APPENDIX A PAC MEETING DISCUSSION NOTES AND PRESENTATION MATERIALS Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #1 Meeting Record July 19, 2007 Page 2 of 4 August 15, 2007 in active agricultural use). This is a major concern for the community. What happens to the “unimportant” lands? MEETING SUMMARY To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File • The process of identifying IAL is an opportunity for community involvement. It should be a community-based (“bottom-up”) process where the community works together with government agencies and landowners to determine which lands are best suited for IAL From: Corlyn Orr designation. Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1 July 19, 2007, 7:00 – 9:00 pm • The availability and delivery of water to meet desired quantities and suitable qualities is the John Kalili Surf Center, Hale‘iwa Ali‘i Beach Park key to supporting agriculture. Existing water resources such as the Wahiaw Reservoir and the North Shore’s aquifers, as well as existing irrigation systems, need to be maintained. Federal funds are available for infrastructure improvements. PAC Attendees: Antya Miller, Bob Leinau, Carol Phillips, Dan Nellis, Diane Anderson, Doug Cole, Gil Riviere, Jacob Ng, Jeff Alameida, Jenny Vierra, Jerry Driscoll, John Hirota, Kalani Fronda, Kathleen Pahinui, Lisa Izumi, Martha Smith, • The North Shore can become O‘ahu’s bread basket, but the community needs to support Mike Lyons, Norm Fujioka, Susan Matsushima agriculture and take action to make agriculture important. Farmers need partnerships with landowners to grow agriculture; landowners need to be committed to work with farmers. DPP Attendees: Ray Young, CAPB Project Manager Partnering with government agencies is also needed. HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Corlyn Orr, Wendie McAllaster • Development trends in other regions of the island should be considered when addressing The first Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore Sustainable agriculture issues. Urban development occurring in other areas of O‘ahu is putting more Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Thursday, July 19, 2007 at the pressure on retaining North Shore’s agriculture lands. Hale‘iwa Ali‘i Beach Park John Kalili Surf Center. The workshop was scheduled from 7:00 to • Preserving agriculture lands will limit the amount of land available for housing. This affects 9:00 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project and the community planning the amount of land available for affordable housing, which is desperately needed. process to the PAC, review the current SCP vision, and identify major development trends and issues of community concern. Handouts included a meeting agenda and Powerpoint presentation. • Perpetual agriculture easements and economic incentives are needed to support agriculture. The land use regulations that allow existing agriculture lands to be converted and developed should be evaluated. Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 7:10, opening with a brief welcome and introduction of DPP and HHF attendees. Scott proceeded with a presentation of the project, including an overview • Real estate speculation is also driving up the cost of agriculture lands. of the existing SCP, the proposed community involvement process/project schedule, the use of scorecards/indicators to measure how well the Plan is being implemented, and the role and • The BWS Watershed Management Plan and City’s Wastewater System Plan should be function of the PAC. incorporated in the Plan as Special Area Plans. Group introductions followed, as each PAC member introduced themselves, the interest or organization that they represented, and the issue they were most concerned about. Scott then Appropriate Visitor Accommodations presented the major issues of community concern, which were identified by community members during informal interviews and meetings conducted between April-May 2007. The • The #1 question asked at the North Shore Chamber of Commerce office is about the availability and pricing of visitor accommodations. Legal visitor accommodations are group discussed each issue in detail. Comments provided during the discussion are needed, and existing TVU laws need to be enforced. Possible visitor accommodations in summarized as follows. Hale‘iwa may include a small inn modeled after the historic Hale‘iwa Hotel with beach cottages for families. Honolulu should look at how other areas have addressed the issue Challenges to Retain and Protect Existing Agricultural Lands (e.g., Whistler, Canada). • The criteria for lands that may be considered for Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) • Short term rentals are driving up real estate prices, reducing the inventory of long-term designation does not include fallow lands (i.e., lands that are not being cultivated or are not rentals, and displacing local renters. They are also incompatible with neighboring homes, resulting in safety, noise, and traffic concerns for adjacent homes. Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: email@example.com Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #1 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #1 Meeting Record July 19, 2007 July 19, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 • The question, “Is there a need for additional visitor accommodations? What is an types (such as multi-family units) that are economically feasible for the developer and appropriate form and location for new accommodations?” should be rephrased to: “Is there a affordable for the buyer. need to replace illegal short term vacation rentals (i.e., less than the legal 30-day rental period allowed by existing zoning) and replace them with legalized units? What is the • How are others approaching affordable housing? Other entities are providing affordable impact to long-term rental market supply of regulating the vacation rental industry?” housing, should look to other groups (for example: HRI, Puhi Kauai, Big Island). • Are B&Bs a solution? The original SCP included B&Bs, but the Council deleted it (due to • Changing demographics in the community are a different issue from affordable concern that the proposal didn’t specify owners had to live on-site.) housing/economic development opportunities (Each issue should have its own slide). • The community supports a small hotel in Hale‘iwa similar to a proposal many years ago to Provision of Appropriate Infrastructure develop a small hotel at Puaena (not the eco-camp). The Waialua Town Plan states that the community would like a small country inn. • The SCP is not being implemented. For example, the SCP calls for sidewalks in Hale‘iwa town, but the current administration cancelled the contract after the contractor had already • The proposed Turtle Bay expansion will affect Hale‘iwa with an increase in the number of been selected. Why should the community put time into the SCP if the City is not going to visitors driving through the region. implement and follow the Plan? • The Superferry will change travel patterns. It is possible that neighbor island residents will • The SCP is a guideline for land use and future development. The community should not get come to surf, and need a place to park/stay. hung up on the implementation of individual projects. Population Trends • Does the City actually use the SCP? How many times has DPP actually referred to the SCP? • The concept of new affordable housing is a myth and is not attainable. Multi-family homes that are available for $200-$300,000 are not selling because they are still priced too high for • The City takes too long to process permits (should not take 2-3 years to get a building people to afford them (i.e., people can’t afford what is defined as affordable). What is permit approved). The City is investing in the island as a whole, but very little is being done affordable? Who is the market? Knowing income data would help to define what’s for the North Shore. The community needs to feel that the