HomeMy WebLinkAbout 04/01/2015 Planning Committee minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2015
A meeting of the Planning Committee of the County of Kaua`i, State of Hawaii,
was called to order by Mason K. Chock, Chair, at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice
Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 9:16 a.m., after
which the following members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura, Ex-Officio Member
Honorable Mel Rapozo, Ex-Officio Member
There being no objections, Bill No. 2577 and Bill No. 2578 were taken out of
order.
Bill No. 2577 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING
CONDITION IN ORDINANCE NO. PM-31-79, AND
ORDINANCE NO. PM-2009-391 RELATING TO ZONING
DESIGNATION IN PO`IPU, KAUAI (John Horwitz, Peter
Baldwin, Matthew B. Guard, and George Robinson, Successor
Co-Trustees of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust under Deed of Trust
dated April 30, 1922, Applicants) (This item was Deferred.)
Bill No. 2578 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING
CONDITION IN ORDINANCE NO. PM-2001-354, RELATING
TO ZONING DESIGNATION IN PO`IPU, KAUAI (John
Horwitz, Peter Baldwin, Matthew B. Guard, and George
Robinson, Successor Co-Trustees of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust
under Deed of Trust dated April 30, 1922,Applicants) (This item
was Deferred.)
Councilmember Kagawa moved for approval of Bills Nos. 2577 and 2578,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can Max address my questions?
Committee Chair Chock: And if we have additional questions, we can
talk to our Director of Planning as well.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
MAX W.J. GRAHAM, Belles Graham Proudfoot Wilson & Chun, LLP: Good
morning Planning Committee Members, and Chair Chock, thank you very much. I
want to thank you for deferring this matter to give me an opportunity to speak to you
about this request. I am Max Graham and I represent the Eric A. Knudsen Trust.
The Trust is the owner of the property in Po`ipu. I will do a brief overview. This is
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 2 APRIL 1, 2015
Po`ipu Road. A blue line that goes up on the map is Hapa Road or Hapa Trail. To the
west of Hapa Trail, is our projects that have been approved...that are part of the
original Moana Corporation zoning amendments. To the east of Hapa Trail is
property owned by the Knudsen Trust, so that is all this property that goes up here.
The area outlined in pink is the area that was initially part of the original 1979
Moana Ordinance. All of these areas are located in the State Land Use Commission
Urban District. All the areas up here are still located in the State Land Use
Commission Agriculture District, and this is the eastern bypass —Ala Kinoiki Road.
Between the Knudsen Trust lands and the eastern bypass, you have Weliweli Tract
and all these properties zoned by the State of Hawai`i. The reason for this request is
because the Knudsen Trust has a fifty (50) lot subdivision that is located right here.
When the subdivision was approved, it was proposed that the subdivision consistent
with the requirements of the Moana Ordinances would connect to Kiahuna
Plantation Drive, which is over here. Kiahuna Plantation Drive comes on to Po`ipu
Road right down here next to the shopping center. After the approval of the
subdivision, Mr. Ted Blake filed some lawsuits concerning the subdivision and the
proposal to bring vehicular traffic across Hapa Trail. As a result, the Knudsen Trust
is proposing instead of coming across Hapa Trail, to bring a new road which would
start here on the east side of Hapa Trail, connect it to the subdivision, bring it across
these two lots which are also owned by the Knudsen Trust and the beneficiaries of
the former Augustus Knudsen Trust, anyway, bring the road right here connect to
Po`ipu Road. That way there is no need to cross Hapa Trail. In order to do this we
need to amend these Moana Ordinances because the Moana Ordinances
contemplated that everybody would connect to Kiahuna Plantation Drive and they
contain restrictions on direct access to Po`ipu Road. We need to amend it to allow this
point of direct access to Po`ipu Road and that is in essence the summary of what is
being requested. Hapa Road/Hapa Trail is a land court lot that goes from Po`ipu Road
all the way up to here, and then connects to Weliweli Road. Hapa Trail — there is a
driveway that comes right on here that is located partially on the Hapa Road lot and
then from here all the way up outlined in blue, Hapa Trail is an unimproved trail and
then you get up to here and you are at the Catholic Church and the road is actually
paved and maintained, it looks like by the County, so people up here use the road for
access. Hapa Road/Hapa Trail was granted to the Territory of Hawai`i by the
Knudsen Trust. At one point, I think it was in 1991, the land board chairperson
contacted the County to say that by operation of the highway statute the County
owned Hapa Road and the County actually passed an ordinance accepting Hapa Road
but no deed was ever conveyed to the County and because it is a land court lot and
registered in the land court, the title is not perfected unless there is an actual deed
registered in land court which has never been done so actually the road is still owned,
this entire lot that goes from Po`ipu Road all the way up to Weliweli Road is still
owned by the State of Hawaii. That is the basic summary of what is being requested.
Councilmember Kagawa: Tessie folks mentioned that in the old
subdivision plan, there was a drainage engineering study or what have you, and they
said that it was updated and I was wondering if that update would be provided to
them.
Mr. Graham: I told them that I would provide it and I have
not been able to get it yet, so I will do that. At one point the Knudsen Trust propose
to put these upper lands into the State Land Use Commission Urban District and
actually filed an application with the State Land Use Commission and prepared an
environmental impact statement (EIS), eventually that proposal was withdrawn, but
that EIS contains various drainage studies which talk about the drainage from all of
these properties down through Po`ipu Road. Since that project was never completed,
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 3 APRIL 1, 2015
those drainage studies are not consistent with what has been done on the ground.
When the subdivision was approved, there was a drainage study, all the drainage
improvements have been constructed, and the County requires all drainage to remain
within the site itself. Over here where the road is, we are in the process of getting a
grading permit and again the drainage would be to be contained in this area as well.
This area here drains to the west. I think the concern is the drainage escaping across
the street down over here to the restoration project, but as far as I know, the drainage
facilities for the subdivision are sufficient to keep everything on the property so that
there would not be a problem with drainage but I am happy to provide those drainage
studies.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Max.
Committee Chair Chock: You will be providing us a copy as well.
Mr. Graham: Absolutely.
Committee Chair Chock: Any further questions of Mr. Graham or our
Director of Planning at this time?
Councilmember Kagawa: I have another one.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: This is basically a solution because the old
plans wanted to connect to Kiahuna Plantation Road and because of land court or
what have you, you cannot cross up a trail — you are just running it on the east side
of Hapa Trail?
Mr. Graham: Yes. And the provision in the ordinance, we
actually have been working with Mr. Blake and his attorney on this. We have
language in the ordinance that says the proposed new road has to be at least thirty
(30) feet away from the Hapa Trail lot line and we have to survey and make sure that
that is the case.
Councilmember Kagawa: Make sure it is thirty (30) feet away from the
Trail?
Mr. Graham: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: And was there an alternate road besides that
one?
Mr. Graham: In the original proposal to the State Land Use
Commission for this whole project, there were interior roads here and one of the
interior roads came over and was proposed to come out here.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Graham: But that was really part of the original
proposal that was withdrawn, so it is no longer a consideration.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 4 APRIL 1, 2015
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Max, thank you for a very clear explanation.
The Moana restriction on ingress and egress of roads on to Po`ipu Road was to prevent
the situation we have in Kapa'a on the main highway where you have ingress and
egress from individual properties and it makes for a very slow traffic flow along the
main highway. If we approve this, on Po`ipn Road there is going to be that Kiahuna
Road and there are still a lot of ingresses and egresses on the mahai side of Po`ipii
Road, right?
Mr. Graham: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: But on the mauka side there is none except...
Mr. Graham: There is one here.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is Sheraton — does that go into the
Sheraton?
Mr. Graham: No, that is the subdivision. So, there is one
that comes on to the road here from mauka.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is a fairly new one.
Mr. Graham: That is Po`ipu Beach Estates, it has been
there.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Graham: So, they have direct access over here, and
then you have everyone else that uses this property that comes through Kiahuna
Plantation Drive, and gets the access here, and then there will be this proposed access
right here, and then Weliweli comes down here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Graham: That is fairly controlled.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and then there is a driveway, you said,
on the west side of Hapa Trail.
Mr. Graham: There is a driveway that exist right now but
basically, that driveway use will no longer be used, instead the access will be through
the new road.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, and without breaching Hapa Trail?
Mr. Graham: There is the driveway that comes in, goes
across Hapa Trail right here. It goes across there in the portion of the property
between Po`ipu Road and where the Hapa Trail signage where the Hapa Trail starts,
it actually still part of that lot, but there is an existing driveway and the proposed bill
says that that driveway may be used for five (5) more years to allow access because
right now there is a little shop here called Kimo's that has beach accessories and they
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 5 APRIL 1, 2015
need that — that is the only access into that area. That is only temporary for five (5)
years and then a solution has to be reached.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. It makes a lot of sense if you can
somehow...yes, close that driveway and move it to align with the new road that would
come out on the east side of Hapa Trail...on that road that you are now proposing.
Mr. Graham: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to express appreciation to the Knudsen
Estate for pulling back the old plans and not running a major road across Hapa Trail.
I think that is an improvement and I appreciate all the work that has gone into that.
Mr. Graham: You are welcome.
Councilmember Yukimura: I may have some questions for the Director of
Planning after this. Thank you, Max.
Mr. Graham: You are welcome.
Committee Chair Rapozo: Further questions?
Councilmember Rapozo: I just have one (1). I think you answered most
of it with the last question from Councilmember Yukimura, but TMK (tax map key),
the shopping center land lots 26 and 30 —which are those? Is that on the map?
Mr. Graham: Here is the existing shopping center and then
if you see right here there are two (2) lots.
Councilmember Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Graham: That was the proposed new shopping center
area, never constructed.
Councilmember Rapozo: Okay. So in Section 2 of Bill No. 2578 where
you reference the shopping center land identified as TMK, I am only using the last
three (3) digits — 026 and 030, which is those two (2) lots.
Mr. Graham: That is these two (2) lots, yes.
Councilmember Rapozo: Okay. Got it, thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Any other questions? If not, thank you so
much for the presentation. Can we have the Director of Planning up? Good morning,
Director Dahilig. Questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning.
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, Director of Planning: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: I guess I wanted to ask if this proposal is
consistent with the County's plans for traffic circulation in Po`ipii?
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 6 APRIL 1, 2015
Mr. Dahilig: This particular amendment was circulated to
the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works and they gave it a clean
bill of health before it came before the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but I am asking about transportation
planning, so I do not see it as an engineering issue as much as I see it as a planning
issue. Kudos to the Department of Planning for the first community plan that is
going to have a land use and a transportation plan.
Mr. Dahilig: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: And I know the plan is making its way
through us right now but I am assuming that you are still working by some planning
principles in this area?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess I would answer it this way, if we are
asking what is the general transportation objectives concerning what is going on with
the land use as it interacts with Po`ipii Road, those are questions that are currently
before the Council in another bill with respect to adoption of the South Kaua`i Plan.
All I can say at this point is that the South Kaua`i Plan did entertain some type of
development on these parcels consistent with what the zoning is in this area and how
that was folded into the mix is the recommendations that are before the Council at
this point.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, if we passed this it would not be
inconsistent with the pending South Kauai Community Plan?
Mr. Dahilig: Not to my belief.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Some of the concerns about the drainage that
is brought up, we have experienced some of that...like with the Kukui`ula and then
we had the problems raised by the church that they said that they were getting more
water than they used to because of the drainage. If I heard right, it is the engineering
side that would address potential problems that could be prevented?
Mr. Dahilig: Consistent with what Max mentioned before
the Council just previously, any hardening activities have to be reviewed by the
Engineering Division, Department of Public Works. Their plans for this were
circulated to them and they did review this with respect to the sizing of the detention
basins and these types of measures to retain water rather than having water freely
flow due to hardening. They have given again this clean bill of health with respect to
that.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Any further questions of the Director of
Planning? If not, thank you. Since the rules are suspended, I would like to ask if
anyone from the public would like to testify on this item.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 7 APRIL 1, 2015
TESSIE KINNEMAN: Good morning Committee Chair Chock,
Council Chair Rapozo, and Councilmembers. What you have before you that I passed
out is what the community has to go with. This is State Land Use District Boundary
Amendment application. Although I know a lot of work went into this road
realignment, but I do believe that, the road should be located across from the
Waiohai/Marriott's driveway. That way you can create, a four-way stop or a small
traffic circle and that may eliminate parking problems along that corner there. As I
understand it from way back when the Po`ipfl Beach Hotel was going to be rebuilt,
there was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or understanding between the Po`ipu
Beach Hotel, I do not know what it is called now but...the Marriott would provide
parking for employees. Something happened between the agreement and I think
Planning or someone needs to look into that because they are not helping their
employees by having them park outside on the main Po`ipu Road. That is where all
that traffic is from. If they are not willing to fix their agreements, maybe they should
have their occupancy permit suspended temporarily. Something has to be done with
that corner. I truly believe that road should connect straight across the Marriott,
straight across the way on the portion of R-10 condominiums are located, if you look
on page 2. You will see on page 8, I have outlined where I think it would be more
feasible in red on the last page, where the road should go instead of parallel to Hapa
Trail. Hapa Trail, they will need to do a ground survey and they would disturb the
ground...I am sorry not Hapa Trail, but their proposed roadway would do a lot of
ground disturbance whereas at R-10 lot...
