HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2018 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 25, 2018
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order
by Council Chair Mel Rapozo at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201,
Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., after which the following
Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Arthur Brun (present at 8:31 a.m.)
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami (present at 8:30 a.m.)
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura (present at 8:36 a.m.)
Honorable Mel Rapozo
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Four (4) present. I believe
Councilmember Brun is right outside.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for approval of the agenda, as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the agenda, as circulated, was then put, and carried
by a vote of 4:0:3 (Councilmembers Brun, Kawakami, and Yukimura were
excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
INTERVIEW:
SALARY COMMISSION:
• Trinette P. Kaui — Term ending 12/31/2020
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, Trinette, welcome back.
TRINETTE P. KAUI: Good morning.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for being here. Obviously, you
have been recommended for the Salary Commission and I would like to give you a
few minutes to give us an overview, and then we will open it up for any questions if
we have any.
Ms. Kaui: Good morning, Councilmembers. I am
Trinette Kaui. I was born and raised here on Kaua`i. I do work for Alexander &
Baldwin (A&B). I have been there for thirty-five (35) years as the Area Manager and
Broker in charge. I did serve on the Salary Commission back in 2007 through 2011
and we had a great team back then, and I think we did very positive things for the
County. When Paula called me again, I was trying to avoid her calls, but finally I got
back to her and I found out she retired, so I want to thank Paula for having me come
back to the Commission. I sit on various other boards and sometimes I ask myself
why, but I think it is my civic duty to come and see what I can help the County with.
(Councilmembers Brun and Kawakami were noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. You have done that well over the
years. Any questions for Trinette? Trinette, thank you again. We will vote on this at
the next Council Meeting and you will be notified, which obviously, I do not think it
will be any problem.
Ms. Kaui: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Welcome back. Next item, please.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2018-155 Communication (07/02/2018) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Period 10 Financial Reports — Statement
of Revenues, Statement of Expenditures and Encumbrances, Revenue Report,
and Detail Budget Report as of April 30, 2018, pursuant to Section 21
of Ordinance No. B-2017-821, relating to the Operating Budget of the County of
Kaua`i for Fiscal Year 2017-2018.
C 2018-156 Communication (07/03/2018) from the First Deputy County
Attorney, transmitting for Council information, the Quarterly Report on Settled
Claims filed against the County of Kaua`i from April 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018.
C 2018-157 Communication (07/09/2018) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Period 11 Financial Reports— Statement of
Revenues, Statement of Expenditures and Encumbrances, Revenue Report, and
Detail Budget Report as of May 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 21 of
Ordinance No. B-2017-821, relating to the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i
for Fiscal Year 2017-2018.
COUNCIL MEETING 3 JULY 25, 2018
C 2018-158 Communication (07/09/2018) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Fourth Quarter Statement of
Equipment Purchases for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, pursuant to Section 17 of
Ordinance No. B-2017-821, the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i for Fiscal
Year 2017-2018.
Councilmember Chock moved to receive C 2018-155, C 2018-156, C 2018-157,
and C 2018-158 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2018-155, C 2018-156, C 2018-157, and C 2018-158 for
the record was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember
Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2018-159 Communication (07/03/2018) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend funds in the amount of
$25,000.00 from the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (State funds) for the
period of June 30, 2018 to June 30, 2019 and to indemnify the State Executive Office
on Aging. The funding will provide for a Long-Term Care Ombudsman position
whose primary role will be to visit and advocate for individuals who are residing in
long-term care facilities on Kaua`i: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve
C 2018-159, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Kealoha, just with the nod of your head, is
this going to be a contract position? Yes, she acknowledged that it is going to be a
contract position. Thank you very much. With that, any further discussion? Let the
record reflect that there are no members of the public here.
The motion to approve C 2018-159 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2018-160 Communication (07/03/2018) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend a total of $852,058.00 in State
General Funds for Fiscal Year 2019, and to indemnify the State Executive Office on
Aging, funds will be used for the provision of Kupuna Care and Elder Abuse Services,
which includes adult day care, case management, home delivered meals,
COUNCIL MEETING 4 JULY 25, 2018
transportation, homemaker services, personal care, elder abuse, and kupuna care
administrative costs: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2018-160,
seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2018-160 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2018-161 Communication (07/10/2018) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend $62,815.00 in State General Funds
for Fiscal Year 2019, and to indemnify the State Executive Office on Aging, for the
Kupuna Caregivers Program, which assists qualified caregivers in obtaining care for
older adults while remaining in the workforce: Councilmember Brun moved to
approve C 2018-161, seconded by Councilmember Kawakami.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2018-161 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
LEGAL DOCUMENT:
C 2018-162 Communication (07/11/2018) from the Acting County Engineer,
recommending Council approval of a Right-of-Entry Permit between the County of
Kaua`i and the State of Hawai`i, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR),
to allow for an efficient and unified approach to the restoration of Black Pot Beach
Park, Hanalei Wharf Approach, and adjacent shoreline area from the damages of the
April 2018 heavy rains and flooding (Tax Map Key (TMK): (4) 5-5-001:008 (State
Parcel 8), (4) 5-5-001:004 and 011 (County Parcels 4 and 11)).
• Right-of-Entry Permit (by letter dated June 26, 2018, addressed to
Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., signed by Suzanne D. Case,
Chairperson, Board of Land and Natural Resources Commission on
Water Resource Management)
COUNCIL MEETING 5 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve C 2018-162, seconded by
Councilmember Brun.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2018-162 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
CLAIM:
C 2018-163 Communication (07/09/2018) from the Council Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Roger A. Ridgley,
Jr., for damages to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of
Kaua`i: Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2018-163 to the Office of the
County Attorney for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by
Councilmember Brun.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we take the vote, this claim involves
overhanging trees that we are seeing so much of. Staff, if we can get a letter out to
the County Administration, the State Highways, Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative,
Verizon, or whomever, and find out what their plan is to get rid of these overhanging
trees because I am seeing more and more. They are in the lines. I received numerous
complaints from the public and I am just trying to figure out how we are going to
manage this before the next storm and that is what this one is; the overhanging trees
hit the man's truck.
The motion to refer C 2018-163 to the Office of the County Attorney for
disposition and/or report back to the Council was then put, and carried by a
vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next items are your Committee Reports from
your Planning Committee, CR-PL 2018-06 and CR-PL 2018-07.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
COUNCIL MEETING 6 JULY 25, 2018
A report (No. CR-PL 2018-06) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PL 2018-03 Communication (07/11/2018) from Council Chair Rapozo,
requesting the presence of the Planning Director and the County Attorney, to
provide a briefing on the Kaua`i Planning Commission's vote to reverse the
hearings officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
and deny Kaua`i Springs' application for a Use Permit, Zoning Permit, and
Special Permit to continue operating a spring water bottling facility,"
A report (No. CR-PL 2018-07) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2687 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8-2.1(A)AND SECTION 8-4.2(A), AND CHAPTER 10,
SECTION 10-5A.7(A), KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
LIHU`E TOWN CORE URBAN DESIGN DISTRICT,"
Councilmember Kagawa moved for approval of the reports, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion of public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the reports was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Yukimura was excused).
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as recused from Bill No. 2687.)
BILL FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2687 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
SECTION 8-2.1(A) AND SECTION 8-4.2(A), AND CHAPTER 10, SECTION
10-5A.7(A), KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND LIHU`E TOWN CORE URBAN
DESIGN DISTRICT: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve Bill No. 2687, on
second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
COUNCIL MEETING 7 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Just for the record, Councilmember
Kawakami has left and has recused himself from this item. With that, I see Mike
here. Were there any questions for Mike before we open it up for discussion?
Councilmember Chock.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Councilmember Chock: I have an amendment for consideration.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you want to float that amendment now
and then we can have the discussion?
Councilmember Chock: Yes, please.
Councilmember Chock moved to amend Bill No. 2687 as circulated, and as
shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Chock: It was apparent at the last meeting that there
were some concerns about this Bill, although, I think everyone is sort of very
supportive of the unknown moving forward. As I left the meeting last week, I thought
that one way that we might be able to have some control oversight for future Councils
is that we put a sunset date on it. I am just entertaining a ten (10) year sunset, which
would give the future Council an opportunity to revisit where we are in the vision
that we are trying to create for Rice Street and also to have a "checks and balances"
for the Council to come back and say, "Hey, this is working. This is not working," and
maybe even encourage those who are interested to come to the table at an earlier
date. This is just a consideration for this body. I have not heard back from the...this
was sort of a last minute amendment that I put together in a few days, so I have not
heard from the County Attorney or the Planning Department on this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for the amendment. I think this
makes it better. I am still not satisfied with the way this is moving, but obviously, I
will support the amendment only because it does put some control on it, but not
enough to my satisfaction. Any other discussion on the ten (10) year sunset?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I had questions for Mike.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. You had questions for the sunset?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to limit the discussion...
COUNCIL MEETING 8 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Kagawa: This is a big move, but it is a big restriction,
so in some cases, if you are going to put a big restriction on a big move, then do not
even do the move.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I understand.
Councilmember Kagawa: You are restricting something big that you are
trying to get the private side to do to help a problem we have, but you put a big
restriction on it, there is no sense to even make the move. Just vote "no" on the Bill
if you have that type of reservation.
Council Chair Rapozo: I support that one hundred percent (100%).
Councilmember Kagawa: And then the problem still exists though.
Council Chair Rapozo: We get criticized today time and time again
over the entitlements that were granted decades ago that we never put a sunset on.
We get criticized because they think we have allowed all these developments to occur,
when in essence, the entitlements are given decades ago with no sunset and I think
that causes a problem for the legislative bodies in the future where all of a sudden
people never took advantage of it. Now, twenty (20) to thirty (30) years there is a
problem. That is one (1) avenue. Ten (10) years is quite a long time for someone to
decide whether or not they are going to use the R-40 versus the R-20, in my opinion.
Your point is very valid. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we hear from the Planning Department?
Council Chair Rapozo: We are, but if there are any further
discussion, if not, I will suspend the rules.
Councilmember Yukimura: I did follow-up and asked questions and we
got some responses both from the Water Department and the Wastewater
Management Division regarding the infrastructural capacities. I think it might be
relevant to even this discussion. I would like to ask that it be distributed.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would like to limit the discussion to the
ten (10) year sunset.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, the ten (10) year is related.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did you want Mike up now or did you want to
have a discussion?
COUNCIL MEETING 9 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to have him come up now because
otherwise we are discussing in a vacuum. Why do we not get to hear his position?