government is cooperating; affordable. responding to the community’s needs and providing the necessary infrastructure and services (community feels like the North Shore is not being valued and not getting its share • The lack of affordable properties is causing local residents to be displaced by of improvement projects). outsiders/transplants who can afford it, exacerbating the problem of providing housing for existing residents. The cultural and economic diversity of the North Shore is important. • Poamoho Estates - should raise taxes on such properties, current tax rate is not legitimate. Waialua Town is losing a lot of people because of the real estate market. It’s sad to see kids in Waialua unable to afford homes. • SCP should consolidate existing plans (e.g. bike plan, ag plan, etc.) Waialua Town lost residents and residences when the sugar plantation shut down. Building Recent Developments and Planning Initiatives homes in Waialua would provide housing to replace homes demolished after the sugar mill closed (not intended to add more homes). The Waialua community would like to see a • Current land use regulations enable developments that are inconsistent with the SCP. For blend of market priced homes and affordable homes for the future. Replacement of the lost example, a significant zone change should require an EIS, not an EA. inventory would help to revitalize the Waialua community. • Existing parcels are being redeveloped at greater densities, which raises concerns about the • Preserving existing plantation homes is important for the area’s cultural/historic character physical, social and visual impacts of future residential density. How much more density can and to preserve the community’s heritage. Renovation of existing plantation homes should existing residential areas handle? The SCP should address infill development by identifying be considered as an alternative to provide affordable housing since restoration may be less opportunities for infill (amount and location). costly than new construction. Multi-family options need to be considered; affordable single- family housing is not realistic. • The existing SCP focuses on the physical design and form/character of residential areas, and emphasizes single-family housing types. SCP revisions should provide for housing Meeting Agenda • Describe the project and community planning process • Present the current North Shore SCP • Review major development trends and recent challenges • Discuss the community’s vision NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 1 2 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #1 July 19, 2007 Meeting Objectives Project Purpose and Objectives • Review and update the existing SCP (adopted July 2000) • Present the project purpose and scope – Measure progress toward achieving the vision, policies, principles and guidelines contained in the Plan • Confirm PAC membership and the – Identify relevant land use, land development and socio- PAC’s function/role economic trends, future development proposals and emerging issues • Review the current North Shore SCP – Develop a “scorecard” of community indicators to • Identify major issues of concern measure progress toward achieving the Plan’s vision – Identify appropriate Plan revisions to address existing • Confirm the SCP vision elements SCP components that may require modification – Identify policies and issues that should be addressed in a General Plan Update, and any Special Area Plans or more detailed planning initiatives that may be 3 appropriate 4 Planning Team Honolulu’s Land Use Planning System • City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting – Raymond Young, Planner PlanPacific, Inc • PlanPacific Inc. • Helber Hastert and Fee, Planners – Scott Ezer, Principal – Corlyn Orr, Senior Planner 5 6 1 North Shore SCP Report Organization North Shore SCP Vision Statement “The North Shore in the year 2020 retains Five Chapters the unique qualities that have long defined its attractiveness to residents and visitors alike. • North Shore’s Role in O‘ahu’s Development It has maintained its scenic open spaces, enhanced Pattern its coastal resources, and has carried the flavor • Vision for the North Shore’s Future of its Hawaiian heritage, cultural diversity, and plantation past forward in the • Land Use Policies, Principles and revitalization of its communities.” Guidelines • Public Facilities and Infrastructure Policies and Principles • Implementation Open Space, Land Use and Public Facilities Maps 7 8 Key Vision Elements Open Space Map • Establish Rural Community, Agriculture, and Preservation Boundaries • Support the diversified agriculture industry • Enhance the region’s recreational and educational potential • Designate Hale‘iwa and Waialua towns as “country towns” • Retain the Waialua Mill site as the regional industrial center • Limit additional new housing to areas contiguous to Hale‘iwa and Waialua towns and establish rural design guidelines • Provide adequate public infrastructure, facilities, and services • Retain cultural and historic resources • Adapt the ahupua‘a concept in land use and natural resource management 9 10 Land Use Map Public Facilities Map 11 12 2 Community Involvement Process What are Scorecards and Indicators? • Scorecard: “tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the SCP and measure the progress made in implementation.” • Indicator: “measurement to track changes in a system over time” Example: oil pressure, temperature and battery charge t ll h – E l il t t d b tt h tell how an engine is working and can reveal potential problems • Key Criteria for Indicators – Relevant, valid, measurable, consistent and reliable, understandable, accessible and affordable 13 14 Sample Scorecard Role and Function of the PAC • Serve as core advisory group to guide the planning process • Represent various interests and opinions of the larger North Shore community • Attend and participate in PAC meetings and community workshops • Share project information and network with other members in the community • Encourage community attendance and participation at the community workshops 15 16 PAC Roster Issues of Community Concern (Major Development Trends and Recent Challenges) Natural Resources Business/Tourism Sunset/Pupukea Transportation Original CAC • Challenges to retain and protect existing Agriculture Real Estate Landowner Recreation Education Mokul ‘ia Kawailoa Hale‘iwa Waialua Cultural Civic 1. Dan Nellis Affiliation Dole Operations z z agricultural lands 2. Martha Smith Monsanto z 3. Richard McCormack 4. Susan Matsushima Pioneer Hi-Bred Alluvion z z • Appropriate visitor accommodations 5. Antya Miller NS NB No. 27, NS Chamber of Commerce z z 6. Jerry Driskell 7. Josh Heimowitz North Shore Soap Factory (Waialua) Camp Erdman, NS Chamber of Commerce Chair z z z z • Population trends 8. Bob Leinau NS NB No. 27 z z z z 9. Carol Phillips 10. Dave Bramlett 11. 