Committee Chair Chock: I have to stop you. Does anyone else want to
testify on this item? Okay. I am going to have to ask you to vacate the seat. That
was a fast three (3) minutes, but we do have a question, so let us vet the questions
that we have now, and then...
MATT BERNABE: I can wait.
Committee Chair Chock: We are going to ask the questions, and then
she can come back to complete her questions. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: To expedite for you, I will wait for her second
three (3) minutes, and then I will ask my questions.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to ask a question because I think
it may enable to say what she wants to say.
Committee Chair Chock: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Tessie, thank you for being here. I just want
to understand exactly what you are proposing and if we can have the...I think it is
aerial photograph, which is...
Councilmember Kagawa: Councilmember Yukimura, I have her putting
up page 8 because it shows in red where she wants...
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, maybe you can ask your questions now
on that one, and then I can ask mine.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 8 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: But I think it might clarify what she wants to
say, so let us give it a try.
Committee Chair Chock: Go ahead, Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Tessie, your concerns about the proposed road
running adjacent to Hapa Road is because of...you are thinking that they will have
trouble with burial...
Ms. Kinneman: That and just the lava itself...because they
are going to be jackhammering that area...
Councilmember Kagawa: Disturbing area that you would rather see
undisturbed.
Ms. Kinneman: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: So your proposed road right there is in red.
Ms. Kinneman: Yes. See the Waiohai/Marriott ingress and
egress, the makai side, where the circle is.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Ms. Kinneman: That line coming from makai and go across
towards the tennis courts way, slightly to the east, because that R-10 lot is so
compacted and it has been used as...previously when the Waiohai was rebuilt as a
storage for equipment for nursery and it is very compacted already. At least it has
already been disturbed, so that way...I mean it is pretty much solid, I would think.
That way, it would eliminate the parking on the corners there. Hapa Trail, as I
understood it, would be another evacuation exit.
Councilmember Kagawa: So basically, Tessie, your proposed better
option runs adjacent to the tennis club.
Ms. Kinneman: Yes, and it could be ten (10) feet from the
tennis club.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think I was looking at this map, which was
from Mr. Graham's handout just to understand where you wanted to have the exit of
the road from the Knudsen Estate development. Where you have the red circle is the
entrance to the Waiohai Hotel, is that right?
Ms. Kinneman: Yes, right there. Then it would hook up to go
across the parallel road up here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Kinneman: And then another exit when they do get
through everything, another exit for this subdivision supposedly through Weliweli
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 9 APRIL 1, 2015
Tract, of course you would have to breach the historic wall but most of the rocks are
pretty much gone there anyway.
Councilmember Yukimura: And you are suggesting a roundabout?
Ms. Kinneman: Not a big one but just a rural roundabout. As
I understand the federal standards, you can go as small as fifty (50) foot
circumference, or you could do a four-way stop, either or. The speed limit there are
twenty-five miles per hour (25mph) anyway but people do not go twenty-five miles
per hour (25mph).
Councilmember Yukimura: So what you are saying is that it would move
the proposed...in the present zoning bills before us, it would move the proposed
entrance more to the right or more to the east is what you are saying.
Ms. Kinneman: Way far to the east.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, okay.
Ms. Kinneman: Because see their proposal is right here,
right?
Councilmember Yukimura: We had a parking workshop in Po`ipn, I think
you were there, with Jim Charlier. We agreed that we were probably not going to
solve the problem by just increasing parking supply but we had to look at reducing
parking demand, which is why we are looking at a shuttle that would bring people in
so that they do not have to bring their cars in. Do you think we can solve the problem
just by making more parking available?
Ms. Kinneman: One way you could...for new developments
just provide no parking lots, parking except for employees that way everybody who
comes into the visitor area would have to hop on the bus or taxi. Parking is parking.
People are going to park wherever they want and it is difficult to gage how many
parking stalls employees will need although there is a standard in a project.
Councilmember Yukimura: One of our goals is to have a transit system
from the west side and from areas where workers are living so that they could come
very easily into the Po`ipu area at convenient times that match their work schedules.
Which then means they would not need as much employee parking but the transit
system would serve everybody. I mean it would not just be for employees or just
visitors.
Ms. Kinneman: Well the bus system runs every fifteen (15)
minutes on O`ahu...
Committee Chair Chock: I want to get us to a question about the
easement.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I just have her answer this, what did you
say about Oamo?
Ms. Kinneman: Oamo?
Councilmember Yukimura: You said the bus...
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 10 APRIL 1, 2015
Ms. Kinneman: I lived on O`ahu.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, Oahu, I am sorry.
Ms. Kinneman: And I used to ride their bus a lot and it was
there every fifteen (15) minutes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, it was workable.
Ms. Kinneman: It was workable for me but anytime of the
day, it is not only for people that have to go to and from work, it is for the everyday
person that does not want to drive their car.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is at least my goal in the shuttle system
and I am hoping that the Planners from the shuttle system are really conscious of
this, is that it is going to come about ten (10) or fifteen (15) minutes in order to be
usable. I am only asking this Tessie because I do not know if we are going to be able
to solve our parking problems with just a configuration of roads and parking. It is
sort of an impossible task if you leave out the transit piece. Thank you.
Ms. Kinneman: May I continue?
Committee Chair Chock: You are going to have to come back for the
other three (3) minutes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, we did not get to what you wanted to say.
Committee Chair Chock: I am sorry, I know you have more to share.
Ms. Kinneman: No problem.
Committee Chair Chock: Mr. Bernabe.
Mr. Bernabe: Good morning. I just wanted to support this
project because I have heard testimony from the resident's from that region about the
traffic problems and if somebody is going to pick up the tab or even if it is partial
"picking up the tab" I am not sure what they are doing, but if a company or trust is
willing to work with the County on a traffic issue...I hear what the sister is saying
but my question to her would be, "who owns that land and now we have to go and tell
the Marriott and Waiohai that they have to take care of this road." I do not know the
particulars of that but I am pretty sure that in this day in age that if they have the
good faith to reroute it instead of going across this trail and make it parallel, that is
good faith, I would call that. I do not have much to say because I am from Kapa`a. I
am somebody that knows bad traffic and we have to deal with our own traffic. I would
love somebody to help make a plan in their zone but let us help Kapa'a too. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Chock: Would anyone else like to testify on this item?
Seeing none, could we have Tessie back for her last three (3) minutes? Thank you.
Ms. Kinneman: The property across the street is (inaudible),
the Marriott is also Knudsen Trust lands. They would need to work it upon
themselves. That is my issue on the roadway alignment. To me, it is important that
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 11 APRIL 1, 2015
we have another evacuation route and that has...at least the Koloa Community
Association way back in the 1980s, the reason why they want the trail like that is
that it is used as another evacuation route going mauka. The other pages that I have
for you are the drainage plans and just because the dropped their SLUDBA
application does not mean they will come back in the future. The Koloa Community
Association back in the 1980s wanted the Hapa Trail to be an evacuation route. If the
proposed road alignment goes through, these people will have a hard time coming
down this road and turning up this way. This way they can come out this way or go
that right. That is why I think it is important for the road to be across from the
Marriott/Waiohai and align these on to the R-10 lot property. The rest of the pages
are the drainage plans that I have submitted from their SLUDBA. It would be nice
to see what their new engineering plans are because from what I have...this area
right here, which is the cultural amphitheater, this was supposed to be the main
retention basin, which is directly across of Kaneiolouma Heiau Complex. I do not
know what else to say. Another thing I have for this Bill No. 2577, the direct access
roads are tax maps 05 or 021 or 026, so they have three (3) options.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Tessie, when you talk about an evacuation
route, are you envisioning it as a vehicular evacuation route?
Ms. Kinneman: Yes. It is the only time vehicles should be on
that trail.
Councilmember Yukimura: The basin that you just pointed out.
Ms. Kinneman: This one?
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that in the present plans? You do not know,
okay. But you said it was also going to dovetail as amphitheater.
Ms. Kinneman: No, it is a cultural amphitheater at the
moment.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is a cultural amphitheater.
Ms. Kinneman: Yes. It is a tiered amphitheater...the seating
is tiered. I do not know what it looks like today but that would be their main
retention basin in this plan. Although here between these two (2) buildings here, that
is the Kiahuna portion on the Waiohai side, there is a huge drainage here. When
there are heavy rains, I have noticed that it has really been pouring out. I do not
know where the drainage is coming from.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you that is very valuable
information. Do you know who owns the tennis club and spa?
Ms. Kinneman: If I am not mistaken it is still Knudsen Trust
land, I do not know who owns the business there because some new people took over.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it part of a resort like Kiahuna or Marriott
or is it just a standalone tennis club and spa?
Ms. Kinneman: It is leased from the Trust.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 12 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Kinneman: Or Kiahuna homeowners, one or the other.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Ms. Kinneman: You are welcome.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like...
Committee Chair Chock: Did you have a question for Tessie? Tessie,
we have more questions for you. I did not realize.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you for all you shared and the work
that you have done. Has anyone from our Department of Planning, whether it be with
community meetings or what have you, have heard your ideas and suggestions? Are
they just hearing it for the first time today?
Ms. Kinneman: They are probably hearing it for the first time
today but way back when Donald Fujimoto was the County Engineer, I talked to him
about it, but things move along.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you for your testimony. I know that
there have been some questions regarding drainage in the past but I want to make
sure that we can move this forward. If we need more work on it, then so be it. We
have the Lihu`e Community Plan that we need to get to, so let us move towards that
direction.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Hearing Tessie's testimony, I just have a few
questions for the Director of Planning that might be able to clear me up and make me
more comfortable to move forward.
Committee Chair Chock: I think others have questions for him also.
Can we have the Director of Planning up?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Mike, we see the big plan which has a lot of
development but I guess my question is, for the current development, is that road
solution that they are proposing now sufficient for the size of the development that is
going on now?
Mr. Dahilig: What is being proposed right now in terms of
that connection, it is utilizing an existing connection that already accesses Po`ipu
Road and has been already engineered as such. That particular access was identified
to accommodate the phase one (1) which is essentially the same name as the lots that
are currently subdivided of the development as part of the EIS that was developed
ten (10) years ago. The traffic impact analysis report did look at a various myriad of
options concerning connections to Po`ipu Road but as it related specifically to phase
one (1) or this particular one, it identified the access as being the existing access that
is being used by the tennis courts as well as Kimo's which is that small shop that is
right over there. In updating the information whether or not that assertion in the
TIR that was done as part of the EIS about ten (10) years ago, whether or not that is
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 13 APRIL 1, 2015
still valid or not, my recollection is that Michael Moule at the Engineering Division
asked him to update the TIR based off of that presumption. Their conclusion was
that phase one again is most appropriate, if they were to put it at this site, it would
be most appropriate because you are not creating an additional access to the property.
To answer some of the questions concerning what Ms. Kinnaman brought up with
realigning the access on the other side, I have texted Lee Steinmetz to see if I could
get some information from the Po`ipn Road charrette that was done about a year and
a half ago and about what was the communities markups concerning that area and
that is information that I can definitely get to the Councilmembers. I know that what
Ms. Kinnaman's proposal has been is not new to the Planning Department, we have
heard it before, and we have studied it. There are a number of legal issues that would
also interplay with why the access is being proposed, where it is, and those I would
probably want to refer over to the County Attorney's Office, if those answers need to
be given as well. Long story short, just to answer your question, the Engineering
studies have been done to confirm that this is an appropriate access and where it is
located does not create an additional access on Po`ipn Road.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Then I think you kind of touched on my
second question. My second question was going to be, I understand why Tessie want
to put the road there because it is going to connect with the Marriott on the opposite
side, but for me the concern is that that would add another access on the road,
compared to putting a road on an existing one. As the plan starts to develop, say they
start adding more units in this plan, I guess, her option and other options like the
Po`ipu connection is going to be looked at in the future as I guess the capacity of the
area starts to get larger then they will start to look at other things that they will need
to do which could be Tessie's road or that Po`ipn connection although that connection
that goes to Po`ipu Beach Park might be the solution.
Mr. Dahilig: It is hard to say at this point given that we
only have phase one of the project on the table. Whether or not they are choosing to
move forward with the other phases of the project, the indication right now in front
of the Planning Department is that there is no such desire to move forward with
phases beyond what is phase one, but again I cannot speak for them. I would presume
and if that were to come in under my tenure as Planning Director, I would probably
again as like the situation with phase one ask that this be reviewed by the
Engineering Division whether or not the presumptions made as part of the 2000 some
odd EIS are still appropriate for vehicular access and have the Engineering Division
update the traffic studies, where the ingress and egress points are if more
development should be proposed on the property. That would be the procedure to
follow. I cannot say it is or is not a possibility but we have the procedure to evaluate
it should additional development be proposed by the developer at this time.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I guess to make my questions simpler, as they
come up with proposals to develop more they are going to continue to look at the
traffic and eventually they may say that that road is not sufficient for the amount of
units in there and will start look at other options which may be Tessie's road or...