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, Planning Director: Good morning, Chair and
Members of the Council. My name is Mike Dahilig, for the record. We were given the
proposal by Planning Committee Chair Chock, and we are looking at the proviso that
provides for a ten (10) year sunset period and the Department would have some
concerns about this. The reason is that if we were in a presumption that there was a
temporary blip in the ability to not provide affordable or any type of housing product
up the spectrum and we just saw this as a temporary blip, then something like this
obviously would make sense. However, what we are seeing in the trend line is we are
seeing the deficit grow and grow and grow. The ten (10) year period, although it may
legislatively...and from a function standpoint, give cause for discussion, I think what
it does not from a Planning standpoint addresses, is whether or not we are seeing
something that goes like this or we are seeing something that goes like this and what
we are seeing is this; the deficit continuing to grow. I do not suspect that this
particular area would be oversubscribed from a standpoint of density going into year
ten, largely because you have a lot of lead work that is going to be required to address
some of the bigger picture infrastructure items that were bought up in the discussion
at the last meeting. That is one concern that I do have regarding that. The other
thing, too, is that the area that is in question if the concern is an overdevelopment or
oversubscription to the entitlement, we are talking about an area that is...we went
back on geographic information system (GIS) because a number of two thousand eight
hundred (2,800) was being thrown around. We were trying to figure out what that
two thousand eight hundred (2,800) number was and we could not digest it. Here is
what we do know. We have the entire zoning district as drawn by the Council with
maps in 2009 is approximately eighty (80) acres. At the current R-20 density, you
are looking at one thousand six hundred (1,600) units. That is currently what is
allowed in that eighty (80) acres boundary that was drawn by the Council back in
2009. Going to R-40, the maximum buildout and again, maximum in the sense that
you would take a bulldozer and level everything and build as one big greenfield, yes,
you could go surpass that from two thousand eight hundred (2,800) to three thousand
two hundred (3,200) units. The reality is that most of the area is developed. The
presumption that you can scrape all eighty (80) acres and build a brand new
community at an R-40 density, I do not think is practical either. I understand the
hesitation concerning this probably being the highest density being recommended
across the County at R-40, but we are again looking at this from a form and character
standpoint and an infill standpoint, and not a greenfield redevelopment standpoint.
There are opportunities for greenfield redevelopment, but as we talked about at the
last meeting, the magnitude of that being actually realizes in the order of the low
COUNCIL MEETING 10 JULY 25, 2018
hundreds versus in the order of thousands, so I am trying to understand the two
thousand eight hundred (2,800) number. Again, I am not sure where that comes from,
but based on our analysis what this would yield is in a greenfield rebuild scenario of
full scrape and reconstruction would be an additional one thousand six hundred
(1,600) units that than what is currently allowed under the Code.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you saying that under where you are not
destroying everything and reconstructing, that the expected buildout is what you
would get under R-20?
Mr. Dahilig: Right now, if you were to take the acreage...I
am just doing math and not looking at the physical nature of what is on the properties
at this point and whether something is going to stay in commercial use or not. If you
were to just look at the acreage of what has been zoned and that is approximately
eighty (80) acres, in the current Code, you take that and times it by twenty (20), one
thousand six hundred (1,600) is the number I come up with. That is what is currently
entitled if you were to take the presumption that you would scrape all eighty (80)
acres and rebuild at the current law.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and what are you saying is the expected
buildout for R-40?
Mr. Dahilig: If the presumption is to scrape all eighty (80)
acres again, then it would be three thousand two hundred (3,200), you would double
that. It would require demolishing the banks, the gas stations, and the theatres.
Council Chair Rapozo: And we know that is not going to happen.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: The question is based on what we know and
as the Planning Department is concerned, based on your expertise and planning in
that area, what can we expect based on vacant lots and available expansion of existing
density? What can we reasonably expect if this should pass?
Mr. Dahilig: We should reasonably expect up to two
hundred fifty (250) units, in the near term.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the "near term?"
COUNCIL MEETING 11 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: The "near term" is really throttled by factors
that our Department is not under control of as you seen from the memorandums that
you have gotten back from...
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it twenty (20) years or ten (10) years?
Mr. Dahilig: It is hard for us to get into a discussion on
whether or not the Water Department is going to open up more infrastructure in this
area. That, I think, is a broader question that I cannot answer.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not asking that. I am just asking you
when you use the word "near term," what are you meaning? In your mind, is "near
term" ten (10), twenty (20) years, or five (5) years?
Mr. Dahilig: The "near term" is now until whenever
someone wants to use up the available infrastructure that is there. Again, I cannot
put an end date on when someone is going to use infrastructure or not.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, but you used the term "near term" so
I just wanted to know what you mean by that.
Mr. Dahilig: That is why I am saying that it is from now
until the infrastructure availability that we know is currently there is used up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Therefore, that is not "near term." Near term
to me is three (3) years, five (5) years. If you do not know the end date, what is "near
term?"
Mr. Dahilig: We use "near term" in a sense that you can do
it now if you want. If someone were to come in and say, "I have the money, I have the
land, I have the availability to go vertical," they can do it right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: And you are saying that right now, it is two
hundred fifty (250) units?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, based on what we are hearing from the
other controlling factors, which is the Water Department based on the available
infrastructure.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am baffled. Are you folks seriously asking
him to have a crystal ball and give you an exact date as to if this Bill passes, how
COUNCIL MEETING 12 JULY 25, 2018
many residence are going to be on sale? There is no one that can answer that
question. The market will drive how much people will do.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, we are only asking him, "What is he
saying," that is all.
Councilmember Kagawa: Excuse me?
Councilmember Yukimura: We are just asking him what he is saying.
Councilmember Kagawa: I understand what he is saying. He is saying
that he is not really sure, but near term meaning...
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that is good. He is not really sure.
Councilmember Kagawa: Zero (0) to twenty (20).
Councilmember Yukimura: It does not have a real clear meaning at all.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any further questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Should this not be going back to Committee so
that we can discuss this?
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, this is an amendment. That is why I
wanted to focus on...
Councilmember Kagawa: I thought all of the amendments get done in
Committee.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what we would prefer. I do not have a
problem sending it back to Committee. If you folks want to send it back, that is fine
with me. It is just a sunset discussion that I am looking for right now and I heard
COUNCIL MEETING 13 JULY 25, 2018
Mike say that he does not recommend or feel comfortable with the ten (10) years for
his reasons that he stated. That is what we should be discussing.
Councilmember Kagawa: I do not feel comfortable playing "attorney"
with him and asking him questions that he is not able to answer. You cannot answer
certain questions exactly like rubbing a crystal ball. We do not have one here.
Council Chair Rapozo: If he cannot answer, then he cannot answer.
What I heard him say is right now, it is two hundred fifty (250) and I would agree
that I think that the word"near term" is not a good word to use when you do not know
the end date. A reasonable person is going to think that something that is going to
come up and in Planning terms. I do not what that means, but I would think that it
is something relatively close. Any questions on the sunset? We are going back to the
main Bill and we can have the discussion, but right now is the ten (10) year sunset.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is Planning's desirable vision for
Lihu`e?
Mr. Dahilig: I do not think it is "Planning's" vision. It is
the vision that has been passed in the current 2035 version of the General Plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so what is that vision?
Mr. Dahilig: It is a very broad vision that encompasses a
number of pages within the General Plan, but in a nutshell, it is looking at infill,
trying to bring development closer to the core, trying to reduce the amount of sprawl
that is out there, and provide for meeting the housing demand from a greater capacity
around the island.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think that is the Planning's vision for
Rice Street, but I think Rice Street can play part of that vision. What I am asking is
not at this point taking into consideration the constraints, what is the end goal for
Planning or based on the Lihu`e Plan for Lihu`e? What is the end goal in terms of
density, character, and functionality? What is that community goal that we are
aiming towards, because whatever we do in terms of zoning or infrastructure should
be aimed toward that end goal? What is that end goal for Lihu`e, Rice Street?
Mr. Dahilig: As it relates to the sunset?
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to know whether the sunset is going to
help us get to the end goal or not, but I think we all need to know what the end goal
is. Is it a town core of three thousand two hundred (3,200) or is it a goal of one
thousand six hundred (1,600)? Is it a goal of where whatever total development
COUNCIL MEETING 14 JULY 25, 2018
buildout we have, thirty percent (30%) is going to be affordable? Is it one of just
parking lots everywhere in order to accommodate the higher density including the
cost to the developer of providing the parking, or is it a transit plan where traffic is
going to function even though you have those high densities? What is the end goal
that we are trying to reach?
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going to need to go Committee if you
are going to answer all of that. The bottom line is this and let me reframe her question
so that it complies with the amendment, does the ten (10) year cause a problem with
the plan for Rice Street in Lihu`e? Will the ten (10) year sunset help or hinder the
plan and why?
Mr. Dahilig: Let me be clear in my answer in this case. The
Department would not necessarily oppose or object to a sunset, but I think as a sunset
makes sense is if those questions need to be answered in the context of a sunset, it
should align with the current General Plan period. If it were to reflect the General
Plan period at 2035, then that would make sense because it would have the
opportunity to implement all the things that Councilmember Yukimura is thinking
about with respect to the (inaudible). If the desire is to have it relooked at and have
a sunset happen, having it aligned with the current General Plan planning period
makes sense. The ten (10) year is what we are wrestling with as to whether or not
that or why that it is ten (10), but if it aligns with the planning period, then from a
policy standpoint we can understand the rational.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is a reasonable response.
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Would you be okay if we changed ten (10)
years to 2035?
Mr. Dahilig: If it aligned with the planning period of 2035.
Councilmember Brun: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: When I originally saw the amendment, my
thought was that we are making a big move trying to help a big problem. Yes, it is
going to get criticism, but you cannot fix a problem without making a move, is what
I am saying. Now, you put a restriction like this. In your mind, does it significantly
hurt the move that we are trying to do? We are trying to have the private sector take
care of our problem without putting County funds to fix that problem.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: That is the balancing question that when we
are looking at this as a housing bill, how do we address this question of the "chicken
versus the egg" and what comes first. I do not know if we ever gotten to a good answer
with that. I do not think that providing a sunset by the year 2035 saddle straps the
amendment because it provides, by requirement, a reevaluation of the whole General
Plan. We just started the General Plan period now, so if we were to already cut off
mechanisms we are trying to use to implement the General Plan too prematurely,
then I think we already start providing some difficulties in being able to realize what
the overall vision is. If something like this needs to be relooked at by the legislative
branch, then having it aligned with the General Plan period where we have to look
at everything across the board, that is unreasonable.
Councilmember Kagawa: I guess you went around my question.
Mr. Dahilig: I am sorry.
Councilmember Kagawa: If we pass this amendment, how would the
owners of those properties feel? I hope that you are getting some of the input from
some of the private sector who say, "this could actually help. We have a lot of the
infrastructure, population, and jobs here, and this is a good Bill," but you never
showed them this amendment yet.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Like I said earlier, if this hurts the Bill, then
let us just kill the Bill and let the next Council try and pass it, and make the move
that this Council could not. If it is going to be useless, then I do not even want to do
it. In my mind, it is useless if you are making a big move and you are restricting it
with this type of amendment. If so, do not do it. If you do not want to do it, then do
not do it. I am not like you, I want to do the right thing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: What is the purpose of a sunset date to begin
with?