11 Doug Cole NS NB No. 27, Defend O‘ahu Coalition Rotary Club of Wahiawa-Waialua Sunset Beach Community Association z z z z • Provision of appropriate infrastructure 12. Jake Ng NS NB No. 27, Waialua High School Foundation z z 13. Jeff Alameida 14. Jenny Vierra NS NB No. 27, Waialua Community Association Friends of Waialua z z z z • Recent and proposed projects/planning efforts 15. John Hirota NS NB No. 27, Friends of Waialua z z 16. Kathleen Pahinui Friends of Waialua, Mokul ‘ia and Waialua Comm Assns z z 17. Mike Lyons NS NB No. 27 Chair, NS Chamber of Commerce z z 18. Stew Ring Mokuleia Community Association z z 19. Betty Jenkins kupuna, Hale‘iwa MainStreet z z 20. Aimee Kumura Waialua Elementary, Vice Principal z z 21. Geraldine Meade NS NB No. 27 z z 22. Sharon Nakagawa Dept. of Educaiton z z 23. Diane Anderson Sundance Realty, NS Outdoor Circle z z 24. Marianne Abrigo Marianne Abrigo Realty, NS Chamber of Commerce z z 25. Gil Riviere NS NB Transportation Comm., Keep the NS Country z z 26. Paul Sensano Harbormaster, Hale‘iwa Harbor 27. Lisa Izumi Castle and Cooke z 28. Kalani Fronda Kamehameha Schools, NS Chamber of Commerce z 29. Norm Fujioka Fujioka's Market, NS Chamber of Commerce z z shading indicates current NS NB No. 27 member 4 2 3 9 5 indicates member of original CAC, indicates organization was represented on original CAC z indicates primary interest, indicates secondary interest 17 18 Aerial Photo Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/data/oahu/oblique_north.xml 3 Challenges for Agriculture Appropriate Visitor Accommodations • Providing a higher quality water source • Increase in illegal short-term vacation rentals • Maintaining existing – Impacts to rental housing market and real irrigation systems estate prices • Securing long-term leases – Compatibility with surrounding residential • Affording the tax on uses agricultural lands • Is there a need for additional visitor • Maintaining a sustainable accommodations, so accommodations and if so, what type? agricultural industry • What is an appropriate form and location for • Identification of Important new accommodations? Agricultural Lands 19 20 Aerial Photo Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/data/oahu/oblique_north.xml Population Trends Provision of Appropriate Infrastructure • Transportation Systems – Capacity of existing highway • Changing face of the community – Emergency bypass road – Alternative transportation systems – social and cultural differences of changing – Sidewalk construction in Hale‘iwa demographics • Drainage – Flood hazard in Waialua and g • Need for affordable housing and economic Hale iwa Hale‘iwa development opportunities to keep the – Coastal water quality younger generations on the North Shore • Water Systems • Wastewater Treatment • Parks and Recreational Facilities Photo Source: 21 22 http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/data/oahu/ground_ north/images/083_haleiwa.jpg Recent Developments and Challenges to the North Shore’s Vision Planning Initiatives • Projects of Concern – Poamoho Estates – Sunset Beach Colony (Velzyland) – Proposed Burger Subdivision (Kawailoa) • Integration of Current Planning Efforts and Recent Land Acquisitions – Waialua Town Plan (2004) – Kamehameha Schools North Shore Plan (ongoing) – P p kea Paumal Natural Area acquisition – OHA’s acquisition of Waimea Valley – BWS Watershed Management Plan (Fall 2007) 23 24 4 Next Steps Contact Information • Community Workshop #1 • Project website address – August 2007 (tentative) – http://honoluludpp.org/Planning/NorthShore/NS- 5yr/NorthShore.pdf – Place TBD • Next PAC Meeting g • HHF contacts Email: l @hhf – E il firstname.lastname@example.org – Summarize findings from community workshop and identify SCP revisions – Phone: 545-2055 – Discuss “scorecard” and indicators – Fax: 545-2050 – Mail: 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 25 26 5 Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #2 Meeting Record October 30, 2007 Page 2 of 5 November 6, 2007 SCP Amendment Proposal • Kamehameha Schools (KS) and Castle & Cooke expressed surprise at receiving MEETING SUMMARY DPP’s letter requesting landowners’ to identify any SCP amendments they might need to implement their development proposals. KS indicated that they were not planning To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File to submit an amendment proposal request. Castle & Cooke commented that they had to contact DPP for clarification about the information being requested. From: Corlyn Orr Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 2 • The current SCP amendment process allows a landowner to request an SCP October 30, 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 pm amendment subsequent to this ongoing five-year process through an independent review (requiring City Council approval). Otherwise, the landowner would have to wait Waialua Courthouse Building until the next SCP Five-Year Review. PAC Attendees: Antya Miller, Bob Leinau, Carol Phillips, Dan Nellis, Dave Bramlett, Diane Anderson, Gerry Meade, Gil Riviere, Jacob Ng, Jeff Alameida, • How can smaller landowners be informed about DPP’s amendment proposal process? Jerry Driscoll, John Hirota, Josh Heimowitz, Kalani Fronda, Kathleen For example, what about smaller projects that do not require an SCP map amendment but will change the neighborhood character and density (e.g., Berger Subdivision)? Pahinui, Marianne Abrigo, Paul Sensano, Stew Ring Issues related to infill density, building footprint, appropriate architectural design, and Other Attendees: Ron Nishihara (Castle & Cooke), Reed Matsuura (Councilmember open space and viewplane preservation should be addressed as part of the Five-Year Donovan Dela Cruz), Mark Cunningham (Defend O‘ahu Coalition Review when the relevant SCP sections are discussed. [DOC]), Zenna Galagaran (DOC), Kayte Killebrew (DOC), Mark Manley (DOC), Bob Nakata (DOC), Margaret Primacio (DOC), Tim Vandeveer (DOC), Julian Miller Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) DPP Attendees: Ray Young, CAPB Project Manager • What happens to lands not designated IAL? Is it true that the lands determined to be HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Corlyn Orr, Rachael Edinger “unimportant” AG lands would be reclassified as State Rural Land Use District? None The second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore Sustainable of the land on O‘ahu is currently designated as Rural, and the Rural District may Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Tuesday, October 30, contradict the land use pattern envisioned by the community (e.g., allowable uses in the Rural District may include uses that the community finds undesirable). The 2007 at the Waialua Courthouse Building. The purpose of the meeting was to present the proposed legislation does not implement such a change. performance assessment matrix and discuss possible revisions to Section 3.1 Open Space and Natural Environment and Section 3.2 Agriculture of the SCP. • Ron Nishihara (Castle & Cooke) clarified that the IAL designation is intended to be a Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 7:15. Meeting ground rules were presented, followed special designation overlaying the existing State AG Land Use District. Intended to protect AG lands and promote diversified AG, Act 183 establishes stricter approvals to by a brief recap of Community Meeting #1 and an overview of the performance reclassify or re-zone IAL at both the State and County levels (two-thirds majority vote assessment matrix. The purpose, format and content of the matrix were reviewed, and needed for IAL lands vs. majority vote for other land use classifications). It is untrue PAC members were encouraged to review the information and provide their written/verbal that lands not designated as IAL would fall out of the AG District and be reclassified as comments to HHF. Rural. The proposed revision approach – including the strategy for the next 3-4 PAC meetings • Act 183 also includes provisions to establish incentives for landowners to seek IAL and DPP’s SCP amendment proposal letter to landowners – was presented, followed by a status for their property. Castle and Cooke’s effort to map their IAL is dependent on discussion on Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) and possible revisions to the financial incentives being developed. Section 3.2 Agriculture. The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. • Is there a relationship between the SCP and IAL? How can the community affect the IAL maps when designating land as IAL is the responsibility of the landowners? Response: The SCP indicates the community’s preference for land use. Statements expressing the community’s desire for the use of AG land are appropriate. Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: email@example.com Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #2 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #2 Meeting Record October 30, 2007 October 30, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 • The “Transfer of Development Rights” (TDR) is a regulatory tool that allows a described on pages 3-22 and 3-23, with specific locations identified on page 3-23 (see landowner in a “sending area” to transfer (sell) their development rights to a landowner 2nd paragraph). in a “receiving” area. TDR has been used successfully in other areas to protect AG lands. TDR may not be appropriate for the North Shore if the long-term goal is to • The policy about converting AG lands to large-lot residential subdivisions (pg 3-24, 2nd protect all existing AG lands from development. The use of TDR should be bullet) should be strengthened. Consider changing the word “discourage” to “prohibit,” considered carefully, since there may be unintended consequences (e.g., there have and change “accessory to agricultural activities” to “accessory to meaningful or been cases where TDR has reduced the value of the land so that farmers no longer credible agricultural activities.” Language describing the need to enforce agricultural have equity in the land and cannot secure loans.) subdivisions should be added also. HHF will check with the Real Property Office to see how agriculture is defined for tax purposes. Possible Revisions to Section 3.2 Agriculture • Residential uses on AG lands should be addressed in the SCP section on Residential • Photo on page 3-19 is no longer current, needs to be replaced. Communities. • Reference to “Bishop Estate” should be changed to “Kamehameha Schools”. • What about requiring that infrastructure be in place before a parcel is developed and increasing the minimum lot size of an AG parcel to 20 acres? The high cost of land • HHF would be revising/updating the description of existing AG conditions (pgs. 3-19 to and infrastructure development would make it nearly impossible for small farmers to 3-23), as needed. purchase land. This would hurt small farmers, and does not seem supportive of AG. • Act 271, which was passed last year, allows landowners to carry multiple leases on • It was suggested that roadside stands selling AG products should be required to one TMK if the primary land use is AG. The bill includes some language describing provide adequate facilities (e.g., a roadside stand set up along Kamehameha Highway the allowable use of the land. without adequate space to pull off the highway could create a traffic hazard). In response, it was stated that roadside stands contribute to the rural character and are a • The current SCP allows for outdoor recreation on AG lands. The term outdoor valuable and necessary market outlet for farmers to sell their produce. Imposing recreation should be clearly defined to omit overnight accommodations so that hotels stringent development standards on roadside stands would deter the establishment of cannot be developed on AG land. much-needed AG markets. • The definition of AG should be expanded to include renewable energy (biodiesel Possible Revisions to Section 3.2.2 Planning Principles crops) and forestry products. • The planning principle to “protect productive AG lands” (pg 3-24, 1st bullet) should be Possible Revisions to Section 3.2.1 General Policies revised to reflect current conditions (i.e., protect all AG lands, not just those that are productive or are being used for diversified AG/pineapple cultivation). Simplify the • Considering the recent “Important Agricultural Lands” designation, the use of statement to read, “Protect AG lands. The continued productive use of AG lands “important” to describe agricultural lands (page 3-23, 1st and 3rd bullet) should be should be encouraged.” deleted/changed. • The 2nd sub-bullet under “Protect productive AG lands” should address the need to • Is the policy statement about best management practices (BMPs) (pg 3-23, 2nd bullet) “upgrade/expand” AG infrastructure. necessary? Why are BMPs part of the City’s land use plan when the City is not responsible for enforcing BMPs? Dan Nellis (Dole Foods, Inc.) explained that the U.S. • Adding language to encourage organic farming would discourage non-organic AG Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) requires farm plans and technical activity. certifications to regulate and enforce BMPs. Other Comments • There should be a process that allows for community involvement/input about activities on AG lands (e.g., need local representation/participation on the West O‘ahu • Meeting materials should be mailed in advance to limit the number of pages that PAC Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Board). members are required to print on their own. HHF will be sending a follow-up email to PAC members to identify which individuals would prefer to receive hard copies. • The policy calling for AG support facilities at Kawailoa (pg 3-24, 1st bullet) does not include details about where such facilities would be located. AG support activities are Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #2 Meeting Record October 30, 2007 Page 5 of 5 • PAC meeting materials should be posted on DPP’s website so that interested non- PAC members would have the opportunity to review the materials. • It may be useful to invite guest speakers knowledgeable about certain subjects to attend/participate in future meetings (e.g., DPR staff at Parks/Recreation and Public Facilities discussion, land use expert to define outdoor recreation and address allowable uses on AG land). • The revised SCP should include an appendix with recommendations for the type of information that should be developed for the next five-year review process. Regional AG statistics and housing data would be useful. Due to time constraints, the discussion on Section 3.1 Open Space and Natural Environment was deferred to the next PAC meeting. Non-PAC members were invited to share their comments. Mark Cunningham (Defend O‘ahu Coalition) offered comments on: (1) the recent UH Waiale‘e AG Station closure and its impact on AG; (2) the importance of developing renewable energy resources; (3) the value of food crops vs. ornamental AG crops; and (4) suggesting a conflict between the purpose of the SCP and the proposed Turtle Bay Expansion. Meeting was adjourned about 9:30 pm. WORKING PAPER #4 NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOAL (SCP Vision Elements) OUTCOME (Desired End State) STATUS / PROGRESS TO DATE COMMUNITY COMMENTS (Community Meeting #1) 1. Establish Rural Residential, commercial and industrial uses • Only known commercial development outside the - Desire to limit growth, even in the Rural Community Community, Agriculture, are limited to within the Rural Community Rural Community Boundary has been at Helemano Boundary and Preservation Boundary (ORI Anuenue Hale and Dole Plantations, 2003), - Need quotas on development; should focus Boundaries to Protect but the land use designations have not changed development on resident needs and limit tourist- Agricultural, Open • Industrial uses are centered around Waialua Mill based activities and facilities Space, and Natural • Agriculture subdivisions perceived to be large-lot - Strong desire to protect open space, maintain view Resources residential projects corridors, and retain ocean views • Infill housing and commercial projects proposed - Allow for higher density in Hale‘iwa and Waialua within the Rural Community Boundary have been towns to retain open space elsewhere controversial (Sunset Beach Colony, Burger Subdivision, Paalaa Kai, Pupukea Village at Sharks Cove) Agriculture or uses directly supportive of the • Agriculture remains the primary use of agriculture - Need to make sure that AG lands are used for AG. agriculture industry are the primary use of lands, although some lands have been used for Sense that AG subdivisions are not working, need all lands within the Agriculture Boundary residential and commercial development (AG stricter enforcement of AG subdivisions subdivisions, ORI Anuenue Hale at Helemano) - Need to balance between AG and housing Lands within the Preservation Boundary are • Lands designated for Preservation have been - Stream water quality and maintenance of preserved for their natural, cultural or scenic maintained streams/ditches