Mr. Dahilig: I believe so. As of this time this access is only
meant for phase one.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Has an archeological study done for the road
that they are proposing because Tessie mentioned that it may impact certain things
if they construct the road.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 14 APRIL 1, 2015
Mr. Dahilig: My recollection is an AIS (archaeological
inventory study) was conduct as part of the EIS documents that were produced for
the master plan for the project.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Yukimura, do you have a
question?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I thought that we would do these land
use plans so that we have...does the South Kauai Plan envision any development of
the Knudsen properties beyond what this particular bill holds?
Mr. Dahilig: There is some anticipated development, what
that is characterized as, I would have to refer back to the documents. It is definitely
not been earmarked for what I would characterized as anything more than what is
entitled to at this point.
Councilmember Yukimura: I mean I do not think it is a good way to plan
our transportation system on a case-by-case docket-by-docket situation — while this
road for now but maybe later another road. In the South Kaua`i Plan hopefully we
have envisioned what will be developed over the next twenty (20) years and the
transportation system, roads, multimodal is going to be capable of handling the traffic
at build out. What is the vision for the Po`ipu Road and what is the best alignments
and road ingress and egresses? My question is first of all with the proposed...the
road out lit into Po`ipu Road from the Knudsen property as proposed in the bill, is
that eliminating an ingress or egress and adding an ingress or egress or substituting.
Mr. Dahilig: Again, because this is a bit of a tangled issue
as it relates to some of the lawsuits that have been filed concerning crossing Hapa
Road. What this aims to do is to provide an alternative access to the already
subdivided lots as part of phase one that does not traverse Hapa Road. This particular
access is being proposed back in 2004, I have to get the year right, but the previous
EIS, and this was a study as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
This was not an access that has not have been disclosed or not reviewed prior to this
proposal. This was meant to again address that alternative access at this point.
Councilmember Yukimura: There is a lot of sense in putting the out lit for
this road that the Knudsen Estate wants across from an existing entryway at the
Marriott, to me, or at the Hoowili Road, right. We try to make these alignments so
that we do not have these offsets ins and outs. Would we not satisfy the legal
requirements by putting the offset across the Waiohai entrance?
Mr. Dahilig: It is a valid proposal. Again, I am trying to
get information at this point from the charrette's as to what the community's vision
for Po`ipu Road actually says. I believe a lot of that was already folded into the South
Kauai Plan. Why do you have two (2) bills in front of you is also to address the
concerns that the Commission had at the time concerning shutting down Kimo's. The
Commission did raise concerns about whether or not moving or closing off any type
of access, and that is why you see these amendments, whether that would shut a
business down effectively because there is no ability to access it. This five (5) year
transition period is what is also envisioned as part of the package to allow status quo
for that business to be able to maintain its operations and provide a plan and
transition out of that area. There are more than just one (1) use of this particular
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 15 APRIL 1, 2015
access presently and so rather than create duly accesses, the proposal that was
brought to us was consolidating them all in one while being able to address the issues
concerning traversing over Hapa Road.
Councilmember Yukimura: However, the situation with the existing
business can still remain the same. That he has access for another five (5) years from
his existing access and then he has to figure out another solution.
Committee Chair Chock: Let us get to a question here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right?
Committee Chair Chock: If there are more that you want to have sent
over then we can do that separately.
Mr. Dahilig: That in effect is a policy proposal in front of
the Council at this point. I do not want to diminish the validity of what Ms.
Kinnaman is saying but I believe given the previous TIRs and the previous studies
that have been conducted with this as well as the disclosure concerning phase one,
with all those elements lead up to this consolidation of the access at this point, to be
proposed.
Councilmember Yukimura: How would the bills proposal differ in terms
of the long-term results to the business if you were to put the entryway along with
Waiohai? What would be the difference in impact?
Mr. Dahilig: To the business?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, long-term.
Mr. Dahilig: Well the long-term affect to Kimo's, that
business, is that if you were to move the access and again understand that the access
is also layered with the approvals given for the tennis courts and the club that is
there. In effect, if we were to try to consolidate the accesses to the eastern portion of
that property we would have to open up the zoning permits as well as change the
zoning ordinance to do so. It is not something that unilaterally can be done by a
zoning ordinance in it of itself. Say for example that was the case, if we did not
consolidate the access, now you have two (2)ingress and egress points off Po`ipu Road.
That may not be advantageous with respect to how the Engineering Division tries to
minimize the amount of ingress and egress points from an artery. I cannot speak for
them but know that that may be a concern for them. The second thing is if those
consolidation points were meant to move it to the eastern portion, we would have to
go back and actually, through the commission process amend the permits for the club.
That has to go through the due process element and has to show due cause and go
through the contested case hearing on that. It is not to say that it is not possible but
it is more than just a movement in the zoning ordinance that would be able to
facilitate something like that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for explaining the process
constraints. I want to know the outcome restraints. In five (5) years this business has
to figure out another access because the existing proposal will not be giving him
access, that is what I understood, am I misunderstanding?
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 16 APRIL 1, 2015
Mr. Dahilig: The basis for that essentially the current
access to that traverse is Hapa Road. The concern is, is there enough time to try to
transition that business so that Hapa Trail can be restored fully all the way down to
an intersection with Po`ipu at this point.
Councilmember Yukimura: So his long-term solution is either to move to
the other side or something else. There is no fixed long-term solution from the
proposal before us. It gives him transition time.
Mr. Dahilig: It give him transition time because the policy
proposal with respect to that five year period is to allow him to move so that the trail
can be restored all the way down to the intersection of Po`ipu.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, right, so what is the difference if you
put the road to match Waiohai's entry and exit and he still has five years to transition
to another solution?
Mr. Dahilig: I would allude previously again to my
comment with respect to...again, I am not the Engineering Division. They are in
charge of the management of Po`ipu Road. They may have concerns during that five
year period — two (2) ingress and egress points along Po`ipu Road rather than
consolidating them in one. Again, I cannot speak for them, but I would suspect that
they would entertain if they were given the question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so now the issue is down to a five-year
period impact versus the long-term impacts that we are trying to figure...
Committee Chair Chock Can I inject for a minute?
Councilmember Yukimura: I am finish.
Committee Chair Chock: I get where you want to go with this and I can
support it, but I am not sure I can support it right here on the floor for the next two
(2) hours.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Committee Chair Chock: We have a consultant from O`ahu that is here
for the next item, and if there needs to be more work done on this, then that is what
we should do. We should get the questions that you are asking vetted. If you are
done with that, I want to hear from the Committee about where they are with this.
There is more work that can be done until we get it to Council, so thank you.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I appreciate the questions and the discussion,
it is about as clear as mud to me as to what our best options are, and I do not want to
make a decision under these circumstances. Can we ask the Planning Department
to come back to think about all the discussion that we had today and give us some
clear direction on this is the best option long-term or not rather than...what I seem
to be hearing is, we can do this or that — it is up to you folks. That is not the kind of
direction that I want.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 17 APRIL 1, 2015
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: My gut feeling about the Po`ipii area, having
grown up on the west side and lived, surfed, fished in those areas, and I do not want
to see anymore development. I want to say no to any development but it is really not
being realistic. We have people that have permits from before that...and I do not feel
that it is my call to voice that opinion just because my gut feelings says that I do not
want to see any more development there. This is a solution to a problem that was
raised by Mr. Blake and I do not see Planning agreeing with the alternate solution
proposed. That alternate solution being proposed is split. For a lot of us it does makes
sense, it seems to hit the middle of the subdivision but it is not what the applicant
wants to do. They would like to use the existing road, because I guess it is easier.
They feel like they have already been using it and they are avoiding the conflict with
having to cross Hapa Trail. I think at this point for me, I do not see Planning willing
to change. They already basically told us that they have given the approvals,
Engineering has looked at that road, they determined traffic wise that it is the best
solution at this point. All I can do is ask that Planning and Engineering continue to
listen to the local people. What I do not want to see or reflect on years from now is
seeing a whole bunch of problems with traffic in that area, with the water all of a
sudden, as we develop becoming more brown, and we have seen that happened. Any
time you develop an area that is already overdeveloped, you see those problems.
Basically, I am not an engineer or planner, and I am kind of relying on the advice of
our experts that have put in the time and due diligence. All I can do at this point is
support it with some reservations but I want the Planning Department and the
Engineering Division to continue to work with the local people. They are not doing it
because they have an agenda. What Tessie is proposing is for the future. She feels
like they put in the time way before and determined that they should have that front
access, the back access, and it is to allow traffic to flow for emergencies. Listen to the
locals concerns in all instances because all they care about is if we are going to
develop, let us do it the best possible way that we can so that we can minimize the
impact of our lifestyle. Again, I do not see Planning or the developer jumping at this
new proposal and I do not want to hold it back when I know that the Planning
Department and the Engineering Division is not going to change their mind on this.
They have done the due diligence. I am going to be supporting it with some
reservations. I am going to ask that the Engineering Division and the Planning
Department just continue as we develop these areas that are over developed already
and listen to the locals, listen to the brothers, and sisters who put in a lot of their
volunteer time trying to help us make better decisions. I will be supporting it today.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I had a lot of my questions answered and I
understand the sensitivity of the area as far as archeological goes and I got that
question answered. For me it is looking at what is the least impactful. I understand
what Tessie was saying about adding the road but for me I think adding another road
only adds another ingress/egress which I am not sure if the engineers would agree or
not but I would think it would cause more traffic problems because you are adding
another road going on to the main road. I am comfortable voting on it today. I am
not sure if the other members want to defer it to get a little more comfortable but as
far as I go, I know the main concerns with the Koloa area is drainage, traffic, and the
sensitivity of the archeological sites. If they have done the drainage study, if they
had the traffic impact analysis, and they have done their archeological study, for that
role then I am comfortable with it. I am willing to move forward. I am not sure if the
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 18 APRIL 1, 2015
two (2) ordinances need to go together regarding the five-year commercial property
Kimo's and his solution but I think as far as the road goes, I am comfortable with it.
If the holdup is what is the solution for this person needing five years to find a
solution to get out, I do not know if they want to split it out and try and vet that a
little more but if it needs to go together, again, I can support it today. I am ready to
vote on it.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not a voting member of this Committee
but I strongly feel that if our goal is to do it in the best possible way, then we need to
defer it. Deferring is not saying no. It is important to defer in order to pursue the
best solution or to make sure that what is before us is the best solution. If we do not
want to see more traffic or problems in the future as Councilmember Kagawa is
saying then we need to do the work. The way to do the work is to defer and get the
work done before we approve any solution. It may turn out that the proposed solution
is the best but I think there have been enough questions raised and enough questions
not answered, very clearly, that that suggests we should really check out the proposal
that Tessie is suggesting and get the proper information and then if it all shows that
the proposal is the best way then we should move forward with it.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: But we should take the time to do it right.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would like more time as far as a deferral, if
that is reasonable. I do not know what kind of deadlines are in place. My earlier
question about, is the Planning Department hearing about this for the first time
today to Ms. Kinnaman and it seems like there should be more consideration at least
and I do not know why not, and to also hear a little more feedback from the
community, people from Hapa Trail. I know that this is responding to the need to not
cross Hapa Trail and so that is one solution that the developer is agreeable to doing
but it is not necessarily the only solution. With the South Kauai Community Plan, I
am curious to see how it fits in with that and to hear further from the Planning
Department. What she has put forward does make the best sense in the long run
because it seems like with lawsuits and what have you, we are moving and that is
kind of reactionary but now with the South Kauai Plan and all the great work that
is being done by the Planning Department, that is more visionary and utilizing the
community. I just want to hear a little bit more of where the community is on this
and may be it means I need to just go back and look at the minutes from the Planning
Committee. If it is not time sensitive and we can defer for a little bit, I will be
supportive of a deferral.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo, did you
have something to add too?
Councilmember Rapozo: I am just curious to hear from Max. Number
one we have to make sure that it is doable, feasible, and legally if we can actually
require that. That is why we are here today for — the Committee. I would ask if we
could get Max back up and get his perspective on it. I would like to hear from the
Planning Department...that is why we are here today. The fact that we hear some
new information today let us get the answers today while we are here. I am not a
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 19 APRIL 1, 2015
Committee member so that is your call, but while we are here, we have the resources
in the room, let us get as much as we can before we defer.
Committee Chair Chock: This is what I would like to do, there is enough
questions that are materializing around from the Committee members and non-
Committee members, and there is more work that needs to be done. I do not want to
spend too much more time on it. I am willing to have them come back up, Mr.
Graham, time sensitivity, yes or no, should we continue to look at it? Are there other
possibilities? In addition to that I think we need to get some more specific details
back in writing about the drainage on a broader level, the feasibility of what is being
proposed by the community, and there was also legal implications that were being
talked about that I think could be shared with us. Can we make sure we can get
those things? I was ready to move this out today. It is hard when these things come
up and when you are ready to move forward but I understand that that is what this
is about —you folks coming up and sharing. Mr. Graham, could you please come up
and if we could spend not more than ten (10) more minutes, I just want to get some
direction here, and then this is going to have to continue.