Mr. Dahilig: Sunset dates are used...and the Council has
employed them in a number of pieces of legislation also. It is when either there is a
temporary condition that needs to be addressed and laws need to be adjusted
temporarily for that one issue, or it is something that as what I understand the intent
behind this legislation was just to provide a relook or an opportunity to have the
debate once again once conditions have actually materialized around trying to
implement the Bill. It is like baking a cake, essentially. If you pull the cake out of the
oven too early, it is not going to set and be delicious and moist. So it is one of those
COUNCIL MEETING 16 JULY 25, 2018
things where you have to ask the question, "Do you pull the cake out too early, do you
not, or do you let it runs its course?" I think the question is if it is the course that you
want it to run, the reality is a lot of this is premised on the current General Plan that
we are trying to implement right now.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I guess my point is why would we even put a
sunset date for the end of the General Plan? We should just say that everything we
do in the General Plan, let us put an end date and reevaluate it again. I think for us,
we are here to make a decision on the vision of Kaua`i, we know we need housing, and
we know this is the area that we want to infill, so why would we put a sunset date on
an area that we know is going to grow on an island that we know we need housing?
Mr. Dahilig: I understand and that would be our preface,
but ultimately, we are not the policymakers and if the policymakers do not feel
comfortable going that far, then if we are looking at an alternative, which is a sunset,
that is where input comes in. I think we made clear that it would not be advantageous
to have a sunset in here in the first place, but if this had to be in here, then we would
want it to align with a rational date.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mike, I have a question.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have we not implemented the "use it or lose
it" policy now? When people come up to get a change in zoning, did we not put that
in now? We never used to, right?
Mr. Dahilig: It has been used in mechanisms where certain
parcels or certain areas of property have been in the General Plan for many, many
years. This is going back iteration back into the 1970s.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am talking about in the recent years...
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have we not implement the "use it or lose it,"
language in our ordinances to make sure that they utilize the entitlement, and I
thought it was five (5) or ten (10) years. Is that not true?
Mr. Dahilig: It is a case-by-case basis.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. Would it not make sense for Rice Street
that it would be handled on a case-by-case basis, so in the event a particular
COUNCIL MEETING 17 JULY 25, 2018
landowner wants to go to R-40, they can come in and apply for the up zoning and go
through the normal process like everyone else would?
Mr. Dahilig: That is the balancing act that...yes, in a
circumstance that could make sense, but we are giving competing needs about if we
are looking at this from an area that we know can accommodate housing buildout,
what is the give and take. I reach a dead-end at that point because I am not the
policymaker at this point.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is a follow-up to Councilmember
Kagawa's questions about talking with the landowners, have we discussed this with
all of the landowners that this would benefit?
Mr. Dahilig: Where this has come from is when we see
landowners come in and do due diligence on pieces of property and this is anecdotal
and this has been going on for the past ten (10) years, one of the first things they ask
is, "Okay, this is a mixed use area. How much residential units can I build?" When
we tell them that based off of the current calculation and the R-20 that is there, what
they are saying is that the units, in some of the smaller parcels, are only allowed...
Council Chair Rapozo: You are going around my question. I am
asking you have we discussed with the landowners that are eligible and would benefit
and how many of the landowners are actually interested in upzoning their property
to R-40?
Mr. Dahilig: Let me answer the question this way. What I
will say is that this Bill as we approach the housing question is premised on what we
are hearing from landowners in the area.
Council Chair Rapozo: How many would benefit?
Mr. Dahilig: All the landowners within the eighty (80) acre
boundary.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but practically, how many? You have
to have a large size property to really benefit this community, I would say.
Mr. Dahilig: Not necessarily, Chair. Yes, in the context of
a brand new rebuilt from the ground up type of situation, yes. Those are the type of
people that right off the bat, you can look at as being benefited by this Bill, but we
are also looking for infill, which is a tenant in our plan that we want to try and
address where small developers can squeeze in two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), and
six (6) units where they can. We know many of the lots up and down Rice Street are
of that size. We want housing types both as you are describing in those greenfield
COUNCIL MEETING 18 JULY 25, 2018
areas, but also where people are looking to redeveloping for mixed use and can
squeeze in the units that way.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is the value of a sunset clause such that we do
not allow people to just sit on their zoning and therefore, create a really big buildout
problem because we are not going to have enough infrastructure? For example, in
Lihu`e, Rice Street, people are just sitting on it, so that is elsewhere in Lihu`e someone
who wants to develop, we do not have enough water if Rice Street builds out and
somewhere else in Lihu`e builds out, we do not have enough infrastructure for that.
Those folks on Rice Street are just sitting on it, then they are sort of holding up other
places or discouraging other places and also if both places buildout, then we will have
too much. Is a sunset clause a good way to do planning, because you say, "Okay, here
is your chance to buildout. We are giving you the chance, but if you do not use it, we
do not allow you to prevent other places from getting density, because we could not
allow both places to get density. So, if you are not going to buildout and you are just
going to sit on it, we need it for somewhere else." Is that not the value? Look at
Princeville, they sat on the resort, but whenever someone else wants to come and get
resort, the County has to look at the total resort buildout and we cannot take both of
them. Princeville sat on that resort for twenty (20) years or whatever it is and that
makes it difficult for the community to give resort zoning elsewhere.
Mr. Dahilig: That statement than lead to a question,
Councilmember Yukimura, which is, is the presumption that development is linear?
It is not linear. It relies on many different factors, some that are in our control and
some that are not. That is where if we are looking at trying to provide a date end for
something that is not a linear process, that is a difficulty I am left with because I
cannot control what the Water Department is doing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, but...
Mr. Dahilig: If your question is, does the sunset makes
sense in this circumstance, you have to look at the other factors related to how you
get a vertical house up and that relates to things that are not within the province of
either this Council or under our control.
Councilmember Yukimura: My question is presumed on good planning
and that is why we are saying that if you are not going to use it within a certain time,
you give it up so that we can use it elsewhere for the good of the community.
Mr. Dahilig: Right, and I would love to be in that position
if there was a situation where I had control over the Water Department and told
COUNCIL MEETING 19 JULY 25, 2018
them, "Do you know what? I am going to sunset this because we know that you could
have given them water."
Councilmember Yukimura: Well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on.
Mr. Dahilig: Development is not linear.
Council Chair Rapozo: We heard Mike's position and I think we are
not going to debate. We are not going to try and change his mind, we heard his
position, we have the response from the Water Department, Councilmember
Yukimura, and it is very clear what they are saying, "first-come, first-serve. Two
hundred fifty (250) units based on current capacity."
Councilmember Yukimura: Exactly.
Council Chair Rapozo: They are saying, "first-come, first-serve," and
whether that is true of not, I have to believe that is their policy. We understand the
Planning Department's position already. We are not going to change his mind.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not talking about the Planning
Department's position. I am talking about planning in way that really works.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, you are...
Councilmember Yukimura: Wait, wait, wait...Chair, this is related to this
Rice Street sunset question and I do want to hear what Councilmember Brun wants
to say, but I just want to finish this train of thought. If our concept of planning is,
"Oh, okay, we do not have control and as a County, we do not even coordinate, so we
do not have control over water." To me, if we are planning for Rice Street, we say,
"R-40, the vision is this. To get to the vision, we need R-40 and we need the
infrastructure." Water and sewers are part of the County family that is involved in
planning and we are going to work really hard to put the infrastructure to support
the zoning we say we want for the vision. We do not say, "Oh, those folks, it is their
fault..."
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura. We need a
question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well.
Council Chair Rapozo: You will have time to argue your point when
we get into discussion.
COUNCIL MEETING 20 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I am sorry, but others have been
discussing or explaining their position in relation to the question and that is what I
am doing, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, Councilmember Yukimura. I am not
going to allow it.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am done. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: I just say that we call for the question. I can
see on this amendment, the vote would be 3:3, as of right now. We might as well vote.
We are here drilling Mike and it is not going to pass.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. I want questions of Mike, that is
what I want right now. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just want to reiterate I think what I heard,
Mike, is that in order to be in accordance with the plan, that the Planning
Department would prefer a twenty (20) year sunset that would make it more aligned,
and if that is what we decided on as a body, you would support that.
Mr. Dahilig: We would not necessarily support it, but we
would understand the rational and that is a policy call for the Council at that point.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I must heard something different because I
thought it was you would rather not have a sunset, but if we are going to put a sunset,
then it should match the General Plan.
Mr. Dahilig: That is what we are saying.
Council Chair Rapozo: And that he would not oppose. Not that he
would support, but he would not oppose. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mike, I want to know if you heard the same
thing that I hear from the developers in why projects take so long. They blame the
County and State on the permits and the process. They say it is years and years of
waiting and the government is going to put the sunset because we want you to hurry
up, but we are the ones making them take long.
COUNCIL MEETING 21 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Yukimura: What is your question?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, that is my question. Do you hear that
from the developers that a lot of the problems are with the Water Department, the
Department of Health, County, and with the permits?
Mr. Dahilig: Right...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on. Councilmember Yukimura,
Councilmember Kagawa started with off his comments with "have you heard what I
have been hearing from the..." It was a question.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is my question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me judge the questions or comments,
please. Have you heard?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: That government is the problem why a lot of
times things take so long and they get turned off and do not end up doing it.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: So, would a sunset date help when we are the
problem? We want to get more housing, we want to get it now, so would it help to get
more housing by putting a sunset date when we are already having trouble doing
what we do every day?
Mr. Dahilig: Would it hurt? It would...
Councilmember Kagawa: It would kill it.
Mr. Dahilig: It would hurt, I guess.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not going to have staff draft an
amendment that lines up with the General Plan if we do not have the support. I am
not going to waste their time. I am hearing...
Councilmember Yukimura: We do not know.
COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: I think I am hearing loud and clear and I am
just not going to waste anyone's time. Do you have a question, Councilmember
Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I do. I E-mailed you the question last
night regarding density. This R-40 density...hotels and motels are allowed in
Commercial districts, right?
Mr. Dahilig: This is not a Commercial district.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, with Commercial zoning.
Mr. Dahilig: This is not a Commercial zoned area.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the Kress Street zoning?
Mr. Dahilig: The zoning is Special Planning Area "D"
(SPA-D).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. There is not going to be allowed any
resort in SPA-D?
Mr. Dahilig: The current law allows for motels and hotels
up to R-10 density and R-20 with a use permit in SPA-D.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does R-40 give any more density?
Mr. Dahilig: This does not entitle any type of additional
transient usage than what is already permitted under the SPA-D use table.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. What is the hotel allowed in this
district?
Mr. Dahilig: Like I mentioned earlier, the current law is
RR-10 without a use permit and RR-20 with a use permit.
Councilmember Yukimura: RR-10 is allowed.
Mr. Dahilig: Without a use permit. RR-20 with a use
permit. That is the current law.
Councilmember Yukimura: With use permit, okay. Take a property that
has this SPAD zoning and...
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, we are on the
amendment on the sunset. You are going into the Bill. Please.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, yes. I will reserve that question for
after the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any more questions on the ten (10)
year sunset? Go ahead.
Councilmember Chock: I wanted to get clarity on the General Plan as
it relates to this because I think that what we are also wanting to do with the plan is
to make sure that we are on track for it. Therefore, every ten (10) years or so, and I
think it is ten (10) years that we are looking at actually revisiting the plan, is that
correct?
Mr. Dahilig: In theory, yes, and in reality, that has never
been the case.
