a bad thing, but if we were to just go with that framework of a transportation -focused plan, everything would revolve around things like bike lanes and things like walking only and everybody getting out of their cars. Portland has done that and Portland has, in their land use management plan, focused on moving people as the baseline for how to craft the branching out policies from there, but our sentiment from public discussion was that we don't think everybody is going to be on board with Jim's perception that everything should be converted to bike lanes as capacity, so we balanced that with some of the social economic studies that came out that looked at things like housing. It becomes apparent in the Hokua Place discussions that's in front of the Body now where many of the people concerned about Hokua Place raise their issues from a standpoint of traffic (inaudible). It then became a question... when we introduced the original draft to the Commission, we said well, the community sentiment out there is if they have to choose between traffic and housing, which problem would they want to solve first, and it became apparent, at least through the community process, that was traffic. But as the public testimony has come out and as you've even heard today, you're hearing things that we haven't heard from the community throughout the process, which is a desire for making the hard choice between traffic and housing, and it should be tilted towards traffic... housing, I mean. I'm sorry. Ms. Ahuna: I guess I'm not even speaking to that ... at any of that. I'm just speaking ... how can we ... because the General Plan is a guide for our policymakers, for our council to move these things forward, so how can we implement just simple ... like what it says right here. Proactively address congestion in State highways through an advanced planning and project development 39 process with a significant commitment of the County to work with State and State resources. How do we make it where it's not ... we're not telling the State they have to do this, but it's a guide so that our policymakers are kind of guided to work with ... you know what I mean? Take some of this implementation of what's in here - this policy - and put it in there. Mr. Dahilig: So let me try to illustrate as you read that section. Marie, can you take a look at and try to open up the Transportation section? Chair Keawe: We'll take a short break. We've been at it for a couple hours. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 3:16 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 3:33 p.m. Chair Keawe: We will reconvene. Mr. Dahilig. Mr. Dahilig: So Mr. Chair, I think ... you know, going back to the discussion, there are items that I think, again, we would like to lock in for content if the desire is to entertain a possibility for reorganization. My suggestion would be to first recommend to the Commission it amend the plan by entertaining a motion to approve Supplemental Nos. 2, 4, and 5 with the exception of the item on page 2-41 concerning the objectives and to include Mr. Charlier's program implementation items on page 5 of his report as Transportation Objectives on page 2-41. So it would be the Nos. 2, 4, and 5, plus a departmental recommendation to include Mr. Charlier's program implementation items under page 2-41. Chair Keawe: And that's the one that lays out what we were talking about? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Ms. Ahuna: Can you hana hou that one more time? Mr. Dahilig: So just to make clear, my recommendation to the Commission is that it make a motion to amend the main motion to approve Supplemental Nos. 2, 4, and 5 with the exception that No. 5 include language on page 2-41 under the Objectives section for transportation that would add the two (2) major program implementation recommendations from Jim Charlier as outlined on page 5 of his document. Ms. Apisa: I would like to go ahead and make that motion that today we approve Supplement Nos. 2, 4, and 5 with that change. Mr. Mahoney: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on this motion? If not, all those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? Ms. Ahuna: I do. Hold on. Sorry. So wait, we just approved Nos. 2, 4, and 5? 40 Mr. Dahilig: That's what the motion Ms. Ahuna: I wanted to also add in, in reference to Hokua Place, as well as take out the Princeville— Ms. Apisa: I think we have a motion made and seconded. Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, but what are we doing with that? That just went so fast. Mr. Dahilig: Okay, so it's subject to the call of the Chair so a vote has been called and it's - Chair Keawe: Let's do a roll call. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Ahuna: So that means we cannot ... as of after this motion, we cannot make any changes to 2, 4, and 5. Ms. Apisa: No, you can make a new motion. Mr. Dahilig. You certainly can. Chair Keawe: You can. Ms. Apisa: You can make a new motion. Ms. Ahuna: Alright, got it. Chair Keawe: You can do that. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. So a roll call has been called on the motion on the floor. Commissioner Lord is not available. Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Yes, aye. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: Aye. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: Aye. 41 Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Ho is out. Chair Keawe. Chair Keawe: Aye. Mr. Dahilig: Five (5) ayes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Dahilig: So I think at that point, now that that's been settled, there are ... the floor is open to the Commission to make whatever motions it wishes to make. So even the content that has been just approved can be amended further if that helps. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And it could be amended at some later point in time, also. It doesn't have to be today. Ms. Ahuna: Right. So just to make it a little bit more open and not directed directly to just those two (2) lines within the Charlier report, can I ... I'd like to make a motion for the Planning Department to use the format as appropriate for the General Plan to layout the Transportation section on policies and actions, just combining language from the current Department Draft of the Charlier report into what might be appropriate for the General Plan so that we're not stuck to just those two (2) lines. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is that for the format or for the content? Ms. Ahuna: For the content. I'm sorry, fon-nat. Format and content. No? Format. Ms. Nogami Streufert: (Inaudible) content. Ms. Ahuna: Okay, yes. I understand, yeah. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I like the content, but the format may be something that we might change based upon... Ms. Ahuna: Yeah, I think you're right, Glenda. Ms. Nogarni Streufert: I think that the content is something that we might want to change, but ... or the format is something that would be better determined by the requirements that we're putting forward on it right now. But content -wise, there's ... I don't have a problem with it. Chair Keawe: Because that's the whole discussion with regard to General Plan and policies and how we are going to integrate and cross-reference each of those. Nis. Nogami Streufert: Yeah because that's where I would like to offer an amendment that would look at reorganizing and revising the plan as it stands right now to have two (2) or more 42 sections - equal, not addenda -- but two (2) or more sections that would look at the General Plan versus the specific actions which are obviously related to the General Plan, but they are at two (2) different levels and sometimes it gets lost in the discussion as to what you're looking at. So in the electronic version, they can be hypertext or however else you want to do it, but any other - Ms. Ahuna: I guess what I was trying to say is Mike, or Mr. Dahilig (laughter), I just didn't want to be stuck to just those two (2) lines within the Charlier report. Mr. Dahilig: No, I understand. Ms. Ahuna: Do you understand? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. I usually get called all kinds of names. Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Streufert has the floor. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move that the Department and the Committee look at revising and reorganizing the contents of the Draft Plan as it stands now with the Addenda Nos. 2, 4, and 5 to reflect two (2) or more sections - one with the General Plan and the other one with more specific plans that are cross-referenced with each other - and that any other future changes be incorporated into the plan, either in one or the other, but at least that there is some kind of delineation as to what's part of the General Plan. I'll stop there because the rest of it is a discussion. Chair Keawe: Do I have a second? Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Keawe: Okay. So it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Go ahead, Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I would like to add that in this plan, it's reorganizing ... it's edited for consistency of language and content, to include new content, that the guidance should be countywide for the ... that anything that's right now specifically for an area, like there was something on Kalihiwai having some water issues, where it's appropriate for the entire island that it be incorporated in the General Plan; it's not just for a specific area. So traffic in a particular area is really a traffic problem for the entire island, and we look at it as a broader General Plan. And that action plans may not be geography specific, but they also look at mitigation of identified problems, and that it be presented to the Commission by the 23 -May timeframe. Chair Keawe: The May 23rd meeting? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yes. Chair Keawe: So that gives us roughly thirty (30) days. 43 Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. Chair Keawe: The Planning Department. Marie. Ms. Williams: Just to clarify what the action would be, it would essentially be ... first of all, to incorporate the content that was just approved and the changes, and then to take that and essentially create a Part B of the plan that's not necessarily an appendix, but that would serve as the short-term action plan? Ms. Nogami Streufert: It would be looking at the entire document and ensuring that the contents of it that are broad and overall for the entire County is part of the General Plan, and those that are very specific geography related are in a separate section, cross-referenced so that you can follow where each one of those goes, so you've got the overall plan, the objective, and then the specific actions put somewhere. Mr. Dahilig: Could I just ask a clarifying question, Mr. Chair? So for instance, we have a policy in the plan that talks about developing actions around solving Wailua-Kapa`a traffic, and so in taking your suggestion, it would be a situation where we would either remove that as a policy item or we could leave it in. I would just like to understand if that would be ... because the General Plan is locational specific as it relates to Wailua-Kapa`a issues, and it's been reflected as having an island -wide effect because of the movement of commerce around that pinch point. So would something like that fall into this idea of moving it— Nis. Nogami Streufert: Into the more specific area of it because the fact is