Mr. Graham: Okay, let us see if I can help clarify and then
if you need to defer, we can look into particular issues. If I can get the map up there,
my first map. This is only a fifty (50) lot subdivision and we are trying to get access
to this fifty (50) lot subdivision. We are not trying to solve all of the transportation
issues for this entire area. This fifty (50) lot subdivision is not going to have any
impact on parking problems along Po`ipn Road because these people park in their
own parking garages and homes. This proposed road is in existence, this is the
driveway that comes into the Po`ipu Beach Athletic Club and it is operated by the
Knudsen Trust and the Augustus Knudsen Trust. These two (2) properties here are
owned by the Knudsen Trust and the Augustus Knudsen Trust heirs, and the
subdivision in this lot over here is owned only by the Knudsen Trust so whatever we
do across this property we need the Augustus Knudsen Trust heir's permission. They
have a little bit different interest in this property than we do in the subdivision
property. Because this is an existing driveway, the least impact on this entire area is
putting the new road right along the driveway alignment. It is already paved. In
terms of impacts on Hapa Trail, there will be no impacts on Hapa Trail because we
are going to put it right along the existing pavement except when we get down here
where we will actually move it away from Hapa Trail. In terms of archeological
preservation, this is the best solution. The Knudsen Trust went through about seven
(7) scenarios of aligning the roads from the subdivision. We looked at over here, we
looked at bringing the road over here, we had the proposal to go over here, we looked
at coming over here, we looked at possibly trying to align with the Marriott entrance,
and it was just very difficult physically to do that. Over here, you have the existing
drainage facilities for the subdivision and then in this entire area there are
archeological sites. This is a more sensitive area than this paved driveway. When we
looked at everything the best solution was let us just bring it along the existing
driveway, which would have the least impacts. We did an update on the traffic impact
assessment report that had been done initially for the entire proposed project. We
did an update and the update concluded that it would not negatively affect traffic
along Po`ipu Road at this intersection at least to a significant...it would not have a
significant impact along this area right here. We have looked at it all and it just
seems like this was the solution that would have the least impact and would be
easiest to accomplish and would serve the...remember now this is being driven by the
desire to keep traffic off Hapa Trail. That is the solution and that to us the overriding
goal, we want to keep traffic off Hapa Trail. If some time in the future the County
acquires title to Hapa Trail and if some time in the future the County decides that
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 20 APRIL 1, 2015
you want to make this actually a vehicular access emergency road which was an idea
that was floating around some years back, I am not sure that that is consistent with
keeping Hapa Trail as a pedestrian bike trail, but if the County ever acquires Hapa
Road and wants to consider that, it still makes sense to have a driveway here. You
can still connect with the new road here for access on to Po`ipu Road. If you look at
the subdivision road it connect actually connects all the way through here. It is a
connection all the way through and over here there is no connection through the
subdivision if you brought the road here you will get this road and then you would
have to go up here to get into the back area. To answer the questions concerning the
overall assessment of future traffic issues for this property, I actually do not see that
in the South Kaua`i Plan and you are going to look at that later today. There is no
assessment that I could find in the plan concerning the future development in this
area, the future uses of the eastern bypass road, and any future connections from the
eastern bypass to this area or the State property here. The answer is that you have
not looked at that and maybe you do want to look at it in the South Kaua`i Plan, but
right now there is no overall plan for this area for traffic flow from Hapa Road to the
eastern bypass. We have looked at all of this and we just thought that this was the
best, easiest solution and yes it is nice when you can do it to put the road accesses
across from other existing road accesses and so yes, if all things were equal maybe
you would want to put the road over here across from the Marriott driveway access.
Overall, to us, it made more sense to leave it where it is. Even if you somehow if we
were able to do this and this will not be easy because of the physical constraints, you
still would have the driveway here that comes into the Athletic Club, so now you
created two (2) access points on to Po`ipu Road which to me does not make sense. I
am happy to expand on this at a later date if you want, but I wanted to give you that
overall explanation of what is happening in this area.
Committee Chair Chock: Any specific questions on the alternative
access that has been discussed. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is there no possibility of putting the tennis
court access along a new access that would be across Marriott?
Mr. Graham: With enough money, I guess you could do
anything. You would have to bring a new driveway across the property to connect to
the existing driveway because of the configuration of the structures on the side. The
new driveway would be using the lower portion of the property that is owned in part
by the Knudsen Trust and the Augustus Knudsen Trust beneficiaries, so there would
be a negotiation with them over that because it would affect their use of that property.
It is possible, it is more complicated.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and in that area that is zoned urban, is
there any further plans for development beyond the fifty (50) lot subdivision?
Mr. Graham: It would be developed but there are no plans
that I know of to develop that area and certainly no plans to develop the State Land
Use Agriculture area above.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, okay. I mean the traffic from fifty (50)
lots will impact the roadway on Po`ipu more than it is now; you are going to have
more traffic coming out there.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay, we have a question from
Councilmember Hooser.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 21 APRIL 1, 2015
Mr. Graham: Just remember though, yes, there will be
more traffic at the driveway but under the original proposal, all that traffic would
have gone on Kiahuna Plantation Road come down and still got on to Po`ipu Road, so
the question is where do you want to put the traffic.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is correct. Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: In addition to the fifty (50) lot subdivision
(inaudible) with potential density or how many units could be ultimately be developed
in that area?
Mr. Graham: In the R-10?
Councilmember Hooser: Of this area and this area. I guess the concern
that was raised was that this is phase one and this is a fifty (50) lot subdivision but
there are lots of other land there that will likely be developed in the future even if the
landowner does not have present plans, so I am just trying to get an idea of the scale
of development that is entitled now and possibly could be entitled in the future.
Mr. Graham: Sure. This is all agriculture land, there is this
strip up here of R-4, I believe it is, lots and there is this area here of R-10 and it is in
my files and I will give you the numbers that could be without any further zoning
amendments be developed. The rest of this property has very little density because
it is agriculture.
Councilmember Hooser: It seems like we may be having another
session, if you could bring back that information.
Mr. Graham: I could.
Councilmember Hooser: Because the overall capacity of the area
certainly deserves to be considered.
Mr. Graham: But remember if you were going to develop
this area, you would need permits and discretionary permits so traffic will be an issue
with any further development.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. And I understand that every time you
have to do it but it makes sense I think from a planning perspective to look at the big
picture and say that if this is what the intent is then let us plan it this way. I think
that is the heart of the discussion that we are having right now.
Mr. Graham: Right.
Councilmember Hooser: Some of the decision making is what is best
long-term for the County and some is what is best for the landowner/developer and
easiest and most affordable.
Mr. Graham: Right.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 22 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: So those are the two (2) competing interest
right now that we are talking about.
Mr. Graham: It would be possible with this additional
density to put it all into this access, so that is one (1) of the solutions.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Chock: I still do not have questions answered. If we
want to defer it, let us defer it right now. I do not want to have any more discussion
on, I want our questions answered before we move forward.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: Call for the question.
Committee Chair Chock: Please.
Councilmember Rapozo: Can I just make a real quick comment?
Committee Chair Chock: Please.
Councilmember Rapozo: Max stated that the whole reason why we are
here today is because the protection preservation of Hapa Trail. That was the whole
reason and motivation to do what was done. The South Kaua`i Community Plan is
going to address most of the concerns of this application or this area. The draining
has been addressed, the draining plans have been submitted, and they are done. The
traffic, I do not believe that it is good practice for this Council, granted that there is
potential future development but at the end of the day, you cannot put the burden of
the future development on this application. Max said it best, whether you put it on
this road or you put it on the Kiahuna Plantation road, the cars have to come out
someplace and a fifty (50) lot subdivision is not a big subdivision but the options to
me, this makes sense, this road will not go away. If you force them to go somewhere
else, that road remains to service the existing lots that are there —the tennis courts,
the spa, or whatever is over there. So you actually want to say, "No, you cannot use
that, you use another one," but in essence it creates a new egress on to the road. I
obviously do not vote today, Committee Chair Chock, but I am incline to support this
should this Committee move it forward to the full Council. Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Further discussion? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I just want to reiterate that I did not hear any
sense of urgency that we have to do this today or else it is going to cost us money or
be a big problem. I would prefer to defer for at least one more Committee Meeting
and take the time that we need to hear about the density, the plans, and then vote at
that time. I will make the motion to defer.
Committee Chair Chock: Can I hear from Councilmember Yukimura?
Did you have something else to add?
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to say that I really appreciated
Max's clarification and the fact that they have looked at different accesses and maybe
it could be...that like I said this is the best solution but I think two (2) weeks for a
decision that is going to be forever, I mean really...and I think we need to get
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 23 APRIL 1, 2015
information about how much the total density potentially can be in that urban area.
I am puzzled about the R-4 that was mentioned but that is why I think we need
clarification and two (2) weeks is not too much in a decision that is going to be forever.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, we are sitting here and I think we need
to look at what is practical and from what I heard it is not practical to create another
road for this fifty (50) unit subdivision. They said specifically that putting it on the
existing road is the most practical thing to do, it can handle it. We do look at large
vision, Tessie bought in a plan that shows all the development that could occur there
and we do look at the large vision, you see a road connecting to Po`ipii Beach Park,
but we also need to look at the small vision also. We cannot expect to do a Bentley
road plan when they are only doing a small portion of the development. That is why
Max made it clear that as development comes on that is when they will consider that
may be we will need to open up another access here. I am just saying that for all
practical purposes, I am ready to vote on this.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Let me just say that I did not hear from
anyone that it was critical that we vote today and so I am going to support the deferral
for two (2) more weeks just for my own benefit. I need to hear from a couple of people
that are not in the room today and have not come forward. I think it is always good
to hear more, not only from the Administration but from the community. I will
support a deferral today and I am pretty sure I can make a decision in two (2) weeks.
Committee Chair Chock: I will support your deferrals, if you make the
motion. This is what my request is, I do not want to come back in two (2) weeks and
have the same discussion. We have to move these things through, we have these
plans that we have to get through, they are also time sensitive in terms of moving
towards our General Plan. The questions that were brought up here and are new
here, I ask that we move on them, be proficient in the questions that need to be
answered. Go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair Chock, I really appreciate you going
along with some of your members and I like when we defer it, and when we defer it,
we truly find or look for a better solution. I just do not see opening up another access,
as explained here, as being a better solution. Even if you hear five hundred (500)
more units could go up, I mean does that mean opening up another access, and having
two (2) accesses instead of one (1) access. Is that a better solution for the community
at this point? I do not see it. Not for this case, but for your support for a deferral, I
will support it, just because the votes are there, and I am going to follow your
leadership. Like you said, I do not want to defer it and just defer it because you want
to ask more questions that is not going to even affect the Bill. Like I said, I will
support your leadership.
Committee Chair Chock: We will defer it for one more meeting. Can I
have a motion?
Upon motion duly' made by Councilmember Hooser, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i, and unanimously carried, Bills Nos. 2577 and 2578
was deferred.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 24 APRIL 1, 2015
Committee Chair Chock: I want to apologize to our guests that have
been waiting.
(Councilmember Kaneshiro is noted as recused from Bill No. 2571, Draft 1.)
Bill No. 2571, Draft 1 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND FUTURE
GROWTH AREAS FOR THE LIHU`E PLANNING
DISTRICT (This item was Deferred.)
Committee Chair Chock: For the record, Councilmember Kaneshiro is
recused from this item.
Councilmember Kagawa moved for approval of Bill No. 2571, Draft 1 seconded
by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Committee Chair Chock: The last two (2) weeks we had a great
presentation by our Planning Department and our consultant Cheryl Soon. We had
a lot of work that has been done in the last two (2) weeks in terms of answering the
questions that were posed that have led to five (5) amendments that we would like to
get on the floor today. In that process, additional questions did come up and so many
that we have been continuing to have this dialogue offline in terms of answering the
questions. There were some questions that were moved to this meeting today and
will be answered by our consultant, and amendments that are forthcoming.
Ultimately, I do not see it feasible that we will get to all the amendments today, one,
because our staff has not been able to prepare them, so they are not ready to be looked
at today. However, since our consultant is here and because there are five (5)
amendments that we can get through and get all of these questions out of the way, I
would like to continue. I think we can get through this fairly quickly, if members are
clear about what it is that we have done. We have asked the questions, they have
been answered, you folks have gotten copies of that, they have also materialized in
amendments. I would like to take the five (5) amendments followed by testimony,
and then the questions and answers that are specifically coming from Councilmember
Yukimura, and we will go until lunch. Any questions about that? If not, what I would
like to do is...Councilmember Hooser; do you want to introduce the amendments?