Councilmember Chock: We never achieved that?
Mr. Dahilig: No.
Councilmember Chock: Understood. And I just wanted to put into
frame that it is fears that I am hearing from the community, it is fears that I am
hearing from some members, and that is how I got to the ten (10) year was looking at
how that how that might line up. I am open if...and I do not want to have any more
conversation if we do not have the support for it, but like the Chair said, if it is twenty
(20) years and that is what this body feels comfortable with, we will move on it. If not,
let us vote for it because there is obviously people on each side of this. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there further questions on the sunset? If
not, I would like to take public testimony. I saw members of the community walk in.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to testify on the amendment for the ten (10)
year sunset only?
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion? Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I will not be voting for the sunset. If we are
afraid of turning this area into R-40, then we should not even have the Bill. I do not
think a sunset will help anything. We have seen sunsets work and we have seen
COUNCIL MEETING 24 JULY 25, 2018
sunsets come through on this Council and we see us continuingly just extending it
every single time. We have the agriculture Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU). They
come in and we sunset, they come in, and we sunset. What is the intent of this Bill?
The intent is to incentivize people build housing, commercial, or whatever it is in this
area. We talk about what is General Plan principles or planning principles? It is
infill, it is higher density, and it is exactly what we want. I do not know why we would
put a sunset on it. I think our housing crisis is only going to get worse. It makes no
sense. To say that people are land banking...people are sitting because they have no
incentive to build and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to give people
an incentive to build housing and to do something. We are not the only golden ticket.
A developer has to go through so many things just to build. We are just one part of a
little stumbling block and we give them the density and sunset it is like, we kind of
cut the incentive, and they still will have to go through the State, the Planning
Commission, and through all these other things. When are we going to realize that
when we keep do these kinds of things, we would just be status quo?We are not going
to get anything. I think if we are going to provide an incentive, we provide the
incentive. Again, it is not even an incentive. It is to stimulate growth in this area,
which is exactly what we have been talking about and wanting to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is an incentive if you double the density.
That gives huge value to a property, so it is an incentive. They do not have to go
through State because it is in an urban area already. They do not have to go to the
Land Use Commission, so it is already very much set up and I think we want it to
happen in the right way. What is missing is all of the other elements. You cannot
bake a cake without all the ingredients. Well, part of the ingredients is the
infrastructure; the water and the sewer, and even the underground utilities that is
going to make it a really good urban area. I think that is our concern, that it is sort
of giving an incentive. It says, "Here build," and you do not have the sewers to build.
That is not good planning at all. That is part of our concern and we do not have a
totally functional affordable housing ordinance and that is one of the concerns too, so
there are a lot of things that are not in place. That is why it makes sense to have a
timeframe that says, "Here, you have time, but sorry, you cannot just sit on it." That
being said, I do agree with the main goal of increasing density, concentrating growth,
doing infill, and I am going to try and make it as good a bill with amendments as
possible and then I still agree with the main philosophy of the Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am not going to support the amendment.
Whether it is ten (10) years, twenty (20) years, I am not supporting any amendment.
This is a bold move to fix the problem and I think the Planning Director agrees, the
Housing Director agrees, and the only person that does not agree is Councilmember
COUNCIL MEETING 25 JULY 25, 2018
Yukimura. I am not a micromanager. I am not an expert in planning, law, or
engineering. I am sorry I do not have all of those professions wired, but I certainly
support fixing the problem with a bold move. This bold move needs to be left alone
in order to work, not putting restrictions here and there. If you do not want to do it,
let the next Council do it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I appreciate the comments. It is often difficult
because we do not know how people feel about certain things and that is why we put
it on the table. I want to make it clear that I am supportive of this Bill and have been
from the very beginning. I think it is a move in the right direction for us as we have
planned within the General Plan. I think it is also our job to also constantly look at
how we can improve and keep some tabs on how it is we move forward. I think some
of the sunsets have actually worked well for us as we have looked at the ADUs. We
have been able to actually kind of narrow the amount that we are moving through,
so that we are clearer about what it is we can expect and gain, instead of being sort
of"just whatever we get is whatever we get." I actually think that it also incentivizes
what it is we are looking for because we need housing now and not later. To say, "Look
hurry up and get this done." Who is willing and who is going to step up, that is what
this does for me. It gives us this opportunity to say, "In ten (10) years, as the plan is
already dictated..." and by the way, we have not even done the plan and revisited it
in ten (10) years, so this actually makes us revisit the plan. It says, "In ten (10) years,
take a look at this. What is happening? Do we need to revisit? Can we incentivize it
more because we are not finding incentives for the kind of housing with the zoning
that we are giving." That is where I am with this. I wanted to just put it on the table
for us to see how we can problem solve better together and that will always be my
intention. I will be supporting this amendment for those reasons, but will also be
supporting the main motion as well. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone else? If not, I obviously will
be supporting the amendment. I think the ten (10) year is reasonable. Regardless of
what Mike says about the reviewing of the General Plan, that is a mandate. I am not
sure why we do not do it, but it needs to be done every ten (10) years—that is the
requirement and we do not. That does not make it right. A ten (10) year sunset on
this, which should tie right in with the review of the General Plan, seems reasonable.
At any time you can extend the sunset. We have done that constantly. I do also want
to make the point that we want to incentivize, in a sense, that we want you to do it
now. We do not want you to do it twenty (20) years from now. We do not even know
what the economic climate, the population will be in ten (10), twenty (20) years, or
thirty (30) years, so this basically tell those landowners on Rice Street, "Hey, you
want to use it, you have ten (10) years," which is a significant amount of time to get
something done. If not, they can lobby the legislative body at the time to extend the
COUNCIL MEETING 26 JULY 25, 2018
sunset. We will see how the vote goes. In fact, let us do that now. The motion is to
approve. Roll call.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2687 as circulated, and as shown in the Floor
Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1 was then put, and
failed by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 3,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Brun, Kagawa, Kaneshiro TOTAL — 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Kawakami TOTAL — 1.
Council Chair Rapozo: 3:3, motion fails. We are back to the main
motion.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have questions for Mike.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Dahilig, can you come back up, please? I
will suspend the rules. Oh, I am sorry, Councilmember Brun.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Brun: I have a PowerPoint that I wanted to go
through for the main Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you want to do that now?
Councilmember Brun: I can do that now or I can wait.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you want to do it before Mike comes up?
Councilmember Brun: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, let us do that.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: We are on the main Bill. The first question is,
"What does this Bill have to do with Housing?" General Plan projects demand of nine
thousand (9,000) housing units by year 2035. Shortage of housing units available on
island across all housing types from affordable rentals to single-family units for
COUNCIL MEETING 27 JULY 25, 2018
residential housing. County government cannot build itself out of this demand. A
two (2) bedroom, two (2) bath unit on Rice Street costs one thousand eight hundred
fifty dollars ($1,850) per month. That is at Lihu`e Townhouse. An apartment sold at
two hundred fifty-one thousand dollars ($251,000), which was a two (2) bedroom and
one and one half(1.5) bath unit. That was the last unit sold. In Puhi, three hundred
sixty thousand dollars ($360,000) for a half a bath more, for just a shower.
Affordability, annual income seventy-nine thousand dollars ($79,000), the price of the
unit is three hundred seventy-eight thousand dollars ($378,000), and the down
payment of seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000). We know that the median
income is seventy-nine thousand two hundred dollars ($79,200).
Why higher density? We do not have enough entry-level units like these being
built for average families to buy and own. Homeownership promotes building
stability and wealth for a family, giving them the opportunity to sell and buy a bigger
home down the line.
Why Rice Street? Council zoned this area for infill development in 2009. The
area is close to many job centers on island and the seat of government. Infrastructure
investment in roads and available capacity in water and wastewater allows
opportunity for more immediate construction. At R-20, this smaller lot can only yield
two (2) units and at R-40, it can yield four (4) units. That is on Rice Street. It is not
only going to help the big people. It will help the small owners also.
What does this Bill not do? It does not change parking requirements. It keeps
parking requirements the same under the current Code. It does not change height
limits, which is still at fifty (50) feet, so it will not change. It keeps height limits at
the same height. It does not exempt applicability of the current islandwide affordable
housing law, so you still have to do affordable units.
What does this Bill have to do with Housing? It promotes the integration of
multi-family units in the town core, promotes more housing units of a type where new
units are hard to find at a price attainable for our middle-class families, and it
promotes a no-sprawl policy by redeveloping within our urban areas.
As we look at this, what is happening on Rice Street now? Absolutely nothing.
Do we see any new housing units being built? No. If everything stays the same, we
can expect more of the same. This Bill is intended to provide the stimulus to make
something happen in the Lihu`e Town Core where we want it to happen. We are trying
to build up Rice Street, this will help. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Councilmember Brun. That was a
good presentation. Two (2) questions. One is, the Lihu`e Townhouse and even Puhi,
COUNCIL MEETING 28 JULY 25, 2018
the examples you show, were built quite a while back. What is the predicted price
now of units that are being built and that is the other thing, I do not think absolutely
nothing is happening on Rice Street, because as we know "Ma's Place" is being
developed into six (6) residential units. If they were to be built today, what is the
predicted rents or prices that we are anticipating? I think we are just wanting to get
some idea of what kind of prices and what kind of market we would be looking at.
Councilmember Brun: I do not see Milo here. If Milo was here maybe
he could help us out with that, but I am not a realtor, so I do not know what is the
price of a unit. These are just facts that came out. I cannot tell you what is going to
be charged for someone who is building tomorrow.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the Rice Street has been a place of
affordable housing, which is a wonderful thing, right? Lihu`e Court, Rice Street, Rice
Camp, and even as you point out, Kalapaki Villas and Lihu`e Townhouses are clearly
an affordable housing place, but that was built fifty (50) years ago. Anyway, I am
just wondering about prices.
Councilmember Brun: Even if we build one hundred (100) units, we
are going to get thirty (30) units that are affordable. Right now, no one is building,
and no one wants to come to Kaua`i to build because there are restrictions, so we are
not getting any affordable housing. If we stay the same, we are not going to get it. If
we still have that affordable housing plan in place and if we build one hundred (100)
units, we will get thirty (30) affordable. If we build two hundred (200), we will get
sixty (60) affordable.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is assuming that these projects are being
built eleven (11) units or more.
Councilmember Brun: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anything ten (10) or below, we get no
affordable housing units.
Councilmember Brun: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well...
Council Chair Rapozo: So I think when you look at how many parcels
on Rice Street or in this SPAD have the capacity to build over ten (10) units and that
is how you have to look at it. If everyone builds an additional six (6) units, we get no
affordable, because the policy does not kick in. It is not to say we do not need those
units. Yes, we need units at all levels, but I think to sum this up as a bill that may
help affordable housing, it may, if people build eleven (11) units or more.