it is a problem; I'm not going to argue that the traffic in that area is not a problem. But the traffic from Kekaha to Puhi is also a problem because it's one (1) road, or from Ila`ena all the way to Kealia it's one (1) road, and anything that happens on those roads, you're toast; you are going to sit there until it gets resolved. Where in Kapa`a, it's a terrible problem in terms of congestion, but there are alternatives where the other roads are not. It's an island -wide problem and to just look at one specific area at a time just pushes the problem down the road and it doesn't really solve it. Ms. Ahuna: What I'm hearing is basically the Departmental Plan only specifies those three (3) hub areas that are really the congested areas, but what happens when ... where in the plan are we looking at it as a whole, too? Chair Keawe: That's what she's talking about. Ms. Nogami Streufert: That's the General Plan area versus the specific geography area. Ms. Ahuna: Yeah. Mr. Dahilig: So let me ... if I could suggest something as part of this because I think we're going to need, from a departmental standpoint, some feedback concerning this because I think that because of the way the public has responded to some of the items as it has come in from a geographic specificity, some of those items have actually transcended a regional issue versus ... and actually are -- 44 Ms. Ahuna: Which is Mr. Dahilig: Which is ... and it has created an island -wide situation, and that's why I bring up Wailua-Kapa`a traffic as an illustration. If I could rather suggest to you, Commissioner, if we could maybe have a draft be proposed to the Commission versus making an amendment at this point because I think we're going to be stabbing at this and it may not be necessarily— Chair Keawe: May not be hitting the target. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And I don't think that this is a clean process because there's going to be a lot of overlap. It's just a way of looking at it from a global perspective versus a very specific area. Mr. Dahilig: If I could, maybe from a directional standpoint, suggest the motion be worded so that the Department shall propose amendments to reflect these concerns and then at that point, we can bring it up as a Supplemental No. 6 at the next meeting. We're doing this because we're trying to keep order, right? And propose it as a Supplemental No. 6 at the next meeting so you can get a gauge as to how we're interpreting some of these items. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Since we are in the discussion phase, can I rescind my amendment and then put this as an amendment instead? Chair Keawe: Certainly. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I so move. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I think there was a motion and a second, so you would have to (inaudible). Chair Keawe: So you need to rescind. Ms. Apisa: I withdraw my second. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay, thank you. Chair Keawe: Alright. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So now I would move that the... Mr. Dahilig: We would suggest that the Department be tasked with providing a Supplemental No. 6 to reflect these concerns regarding these five (5) bullet points and that we provide a draft for the Commission to entertain at its May 23`d meeting. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I so move. Chair Keawe: Do we have a second? 45 Ms. Apisa: I'll second. Chair Keawe: Okay. Any further discussion on this particular item? Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: What happened to my motion with my Charlier plan? (Laughter in background) Chair Keawe: Okay. Let's do this one and we can do that one after. Alright. Anymore discussion on this motion? Alright. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 5:0. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Mike. Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To respond in Commissioner Keawe's question, I think ... the difficulty with the Charlier plan is that it does make ... Charlier supplemental is that it cross-references the Multimodal Transportation Plan and so all the recommendations that have been put in the Multimodal... all the recommendations that were in the Council -approved Multimodal Transportation Plan have already been incorporated into items within the plan. Now, when we look at the Goals sections, which are on, I guess ... it goes from page 5 through page 11, I believe. And just to clarify, if this is the section of the document that you're most interested in us having to integrate in because there are conflicting - IVIS. Ahuna: Yeah, 5 to 11. Mr. Dahili&. 5 to 11. So if I could also maybe suggest, Mr. Chair, that as part of that ... maybe we'll call it a Supplemental No. 5B + Chair Keawe: 5 what? Mr. Dahilig: 5B+. 5+. And it's only because this is more content related versus structural related as what Commissioner Streufert is Chair Keawe: So that would be a whole new motion as a 5+ motion? Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. And what we would do is essentially lay three (3) items on the commission floor on the 23`d whereas we would have this integrated as a content related item, and then we would propose, if the Commission were to adopt this at its next meeting, we would then have a 6a, which would be with the stuff in, and a 6b without the stuff in. Chair Keawe: Okay. So are we clear? Ms. Ahuna: Yes, that makes me happy Chair Keawe: Commissioner Ahuna, are you ready to make a motion? Ms. Ahuna: Yeah. You have to help me with the 5a and b. (Laughter in background) Mr. Dahili . Okay, so we would suggest to the Commission that it directs the Department to craft a supplemental relating to content to further integrate items found on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Charlier report in 2016, and integrate those recommendations into one of two (2) versions of Commissioner Streufert's approved direction so that it gives the Commission options at that point. Ms. Ahuna: Okay. I make a motion to what Director Dahilig just said. (Laughter in background) Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I have a second? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: Alright. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Mahoney: Yeah. Are we just creating more redundancy in something we already have or...? I mean, I think before it was discussed, you know, some of these issues about Charlier and why we didn't do it before in other meetings, and I think some of that information was synthesized into — correct me if I'm wrong — what Marie had put in. And now we're creating another redo of what we already did. Why did we eliminate it in the first place? We chose some language to make it clearer and to eliminate some of the things that we thought that... you know. Ms. Ahuna: I would like to see it more policy -oriented than just a needs thing in our General Plan. Mr. Mahoney: I think ... my point was that all the key points are already there and we're creating more pages of the same thing. Maybe Marie, you can, through the Chair, correct me if I'm wrong. Ms. Williams: I will say that in drafting the subsections, we did seek ... it was our intent to have a streamlined subsection that clearly got to the point; thus the greater emphasis on the actions than our last General Plan did. A big part of why we did that was that we really were responding to what we heard from the community at -large that there was concern that despite having a good policy direction, that they wanted to understand and see how things actually happen on the ground so we could be more transparent about how we implement this plan, but at the same time, if in our attempt to streamline the language and provide a more brief summary of the issue, we failed to do a good job communicating what the problems are, we are happy to go back to do a better job at emphasizing that. But we definitely did think about the user-friendliness of this plan even though yes, it is a long document. Mr. Mahoney: Okay. Ms. Williams: But everything in the Charlier report has, in fact, been integrated into this plan in the actions. 47 Chair Keawe: Yeah, getting back to my original statement, you took a lot of the items that were in the plan and put them into our plan, just in a different format. Ms. Williams: Yes. Chair Keawe: Okay. So what we're talking about in this particular motion is to use, specifically, their format for the same information that we already have in there. Ms. Williams: Yeah, there is a format in the Charlier report and he does have policy statements, but at the same time, there are actions, and it's not too different from what we now have as approved with the objective statement, and then going directly to the more specific actions and needs. Other ... but we can relook at how we can rewrite things and— Chair Keawe: Yeah, my point is I just don't want to put you to too much work because obviously you already have most of that stuff in there, so it's more a question of formatting to conform to what has been suggested in the motion. Is that correct? Ms. Williams: Yes. Chair Keawe: Alright. So does everybody understand where we are? Ms. Nogami Streufert: May I ask one question? Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Mike, did I understand you saying that a lot of this was based upon Portland? Mr. Dahilig: No. I think ... it goes back, again, to framework. If I could analogize it to choosing to build a house out of brick versus wood versus steel frame versus canvas, and there has been a lot of discussion that has come in to the Commission, as well as through our community process, whereas people have wanted the plan to be a sustainability -centered plan, I would say; or in this case, a transportation -centered plan. So my reference to Portland is reflective of the city making a very direct policy choice to have everything circle around transportation as being the framework. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Well, the reason for asking that question is because I'm looking at the statistics, the demographic statistics, and their average median age of the population is much lower than it is on Kauai. So that if it is bicycle centric, that makes sense, but it may not make sense here on Kauai as we look into the future where more of our population will be over the age of 50 or 60_ and so when we start looking at any particular model, we have to look at whether it's actually generalizable to the location to Kauai or in Kauai. But did I also understand that much of the information that's already in the Charlier report is already incorporated in - Chair Keawe: Yes. 48 Ms. Williams: It is. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Mr. DahiliK. Just to clarify that, the position paper that was written by Charlier in 2016 builds on the Multimodal Transportation Plan. The Multimodal Transportation Plan, I will say from a policy standpoint, is very progressive when it comes to the mode of transportations that are being prescribed as the desire to increase capacity in our thoroughfares without increasing the footprint. So that's where many of these recommendations flow back directly to the Multimodal Transportation Plan which calls for doubling of no increase in vehicular miles traveled by our population and supplementing that with pedestrian and bicycles and also transit as a means of bringing down that curve that has shown vehicular miles traveled as being on an upward trajectory, thus translating to the traffic we're seeing right now. In as much as this paper may seem standalone, it really isn't a standalone document because it does essentially build on many of the already fixed policies concerning the Council's desire to see VMT be flattened in the future via biking, walking, and transit. I would, I guess, just caution the Commission that by focusing on the white paper as being recommended by the Councilwoman, may not necessarily, I guess ... it's like having ... you have two (2) legs that are, I guess ... I better not use that analogy. (Laughter in background) Essentially there may be an uneven effect by overemphasizing the white paper versus integrating the whole plan and reading it together. I just want to caution the Commission on that because it could be that by overemphasizing the white paper, it could throw out of balance some of the considerations that have been thrown from the 2013 Plan, but it certainly is the Commission's call. Chair Keawe: Alright. Well, we've had a discussion. Any more discussion? I think we understand what the motion is and Marie said it can be done. It's not going to take a whole heck of a lot of additional work to do that because it's more, as I said, style than substance; most of that stuffs (inaudible) in the format. So we have a motion on the floor. Ms. Apisa: Do we need the motion then if it's already in there and it's just a matter of reformatting it? Chair Keawe: It's strictly... Marie, it's strictly format, is it not? Ms. Williams: Yeah. Chair Keawe: Are there other major things that would not classify as format? Ms. Williams: What we could possibly do is take another look at the description that comes before the actions and the objective, and maybe base it more around what is in the Charlier white paper if that's what you'd like. Chair Keawe: Alright. I think we just don't want to make you go through more work since you've already done it, but I think if you do that and there is something else, you can add to it. If you can add to it, then fine. 49 Ms. Williams: Okay. Chair Keawe: I think we all agree that that's something that we should look at. Ms. Apisa: Do we need the motion to do that? Chair Keawe: Well, I mean, it'll be a catch-all, Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Okay. Chair Keawe: Basically just whatever ... no harm, no foul. Mr. Dahilig: If maybe, just for clarification sake, and I know that ... and this has been a prevailing concern from the public when they say, where is my testimony reflected in the changes? I think that comes up quite a bit. If we, maybe, could be given an opportunity at the May meeting, rather than drop something on the floor for the Commission's entertainment, is to maybe call out for the Commissioners where we've integrated the Charlier report directly into the plan and essentially provide all the integrated elements of where this document and the 2013 Multimodal Transportation Plan have directed actions, policies, and/or goals. And from an educational standpoint, if we could maybe just be given that opportunity before we ... to try to look at integrating this from either an organizational standpoint or from a contextual standpoint. If maybe we could do that at the next meeting. Chair Keawe: Okay. So are you suggesting we don't need the motion, or...? Mr. Dahilig: I guess in hearing - Ms. Ahuna: Well, Mike, technically my motion was format based. Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, that's what she was mentioning. So if it just helps from, again, from a - Chair Keawe: As a catch-all, then yeah. I think it's already on there. Anything else anybody need to discuss about the motion? We're all good with that? Alright. I'm not going to ask you to repeat the motion. (Laughter) All those in favor? Let's do a roll call. Ms. Apisa: I feel it's not necessary, but I guess there's no harm in doing it. Chair Keawe: Yeah, let's do a roll call vote. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Is it more work for the Department? Chair Keawe: Well, that's what I asked Marie; is it going to create more work to do something in a different format that's already in there? Mr. Dahiliy. Well, I will say this. We serve at the Commission's pleasure so whatever you guys need. 50 Chair Keawe: Yeah, but I remember when I used to sit on that side (laughter in background) and everybody would dump on you, so you know. (Laughter in background) Ms. Apisa: I guess I'm still unclear. Is it needed, Marie? Ms. Williams: Well, since - Ms. Apisa: Can we clean it up without the motion? Or do we need the motion? I guess there's no harm in the motion. Chair Keawe: Well, I think what Mike's getting at is there's no harm in the motion, but he doesn't want to set precedent going forward so that anytime someone comes up with something that they want to see it exactly as they were presented. I think that's the issue. I mean, it's a good classic example of taking something that was a good report - it was - and integrating it into our plan, but it wasn't exactly what they said in their plan, except all the major points were included, and that's the danger of doing that. And I think Mike was saying well, fine, I'll show you or we'll show you where we added all the things in. I think that would be really helpful in clarifying the work that you've already done into that plan. So, I mean, if we can do that, then let's move forward. (Laughter) Alright, let's call for the vote. Mike, you want to ... anything else you want to say? Mr. Dahilig: No, no. Do you need me to recount what the motion was? Ms. Apisa: Just give me the gist of it. Mr. Dahilig: The gist of the motion was, again, to take pages 5 through 11, create amendments that reflect content and then create two (2) versions of organization based on whether the content should be included or not included. Ms. Ahuna: I don't see it in here. Ms. Apisa: No. Ms. Nogami Streufert: That was different. Ms. Apisa: That was different. That was... Mr. Dahilig: That was voted on already. Ms. Apisa: Right. That was voted on. Chair Keawe: That was voted on. That's done. Ms. Nogami Streufert: This is now about a particular - Chair Keawe: This is about... specifically about the Charlier report. 