Councilmember Hooser moved to amend the Lihu`e Community Plan (2014)
Booklet as referenced in Bill No. 2571, Draft 1, Establishing Procedures,
Development Plans, and Future Growth Areas for the Lihu'e Planning District
as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as
Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Committee Chair Chock: We have one (1) floor amendment, which
includes five (5) changes, and if we could have this matrix passed out too, I think it
shows a better reflection of the specific amendments. They have this one too. Oh,
okay. So you have the matrix. These go together. They are basically the same
information but they might help to outline the specific amendments. Do we need
more explanations on them or any questions about them? Lea, can you come up and
walk us through the amendments.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LEANORA KAIAOKAMALIE, Long Range Planner: Good morning
Councilmembers. We have Mike Dahilig, Planning Director, and Cheryl Soon from
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 25 APRIL 1, 2015
SSFM who is our consultant in the Lihu`e Committee Plan process. I have a copy of
the proposed amendments that was a result of some of the questions that came to us
through Council Chair. How would you like me to proceed?
Committee Chair Chock: Can you walk us through the five (5)
industrial uses?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The first proposed amendment is in relation
to questions that we had on March 4 regarding the affordability of industrial zoned
lands. The addition reads as follows: "While there may be adequate industrially-
zoned lands in Lihu`e planned for in the next 20 years, feedback during the plan
process has revealed that residents island-wide feel that both light and general
industrial spaces are inaccessible or unaffordable for purchase or lease by local
entrepreneurs. Discussion regarding incentivizing and/or requiring access and
affordability of industrial lands should be pursued during the general plan process,
since this issue is not unique to Lihu`e." That was the first, should I keep going?
Committee Chair Chock: Yes, please.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The second one is clarification that needed to
be made. There was an amendment to page 73, I believe the last time, regarding how
many acres of district par we have in the Lihu`e area. There is going to be a change
in the right hand column of this page from 2.7 acres to 3.28 acres to be consistent
with Table 3-2. The third one is in regard to questions about removing...there was a
proposal at the last meeting to remove PKS-1 from the CIP Table regarding Parks
and Recreation, "A new comfort station and parking scheme for the soccer complex at
Lydgate Park," and what we propose at this time is to leave that in and change the
last column to...where this suggestion is coming from is the Parks Master Plan
because it is no longer in the County's CIP. The fourth one, under Section 2.3 Policy
Objectives to add a new number 13 to state, "Seek out partnership and funding
opportunities for the undergrounding of utilities, in particular in the Lihu`e Town
Core along Rice Street," and this comes from some discussion and questions regarding
looking into undergrounding utilities in the future. The fifth proposed amendment
also has to do with the undergrounding of utilities and basically it follows what we
have on number 4, which states, "The possibility of undergrounding utilities has been
a discussion on Kaua`i for many years. In regard to the Lihu`e District, there are no
immediate plans to move electric utility lines underground due to the extremely high
cost of installing lines underground on Kauai (currently five-to-fifteen times more
than overhead systems, depending on the terrain). However, the undergrounding of
utilities has been performed on a limited, case-by-case basis, where unique
circumstances warrant it. KIUC, as a community owned cooperative, is open to
discussions on the undergrounding of lines in key corridors in partnership with
organizations that can assist with coordination and funding." This is coming from
discussion with both KIUC directly and with our energy coordinator Ben Sullivan.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: These are based on questions that were
generated on interests for amendments at the last meeting. Do we have any questions
of our Planning Department or consultant on these items? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to thank the Planning Department
and the consultant for these amendments which are acknowledgements of the
concerns that were raised by this group and also I think helped to look forward to
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 26 APRIL 1, 2015
possible...well, they identified the issues that need to be identified as important
issues and they look forward to some solutions. I think it is very appropriate and I
greatly appreciate the responsiveness to Council's concerns.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you. Any questions on the
amendments? If not, what I would like to do is I think we can take them in a vote all
at once.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Committee Chair Chock: Any further questions, members? Should I
take public testimony now? Yes. I am sorry to have you folks vacate but I just want
to ask if there are public testimony before the vote. Would anyone like to testify on
this item? Sure. Matt, are you going to talk about the whole plan in general?
MATT BERNABE: I have a quick testimony. Not going be long.
You know me. I get green and I want to beat the yellow.
Committee Chair Chock: I just wanted to get a sense of if it is for the
amendments or for the whole Bill.
Mr. Bernabe: It is. Really out of all of these amendments I
just want to point out while you folks are focusing on industrial zoning and all of
these other kinds of things that people want to have business in, currently they have
a lot of agriculture land that they are not even using. What is their long-term plan
for farming and exporting some vegetables? Getting some diversify agriculture out
of their land. Their name is Grove Farm, not Grove Developers. I like Safeway. That
is a traffic issue, a lot of tourist use Safeway, that is smart planning we needed that,
but if you folks are going to put the emphasis on all of these little things, they got a
lot of viable agriculture land. Let us start filling up some Matson containers leaving
with that product and not worried about welding and all of these other things, of
course we need that for the vehicles, but let us get it all holistic.
Committee Chair Chock: Would anyone else like to testify? Mr. Taylor.
KEN TAYLOR: Since we just got these amendments, it is
hard to talk much about them, but the plan in general, I have a couple more
comments to make. If you recall on the last hearing I talked a little bit about concerns
for traffic and infrastructure that was needed to take care of that I do not really see
any activity in that direction in any of the amendments. I also want to talk about us
looking at moving forward with recommendation with developing housing when we
have a water problem existing in Lihu`e as it is. In the Rice Camp project, we could
not build the whole thing out because there was inadequate water meters available
so only part of the project should be done. It is my understanding that the Grove Farm
project at the intersection coming out of the airport, they have a problem with
adequate water supply not only for the commercial part of the development but the
five hundred (500) units of housing that are supposed to be built along with that.
This decision that came from the Supreme Court last year in reference to Kaua`i
Springs versus the County, I think that opens up a can of worms with the Grove Farm
DOW joint owning some sources and distribution. I do not think Grove Farm has a
legal right to own any water supply by State law, and I think the County is in
violation of water code in participating with Grove Farm in that kind of activity. I
think those things will have to be resolved before we move forward with this plan
that is short of water to begin with. I just want to say, "oh, yes, how about a nice cold
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 27 APRIL 1, 2015
glass of sustainable growth," and I will make sure that you each get a copy of this. I
really feel now that is where we are going, not only with this community plan but also
with the east side community plan that is coming down the pipe. We have to move
forward with a much smarter planning process.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: You are welcome. Would anyone else like to
testify on this item? Seeing none, if there are no more questions or further discussion
on the amendments, I will call for the question. Councilmember Kagawa.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: I will be supporting these amendments and I
just like to talk about the one about underground utilities. In looking at the costs,
we are broke and I cannot imagine that it is a realistic to obtain five to fifteen time's
overhead systems to underground our electricity. We just did a...I do not know what
it is called but Hardy Street and all of that, we went around and just to show you how
it is ready, fire, aim...I mean if we wanted to do underground utilities, we would have
done it when we spent all of that money because now if we have to do it, we have to
go through all of these curbs, cement, and walkways if we ever wanted to
underground the core around Lihu`e. Believe it or not, we had a beautiful straight
path and where there is a pole and wire, they have to curve around it, which means
you have to ride your bike straight and then you have to dodge the pole. A beautiful
bikeway/walkway should be straight and it would have been done that way if we
buried the utility there but there is not enough room. While I love seeing that kind
of improvements made because I believe it is much safer to have a design flat area to
walk because people are going to trip over driveways and grassy areas but I think as
time goes on, if that is the vision to have nice sidewalks and walkways we have to do
it all one time in the plan. I hate to see when we have paved roads and walkways and
a little while later we are busting it up to do improvements or what have you. That is
such a waste of money. Would we do that as a homeowner? Would we pave our
driveway and in a little while bust it up because we want to change it...only in
government it happens. I think we have to spend wisely and think big picture and
plan better because when we put this in, are we just saying it just for words that we
want to do all these amendments, focus on underground utilities...just put it in for
words and all of our actions...I am sure Puhi, we are going to go around poles and
around guide wires but it is the same thing. If we really want to do underground
utilities, let us do it. Let us do it before we end up doing it and then five (5) years
later we end up saying, "We want to do it now," and then we are going to have to bust
all of that new stuff that we did that is costing us millions. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Chock: Any further discussion on the amendments?
None, I just wanted to say, and I will take time now because we will move into the
questions right after this. This is the first round of amendments, there are five (5)
right now, but I am estimating here as we have gone through the week there is a
potential twenty-nine (29) amendments still coming forth — twenty-nine (29). My
hope is that from now until the next meeting we can continue to vet these with the
Planning Department and really get clear about them and recognize how we want to
implement or not. In general, I am supportive of...because this is a guideline that we
are using, I am supportive of members wanting to put forth some of their interest. I
am not very supportive of taking out some of the work that has occurred from the
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 28 APRIL 1, 2015
community's perspective. If at all, we need to keep that and if there is an interest of
strengthening language then I will be open to it. I just want to put this into
perspective because we talk about if we have more time to work on this and these two
(2) plans that we are working on are meant to inform the work that we want to get
done in the general plan and based on conversations with the Planning Department,
we are shooting for mid-May to start that work. If we can pass this, great, we can get
some questions answered today and then get all the amendments forthcoming on the
next agenda, which will, deferred until April 29, 2015. My hope is that we can move
this plan to the full Council by mid-May. I do not know if that is wishful thinking,
nothing is easy here, but that is where I am with this. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just real quacking, Chair, I fully support
moving this forward and in a manner of which you described. I wanted to
acknowledge Councilmember Yukimura and yourself, you know there is a lot of talk
about process, and amendment number one of the five came about because of a
conversation that we had in open session that Councilmember Yukimura initiated.
She raised the issue of the lack of affordability of industrial zoned lands and because
of that one comment, there were other comments and discussion, and now we have
an amendment, which essentially gives direction to the general plan discussion to say
that we need to have discussions there about incentivizing and/or requiring
affordable industrial properties. To my knowledge, we never had that discussion
before. Like affordable housing, we require and incentivize. To take the conversation
to the next level I think is important. It may seem like it is just a sentence or
paragraph but I think it is an important start to a very important discussion that
would not have happened if we had not had that discussion at the table. Again,
Councilmember Yukimura was the one who initiated that. I am very pleased to
support these amendments. Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In addition to the relationship to the general
plan, these community plans stand on their own in terms of giving direction for the
next twenty (20) years in this region. I feel like they have a very important role and
the words and direction that these plans give are things that we should not rush into.
I am amenable to the schedule that you suggested and I recognize that we do not
want things and it is not useful to just let things just drag on but I think where there
are really substantive issues that we have to address for example affordable housing.
Both these plans I believe have the desire to provide affordable housing but a lot of
the wording is mainly about a diversity and numbers. The tenacious issues of how
we are actually achieve them have to be addressed somewhat in these plans, not as
solutions but as at least issue identification so they do guide our future work and our
general plan work. I appreciate Chair's guidance in giving us the space and time to
address these issues.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you. Any further discussion?
The motion to amend the Lihu`e Community Plan (2014) Booklet as referenced
in Bill No. 2571, Draft 1, Establishing Procedures, Development Plans, and
Future Growth Areas for the Lihu`e Planning District as circulated, as shown
in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as Attachment 1 was then
put, and unanimously carried.
Committee Chair Chock: I will suspend the rules at this time. We will
spend the rest of the time that we need to; I think there are about nine (9) questions
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 29 APRIL 1, 2015
that we have forthcoming. Please join us again. Do you need a caption break? In ten
(10) minutes, okay. Because I mentioned before, we are moving towards thirty (30)
possible amendments and the amount of questions that came forth from
Councilmember Yukimura regarding the plan, amount to this book that you put
together, I am wondering if it is possible to share this with other members?
Councilmember Yukimura: Absolutely.
Committee Chair Chock: As it moves us to getting an understanding. It
might be clear on the amendments as they show next time. Is that okay?
Councilmembers, if you desire a copy, we have copies here for you. I will turn the
floor over to you.
Councilmember Yukimura: We went over these questions yesterday,
thank you, Lea and Christiane. I think we have identified the ones that are easy to
answer and so just for background and understanding why do we not go through
them. I think we can get through them quickly.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Should I just go down the list, is that how you
want me to do it?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Your first question was concerning, "What is
the difference between an Urban Growth Boundary and an Urban Edge Boundary?"
I have Cheryl and Mike here as well to elaborate if necessary. The Urban Edge
Boundary is the same as the Urban Growth Boundary.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Except that, I think that the term better
connotes that it is an edge between the urban area and the non-urban area whether
there is growth there or not. It is not necessary where growth has pushed that line
but where we are setting that edge boundary for the growth that we anticipate to
come in.
Councilmember Yukimura: Basically, we are creating a line beyond which
we do not want to see urban growth, right?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Right. It is a form-base code kind of
terminology.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, okay, and maybe it is the evolution of the
term "urban growth boundary" now being adopted in form-base codes (FBC) as urban
edge, they basically mean the same thing. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The next question, it was in three (3) parts.
What is the difference between mixed use and urban center? Are these FBC terms?