should be a priority resource value and are protected from • OHA acquisition of Waimea Valley ensures long- incompatible uses. term preservation 2. Support and Promote a A healthy agriculture industry generates • Majority of former sugar plantation lands occupied - Complexity of issues around the future of AG Diversified Agriculture economic opportunities that are appropriate by new agriculture uses (small truck farmers, seed - Region has potential to support a variety of crops Industry to the region’s open space and rural corn, coffee) - Incentives/programs to support farmers and qualities. • Influx of large corporations relying on genetically landowners (education for new/immigrant farmers, modified organisms (GMO) to produce seed corn. high school programs, AG theft neighborhood watch) • UH Waialee Livestock Research Farm closed, - What are the long-term effects of current agriculture future of Agriculture Station (?) practices (like GMO, pesticide use)? • Waialua HS Agriculture Program terminated due to lack of enrollment • Number of AG businesses/employees, amount (and value/revenue) of AG products produced (CHECK FOR DATA) Important agriculture lands are protected • Designation of Important Agriculture Land (IAL) has - Need buffer zones between core AG lands and from encroachment by incompatible uses not occurred yet secondary AG uses and between housing/other urban • Pupukea-Paumalu property (former Lihi Lani uses project) re-zoned to AG-2 District - Establish local authority to monitor activities on AG lands (like the soil/water conservation districts) October 9, 2007 Page 1 of 5 WORKING PAPER #4 NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOAL (SCP Vision Elements) OUTCOME (Desired End State) STATUS / PROGRESS TO DATE COMMUNITY COMMENTS (Community Meeting #1) Long-term investments support productive • Upgrading Wahiaw WWTP to R-1 quality would - Appropriate ag infrastructure, including higher quality agricultural uses expand crops that can be grown with water from water source and transmission systems, is needed Wahiaw Reservoir - Need government assistance to support agriculture • Many farm operations limited by short-term leases • KS agriculture investments exceed more than $1.5 million • Federal grant subsidized repair of Helemano and Mokul ‘ia water siphons Industrial and commercial activities support • Dole Plantation (Helemano) expansion provides - Educational programs to promote “eating/buying or service agricultural production market for agriculture products local” (public service announcements, farmers • Farmers markets established (Waialua Farmers markets) Market, Sunset Beach North Shore Country Market) Agricultural support facilities are operated at • Limited number of agriculture support facilities at - Need to develop facilities (processing plant, kitchen, Waialua Mill and Kawailoa Waialua Mill, including O‘ahu’s only coffee mill cannery) that allow lesser-quality crop products to be • Kamehameha Schools North Shore Plan includes used/marketed agriculture support facilities at Kawailoa 3. Enhance the Region’s Access to the shoreline is expanded. • Sunset Beach Colony (Velyzland) included public - Open space and access to the ocean is important Recreational and beach access (remains closed due to liability - No shoreline development Educational Potential issues) • Completion of planned beach park improvements would expand shoreline access (Ali‘i Beach Park, Kawailoa Beach Master Plan, Waialee Beach Park Master Plan) Existing beach parks are improved with • Planning to construct new facilities and expand - Beach parks are in need of more parking, restrooms, supporting facilities and expanded where various beach park is ongoing, including at and lifeguards feasible. Laniakea, Chun’s Reef, Leftovers, Banzai Rock, - Improve pedestrian safety for park users crossing Kawailoa, Kaunala, Uppers, Kahawai, and Waialee highway to reach beaches • Highway realignment at Laniakea would provide - Traffic backlogs on the highway due to lack of parking land for new facilities at beach parks Access and recreational opportunities to • Recent changes in land ownership at Waimea No comment mauka areas (Mokul ‘ia, Hale‘iwa and Valley and Pupukea-Paumalu provide unique Pupukea) is expanded, with appropriate opportunities to expand recreational and cultural environmental, educational and cultural access to mauka areas interpretive programs An International Science, Mathematics, and • No progress made to establish a technology center No comment Technology Teacher Training Center and a resource center for technology training and long-distance learning have been established. October 9, 2007 Page 2 of 5 WORKING PAPER #4 NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOAL (SCP Vision Elements) OUTCOME (Desired End State) STATUS / PROGRESS TO DATE COMMUNITY COMMENTS (Community Meeting #1) More community-based parks with better • No skateparks constructed to date, although Banzai - Public performance space desired maintenance and amenities support the Skate Park construction is ongoing - New developments should include more community community’s recreational needs • Right to use Puuiki Park by organized youth teams benefits is being negotiated • Planning for Sunset Beach Recreation Center ongoing Pedestrian paths/bikeways link parks, • Haleiwa Town Master Plan and efforts to acquire - Need bikepath between Waimea and Hale‘iwa schools, and Waialua and Hale‘iwa town funding for Hale‘iwa sidewalks project ongoing - Should implement existing bike plan centers • Waialua Beach Road bikeway (Weed Junction to - Better pedestrian facilities (sidewalks/crosswalks) in Crozier Drive) completed Hale‘iwa • No bikeway between Waimea and Hale‘iwa - Strengthen town core and minimize need to drive A public golf course provides additional • Turtle Bay Resort is the only golf course (private) - No comment recreational and employment opportunities between Kaena Point and Kahuku. No other golf courses planned 4. Designate Haleiwa and Design guidelines ensure that the rural • Hale‘iwa Special Design District remains intact - Keep country town character by maintaining distinct Waialua Towns as “small town” character is retained • Waialua Town Master Plan (2004) provides general boundaries between towns (do not let development “Country Towns” design guidance for Waialua sprawl) - Maintain North Shore’s architectural integrity - Reasonable height limits - Enforce the Hale‘iwa Special Design district, and expand to the entire region - No big box retailers, promote small local businesses Hale‘iwa is the region’s main commercial • Pupukea Village (Sharks Cove shopping complex) - Provide public restrooms in Hale‘iwa town center for visitors, with new developments shelved (despite being within one of the SCP’s - Better pedestrian facilities (sidewalks/crosswalks) in concentrated along Kamehameha Highway designated Rural Community Commercial Centers) Haleiwa and revitalization efforts to promote the • Businesses in Hale‘iwa town are healthy. Limited town’s rural character commercial space available in Hale‘iwa (CONFIRM VACANCY RATE?) Small scale country inns in Hale‘iwa provide • No small scale country inns in Hale‘iwa - Need for legal visitor accommodations that fit with the overnight visitor accommodations to attract • Recent growth of illegal short-term vacation rental rural character more visitors activities is seen as problematic - Need inventory of existing visitor bedrooms (legal and illegal) - No hotels or resorts. Turtle Bay Expansion is the biggest development pressure – will decrease affordability and increase congestion Waialua town is the region’s center for • Waialua Town Master Plan completed (2004) No comment agricultural activity and commercial/civic • New Waialua Bandstand constructed services for area residents, supplemented • Current business activity in Waialua centered by technology and education industries around Waialua Mill October 9, 2007 Page 3 of 5 WORKING PAPER #4 NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOAL (SCP