51 Ms. Apisa: I'm ready. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Apisa: Okay, I'm okay. I'm ready. Chair Keawe: Roll call vote, Mike. Mr. Dahili&. Okay. Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: No. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: Aye. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: No. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: No. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe. Chair Keawe: No. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. 1:4, motion does not pass. Chair Keawe: Okay. Now, is there anything else on our agenda today? Mr. Dahilig: Well, I think, if there are other items concerning, again, some of the spatial changes... again, we have ... and I want to be clear because I don't want to have the Commissioners blindsided by some of the spatial changes that are being proposed in the plan based on the testimony you're hearing. So what is in the plan now are changes based on public testimony to include I1okua Place that has been adopted as part of Supplement No. 4, to include provisional as well as some areas for Neighborhood General for Hanapepe, as well as the Provisional Ag in Hanapepe, and then there is the item concerning the Princeville Plateau staying in as Resort with the provisional timeline based off of the use it or lose it policy that was proposed, as well as that for Kikiaola. But those last two, the Kikiaola one and the Princeville one, were included as proposals in our Departmental Draft. The Discussion Draft that the public comment period went through did not have those items in there. So when you're hearing things taken in or out, our department went through a discussion draft process with the public and then took things out and added things in before we presented it to the Planning Commission. So just to clarify what I believe some of the public testimony is in, like for instance Mr. Evslin's 52 testimony, his testimony was stick to what the Discussion Draft said, which was take Princeville out, rather than the Departmental Draft which puts it back in; same thing with Kikiaola. I want to make sure the Commission is informed on those spatial policy changes because they are coming up in public testimony and the effect of it right now is that all four (4) of those items are in the plan, so just for your information. Chair Keawe: Alright. Anything else, Mike, on the agenda? Mr. Dahilig. No, that's— Ms. Ahuna: So are you giving us those as drafts prior? Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. So given what has happened today, we will pump out a Ramseyered plan with all the supplemental items that have been approved thus far, and we'll go ahead and provide that as a clean copy to everybody at this point. Actually, it may not make sense to Ramseyer those items because we're already at ... so we're going to provide it as a clean copy to everybody with everything up to Supplemental No. 5. And then as far as deliverables, we're going to get a proposed No. 6 to the Commission on the 23'd and then I think that is what we owe back to the Commission. So our intention is to try to get those items well in advance of the posting deadline under Sunshine Law, and we'll try our best to do so. Ms. Apisa: Will this be a hard copy or digital of all incorporated, all the changes? Mr. Dahili . If we are able to work with the consultant, we can probably get the ... my suspicion is the Commissioners would like to see a hard copy. Chair Keawe: Yes. (Laughter in background) Us old guys still use hard copies. Mr. Dahilig: So we will aim for that and Marie is probably kicking the chair. (Laughter in background) But our intention is ... we'll aim to do that; provide a clean copy at this point that is hard copy with the suggested structural... if we were to take the five (5) bullet points, and I think that's all we have from a deliverable standpoint. I would suggest also, Mr. Chair, that if there are individual Commissioners that wish to make motions at the next meeting concerning content or organization that they can... Chair Keawe: Come see you. Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, let us know so we can go and prep the documents ahead of time for the Commission so we can distribute it around the table. Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Dahilig: That's why we had the printer here, just in case we were tasked to do so. Chair Keawe: Okay. Anything else? Any other business to come before the Commission at this point? 53 Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I think we still need a motion to defer though. Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes. Chair Keawe: Yeah. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay, sorry. Chair Keawe: Oh, good point. Okay. (Laughter in background) So I need a motion to defer. Ms. Apisa: Motion to defer the General Plan going to the Council. Chair Keawe: To May 23�d Ms. Apisa: Yeah, so moved. Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Mahoney: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to defer. All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 5:0. ADJOUP-NI HENT Chair Keawe: Alright, if there's no other business, this meeting is adjourned. Chair Keawe adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Pe Ag t7 Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 54