Where are they defined? Urban center is a General Plan land use designation and
its definition remains unchanged in the Lihu`e Community Plan from there, we use
it in reference to our proposed general plan land use maps. Mixed-use special
planning areas, our new special planning areas defined in the Lihu`e Committee Plan
and they are defined in Section 6.2.4 that starts on page 115. Section 6.2.4 is the
designation of special planning area.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 30 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Urban growth center is defined in the general
plan.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The urban center is a general plan
designation.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is a general plan designation, okay, so it is
already in our general plan?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is it defined as?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Urban center?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: I guess one of the things that right now we
have been discussing in anticipating of the general plan is how our different
designations whether it be the general plan designations or future designations,
county zoning and state land use kind of work together. Like residential, military,
airport, urban center is another designation that are used in the land use maps from
the 2000 General Plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we go to the land use map for the Lihu`e
Community Plan...
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Page 62 has a map showing the existing
general plan designations. There is also another map in this plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to see where we are using as a policy
map that we are going to refer to into the future and I think you had one under
policies and...
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: It is on page 95.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. You are showing mixed uses as
the lavender area.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: And urban center as the light orange.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So I guess I was just trying to figure out the
distinction between urban centers and mixed use and you said that mixed use is
related to special planning areas.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: I think how it would be best described is to say
that mixed use is a subset of that urban center specifically identified because these
are new areas of growth or increased density that we would want to see more detail
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 31 APRIL 1, 2015
plans about when a developer is proposing a project in those areas that are consistent
with the Lihu`e Community Plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: I guess that is why I am curious to...this is
separate from the proposal that is talking about allowing increased densities in
existing Hanama'ulu.
CHERYL SOON, Professional Planner at SSFM International, Inc.: Is your
question in regard to the purple on Hanama`ulu, on the mauka land, is your question
because of that designation?
Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe but I am also remembering text that
talked about where we are going to put additional housing.
Ms. Soon: Hanama`ulu seemed to be a good location for
that, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. On page 111, you have 5.10.3
Hanama`ulu policies for Hanama`ulu are intended to support it as a residential
center, recognize density issue and explore up zoning, okay. Is that purple to reflect
this policy? Okay, so it is a separate thing.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes, it is separate thing, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: What does the purple here mean and what are
your text policy about Hanama`ulu mean?
Ms. Soon: There are two (2) sections being discussed in
the plan regarding Hanama`ulu. One is the existing developed area, which you can
see designated because you can see the roads in them already. Those are existing
areas. The purple area we thought was highly suited, the community thought was
highly suited for additional development because it is essentially infill between other
areas, it would support more commercial uses in Hanama`ulu which are still within
the walking distance of each other. It was supported by all the objectives of walkable
compact community.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that where the church is presently?
Ms. Soon: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. That is the intention that while we are
not adopting form-based codes at this point, that form-based codes might apply to
these purple mixed-use areas.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: And then in terms of your textual policy,
which is a separate issue in 5.10.3 recognized density issue and explore up zoning,
can you explain that?
Ms. Soon: The first bullet refers to two (2) types of
things, one is density in the purple area could include a multifamily and not just
single family.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 32 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: In the special area?
Ms. Soon: In the special area, that is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it actually has some relationship to the
special planning area.
Ms. Soon: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: You are saying that we should look at the
potential of increasing the density in that special planning area, that would one way
to recognize the density issue.
Ms. Soon: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: And then there is another part to this?
Ms. Soon: We also discussed in the existing areas, which
are in a de facto way already having people live in a second unit in the property to
explore the best ways in the zoning code to legitimize that without making it a
blanket in this plan saying let it convert.
Councilmember Yukimura: Every place in Lihu`e?
Ms. Soon: No, this was specifically regarding in
Hanama`ulu because it was happening already and it•appears to have the water to
support that, it has some issues regarding the number of automobiles that are being
attached to these and some problems with people parking on the street because they
(inaudible).
Councilmember Yukimura: That is a problem everywhere.
Ms. Soon: Yes, but these were the issues that were
discussed by the community regarding the density in the existing Hanama`ulu areas
recognizing that it has already started converting into people living in second units
in the property.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: This specifically came up by the community of
Hanama`ulu.
Councilmember Yukimura: So how is addressing the existing de facto
density going to solve the automobile problem?
Ms. Soon: It would have to be adjusted in the zoning
code as to how automobiles are to be treated if a section unit is permitted on the lot,
how parking or provision for automobiles would have to be part of the zoning code for
such units if you were to (inaudible).
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have examples of how this has been
done anywhere?
Ms. Soon: We can find them, certainly. The issue that
actually rose in the discussion on public transportation because people wanted to be
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 33 APRIL 1, 2015
using the bus but they were finding that in order to walk from their home to the bus
in the dark without lights, the cars were forcing them to walk on the road.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is true.
Ms. Soon: So it is a more complex problem then a single
solution but it was raised by the community and they felt that people are already
living that way and so let us try to put it into the zoning code and fix the parts of it
that were not working well. That was basically the parking on, what would either
wise be a sidewalk or at least a paved sidewalk but would otherwise be a walking
area for people.
Councilmember Yukimura: I sometimes walk in Lihu`e Town Estates
because there is a sidewalk there, and at night, late at night, I often walk, but you do
have to go into the street because there are cars parked in driveways from the garage
to the street. You have to go around them.
Ms. Soon: That is a driveway issue. What was raised to
us by the community was actually that they were parking along the whole frontage
of the home, not just in the driveway area.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and they do not have sidewalks there.
Ms. Soon: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it gets even more disorganized.
Ms. Soon: And the plan does actually discuss that. I do
not mean to be jumping around...
Councilmember Yukimura: The plan discusses what?
Ms. Soon: The plan discusses that in order to have more
ridership on the bus system that certain...as many as possible but certain key bus
stops needed to include lighting, access to that bus stop, and the plan gets into that
that if we are going to have a walkable compact community that is using other modes
that we need to be addressing back to the home issues about how a person walks from
their home to the bus stops.
Councilmember Yukimura: It sort of a chicken and the egg because by
having more frequent bus, people can actually release one or two cars per family, but
you cannot get that safe access way to the bus because of all the cars.
Ms. Soon: And that was part of the community dialogue
on that subject. It is a big set of issues to tackle and which comes first but the
directionality was certainly discussed and we tried to catch it in the plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, I am still not clear how addressing it
through zoning is going to solve the problem, but...
Ms. Soon: It does not solve it; it is a piece of it. The
community really felt that because so many people were living and I do not want to
say multi-generations, it is more than multi-generation there was more than one
subunit in the residence. They did not want to make that illegal. They sense that
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 34 APRIL 1, 2015
perhaps it was. They wanted to look for ways to make it possible for that to continue
but to get control on some of the (inaudible) that were taking place.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay, I am going to stop us there for a caption
break. I think we have veered a little bit from that question anyhow but if there are
some other follow-up questions on zoning I think we can get clearer guidance as well
in the future.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:30 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:40 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Chock: I believe we are on Councilmember
Yukimura's next question on park space. Is that correct?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: That is correct. Councilmember Yukimura
asked what is the total park space in the Lihu`e district and how many acres are
passive/active? This is in Table 3.2 of the Lihu`e Community Plan on page 72, total
park space a 174.5 acres approximately. Passive parks, there are not passive parks.
Active parks, all of the above, 174.5 acres.
Councilmember Yukimura: Page 72. Maps are so helpful and when I
looked at the maps of parks on page 73, if you look at the Lihu`e area and I know
there are a lot of along the Wailua River and Lydgate but in the Lihu`e area per se,
Hanamd'ulu-Lihu`e-Puhi, it seems small except for that manini strip. If it is going to
be the heart of the population, I thought, wow very little park, and then I realized
what Hanama`ulu Beach, Kalapaki, and Niumalu plays even though they are not
marked green it still is the recreational sites of the Lihu`e area. I think there is a lot
of more potential for Hanama`ulu and even our Committee Chair has been working
in Niumalu to remove some of the...what do you call that, Mason?
Committee Chair Chock: Excuse me.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am talking about the work that you are
doing in Niumalu. I love the suggestion of an expanded linear park along the
breakwater wall at Nawiliwili, in fact I think ultimately if we could move harbors
back further, which is a great global rising seas kind of mitigation or adaptation and
have a longer linear park all the way in the space that is now being used to industrial
uses, that could be a beautiful expanded park area. Those would be passive parks
area, and then it led me to a proposed amendment that I will make to just highlight
the issue of water quality at Kalapaki and Hanama`ulu Bay. I think that is sort of an
obstacle to increase usage and if we could address that that could lead the way to a
more availability of recreational space. I just wanted the statistics and...
Committee Chair Chock: Page 72.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry, I could have just read the chart
but this plan is so full of information that it is hard to absorb all of the information
at once. Thank you very much for the information.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The next one was in regard to Section 5.2
Parks and Civic Spaces Policies, bullet 4, sub-bullet 3, she is asking, "Do you really
mean that the multi-use path from Nawiliwili through Nawiliwili Gulch would extend
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 35 APRIL 1, 2015
to the proposed Lihu`e-Hanama`ulu Road?" This is a possibility and could be added
to this bullet to make it clearer.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because it was a major part of the discussion
we had that day that we...we had the fashion show also and the music...but I
remember talking to Dr. Chihara at one of the flip charts, I think Marie was there, it
must surely be on the flip chart, this cross path. The path that would link the old
town of Lihu`e, the older part of Lihu`e with the newer part Kukui Grove was a major
part of discussion and actually generated a lot of excitement. I just want to make sure
that that is in there. Maybe that is an amendment that you folks could propose.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: There is a lot of excitement for that
connection.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, because it is such a sort cut and people
do not have to get into their cars to come to work.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The next question was in regards to Section
5.2 Parks and Civic Spaces Policies, bullet 7, "What is meant by connection between
Rice and Kuhi`o Center?What is Kahn Centers?" I think we can make a clarification
there to amend that as following and this is the whole sentence I am reading,
"implement the Eiwa Street transit mall as a major transfer center public interface
and connect between Rice Street and center of businesses along Kuhn- Highway,"
that would make it more clear what we mean by KUhi`5.
Councilmember Yukimura: You are talking about...I am sorry...is it the
bullet that says, "Develop a mall between?" Which one are you talking about?
Ms. Soon: The second column from the left, the second
bullet down, "Implement the Eiwa mall." Your question was, "What does it mean
Rice and Kuhi`o Centers," and so we will get to that second question in a minute but
the first question which is your question 14 proposing language that clarifies that it
is meant for Eiwa mall to also be an interface of connection to Rice Street and the
central businesses along Kuhi`o Highway, that is the clarifications that we are
proposing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. The intention is that it will be a
connection between Rice Street and Kuhi`o Highway.
Ms. Soon: The businesses along there, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, okay.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Moving on to the next one, Section 5.2, that
top bullet on the right hand side bullet 7...
Councilmember Yukimura: Read it.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Develop a mall between the State Office
Building the County Building to link the buildings and nearby parking structures.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 36 APRIL 1, 2015
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Whether we are referring to the Historic
County Building, does this mean removing the parking between the two (2) buildings
and what parking structures are we referring to?
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Cheryl can jump in here if need be. The
reference is to the road area between the Civic Center and the State Building as a
mall. The design is still being developed; I think Lee from Public Works might have...
Councilmember Yukimura: We are talking about Eiwa Street.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes, as a mall.
Councilmember Yukimura: And the State Office and the County...you see
there is this area here between the State Office Building and the Historic County
Building, so that was part of my confusion. You are actually talking about this area
along Eiwa Street, which is between the Civic Center, the Historic County Building,
and the State Building.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: I think we can amend this to clarify it a little
bit more.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: And also instead of referring to parking
structures, probably parking area would be more specific because like you said there
is no parking structure itself, and the term gets confusing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I cannot recall what the urban town
core plan or whatever recommended for this space between the State Office Building
and the Historic County Building, I believe it was to be a mall too. A "mall" mean
pedestrians and not cars, and that is why I bought it up and they told me that
assuming we would get the TIGER grant, we will go through a design process, and it
really bothers me that we are going to have major vehicular traffic and pedestrian
traffic.
Ms. Soon: When you say major, are you referring to the
bus?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and one-way car traffic.
Ms. Soon: Well that will become a design issue but I
from my understanding is that it is not envisioned for vehicular traffic except for the
bus and then the passengers get off of the bus and they need to walk along that route
to get to the next place they would like to go.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well.
Ms. Soon: It will always have some pedestrian and bus
together but it is a design issue to make sure you are the grade change or other
designations to make sure you treat it safely.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 37 APRIL 1, 2015
Mr. Dahilig: If I could add to that. You have a Lihu`e Civic
Center Plan that was adopted as well as the Lihu`e Town Core Plan that was adopted.