COUNCIL MEETING 29 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Brun: That is the same...sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: I was trying to get that out of Mike—how many
parcels on Rice Street are in a position to build eleven (11) units or more? That is
what I am trying to figure out and I can never get that answer. Right now, and I am
not talking about sweeping Rice Street and clearly banks. I am just talking about
what is available right now, how many lots on Rice Street in this area have the
capacity and the ability to build eleven (11) units or more? Who is going to build
eleven (11) units on a parcel knowing that they have to build three (3) affordable
units? It is very difficult to do because of the cost. I am just being a realist and I am
just saying that if this is not an affordable housing bill, let us just call it what it is. It
is a bill that will provide landowners to build homes, apartments, motels, whatever
they want, but not necessarily affordable. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: You talk about the affordable housing need.
Even Kanani came up last week and said all of the Hanama'ulu ones are one hundred
percent (100%) to local families. So, as of now, one hundred percent (100%) to local
families. That is huge. Grove Farm's one that they sold by the golf course, almost all
of them were local as well. The thing is that just because it is not affordable does not
mean local residents are not benefiting. The facts are proving that we have an
inventory problem and whether it is affordable or market, as long as local people are
going into those houses, I think we are succeeding. Let us not say that the seventy
percent (70%) that are not affordable or the ten (10) units or less are not going to
benefit local families, because I think the facts are showing that the local families are
benefiting when we have more inventory.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not disagreeing with you. I just want to
make it clear that the fact of the matter is the majority of the properties on Rice Street
cannot build eleven (11) units or more; therefore, that affordable housing component
is a big "what if." I just want to make that point clear. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: To that point, when we are looking at it, if
someone can build three (3) versus six (6), I would rather them build six (6) units and
this is what this Bill does.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: That was going to be my point. If we get that
six (6) units, that will open six (6) units somewhere else on the island for local people,
so whether we are building one (1) or one hundred (100), that will help our housing
inventory. It will open up at market price, which is what the regular houses would be
selling at.
COUNCIL MEETING 30 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we need to understand how the
Affordable Housing Ordinance works because if it is onsite or close by, then the thirty
percent (30%) goes down. If it is energy efficient, the thirty percent (30%) goes even
further down, so it can be actually fifteen percent (15%) affordable. There are these
variations. We cannot assume that even if it is over ten (10) units, that it would be a
thirty percent (30%) affordability. I am not saying this to disagree with anything that
was just said. I am just wanting us to understand how the dynamics will actually
work based on what our law is.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we end the discussion, I want to
suspend the rules because I want to have Mike up and I want to give the public an
opportunity. Let us do the public testimony first, so we if we have any questions, we
can have Mike answer them.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
FELICIA COWDEN: Felicia Cowden, for the record. I appreciate
that the conversation has shifted a little bit and we are saying that this is just
increasing housing capacity on the island, because I looked at the amendment and it
is a very simple amendment by just adding R-40 as a piece there. I do not see anything
tying it to two hundred fifty-five (255) units. I do not see anything tying it to
affordability, other than what is out there, so really what we are talking about here
is increasing density in Lihu`e. Now, I do not personally have a problem with it, but
I just want to have an honest conversation about it. If what this does is it adds more
inventory, so people buy it and it helps to deflate some other cost somewhere else or
create some opportunities for people who can afford it because when I look at it and
I have been looking with people trying to work on affordable housing that have the
skillset; that part-time/live here, but do it in other related places. It is easy to look at
that parcel map and see you can buy...I gave an example to two (2) of you
Councilmembers, six (6) contiguous parcels that you can put ten (10) units on. You
give them all a different corporate name, they each have a different Tax Map Key
(TMK), so you can get your sixty (60) units, you can get your parking lot and
restaurant and everything else, and you do not have to do any affordable housing. It
is easy to circumvent and forced thirty percent (30%), but maybe when you bring up
more housing, it does bring the price down, but I struggle when this is said, "This is
about affordable housing." I do not see how it is going to easily create affordable
housing. We have really high thresholds that are difficult for developers to do and I
do not see anything that limits it to this two hundred fifty-five (255), so I do think
wisdom needs to go in for the infrastructure, though presumably the first people
building are going to have access to the water and the later ones, if there no water,
there is no water. That is out story in Kilauea; there is no water, therefore we cannot
build affordable housing there. I just want to hear that this is for additional housing
COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 25, 2018
rather than this is affordable housing. It might be affordable, right? But this is not
targeting affordable housing. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify? Please.
PALMER HAFDAHL: Aloha, Chair and Councilmembers. I am
Palmer Hafdahl, an Architectural Company, Palms Hawai`i Architecture. I wanted
to commend the Planning Department for bringing this forward. It reinforces the
town core plan that myself and others have been working on for years trying to create
that density level that will make the town core a success. Councilmember Brun
brought up the majority of the points that I think are critical to this and important
for the community. When the Chair asked about how this was functioned...I would
rather have Mr. Dahilig talk about where the Additional Rental Units (ARUs) plays
in this, but I am representing a client in the area that his heart is in the right place,
he wants to do affordable housing; higher density on a smaller parcel. Let us say that
his parcel would allow eight (8) units including the ARU that plays into this and Mike
can explain that, the same parcel in R-20 would now qualify for sixteen (16) units.
However, there are a number of conditions that play into this to protect the public in
terms of resources and infrastructure available, for example, a fire hydrant. We were
doing a check on the fire hydrant and that fire hydrant has not been tested for
pressure that is adequate for that area. The roads in that area are inadequate to serve
that density. Each parcel as well has a lot coverage item and so we looked at the menu
and she said, "We cannot build that many units within our own lot coverage." In spite
of the generous option that the ARU allows, that allows us to count only fifty percent
(50) of the density. So the question as to which parcels would qualify for ten (10) or
more units is a difficult one to answer because there are several...it is not just the
planning R-20 versus R-40. All of the other agencies have their requirements and
regulations that protect public interest, including the Building Division. When you
get into the Building Codes, different types of fire protection are required and changes
the cost significantly. There are a lot of factors that play into this. For the Planning
Department to offer this R-40 gives a creative opportunity for architects and
developers to work with the other community guidelines to try and increase that
density where it is feasible. It is a complex issue. You may be able to do it, but fairly
inappropriate to say that certain parcels qualify for more than ten (10) units right off
the bat. The parcel that I am representing, like I say, may go up to sixteen (16) units,
but part because at ten (10) units, the housing regulation sets in and at eleven (11)
units...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on real quick. Is there anyone else that
wishes to testify? You can continue on your second three (3) minutes.
Mr. Hafdahl: Thank you very much. I just wanted to bring
to light some of the details that come into this. I think as you read the town core and
COUNCIL MEETING 32 JULY 25, 2018
everything just makes sense is the next step in the town core plan and that is
reinforced in the community development plans as well, the higher density and that
additional housing on Rice Street. I would like to see it approved and I commend the
Planning Department and look for Council's support. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Real quick. Did you say you are working with
a client that is eligible for six (6) right now?
Mr. Hafdahl: He is actually eligible for eight (8) at the
moment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Eight (8)? Is he thinking about building eight
(8) affordable?
Mr. Hafdahl: Yes. He would like to make it in the
affordable range.
Council Chair Rapozo: For the eight (8) units?
Mr. Hafdahl: I think the idea is he wants studios and he
recognizes that this is a community that needs it. The ARU regulation that you all
passed recently goes a great step that way to allow studios. Now, just because of
dwelling unit, we do not have to have two (2) parking spaces, we can get away with
one (1) parking space. The unit itself cost counts on the lot coverage and again, Mike
can clarify this, but as I understand the parking space does not, so that allows us to
increase the lot coverage a little bit as well. That will give us some greater variety
and greater opportunities, but like I said, other things come into play. The road
serving this particular parcel is not adequate.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. You answered my question.
Councilmember Yukimura:
Councilmember Yukimura: Palmer, thank you for coming to testify. Is
your understanding of the ARU Bill goes...with the ARU Bill, I am not clear how it
would...
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us ask that of the Planning Department.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to at least get my question out,
please.
Council Chair Rapozo: He just said, that is best asked to Mike. That
is what he said in his testimony.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I please ask my question?
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Are you planning to do a
multifamily?
Mr. Hafdahl: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: The ARU allows an additional rental unit for
each multifamily unit that you would build. Does it essentially double it? So if you
are allowed eight (8) right now, it would allow sixteen (16)?
Mr. Hafdahl: That is my interpretation.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that is fair.
Mr. Hafdahl: I will allow the Planning Department to
clarify that.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it actually allows R-40...I mean, it doubles
the density on an Lihu`e parcel.
Mr. Hafdahl: It may.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, then yes, I would like to talk to the
Planning Director about that. That is very, very interesting.
Council Chair Rapozo: That was my suggestion from the beginning.
Mike. The rules are still suspended. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: How does the Planning Department
understand the ARU Bill to apply to multifamily units on Rice Street?
Mr. Dahilig: I was actually trying to pull up the Bill on my
phone and again, I am working off recollection here, so I do not have the actual
measure in front of me.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us not work off recollection. Let us work
off of facts because I do not want this whole place to go upside down because it is
going to be in an R-80 bill if that is the case. Can our Staff pull the Bill and help
Mike? I do not want to get into speculation on that, but that is a very valid question,
which I was going to ask; does the ARU allow to expand the density even further?
COUNCIL MEETING 34 JULY 25, 2018
My recollection is what Palmer described. Are there any other questions while we are
waiting? Mike, we will have Staff grab the Bill.
Mr. Dahilig: I was able to pull it up. It is Section 8-30.1 of
the Code.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Dahilig: It starts right off the bat by saying that it is
an existing dwelling unit relocated within the residential zoning district. That
referenced, in and of itself already that an ARU applicability would not apply to this
particular area because it is not a residential zoning district.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you need to read on through the Bill to
make sure somewhere else does not give that...
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, it is the opening proviso under
Section 8-30.1(a), Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not want you to read the Bill here. Staff
can do the research. I want to get to questions and not have you read the Bill.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to get the answer before we take
the vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: Absolutely, but I do not want to waste this
time while we are trying to pull a bill.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have some other questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Many others have questions, too.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Real quick. What is the process right now,
absent this Bill, of a landowner getting R-40?
Mr. Dahilig: If a landowner came to us today and wanted
R-40...
COUNCIL MEETING 35 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, if I owned the parcel over there and I
said, "I want to be a good Samaritan, I want to build affordable housing, but I want
R-40 because I want to build forty (40) units per acre," what would I need to do?
Mr. Dahilig: There are two (2) processes. One is the
traditional process where you would go through a request if it is under fifteen (15)
acres to ensure that it is in the State Land Use Urban District, and if it is, then they
would have to come to the Council for a zoning map change.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Dahilig: Then, they would have to come in for a permit.
The other option, that is the shorter that the Council has employed, is in a situation
where you are using the 201H process for something that relates to affordable
housing where the Council can prescribe based off of a state authority to basically
spot zone an area.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, so in this case if the owner was to come
to the County and basically apply for an upzoning from R-20 to R-40, at that time the
Council could look at the plans, what the impacts are, and set certain restrictions or
in fact some cases exactions from that developer, correct?
Mr. Dahilig: That is a potential, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Versus right now where it is a blanket
upzoning and they would not have to go through that...they would not have to come
back to Council in other words.
Mr. Dahilig: It could be perceived that way.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the reality, right?