Vision Elements) OUTCOME (Desired End State) STATUS / PROGRESS TO DATE COMMUNITY COMMENTS (Community Meeting #1) 5. Retain the Waialua Mill Waialua Mill is expanded as the region’s • Waialua Mill website lists more than 30 tenants, with No comment Site as the Regional industrial center, including industrial uses 7 vacant spaces Industrial Center that support the agriculture industry and other general industrial uses. 6. Limit New Housing to New housing in Waialua is located mauka • No new housing has been constructed in this area. - Need to quantify housing needs for North Shore Areas Contiguous to of the mill camp (between Puuiki and Land for housing remains available residents; should have a building moratorium until Haleiwa and Waialua Goodale Avenues) • CONFIRM WITH BUILDING PERMIT DATA demand is known Towns and Establish Rural Design Guidelines New housing in Hale‘iwa is located north of • No significant new housing has been constructed in - Need to quantify housing needs for North Shore for Rural Residential Paalaa Road on lands outside the flood this area. Land for housing remains available residents; should have a building moratorium until Development plain • CONFIRM WITH BUILDING PERMIT DATA demand is known New residential areas are compatible with • Design and character of new residential areas - Infill new development in existing developed areas for the region’s rural character, and are (Sunset Beach Colony at Velzyland, new home higher density developed according to established rural construction) have not been compatible with the - Balance between open space and affordable housing design guidelines and rural development region’s rural character - Plantation style housing standards. • Rural design guidelines and development standards - Need for rural subdivision standards have not been established Site planning and design incorporate • Recent residential developments have not - Should regulate expansion of existing structures alternative development options that supported open space preservation - Tax new developments for open space preservation encourage open space preservation. Existing plantation homes are rehabilitated • Median home price in Paalaa Kai was $445,000 in - Need low interest loans for locals and are affordable to existing residents. 2007, which is not affordable for the majority of - Affordable housing for existing residents is needed existing residents 7. Provide Adequate Public Wastewater systems provide adequate and • North Shore Regional Wastewater Alternatives Plan - Wastewater treatment is a concern affecting future Infrastructure, Facilities, appropriate level of service to underway (City Dept. of Environmental Services) development and coastal water quality and Services accommodate the region’s needs. • Number (and %) of properties served by cesspools, septic tanks, and the City’s wastewater system (CHECK WITH DOH FOR DATA) Drainage system improvements mitigate • Engineering study for Hale‘iwa Road drainage - Need for infrastructure improvements to address storm runoff and flood hazards, and improvements completed coastal water pollution agricultural practices minimize soil erosion. • Kaukonahua Stream dredging study/planning (from - Drainage and flooding across the region needs to be Otake Camp to Kaiaka Bay) ongoing addressed • Comprehensive study of the Waialua-Kaiaka Bay Watershed remains unfunded An adequate circulation network (roadways, • Traffic bottlenecks at Pupukea, Waimea Bay, - Fast track Laniakea Bypass Road for immediate relief transit, bikeways) serves the region. Laniakea. $1.2 million allocated for Laniakea - Preserve 2-lane highway Bypass environmental study - No new development until capacity of Kamehameha • Funding for Waimea rockfall mitigation pending Highway is known • Drum Road rehabilitation from Helemano to Kahuku - Existing traffic exceeds capacity of existing circulation October 9, 2007 Page 4 of 5 WORKING PAPER #4 NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES GOAL (SCP Vision Elements) OUTCOME (Desired End State) STATUS / PROGRESS TO DATE COMMUNITY COMMENTS (Community Meeting #1) scheduled for completion in 2008 systems • Neighborhood Board pursuing Army to allow public - Public use of Drum Road is needed to use Drum Road for emergency access - Need regional emergency access road to expedite both evacuation and public safety response Pedestrian paths/bikeways link the various • SAME AS OUTCOME 3-6 - SEE OUTCOME 3-6 residential communities with parks, schools, and town centers of Hale‘iwa and Waialua. Waialua Public Library remains open. • Waialua Public Library open limited hours (Tues-Fri No comment 9-6, Sat 9-2). Closed evenings, Sunday, and Monday Maintenance of existing parks is a priority. • Annual City dollars spent on maintenance of parks - Better restrooms and increased staffing needed to • Amount spent on park renovation (CHECK 2000- address poor park maintenance 2005 CIP) Alternative energy sources such as solar • Number (and %) of homes/facilities with solar - Need to do more to promote green/sustainable are being used. energy systems (CHECK WITH HECO FOR DATA) development (such as rebates, solar, catchment) 8. Retain Cultural and Native Hawaiian cultural and archaeological • OHA acquired title to Waimea Valley - Waialua’s landmarks (smokestack and banyan tree) Historic Resources sites are protected, and significant historic • Hale‘iwa Special Design District remains intact are in poor condition features that contribute to the area’s rural • Reuse of Waialua Mill structure for character and plantation heritage are industrial/business use preserved. Historic site restoration and interpretive • Preservation/restoration of Waimea Valley ongoing No comment programs are integrated into parks and • Camp Erdman collaborating with DLNR to manage shoreline/mauka recreation systems. Kaena Point State Park 9. Adapt the Ahupua’a The effects of land use on coastal waters • BWS North Shore Watershed Management Plan - Protect North Shore aquifers and maintain North Concept in Land Use and and the nearshore environment is starting late-2007 Shore water for North Shore use (no more water Natural Resource considered in land use planning, • Community workshops for the Kaiaka Bay transfers). Need clear understanding of various North Management implementation decisions and land-based Watershed Demonstration project are ongoing; Shore aquifer systems and re-evaluation of existing actions. comprehensive study of the Waialua-Kaiaka Bay sustainable yields Watershed remains unfunded - Study of stream flow and nearshore water quality is • Projects are in compliance with existing land use needed to address flooding/water quality concerns regulations - Sense that the existing SCP and zoning laws are not being enforced or implemented properly October 9, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Meeting Agenda • Welcome and Purpose • Ground Rules • Community Meeting #1 Follow-Up • SCP Performance Assessment • SCP Revisions (Chapters 3 and 4) – Approach for SCP Revision – Agriculture – Open Space and Natural Environment NORTH SHORE • Next Steps SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 1 2 Planning Advisory Committee #2 October 30, 2007 SCP Update Process Ground Rules for PAC Meetings PAC role and function – Represent various interests and opinions of the larger North Shore community • Prepare performance assessment – Serve as core advisory group to guide the planning process PAC meeting objectives – Discuss and propose changes at the PAC level prior to presentation / input from the larger community Discussion protocol – Allow PAC members to speak first – Public participation welcome: limited comment after PAC discussion and through other public input opportunities – Give everyone a chance to talk once before you speak twice – Keep it short and share the floor with others, stay on topic – All contributions are valuable 3 – Always be respectful and courteous, despite differing opinions 4 Community Meeting #1 Follow-Up Performance Assessment • Former “Scorecard of Community Indicators” • Meeting Record • Purpose • Break-Out Group Comments – Evaluate the effectiveness of the SCP – Identify the status/progress made in achieving • Vision Elements Questionnaire Plan’s the Plan s Vision • Will be used to help identify SCP areas needing revisions (i.e., new or re-phrased language) • PAC comments on Proposed Performance Assessment Handout? 