I think what the statement was meant to do is essentially say, look, this is an area of
intense public utilization. What we want to do is we want to create...instead of relying
on the cars to even get between these buildings, make it an interspace consistent with
some of those town core and civic center plans and look at how to link it rather than
just using it as parking spaces. I think that is really, what we are trying to
encapsulate with those two (2) previous documents that have already been produced.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well those previous documents recommended
putting parking underground. If you do not do that then there is an issue of how you
reconcile these two things. It is interesting Cheryl that you mentioned grade
differences because in thinking about the issue it occurred to me that if the buses
were to go underground, that might create...not parking but at least a separation of
grade between the vehicular and the pedestrian which might solve the problem, but
we will address those, I have been told and reassured, during the design process. It
is mainly to understand what was intended here and I hear that you will be clarifying
that so that is fine.
Committee Chair Chock: There is some follow-up to that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Did you have the County Engineers helping
you? What I am afraid of is that the Council is trying to get you to say an exact plan
for this area and I have only been here on this Council for two (2) years and three (3)
months and I have seen the plans for Eiwa Street change three (3) times. The first
time they said, no vehicle traffic, then they said, one-way right turn, and then they
went back and said possibly no right turn or exit out. The County Engineers as we
speak are not sure really what is the final plan. Basically, they keep changing their
mind. I see them change their mind several times. I think for this Lihu`e Town Plan,
my advice is to leave it broad and do not nailed down one, because the County
Engineers are still assessing what is the best solution. I think sometimes we can try
to be caught up in the details but in the end, something broader allows the County
Engineers at some point to come up with the best. As I said, they have talked about
the bus being here, is that set in stone, I do not think so.
Mr. Dahilig: I would totally agree with that. All we are
trying to do at this point is...like you said, be very broad about this. Many of the
details regarding the financing or what the regulations are at the end of the day, this
resolution has to be adopted by this body in effect to create whatever this vision is. I
think that really is a conversation that has to be done with the Public Works
Department. Some of the options that the Engineering Division are bringing forward
are probably driven by availability at any given time. I guess for me as a Planner, if
we had all the money in the world, I am sure that we could end up with something
cool out there but that is just the nature of whether or not we get TIGER grants and
those types of things. I would concur that we probably would want something that at
least records what is going on, leaves it open to consistency but at least folds into the
community vision that they want more interactivity in this area rather than just
streets and parking.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 38 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Kagawa: I would just ask that in order to keep it broad,
if you can just double check with Larry Dill, County Engineer, to make sure that the
language is broad because like I said I heard several versions of her plans to address
parking. They are not even really sure how much parking to expect when we fill up
those empty slots that we have with tenants possibly moving over other agencies. I
am saying that let us keep it broad and let the County Engineer help you with the
language to make sure that it is broad.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: I just wanted to mention that we worked
really closely with Lee and with the Engineers and they are the ones who provided
the language, not specifically, we went over it, we had a lot of discussions with them,
but up until last week of course we were also talking to them because there were
questions about the design in the last session.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Council Chair.
Councilmember Rapozo: I think there are a couple of limiting factors
besides funding, obviously funding is key, but it is also our jurisdiction. This parking
lot between the State Building and this building is not even our parking lot, not even
our property. To talk about making it a mall, underground tunnel for busses, or
whatever, I mean I think what Councilmember Kagawa is saying is that we need to
make it general so that the Council at that time, or the Planning Department at that
time will have the flexibility to do what needs to be done and not be restricted. Times
change. We all know that. As Ross has said, the plan for Eiwa has changed three (3)
times and maybe even more. I do not care what anybody says, you are not going to
get rid of the cars, so where will you put the vehicles that need to go to the State
Building? We are already losing parking spaces with this program that they are
doing in Lihu`e right now. We cannot forget about the people that drive, or the people
that needs to go to the State Building to do their business. What are they going to
do, walk? I know the intent is to get everybody on the bus but I am telling you that I
will never catch the bus on a daily basis because I can, and there are many people
like that who have two (2) to three (3) jobs—we do not have the flexibility to do that.
The other thing and I mean no disrespect to Councilmember Yukimura but this is a
Committee Meeting of which she is not a member of and she is giving you what she
believes need to be changed and you folks are saying, "Okay, we can make that
change." Understand, that has to be a decision made by the Council and not
Councilmember Yukimura. I understand that you are trying to accommodate her but
at the end of the day it needs to be in a form of an amendment that is passed by the
Committee and the full Council. I appreciate your willingness to work but I am
sitting here as a non-Committee member and I am holding myself because I am not
on the Committee, I am not going to waste their time, but please understand that the
changes have to come through the normal process and not just because she wants, or
because I want. First, I want to know from you what your position is because you
folks had the community meetings, the process already, and this is the final product.
It is okay to tell us that we disagree, but if it is the will of the Council, we will make
that change. It is nice to be accommodating but I also want to respect the process if
you folks have just been through for a very long time with a lot of community
participation. I just want to mention that Mr. Chair because I am hearing a lot of,
"Yes, we can make that change," hold on do not make any changes until the Council
passes it as a Council action. Thank you.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 39 APRIL 1, 2015
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you, Council Chair, for the
clarification. I think that is the intention, to vet these questions, and to say that we
will be making them is a little premature but certainly moving towards seeing an
amendment come forth is why this discussion has occurred.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Committee Chair Chock: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: First, I am a member, I am an ex-officio
member, I have a voice, but not vote. This question was not even to ask you to tell
you to write it...I am just asking what you meant by it so that it is clear. I am not
trying to tell you just do it for me, but I am an elected member of this that is the policy
body that is ultimately going to make the decision about what this plan is and we are
not going to do it by one (1) member, it is going to be done by four (4) votes but to the
extent that it is clarifying the plan or making it better in the eyes of the Planning
Department. Like what they have done, they have responded to not just my concerns
but others as well. I do not know what the concern is about us going through a very
important document that is going to guide us for the next twenty (20) years.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay. Understood. Again, these are
questions and the amendments will run separately by the members who want to see
them come through. With that, I would like to get to the questions.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: There are three (3) more questions. The next
one is on that same page 99, Section 5.2 Parks and Civic Spaces Policies, bullet 8,
"Which Puhi Park, are you speaking about the one along Kaumuali`i Highway?" I
have to actually apologize, the park that is in reference is the Grove Farm Soccer
Field, not that one along Kaumuali`i.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, there are at least three (3) parks in Puhi,
right?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The soccer field is not a County park; it is a
private park so it is not listed as one our County parks.
Councilmember Yukimura: 5.2, bullet 8, and I might just mention for
plans, it is hard to work with bullets. I mean to refer to them, you have to count them
and everything, and maybe some other designation would be helpful. Retain Puhi
Park as a soccer field and maintain the park area from open field, again, I am just
asking what park you are referring to because it is not clear, and which park is it,
Lea, that you are saying?
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: It is the soccer field that is privately owned by
Grove Farm and again this is...community sentiment regarding what they would like
to see in that area and they would like it to remain as an open field.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have no objections to it but I thought it
might refer to that park that is on Kahn Highway, and so I am just wanting to know
which park you are referring to. When you say Puhi Park, are you going to have
another name for it or is that the name and if so, what is the name of the park in
front of the...on Kuhi`5 Highway...
Councilmember Kuali`i: Kaumuali`i Highway.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 40 APRIL 1, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Kaumuali`i Highway, thank you. What is the
name of the park that is...I do not even know that...it is in the back corner?
Mr. Dahilig: I think we understand the question. Let us
get the answer for you and we will transmit it.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The next question is in reference to Section
5.3 Historic Resources policy bullet 5, "What is meant by preserve view sheds and
scenic qualities of features including views of Ha`upu Ridge, Kalepa Ridge, and
Kilohana Crater?" The potential impacts to view sheds as proposed by developments
are assessed during the permitting process. The Planning cannot anticipate every
possible iteration of course of this application so we do not want to get that specific.
Shall I move on?
Committee Chair Chock: Yes.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: The next question that would be 24 on your
list — it is very simple. There is a question about providing a better reference map of
Puali. If we do not have a map of Puali in there, we will include it.
Councilmember Yukimura: And Puali is the area along Nawiliwili Road
right.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: If you look at the map on page 99 on the
bottom, and this might be a little tricky but I guess if you go towards the harbors
there is a yellow section that looks like a boot, it is the orange...it is that yellow
section on the bottom.
Councilmember Yukimura: The corner tips Nawiliwili Road.
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: Yes, our little boat, I guess.
Councilmember Yukimura: That was helpful, thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: Are there any other questions from other
members? I do not want it seem like it is all consolidated in one direction. If no
questions, again, what I really want to get us to is to specific amendments, I know
there are questions about whether or not we want to get them on further discussion
that needs to occur and clarity from Councilmember Yukimura. I want to get those
all clear before we get back to the table again. The request is that because the
amendments are not ready yet, that we defer until April 29. 2015. I will entertain
that motion at this time, unless there are...
Ms. Kaiaokamalie: My question is whether or not we will be
waiting for a formal transmittal from Council with that language — the proposed
language for amendments.
Committee Chair Chock: I think it is up to Councilmember Yukimura
to submit the first run at getting the amendment done. Yes?
Mr. Dahilig: During the break we had discussion,
Committee Chair, there are a lot of questions and they should be answered, I think
as you saw from a couple of previous questions, our department is struggling with
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 41 APRIL 1, 2015
whether or not it is leading to some type of an amendment or if it is just a clarifying
situation. I think what we will do is we will work with Councilmember Yukimura and
at least try to understand whether these are leading for floor action and should be
brought as an amendment versus things that we can clarify based on just reading off
of the document. I think there is another amendment that Councilmember Hooser
would like to discuss and entertain and we would be more than happy to have that
discussion offline. Again, if any other members would like to I guess help for
efficiency purposes, have dialogue with our office. That invitation is open.
Committee Chair Chock: Our goal is April 29, 2015 to get all the
amendments out, if possible. If we can complete it on that day, it is questionable, but
I think similar to what we did today if we have them, and the matrix that you created,
I think...and we are kind of aware based on the questions today and the direction of
conversation then we can get through them a little bit more quick. Council Chair.
Councilmember Rapozo: I was going to say that whatever is agreed
upon your department and Councilmembers as far as language and any changes that
is fine. It should go across in a form of an amendment. In addition, as for our staff,
if Councilmembers have potential amendments or suggestions, it should be run
through our legal analysts to at least make sure that it is legal and sufficient and
then it can go across for you. Again, with every amendment as for someone that is
going to be voting on this at the full Council, I would expect some kind of
recommendation from your department — we concur, we do not concur. Again,
anything that from the day that this was introduced, any language in the plan needs
to be amended if it is going to be changed. I want to make sure that we understand.
If it is significant or substantial, that is fine, we will create an amendment. If we do
not need it, if it is a different way of saying the same thing we can stay away from
them, but I just want to make sure that we understand here, our staff, that when it
goes across to Planning make sure it is in a form of an amendment that has been
reviewed by our staff and then you folks can concur or not.
Committee Chair Chock: My hope is that it will delineate the
amendments that are just going to have to be addressed for the Council specifically
and just pose it to the Council already so that we can vote it up or down.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I was going to basically state similar to what
Council Chair Rapozo stated. I want you folks to have a chance prior to the next
meeting, to have a chance to review the amendments by the Committee and thumbs
up or down and why. If you do not have an opinion, I am not incline to support it. I
believe that this is the people's plan and I do not believe this is the Council's plan. I
see the same thing but through a different lens with some of the members here. I am
incline as to leave as much as is unless it is an improvement to the plan, otherwise I
am more incline to agree with the people's plan.
Mr. Dahilig: Moving forward some of these bullet points or
numbers...we see it steering into a broad policy discussion in which as a lawyer and
a planner, I mean I love discussing policy, I do not want to say that it is titillating to
actually discussing policy but at the same time when we are actually getting to the
root to an amendment, we probably need clarification on this to actually mold it into
something that we can get a decision on. I think that is the difficulty here. On some
of these things, we know where the question is going but we actually do not know
what the outcome is and if we can even mold it into an amendment. I think we will
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 42 APRIL 1, 2015
have the dialogue with the Councilmember and at least get to a point where we can
get into a decision.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mike, if I can follow-up, like Councilmember
Yukimura's question number 19 was a great catch by her. Which Puhi Park are you
speaking about? I taught at Chiefess for a while, and we used to call that park Puhi
Park. We called that park fronting the highway Puhi Park. We got basically three
(3) Puhi Parks and for you to refer to that Grove Farm...you could call it Grove Farm
Puhi Park, for the reader who is just reading it, it would be clear that that
amendment is a wonderful amendment or Puhi Park fronting highway...that kind of
amendment right there is slam dunk. When we getting into some of the other
amendments, which could put the County Council's opinion or feeling and change the
direction from what the community came up with, then I have problems with it.
Thank you.
Councilmember Hooser: Some of the amendments, the one I am
discussing, it would apply to both plans. My intent is to vet that propose amendment
with the Planning staff and then possibly discuss that on the 15th, if that is okay. I
will not be here on the 29th but I could get clear on my particular one that I am
working on maybe on the 15th and then you folks can deal with whatever you want to
deal with. Someone else could possibly introduce on my behalf, in my absence.
Committee Chair Chock: If we could just know a head of time if the
amendment that you are proposing is one that you are looking at both plans ahead of
time that would be great.