Mr. Dahilig: Well, it is ultimately a question of the scale of
development as well, whether or not there is exactions that would relate to the need
to upgrade infrastructure, and so on and so forth. Exactions are already taken by the
Water Department based off of fees.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am talking about Council.
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right now if this passes, we will not see them
again for zoning.
COUNCIL MEETING 36 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: If this was to pass within this eighty (80)
acres, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, so there would be no need, like right
now, if anyone wanted to upzone to R-40, they would have to come to the Council,
have a public hearing, and all those community opportunities to at least understand
what is going to happen.
Mr. Dahilig: On a parcel-by-parcel basis, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. For the person who wants to utilize
R-40, right?
Mr. Dahilig: On a parcel-by-parcel.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know if people that have an interest
in getting an R-40 upzone would come before the Council. With this, everyone gets
R-40 across the board.
Mr. Dahilig: Within the zoning area.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, we are talking about the zoning area.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are talking about this Bill. We are not
talking about the island. We are talking about this Bill. My point is this, with this
Bill, this Council will give up future Councils authority or ability to scrutinize each
project as it moves forward.
Mr. Dahilig: That is within your authority.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Within the eighty (80) acre town core, that is
all urban zoning at this time, right? You do not have to go to the Land Use
Commission.
Mr. Dahilig: No, you do not.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so that is not a requirement at all. So,
we have this law right now and based on this law for any...and I appreciate Palmer
bringing up an example, a current parcel that is allowed eight (8) units with the
application of the ARU, how many units are they allowed?
COUNCIL MEETING 37 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: Again, I just got this from Jenelle.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, let us take a
ten (10) minute break, he can study the Bill, we can study the Bill, and when we come
back, you can have the floor, and we can continue to have the discussion.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is fine. This is a really fundamental
question that should have been in the zoning report to the Planning Commission
before it came to us.
Council Chair Rapozo: In addition to the infrastructure, demands,
and all of that.
Councilmember Yukimura: True.
Council Chair Rapozo: All of that should have been in the report with
the recommendations and it was not; I share the concern. I am seeing the value of a
bill like this as Palmer has described it, so we will see how this turns out. Ten (10)
minute recess. We will be back at 10:00 a.m.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 9:48 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:02 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. I know I
told Councilmember Yukimura that she would have the floor, but she is not...oh, here
she is. Mike, did you have a chance to review the Bill?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, I reviewed Section 8-30.1 with the
County Attorney as it reads, in lined with this Chapter 10, Section 5(a), which is the
Lihu`e Town Core Ordinance. The way that the Lihu`e Town Core Ordinance operates
is that it is an overlay, so there are some residual elements of the base zoning that do
apply. Based on this language, the most that a parcel could be eligible for is one (1)
additional unit. Just one (1). There would not be a multiplier situation based on the
way that the law is currently written.
Council Chair Rapozo: For this district?
Mr. Dahilig: For this district, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Even if it is not residential?
COUNCIL MEETING 38 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: I hate to use the "cake analogy" again, but if
you have the base zoning still remains in force and effect, but the overlay supersedes
anything that is there and if there is anything that is left that does not supersede,
that could still be applicable based on the way that the two (2) laws are read together.
If a parcel had an "R" underneath it, overlaid by this SPA-D, then you could add one
(1) unit. If it had a "C," "CN," or a "CG" underneath it, then no, it could not get an
additional unit.
Council Chair Rapozo: In this case, there is an "R."
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: There is the SPA-D.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Therefore, if this Bill passes, they have the
ability to build forty (40) units per acre.
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that one (1) unit, the ARU per...
Mr. Dahilig: Per parcel.
Council Chair Rapozo: Per parcel or per...
Mr. Dahilig: Per parcel.
Council Chair Rapozo: Because in here it says, "May be constructed
as an accessory to an existing dwelling unit."
Mr. Dahilig: I see what you mean.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not parcel; it is unit.
Mr. Dahilig: I see.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not tied to the parcel; it is tied to the unit.
Therefore, if you build forty (40) units on that acre and each unit applies for an ARU,
you are going to have the ability to build eighty (80). That is how I read this.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. I could see it that way.
COUNCIL MEETING 39 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: I need to know what it is and maybe Mauna
Kea is the right person to call out. This ARU Bill is not tied to the parcel; it is tied to
the unit. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It also says, "to an existing dwelling unit."
The question is when the existing applies. Does it apply to the time when the Bill was
passed and therefore there is no existing unit on the vacant lot?
Council Chair Rapozo: Existing, I would assume it is after it is built,
but the reality again, going back to being a realist, you still have lot coverage
requirements, and you can only fit so many units on a parcel, so the fact that you are
entitled to an ARU, if you do not have the space to build that ARU, it is a non-issue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Council Chair, I actually would feel really
uncomfortable with relying an opinion that is off the cuff. I prefer that both the
Planning Director and the County Attorney come back with a written opinion and
citations that are really integrated in terms of how all these different laws are coming
together to a result.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Trask. I do not like asking you on a fly as
well and I am not sure if you had the opportunity. This is a brand new question.
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: Aloha, for the record, Mauna
Kea Trask, County Attorney. I actually do not like giving off the cuff advice, so I
would appreciate anything in writing and we will respond accordingly.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess, Mike, is it safe to assume that the
Planning Commission and the Planning Department did not look at the ARU
integration with this Bill?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, we did not look at the overlay in that
respect. I asked Scott if maybe he could help me out by actually pulling out the actual
old zoning map because that can isolate those circumstances where there was an "R"
based under, so I can give the Council that information whether something is or is
not going to be applicable to this particular lot.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Would it be better to just amend the ARU Bill
to make sure that it does not apply to properties with the R-40? That would be a
simple fix.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 JULY 25, 2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Or amend the existing Bill that is on the floor
right now. It would be easier to do it that way. Amend the Bill as we have it today
that it would not...
Councilmember Kagawa: I would say amend both to make sure it does
not happen.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, either way. I am just trying to find the
cleanest way. I do not think this is a time sensitive bill, we can wait, but that would
be up to this body what to do. I definitely believe we have to clarify the ARU issue
because that could definitely change the entire complexion of this Bill. It is huge.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It says, "One Additional Rental Unit," this is
the ARU Bill, "may be constructed as an accessory to an existing dwelling unit," and
existing, we better get clear not just for this Bill that we are considering today, but
what it means applied anywhere—"located within Residential Zoning District," but
this is not a Residential Zoning District, right, that we are talking about? It is an
SPA-D district.
Mr. Trask: Actually, the SPA-D district, we confirmed
this at the break, is an overlay, so it does not affect the underlying use. I asked Mr.
Dahilig what is the zoning and it is varied within that SPA-D district, so there is
some commercial, some residential, and some other. It would take a case-by-case
analysis.
Councilmember Yukimura: Then my question about commercial zoning
and what kind of hotels would be allowed in there and you told me that it is not
commercial, it is SPA-D, but it actually is commercial.
Mr. Trask: It is underlying zoning, so I am not sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, that is what I am talking about. What is
the interaction of all these different requirements that we are talking about? I think
we need to go back and get real clarity about what is what.
Mr. Dahilig: Well, your discussion was in the context of
resort and as I was answering your question as it pertains to resort, the SPA-D use
table supersedes...
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not about resort; it is about commercial.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura let him finish,
please.
COUNCIL MEETING 41 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: That is what the question was about. We can
have a disagreement, and roll back the tape...
Council Chair Rapozo: We are not going to have a disagreement.
Mr. Dahilig: What I had as my presumptive discussion was
relating to what is the resort applicability to the area and that is what my question
was, that this is what is applicable.
Councilmember Yukimura: Excuse me, but you misheard the question.
My question was what kind of resort density for a hotel is allowed when it is zoned
commercial, which is a zoning category that allows for hotels and motels?
Mr. Dahilig: And what I stated was that this supersedes
that. This is what controls SPAD...
Council Chair Rapozo: Your answer was that this was a residential
district and not a commercial.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think what I am hearing now is that there
may be some commercially zoned parcels in this SPAD. I think what I am going to
need and this is just one (1) vote, but what I am going to need is a breakdown of how
many residential, how many commercial, and how many whatever else is in that
district. To me the Planning Commission, the Planning Department should have
gone through all of this, Mike, before it came up here and expecting us to pass this in
one (1) reading. This is the things that the Planning Department is supposed to hash
out; infrastructure, potential impacts, like you folks do so well with all the other bills.
This one came, boom, boom, done...yes, because we need housing, but what are the
impacts? Now that question about resorts concerns me as well. Is there a
commercially zoned unit that could actually put up a hotel? I do not know. I still have
not seen the breakdown of the parcels and what underlying designations are in that
district. I do not think it is an unreasonable question. I am not sure if you are
prepared to answer that today, but again, I am one (1) vote. If the Members of this
body feel they want to push this through, that is fine, but I would have no problem
sending this back to the Committee to have that discussion, give you time, and give
Mauna Kea time to formalize an opinion, but the ARU is a big issue for me. It almost
seems like it has to go back to the Planning Commission to have them consider. That
is the thing we have to clarify with Mauna Kea as well on why the ARU never came
up until today. I just assumed it was for residential; I did not think it would apply,
but once I read the Bill, it is pretty clear that it applies to each unit in the residential
district. Therefore, the six (6) that could be twelve (12) could actually be twenty-four
COUNCIL MEETING 42 JULY 25, 2018
(24). Are there further questions of these two (2) gentlemen? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The other question that I did not ask, which I
would like to ask now and have considered as you go back and analyze the full
complexity of this is...I mean I think if we are interested in increasing supply of
housing, we want to make sure that none of these units are going to go to vacation
rentals and we need to know how they would impact bed and breakfast (B&B) or
homestay. I just want complete assurance. I think my off the top reading is that they
are not allowed because they are not in Visitor Destination Areas (VDAs), but I want
that absolutely stated clearly.
Mr. Trask: This is outside the VDA, correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but I want that in writing from the
Planning Department so that we can rely on that statement.
Mr. Dahilig: I did reply to your E-mail yesterday,
Councilmember Yukimura, at 3:15 p.m.
Councilmember Yukimura: I did not ask that question about VDAs.
Mr. Dahilig: You did ask, and I will just state...
Councilmember Yukimura: I asked about commercial and resort.
Mr. Dahilig: Can you confirm that no vacation rentals or
homestays will be built, allowed...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Dahilig: I did reply in writing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: I said, "Yes, there will be no vacation rentals
or homestays," and that was transmitted to you at 3:15 p.m. yesterday.
Councilmember Yukimura: Alright, so the same thing with the question,
can you confirm that the interface of ARU, that this Bill is not going to create
an R-80?
COUNCIL MEETING 43 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Trask: In line with your request, in order to ensure
that you are provided all the necessary information by the next meeting, the Office of
the County Attorney would request that you send us written communications
detailing the questions. It will allow you time to develop them and also allow us to be
clear on what is expected. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is one (1) week enough for you, Mauna Kea?
Mr. Trask: No, not right now. I can do the two (2) weeks,
which is the standard.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, it would be three (3), because I want it
to go Committee. I do not want it to come back to the Council. The questions may not
be just for the Office of the County Attorney, but I want to see the Department of
Public Works and the Water Department as well.