5 6 1 North Shore SCP Vision Statement Key Vision Elements • Establish Rural Community, Agriculture, and Preservation Boundaries “The North Shore in the year 2020 retains the unique qualities that have long defined • Support the diversified agriculture industry its attractiveness to residents and visitors alike. • Enhance the region’s recreational and educational potential It has maintained its scenic open spaces, enhanced • Designate Hale‘iwa and Waialua towns as its coastal resources, and has carried the flavor “country towns” heritage diversity of its Hawaiian heritage, cultural diversity, • R t i th Waialua Mill site as the regional industrial Retain the W i l it th i li d t i l and plantation past forward in the center revitalization of its communities.” • Limit additional new housing to areas contiguous to Hale‘iwa and Waialua towns and establish rural design guidelines • Provide adequate public infrastructure, facilities, and services • Retain cultural and historic resources • Adapt the ahupua‘a concept in land use and 7 natural resource management 8 SCP Revision Approach SCP Amendment Proposals • PAC to discuss changes and additions needed to • DPP sent letter to landowners announcing address community concerns/issues and recent land use proposals amendment submittal requirements • PAC discussions of Chapters 3 and 4 by Land Use • November 15 submission deadline category (3-4 PAC Meetings) – Agriculture, Open Space (PAC Meeting #2) Amendment proposals th t meet DPP’ • A d t l that t DPP’s – Residential Communities, Commercial Areas, Visitor Facilities (PAC Meeting #3) minimum submittal requirements will be – Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities and Infrastructure presented at the next PAC meeting (PAC Meeting #4) • HHF to incorporate discussion when preparing Draft Revised SCP 9 10 North Shore SCP Report Organization Agriculture - Vision Elements • Agriculture or supportive uses are the primary use of all lands Five Chapters within the Agriculture Boundary 1. North Shore’s Role in O‘ahu’s Development • Healthy agriculture industry generates economic opportunities that are appropriate to the region’s open space and rural Pattern qualities 2. Vision for the North Shore’s Future • Important agriculture lands are protected from encroachment by 3. Land Use Policies, Principles and Guidelines incompatible uses Long-term • Long term investments support productive agricultural uses 4. Public Facilities and Infrastructure Policies and Principles • Industrial and commercial activities support or service agricultural production 5. Implementation • Agricultural support facilities are operated at Waialua Mill and Maps Kawailoa 1. Open Space 2. Land Use 3. Public Facilities 11 12 2 SCP Land Use Map Agriculture – Community Concerns • Vision Elements Questionnaire responses – 94% (60) strongly agreed or agreed with vision element – 3% (2) strongly disagreed or disagreed with vision element – 3% (2) blank responses • Ensure AG lands are actively used for AG (enforce AG zoning and AG subdivisions, no “fake farms”) • Provide buffer zones between core AG lands, secondary AG uses and housing/other urban uses • Need appropriate AG infrastructure (irrigation systems, availability of higher lit t dt i i t quality water source and transmission systems) ) • Develop production support facilities (farmers markets, processing facilities) • Support AG enterprises (tax incentives, long-term leases, landowners’ commitment to AG, local markets and educational programs to promote “buying local”) • Protect existing AG lands from other uses • Identify Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) 13 14 Act 183, Important AG Lands State Agricultural Land Use District Boundary State Land Use Commission to designate IAL through 1. Petition from landowner 2. County IAL identification and mapping process IAL Criteria (per Act 183) – Currently used for AG production – Soil qualities and growing conditions support AG production – a d de t ed under G p oduct ty at g syste s (e.g. S ) Land identified u de AG productivity rating systems (e g ALISH) – Land types associated with traditional native Hawaiian AG uses or unique crops and uses – Has sufficient quantities of water – IAL designation would be consistent with County Plans (e.g. GP & SCP) – Contributes to maintaining critical land mass for AG operating productivity – Has or is near support infrastructure conducive to AG productivity For Discussion – Should the County consider the SCP Agriculture Lands as IAL? – Or should there be a different map for IAL? 15 16 Section 3.2.1 General Policies Section 3.2.2 Planning Principles Existing policy statements address Existing planning principles – Appropriate use of AG lands, including residential use accessory to AG activities (e.g., farm dwellings) – Protect productive Agricultural lands – AG support (AG facilities, tax incentives, long-term – Promote diversified agriculture leases) – Promote the development of agricultural support Possible revisions or additions? facilities – Modify discussion of non-AG uses on AG land? –E lt Encourage aquaculture uses – Provide for adequate AG infrastructure (maintenance Possible revisions or additions? of irrigation systems, higher quality water source and transmission system)? – Stricter regulations and enforcement to ensure AG lands are used for AG uses? – Incorporate IAL? – Address irrigation needs (maintenance of existing – Others? infrastructure, higher quality water source)? – Others? 17 18 3 Section 3.2.3 Guidelines Open Space – Vision Elements Section 3.2.4 Relation to Maps “Establish Rural Community, Agriculture, and Preservation Existing guidelines call for: Boundaries to Protect Agricultural, Open Space and Natural Resources” –Intensive cultivation of arable AG lands –Limited outdoor recreational or other uses “Adapt the ahupua‘a concept in land use and natural resource management” –Residential uses accessory to AG –Marketing and educational programs/tours Areas outside the Rural Community Boundary p g – Are important to the region’s rural character Educational –Educational programs to support the AG industry – Contribute agricultural, open space, natural, cultural or scenic –Creation of an AG demonstration area (“museum”) resource value –Research, training and technology activities to promote – Include AG lands, important wildlife habitats and sensitive aquaculture ecosystems, watershed/mauka areas, forest reserves. shoreline –Siting and design of accessory buildings to minimize areas, wetlands, gulches/streams/drainageways, scenic visual impact resources, parks and cultural/historic sites Possible revisions or additions? –Recognize long-term preservation of Pupukea-Paumalu –Others? 19 20 Open Space – Community Concerns Section 3.1.1 General Policies Vision Elements Questionnaire responses Existing policy statements – 98.5% (60) strongly agreed or agreed with vision element –Retain rural character – 1.5% (1) strongly disagreed with vision element –Protect significant natural features • Protecting open space resources is a priority and ecologically sensitive lands • Effects of recent developments on rural –Preserve cultural and historic , character and recreational, cultural and features scenic/open space resources – Older residential properties being –Provide recreational resources redeveloped at greater densities (affects open space, obstructs views) –Protect scenic views – AG subdivisions encouraging residential use –Define community boundaries of AG lands – New development considered a threat to open space; need a balance between Possible revisions or development and open space preservation additions? – Fear of development sprawl (desire to maintain open space between towns) –Any needed? 