Mr. Dahilig: We already got a read on it so we will try to
schedule a meeting sooner than later.
Councilmember Hooser: Right, and then have that discussion between
now and then but also on the 15th so this body is aware of it. Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think we are already out one member of the
Committee, I think deferring until Councilmember Hooser can be here, like instead
of the 29th, we can go two (2) weeks from then. If that is an option. We are already
down to four (4) members, I think three (3) member Committee voting would just
really...at least we will have a four (4) member voting. 2:2 looks better than 2:1.
What I would suggest is that we go two (2) weeks after that target date or a month
after, whichever works better for the Council schedule. I know we got budget and
everything. As I said, I would rather have him here then not here on that vote.
Committee Chair Chock: I appreciate the consideration. The question
that we talked about earlier was, "What is the rush?" I do not want to lose anything,
that is certainly not my intention, but I also want us to make progress and a lot of
what we go through can go in circles and that is not what my intention is. I want to
leave from questions to specific amendments —that is what I want. I want to be clear
about that. Let us even delineate the type of amendments, if it is a no-brainer or
something that we have to discuss more on a policy level. There is somewhat of an
interest in moving this forward for the specific purpose of addressing the general plan
update. I am not in a rush, so I want to honor what you folks want to do, but I also
know that we are not going to always be here. If it is the body's interest to move
forward and consider two (2) weeks, now, keep in mind, we got two (2) consecutive
plans so that might make it a month because we are trying not to have the two (2)
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 43 APRIL 1, 2015
plans on the same day. It already moves it out a month, or more, as we move forward.
Please, go ahead, Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I know we have Special Council Meetings
sometimes, I do not know if we can do a Special Committee Meeting on a Council day,
just a thought.
Committee Chair Chock: Sure, let us do that after budget hearing. I
am open to that as well but I think we have to think about that all the way through
in terms of staffing and so forth. Before we close out this session, do you have
anything else you wanted to add in terms of timing, Mike?
Mr. Dahilig: We want to respect the Council's authority
and input on this but we did launch the general plan process, so I think being mindful
of that process starting to move...if the plans could be at some point given to the
members of the CAC and the community for some clarity on what the regional
directions in these areas, I think that will be helpful. We just started the process, so
it is not like we are saying that we need it now, but I think just being mindful that
we have community members that are wanting to look at the whole plan from a
broader standpoint. We do want to get them the freshest information as soon as
possible.
Committee Chair Chock: Do you have anything to add?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would just say that a quorum is three (3) and
we are entitled to make decisions that way. We do have a recusal so the maximum
we will have is four (4). I am not uncomfortable with us moving forward, doing our
work, and not deferring just for the sake of a fourth member.
Committee Chair Chock: Council Vice Chair, I was wondering if we
could look towards Planning to get to the less substantial amendments at the next
meeting when Councilmember Hooser will not be here and get those out of the way
since there are potential twenty-nine (29), we can get through that quickly, and we
would still...would that be sufficient?
Councilmember Kagawa: Especially if we have a unanimous 3:0 on
those less substantial ones, but certainly the ones that are more contentious where
we have already seen some disagreement in direction, but I am okay with your plan,
Mr. Chair.
Committee Chair Chock: That being said, any other discussion?
Councilmember Rapozo: I am not sure who makes this call but
substantial changes to the bill would trigger additional public hearings, so I think
that is something that we have to be aware of as well. As we draft these amendments
making sure that we do not meet that threshold where we...I mean really if you think
about it there are people that in the Lihu`e area that participated in a plan that could
wake up one morning and realize that it is entirely different. I think as we move
forward, if it is going to be substantive or significant change, I am not sure what the
legal term was — substantial, I think is the legal term for public hearings that we
would need to have that. Again, Ross said it best; it is the people's plan. That is the
first thing, making sure we stay well below the threshold of substantial changes
otherwise, we must have the public hearing, which is not really a problem, it really
is not. It is just the matter of scheduling it. The other thing, which is coming from
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 44 APRIL 1, 2015
staff, I am still troubled with the decision that Mr. Kaneshiro cannot participate in
any part of the plan. I do not know what our recourse is, I do not know who we write
a letter to, I do not know if we send it to the County Attorney that in any matter or
bill, there are certain...even in the budget, you recuse yourself from certain
components. You conflict out on certain components of the budget but you vote on
the budget. I see Mr. Taylor shaking his head but that is what we do. The Charter
requires us to vote on every matter unless there is a direct conflict. On these plans,
again staff, this is for us to get some clear direction, how do we provide for that? Not
everything in this plan pertains to Grove Farm. There are many components of this
plan that has absolutely nothing to do with Grove Farm and it is going to cause a
problem, I can see, when you end up with only four (4) members on the Committee.
You end up on a 2:2 vote; you can never get it passed. That is the reason we have five
(5) members on the Committee. I can understand on the components on this plan that
particularly relate to Grove Farm, or to the hotel I work at, or to the YWCA, or
whatever, in that sense we take ourselves out of the voting. At the end of the day that
we vote like we do on the budget, all members should be able to vote. Staff, I do not
know if we can pursue that in any way, but I would like to pursue that because I
believe it is that important. Thank you.
Committee Chair Chock: I will entertain a motion to defer.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kagawa, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a 4:0:0:1 vote (Councilmember
Kaneshiro was noted as recused), Bill No. 2571, Draft 1, was deferred to the
April 29, 2015 Committee Meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Darrellyne . Caldeira
Council Services Assistant II
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on April 29, 2015:
MASON K. CHOCK
Chair, Planning Committee
Attachment
(April 1, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Relating to Amendments to the Lihu`e Community Plan (2014) Booklet as
referenced in Bill No. 2571, Draft 1, Establishing Procedures, Development Plans,
and Future Growth Areas for the Lihu`e Planning District
Introduced by: GARY L. HOOSER (By Request)
1. Amend Section 4.1.4 Industrial Uses (page 81, of the Lihu`e Community Plan
(2014) booklet), by adding a new paragraph following the third paragraph:
"While there may be adequate industrially-zoned lands in Lihu`e planned for in
the next 20 years, feedback during the plan process has revealed that residents
island-wide feel that both light and general industrial spaces are inaccessible or
unaffordable for purchase or lease by local entrepreneurs. Discussion regarding
incentivizing and/or requiring access and affordability of industrial lands should
be pursued during the general plan process, since this issue is not unique to
Lihu`e."
2. Amend Table 3-2 Parks Types and Occurrence in Lihu`e District (page 72, of the
Lihu`e Community Plan (2014) booklet), by amending the acreage relating to
District Parks in the far right column from 2.7 acres to 3.28 acres as follows:
District Parks are oriented to the needs of several 1 [2.7]
"District neighborhoods or large sections of the community. A 3.28"
Parks district park is planned primarily to provide active and
structured recreation opportunities that are not feasible or
desirable at the neighborhood level. These parks usually
have sports fields or similar facilities as a'central focus,
although passive activities for individuals and families may
be accommodated. District parks require more support
facilities, such as off—street parking and comfort stations.
3. Amend Table 6-12 Recommended PARKS AND RECREATION CIP (page 123
of the Lihu`e Community Plan (2014) booklet), as follows:
Amend the table as follows:
"PKS- A new comfort Parks and County CIP: FY2014
1 station and Recreational Parks MP"
parking scheme Facilities
for the soccer
complex at
Lydgate Park.
1
4. Amend Section 2.3 POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR THE DISTRICT (page 34 of the
Lihu`e Community Plan (2014) booklet), by renumbering the existing number 13
to number 14, and adding a new number 13 and as fellows:
"[13. Apply ahupua'a and traditional Hawaiian land use concepts to current
needs. The ahupua'a concept defines a natural gradient of use types and
intensities. The LCP looks to these traditional land divisions in
understanding land use patterns and place-making elements in the Lihu`e
District.]
13. Seek out partnership and funding opportunities for the undergrounding of
utilities, in particular in the Lihu`e Town Core along Rice Street.
14. Apply ahupua'a and traditional Hawaiian land use concepts to current
needs. The ahupua'a concept defines a natural gradient of use types and
intensities. The LCP looks to these traditional land divisions in
understanding land use patterns and place-making elements in the Lihu`e
District."
5. Amend Section 3.13.3 Electricity (page 70 of the Lihu`e Community Plan (2014)
booklet), by adding a new paragraph following the second paragraph as follows:
"The possibility of undergrounding utilities has been a discussion on Kaua`i
for many years. In regard to the Lihu`e District, there are no immediate plans
to move electric utility lines underground due to the extremely high cost of
installing lines underground on Kauai (currently five-to-fifteen times more
than overhead systems, depending on the terrain). However, the
undergrounding of utilities has been performed on a limited, case by case
basis, where unique circumstances warrant it. KIUC, as a community owned
cooperative, is open to discussions on the undergrounding of lines in key
corridors in partnership with organizations that can assist with coordination
and funding."
6. If any provision that is amended is also found elsewhere, such language is
hereby amended to provide consistency.
7. If more than one amendment to a same section is adopted on this date, all such
amendments shall take effect to the extent there is no conflict. If there is a
conflict, the latest amendment shall be controlling.
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
(V:\AMENDMENTS\2015\4-1-2015-FA Planning Matrix GH-CNT_lc)
2
ORDINANCE NO. BILL NO. 2571. Draft 1
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES,
DEVELOPMENT PLANS,AND FUTURE GROWTH AREAS
FOR THE LIHU`E PLANNING DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Findings and purpose: The Lihu`e Community Plan was
completed by the Planning Department to update the Lihu`e Development Plan of
1976 and was developed through an extensive public participation program and with
guidance from a community working group. A community plan adopted by Ordinance
under Chapter 10, Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, is the equivalent of a
"development plan" referenced in the Charter of the County of Kauai, Article XIV,
"Planning Department." The purpose of this bill is to repeal Chapter 10, Article 5,
Kauai County Code 1987, as amended (Lihu`e Development Plan of 1976) (Ordinance
No. 335, November 29, 1977, 1978 Cumulative Supplement) and replace it with the
Lihu`e Community Plan Implementing Ordinance."
SECTION 2. The content of Chapter 10, Article 5, Kaua`i County
Code 1987, as amended (Lihu`e Development Plan) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. The content of Chapter 10, Article 5, Kauai County
Code 1987, as amended is replaced by adding new sections as follows and by
incorporating by reference the document entitled "Lihu`e Community Plan (2014)":
"Article 5. "Lihu`e Community Plan Implementing Ordinance"
Section 10-5.1 Title and Purpose.
(a) This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Lihu`e Community
Plan Implementing Ordinance." It is adopted to implement the intent and purpose of
the adopted General Plan and to amend or refine certain portions of the General Plan
which are found to be necessary in order to recognize more detailed information and
more precise community goals and objectives.
(b) Nature of the Lihu`e Community Plan Ordinance. This Article provides
recommendations and policies to direct future development and capital
improvements in the Lihu`e Planning District, whose boundary includes the Wailua
River (North), including Kipu and Kipu Kai; and from Wai`ale`ale mauka to the
ocean.
(c) The guidelines of this Article are based on the report entitled "Lihu`e
Community Plan (2014)," a booklet whose major components include:
(1) Lihu`e Community Plan Land Use Map
(2) Urban Edge Boundary for the Lihu`e District
(3) Special Planning Areas for the Lihu`e District
(4) Future Roadways and Parking in the Lihu`e District
(5) Policies for the Lihu`e District Communities
(6) Implementation and Monitoring
1
Section 10-5.2 Vision and Goals
The vision and goals for the region as a whole referred to in this Article, which
shall be known as the Lihu`e Planning District, and its communities, which include
Lihu`e Town and Civic Center, Greater Lihu`e and Kapaia, Hanama`ulu,
Puhi-Pffali-Nuhou, Nawiliwili-Niumalu-Kalapaki, Kipu, and Kalepa, are described
as: Vision for the Lihu`e Planning District. The Lihu`e District shall be a place with
walkable, compact communities, each distinct vet connected, and each with its own
unique identity and sense of place. Green, open spaces between communities serve
as visual and physical buffers and evoke Kaua`i's rural essence. Lihu`e Town serves
as a destination and gathering place for the island, with a vibrant Town Core and a
desirable mix of uses and attractions for residents and visitors.
Section 10-5.3. Implementation of the Lihu`e Community Plan
The Lihu`e Community Plan shall serve as a guide for all development within
the Lihu`e Planning District.
The Planning Department shall develop an outreach program to work with
existing community organizations and interested individuals to implement the Lihu`e
Community Plan and shall report on the progress made towards implementation, as
well as the monitoring of community indicators, to the Planning Commission on an
annual basis."
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or
application thereof to any person, persons, or circumstances is held invalid, the
invalidity does not affect the other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5. Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is
underscored. When revising, compiling or printing this ordinance for inclusion in the
Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, the brackets, bracketed material, and
underscoring need not be included.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
Introduced by: /s/MASON K. CHOCK
(By Request)
DATE OF INTRODUCTION:
January 14, 2015
Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawai`i
V:\BILLS\2014.2016 TERM\Bill No 2571 D1 CNT:aa
2