Mr. Trask: Three (3) weeks will be sufficient.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: My question is when we passed the ARU Bill,
which I was not a big fan of in the first place; I wanted to keep the rural characteristic
of the island, which is why. When we passed that, I remembered the Planning
Commission reviewed it for a while and no one has ever asked that question about
does it apply to Lihu`e Townhouse? Does it give them the automatic ability to double?
We are only talking about residences, right? We were talking about Molokoa,
Isenberg, and the Lihu`e area, right? Less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet
where you can put an additional unit, because our standard practice has been ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or more, you can have the `ohana dwelling or additional
dwelling unit. The ARU said with five thousand (5,000) square feet, you can put two
(2), basically. We made that less by half, so I was not a big fan of that, but at that
time, did the Planning Commission or this Council ask you folks if it applied to
condominiums or what have you. Never, right? No one asked that question. It is an
honest mistake on both sides that we overlooked that fact. I do not want to point the
blame at them because we had a chance here. I think the Bill was started by Mr. Gary
Hooser.
Mr. Trask: You are correct and there are at least six (6)
restrictions attached immediately to the allowance of an ARU, so the maximum eight
hundred (800) square feet, parking stalls, lot coverage, and of course, it does not apply
to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R). A neighborhood has their own
agreement that you cannot do this; you cannot do it. I just want to make clear on the
floor that this is not this expansive thing, there are...
COUNCIL MEETING 44 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Kagawa: Covenants and what have you that supersede
movement.
Mr. Trask: Yes, perfect.
Councilmember Kagawa: Let us make sure that when we are pointing
the finger, we make sure we look at ourselves.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any further questions? Mike, I have
one (1) more question. I know it has not been discussed, but the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is planning on reducing
Rice Street down to two (2) lanes. Was that even considered by the Planning
Department when they are looking at increasing density on Rice Street? That is going
to impact a lot of people. We are actually going to reduce Rice Street and I understand
there is going to be the turning lane, but there is going to be two (2) travel lanes on
Rice Street, we are going to add all this density, which requires parking. Have we
figured out how we are going to make all of this happen and we do not cause a bigger
problem?
Mr. Dahilig: To try to...
Council Chair Rapozo: It is just a "yes" or "no." Did the Planning
Department take a look at the impacts that the reduction in travel lanes on Rice
Street is going to have on Rice Street as it is today without any increase in density
and then with the increase in density?
Mr. Dahilig: We looked at the density potential in the area
at present; that is what we did. I do not have the litany of the knowledge with the
Traffic Impact Analysis Report to respond immediately to that question, Chair, I
would have to review the Traffic Impact Analysis Report.
Council Chair Rapozo: Normally when a developer comes in and it is
going to impact density, it is going to double density, we may require them to do a
traffic study, correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: But in this case, that is not going to be done,
so we do not know what the traffic impact will be, correct?
Mr. Dahilig: I would have to refer back to the Traffic
Impact Analysis Report.
Council Chair Rapozo: I got it. Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
COUNCIL MEETING 45 JULY 25, 2018
Councilmember Kagawa: How many ARUs have been applied for since
the Bill has passed?
Mr. Dahilig: A handful, not even five (5) at this point.
Councilmember Kagawa: Not even five (5)?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: How long has it been?
Mr. Dahilig: Four (4) months.
Councilmember Kagawa: Four (4) months. Another option is we can kill
the ARU Bill and support this Bill, because two hundred fifty (250) is a lot more than
five (5), and then you would not have this problem.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we figure out at this point of kind of not
regional, but "block planning," if you will, the traffic situation at that point, then as
developers come in applying individually, they would not have to do a traffic impact
analysis because we would have actually figured it out as a community plan process.
Would that not be true?
Mr. Dahilig: The type of process that you are
characterizing adds cost to development.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is what?
Mr. Dahilig: The type of analysis that you are suggesting
based on the scale of what is being constructed, increases the cost of development.
Certainly, we can look at all these cumulative impacts parcel by parcel by parcel, but
if you are looking at something that is an eight thousand (8,000) square foot parcel
within this area that you want them to do a traffic impact analysis report, and you
want them to do all these different things, then at that point, you tact that onto the
cost of housing.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is exactly what I am talking about. So, if
we do it at the regional or block level and we figure out how we can make traffic work
for the larger area, then we do not have to put the cost of traffic impact analysis
reports—are you done?
COUNCIL MEETING 46 JULY 25, 2018
Mr. Dahilig: I am trying to get a clarification to your
question, while you are processing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that is what I am saying. If we actually
figure it all out ahead of time, we say, "We want R-40 and we are going to develop
this traffic circulation system for the area to make sure that the R-40 works," then
when they come in on individual applications, they would not need to do a traffic
impact analysis. It will save them a lot of money. Not to mention that if it is a transit-
based plan, they would not have to worry about parking and will cost them even less.
Mr. Dahilig: I guess if I can distill a question out of that, I
think what reality is, as I mentioned previously, development is not linear. To
implement the type of linear approach that you are describing would essentially
inform and function require the scraping of the area, redesigning the whole area, and
making new investments in to the overall infrastructure. This is not a one-way
system, this is a very messy process and as I posed earlier, was the question of is it
the chicken or the egg? This is one (1) cog in the overall scheme of things in terms of
all the questions that you have been asking with transportation, infrastructure,
water, sewer, where people are going to walk, park, and all these different things. We
can cast as wide a net as we can, but if the wide net that you want as an analysis for
an eight thousand (8,000) square foot parcel as it yields two (2) units versus four (4)
units, then that is ultimately the policy. If you want to have those types of intimate
and detailed studies integrated into very small development: that is your call. What
I will say is that if that was being required of every single small unit within this area
as prescribed under the current Code, then it would greatly increase the amount of
pass through cost that would be required to build houses. If the thought right now is
to try to look at reducing the cost of being able to put up housing so that the private
sector will be able to obtain it, then that is all we can pose as the proposal here, but
if there is not a level of comfort to go through that and require these lengthy studies
for every single one of these parcel, that is within your province, Councilmember.
Councilmember Yukimura: You said that development is not linear and
therefore, we have this very messy situation. Well, I thought the function of good
planning was to make it linear so that we would have all these issues come together
and coordinate it, so that we could save individual parcels the cost of development
through good planning.
Mr. Dahilig: Councilmember, I respectfully...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on.
Councilmember Yukimura: My question is, why when you came in with
this proposal for R-40, did we not have all of the parameters, infrastructure,
transportation, and all of these things that is my understanding that planning brings
COUNCIL MEETING 47 JULY 25, 2018
together to make things work well on a land use area? Why was it not in there in the
R-40 analysis?
Mr. Dahilig: Councilmember, I am not a czar or dictator.
As much as I would like for things to be linear according to the world that Mike
describes, that is not the way that the world works. If you are asking why we at the
Planning Department did not tell the Water Department to do this and why we did
not tell the Sewer Division to do this...
Councilmember Yukimura: No...
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, let him finish.
Mr. Dahilig: ...that ultimately is the checks and balances
of government. I do not have the final say on what every single Department does and
if that was the case, then this would be a dictatorship.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it would not...
Council Chair Rapozo: Let him finish.
Mr. Dahilig: I am not a czar. If you are suggesting that I
should be a "planning czar" and pull all the strings, that is well outside of my lane
and quite frankly, it is not within my ability to do so. I would suggest that any
reference to my ability to do the things that you are suggesting, to take a look at the
Charter and take a look at the law because I do not have those abilities.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not asking you to do that. I thought the
Mayor says you folks are all a team, you bring the team together, and you work
together.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, hang on.
Councilmember Yukimura: I thought that is what planning does, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. We are not going to get into a debate
of the Charter. This is what we are going to do. I think I heard from the
Councilmembers that more time on this is worth it. What is the next Committee
Meeting after next week?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: August 15, 2018.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does anyone have a problem with
August 15, 2018? It is going to take a deferred motion to pass. I am not sure if other
Members are ready to move this out, but right now, the motion is to approve. That is
COUNCIL MEETING 48 JULY 25, 2018
the first vote we are going to take. I am suggesting that we move this, as Mauna Kea
has requested, we want more time than a week, that is not fair. Was that
August 15, 2018? My suggestion is that we defer this to the August 15, 2018
Committee Meeting, we can send out all questions that we have as it pertains to
whatever we talked about today. I think the ARU question is a valid one. I think even
Councilmember Kagawa expressed his concerns about ARUs, in general. Let us get
the infrastructure questions and whatever the other questions are and we will have
the discussion on August 15, 2018. Does anyone have an objection to that? Any
further questions for these two (2) gentlemen? If not, thank you very much. Did I
take public testimony?
Councilmember Yukimura: You did on the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, was there anyone who wishes to testify
on the main motion?
Councilmember Kagawa: We did.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, we did. I am sorry.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I will support the motion to defer and I want
to thank Palmer for bringing up that question. It is a question that no one caught.
The introducer of the ARU Bill did not catch it, the former introducer of the ARU Bill
did not catch it, this Council did not catch it, and that is a legitimate question; did
the ARU Bill, at the time, allow these large apartments like Lihu`e Townhouse to
have double the capacity with the passing of that Bill because we never discussed
those types of buildings? We just talked about residences in the neighborhoods that
were going to be helping this housing crisis that we have and that is why we passed
it. Thank you for showing up today, Palmer. You really clarified what could have
been a potential problem and so I have no problem going back to Committee. This
question should be answered and then at some point for clarity, we need to figure out
what bill is going to help our crisis better and not conflict our Planning Department
and everyone else who is going to have these future approvals. We need to make sure
that it is not going beyond the realm of what we are intending and our intention is
basically in this Lihu`e town core, to allow R-20 to have the ability to go R-40 and help
our affordable housing problem, our inventory problem, but we definitely do not want
to give R-80. That would be ridiculous. It would be approaching big cities and we
definitely do not want that in Lihu`e. I am even hesitant to have more Lihu`e
townhouses to be quite frank, because like you, I agree that what the TIGER grant
does is it is minimizing our ability for traffic flow because it is reducing one (1) lane
and certainly if you add to the number of cars that will be traveling, you are talking
about more congestion on a road that already with four (4) lanes, is congested.
Certainly, yes, I would like everyone who has the ability to upzone to have everyone
ride bikes, walk, or ride the bus to work with no cars and certainly that would solve
all of the problems. We have to be real. People are going to drive, they are going to
have cars, and it is going to be a headache, but like with any problem, in order to
solve a problem in a perfect world, you have no negative impacts. Certainly on this
one, you are going to have give and take there is no doubt. If you folks are hesitant
that the takes will not be worth what we are giving, then you vote "no" and just keep
COUNCIL MEETING 49 JULY 25, 2018
our existing ARU Bill and try and solve the housing problem with two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000) subsidies to each person, and see how far that goes. I do
not think it goes anywhere. The lottery system is the worse. The County should let
the private developers and the market house our local people, provide inventory for
our local people whether they are affordable price or not. If local families are buying
those houses like Hanama`ulu, it is happening as-is, one hundred percent (100%),
then it is working. The Grove Farm one by the tenth hole, all local families. A lot of
them are rich, yes. Look at the names, they have money, but they are local families.
They will pass it to their children or what have you. It is like the "have" and "have
not." If you have it, good, at least they are local families, but you need inventory. You
need inventory in Lihu`e. This is a place where everyone wants to live who work near
Lihu`e. They do not want to drive one (1) hour coming in from the west side or forty-
five (45) minutes coming in from Kapa`a. A lot of families want to live where they
work. We are taking a stab at trying to solve a problem. Let us move forward, let us
get the information, and let us decide what is going to work, the ARU Bill or this Bill
or both with amendments. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: I am not going to be supporting the deferral or
whatever you folks are doing, because we keep talking about the fact that we need
housing. Can we send over to the Housing Agency and the Planning Department is
if we go up to eighty (80) units on an acre, how big will that unit be? I do not think
anyone will build eighty (80) units. That is going to be really, really small. You are
going to need eighty (80) parking stalls. I do not even think that is even a problem.
No one will build that small. At forty (40) units, that is going to help out the local
residents. No one with money will come and live on Rice Street. They are going to
own their own mansion some place that is secluded. This is going to help local
families. I truly believe that. I am struggling with this one because we are bringing
up all kinds of other things today and I am not going to be supporting this...we are
trying to do housing, we are trying to do something, and like Councilmember
Kaneshiro always says, "We are kicking the can down the road." I am struggling with
this one. I will not be supporting the deferral. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I really appreciate the fact that
Councilmember Brun introduced this Bill, but I think we are all thinking R-40 and
we are not thinking R-80. We have to make sure that we are not moving toward that
unintended consequence, so the referral to Committee and the extra time is really
what we must do in order to make sure we want to achieve the goal that I think we
all share, but we want to do it in a way that has integrity and is really going to get
us what we intend. We must take the time to make that sure. I am glad if local
families are getting those houses in the D.R. Horton, Hanama`ulu development, but
four hundred thirty-five thousand ($435,000) to four hundred fifty thousand dollars
($450,000) is not what most local families can afford. We have to look at those other
families, which are about eighty percent (80%) of the families that live on this island.
No one is saying, "Do not do market housing," and that we need to increase the
number of market housing, but we cannot do it neglecting all those families that the
market cannot meet. We have to find ways to allow them and that is why we are
doing Koa`e and we did Kalepa, and we did the Lihu`e theater, and the Hale Kupuna,
in Kalaheo and Brydeswood, and all these things that were built with taxpayers
subsidies, so that our families can live here and they do not have to leave this island.
That is the challenge before us because we have met a large part of that need up to
COUNCIL MEETING 50 JULY 25, 2018
now with forty-one million dollars ($41,000,000) of federal post-Iniki moneys and a
lot of good contributions from A&B, Kukui`ula, and Princeville. That is how we have
been housing our families up to now, but what is going to happen for the next twenty
(20) years where you look at all these young children, where are they going to live,
and that is what our challenge is. R-40 on Rice Street is part of meeting that
challenge, I agree, but just stopping there is not going to work or giving R-80 is not
going to work. We have to do these things with a really well-focused, really
responsible addressing of details so we make sure unintended consequences do not
come in and eat up all the good intentions that we have.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: No. I wanted to refer to the August 15, 2018
Planning Committee Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, hang on.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone else with discussion before we
take the motion? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I appreciate the housing that Kukui`ula and
Princeville has done, but remember those carne with a consequence. Kukui`ula, look
at that today. How much local families are benefiting with that having been
approved? I think one could say that we deserved what we got from Kukui`ula, same
with Princeville. The entitlements, the building that went on with that property,
what did we get? What the County, what affordable housing got, we deserved it based
on what they got. Therefore, to take credit for that, it is not really taking credit when
what did they get approved to do is...it is a wash. It is nothing to brag about really.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well if we did not require it as a condition of
zoning, we would not have it today—Kolopua, Koa`e, those developments. Where we
fell down was when we approved Courtyard at Waipouli as an affordable condition of
Kaua`i Lagoons development, but now it is for only ten (10) years and next year it
expires. Where are the forty-one (41) families going to go? That is the policymaking
that we do have to take responsibility for, both the good things that happen out of our
policymaking and the things that are causing great suffering, because we did not
make the right decisions. Hopefully, we will use the learning today when we make
the decisions on the Charter Amendment earmark or the decisions on zoning
applications and how much we require for affordable housing. Hopefully, we make
those decisions wisely and based on our experiences of the past, learning from the
past. Some people call it "honoring" the past.
Council Chair Rapozo: The first thing is that it is pretty obvious that
this Council adheres to the Sunshine Law, because as you can tell by today, everyone
was surprised by what everyone else was saying and doing and the ARU issue came
up. I at least want to let the public know that the information we get today we get it
the same time you all get it. As Councilmembers, we have to make decisions, so
asking for more time, I think, is very reasonable in this case. The ARU Ordinance in
some cases in this zoning/district, already provides for that R-40 because it gives them
COUNCIL MEETING 51 JULY 25, 2018
the ability to add an additional residential unit. I guess what I want to know and we
will send this over in writing, but I want to see the breakdown of these parcels—how
many of them are residential, how many are commercial, and what is the potential
impact? I expect the Planning Department to look at the sizes of these lots and
determine based on lot coverage if they are going to expand, what is the impact? That
is not too much to ask, I do not think. I came today with the intention of not
supporting this Bill simply because I did not think it was going help affordable
housing in any way simply because the cost to build these units in the small scale
that we are talking about is really going to prohibit any developer from creating units
that are affordable. That is just the reality. I know Palmer's testimony says that his
client is looking to build six (6) affordable or eight (8) affordable housing units. God
bless that person and I hope he can make it happen. Without any market units, I do
not see how anyone can build units that will be affordable, so whatever he is doing,
he needs to share with others because I think that is a great model. Hearing Palmer's
testimony with a specific example and hearing the clarification that this is really not
a bill that is going to encourage or incentivize affordable housing, it is an inventory
bill. I think Councilmember Kagawa hit it on the head when he talked about
inventory. Whenever you put a family from a house into another house, you open up
that house, the trickle down affect that some point some family will be able to move
into a unit and it maybe a resolution of some crowding that is going on right now
where you have five (5) families living in one (1) house. Maybe you will get one (1)
family to leave and get into a house, at some point. Therefore, I think this is more of
an inventory bill than an affordable housing bill, that is just how I see it. I read Mr.
Gary Hooser's article today and he talks about, "Where is the assurances of
affordability?" This Bill is not the bill and the vehicle to assure affordability. That is
why we have the policy. This is a density bill. The problem I am having is that
normally when you go through a traditional process of an upzoning, the Council has
an opportunity to add some exactions. It may not be additional units, but it could be
a fee or it could be assistance in some of the infrastructure needs when we are looking
at these developments. With this Bill, you are giving that up because we will not
have that opportunity in the future. If you look at the big picture and we can expand
inventory in that district, which is pretty much designed for that, I can actually
understand that much better. I am glad we had that discussion today because as I
came in today intending to vote "no," I have to tell you right now I am actually pretty
much leaning towards allowing it if we get the assurances that it is not going to be
abused. That is all. The ARU issue was vital because if that is going to apply, then
it is a definite no. I can tell you right now. We have to fix that issue. The traffic is
another one. I am concerned about the Rice Street traffic as we move forward with
the TIGER grant. We are talking about limiting the roadway and increasing density
and then parking. Members, please submit all of your questions over to the
appropriate department, so we can get these answers. We are looking at the
August 15, 2018 Planning Committee Meeting. Councilmember Kaneshiro, I will
entertain that motion.
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to refer Bill No. 2687 to the August 15, 2018
Planning Committee Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR REFERRAL: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Yukimura,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5*,
AGAINST REFERRAL: Brun TOTAL — 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Kawakami TOTAL — 1.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 JULY 25, 2018
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Kagawa was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative
for the motion.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, can we get Councilmember
Kawakami back in so we can do the Executive Session vote, please? We will take a
short recess until Councilmember Kawakami gets in.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:44 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:46 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as present.)
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-953 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), on behalf of the Council, the
Office of the County Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to
provide the Council with a briefing, discussion, and consultation regarding the
Quarterly Report on Pending and Denied Claims. This briefing and consultation
involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities
of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-953,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Seeing none, roll call.
The motion to convene in Executive Session for ES-953 was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kawakami, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, we will end today's official
meeting. Councilmembers, please report to the Executive Session Chambers in
five (5) minutes.
COUNCIL MEETING 53 JULY 25, 2018
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
.4 '
JAD •. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA
County Clerk
:dmc
Attachment 1
(July 25, 2018)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2687, Relating to "Rice Street Neighborhood Design District"
Introduced by: MASON K. CHOCK
Amend Bill No. 2687 by inserting a 10-year sunset clause as follows:
1) Section 8-2.1(a), Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, is hereby amended
as follows:
"(a) Residential—R:
(1) R-1
(2) R-2
(3) R-4
(4) R-6
(5) R-10
(6) R-20
(7) R-40 ;(Subsection 84.1.(a)(7) shall be repeal dte a..Neasaafter
ad'apton o��Bi1T-No 2687:)"
2) Section 8-4.2(a), Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, is hereby amended
as follows:
"(a) There are seven (7) residential density districts as follows:
(1) R-1
(2) R-2
(3) R-4
(4) R-6
(5) R-10
(6) R-20
(7) R-40 (Subsection 8-4.2(a)(7) shall be repealed ten (10)years
after adoption of Bill No. 2687.)"
3) Section 10-5A.7(a), Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, is hereby amended
as follows:
"(a) Generally Permitted Uses and Structures in SPA-D.
(1) Accessory uses and structures;
(2) Art galleries and sales;
(3) Churches and temples;
(4) Clubs, lodges and community centers (private);
(5) Commercial indoor amusement and recreation facilities;
(6) Convenience store and neighborhood grocery stores with a twenty
thousand (20,000) square foot building footprint or smaller;
Attachment 1
(7) Home businesses;
(8) Hotels and motels not to exceed RR-10 density;
(9) Household services;
(10) Light manufacturing, such as handicrafts and garment
fabrication;
(11) Minor food processing, such as cracked seeds, jellies, candies and
ice cream with a twenty thousand (20,000) square foot building footprint or
smaller;
(12) Museums, libraries and public services;
(13) Offices and professional buildings;
(14) Parking garages/structures;
(15) Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, salons,
Laundromats, shoe repair shops, etc.;
(16) Public offices and buildings;
(17) Public parks and monuments;
(18) Restaurants and food services;
(19) Retail sales and shops with a twenty thousand (20,000) square
foot building footprint or less;
(20) Multiple family dwellings not to exceed [R 20 R-40 density
ral;7 a)(2Q sha 1 re TAk"to,3ts ex stennrior toai
(21) Single-family dwellings;
(22) Schools and daycare centers."
4) Section 7 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its [approval.]
approval, and be repealed';ten'(10) yearn after its adoption.
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2018\FA Bill NO.2687-MC-AMK-LC.docx
2