21 22 Section 3.1.2 Planning Principles Section 18.104.22.168 Mountain Areas Existing planning principles Existing guidelines – Adapt ahupua‘a values into land use/resource management – Maintain, protect and/or restore native forests and ecosystems – Protect agricultural lands, recreational resources and – Identify and protect endangered species habitats and ecologically sensitive ecologically sensitive lands areas – Encourage reforestation and expansion of forested areas – Preserve scenic views – Avoid disturbances caused by utility corridors – Ensure accessibility to recreational areas – Support public-private partnerships to preserve and manage resources – Limit impacts from utility installations – Acquire and maintain public access easements – Locate new developments within or next to existing – Support state efforts to seek private landowner agreements and gain developments access to trails – Maintain and enhance mauka trail systems (per the Na Ala Hele Program) Possible revisions or additions? – Identify historic trails/roads of cultural and recreational value – Add guidance about density and character of infill developments? Possible revisions or additions? – Modify “location of new developments” principle to address – Incorporate OHA acquisition of Waimea Valley and City’s acquisition of Pupukea-Paumalu open space between developed areas? – Others? – Others? 23 24 4 Section 22.214.171.124 Shoreline Areas 126.96.36.199 Wetlands Existing guidelines 188.8.131.52 Natural Gulches, Streams & Drainageways – Preserve rare coastal resources Wetlands (guidelines) Natural Gulches, Streams & – Protect nearshore coral reefs – Preserve and maintain all wetlands Drainageways (guidelines) and wildlife habitats – Preserve aesthetic/biological values – Support research to determine causes of coastal erosion – Protect Ukoa Pond – Minimize soil erosion and nonpoint – Discourage development/activities which result in beach loss source pollution – Promote an aquaculture center – Maintain and expand public beach access to the shoreline and nature reserve around Loko – Limit uses in these areas – Maintain and enhance existing views along the highway Ea Pond – Preserve and maintain natural – Provide adequate setbacks along the shoreline t d drainageways streams and d i – Design stream modifications to – Preserve and enhance fish/aquatic species populations and habitats mitigate impacts on habitats – Acquire lands for coastal recreation and shoreline access – Integrate drainage improvements – Base expenditures for coastline maintenance on actual site usage into the regional open space network – Place sand from dredging projects on local beaches – Establish permanent instream flow standards Possible revisions or additions? – Modify “nearshore coral reefs” guideline with specific Are existing guidelines adequate? guidance/actions to address coastal water quality? Any suggested revisions or additions? – Others? 25 26 184.108.40.206 Agricultural Areas 220.127.116.11 Scenic Resources & Scenic Views 18.104.22.168 Parks 22.214.171.124 Utility Corridors & Greenways Utility Corridors and Greenways Scenic Views (guidelines) (guidelines) – Conduct planning to preserve open space and views – Provide sufficient easement width to permit tree growth – Evaluate the visual impact of land use proposals – Provide sufficient width for landscaping to obscure views of – Locate future overhead utilities overhead transmission lines mauka of the highway – Use utility corridors for pedestrian – Encourage cooperation to and bicycle routes maintain/enhance views – Encourage the use of indigenous Possible revisions or additions? vegetation – Expand guideline to address Possible revisions or additions? impacts of new development on existing scenic resources? – Add specific guidance for equipment that supports new – Any others? technologies (antennae sites, windfarm facilities, etc.)? Policies and guidelines listed in – Any others? Sections 3.2 and 3.3 27 28 Next Steps Contact Information • Project website address PAC Meetings #3 and #4 –http://honoluludpp.org/Planning/North – Tentative dates: November 20 and December 4 Shore/NS-5yr/NorthShore.pdf – Present landowner-proposed map amendments • Website to download North Shore SCP – Discuss revisions • Residential Communities –http://www.honoluludpp.org/Planning/ • Commercial Areas, Visitor Facilities DevSust NorthShore asp DevSust_NorthShore.asp • Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities and Infrastructure • HHF contacts – Present Revised Performance Assessment –Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Community Meeting #2 –Phone: 545-2055 – January 2008 (tentative) – Present Performance Assessment and proposed SCP –Fax: 545-2050 revisions –Mail: 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 29 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 30 5 Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #3 Meeting Record November 20, 2007 Page 2 of 5 December 7, 2007 Response: The census is completed every 10 years, which means the next census will be completed in 2010. Although the information is somewhat dated, HHF prefers MEETING SUMMARY to use the current Census information for this SCP update. To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File • Three hundred “seasonal, recreational or occasional use” housing units for the North Shore seems low. The current number is probably higher – the real estate market has From: Corlyn Orr changed since 2000. Transient vacation rentals (TVUs) were not an issue in 2000; demographics have changed since then and the North Shore is increasingly becoming a Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 3 November 20, 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 pm vacation community. • About 51% of O‘ahu’s visitors (2.4 to 2.5 million people) visit the North Shore each year PAC Attendees: Antya Miller, Bob Leinau, Carol Phillips, Dan Nellis, Gil Riviere, (Hawai‘i Tourism Authority). This adds about 40% more people to the North Shore’s Jeff Alameida, Jerry Driskoll, Josh Heimowitz, Kalani Fronda, daytime population. Can the General Plan’s regional population share for the North Kathleen Pahinui, Lisa Izumi, Marianne Abrigo, Stew Ring Other Attendees: Reed Matsuura (Councilmember Donovan Dela Cruz), Shore (1.7% of the island-wide population) be adjusted to include the de facto population DPP Attendees: Ray Young, CAPB Project Manager to provide a more accurate estimate of the North Shore’s population base? Response: A General Plan Revision would be required. At best, this project can HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Corlyn Orr, Wendie McAllaster indicate that the General Plan projections do not reflect the community’s desires. The third Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore Sustainable • The large number of visitors being absorbed is a concern. The increase in the visitor Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at the Waialua Community Association Gym. The purpose of the meeting was to population increases the need for infrastructure to accommodate the tourist base, while discuss possible revisions to Section 3.5 Residential Areas and Section 3.1 Open Space and the improvements typically encourage more visitors and more development, which is not desirable. Natural Environment of the SCP. • PAC recommends a General Plan revision to change the population growth projected for Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 7:05. Meeting ground rules were presented, and the group agreed to focus the discussion on issues that affect the region as a whole. Specific the North Shore (i.e., lower the 1.7% population projection to accommodate less growth). concerns related to a particular segment of the community could be discussed outside the North Shore does not have the capacity to continue to maintain 1.7% of O‘ahu’s future population. As O‘ahu’s population increases, 1.7% of O‘ahu’s population will be an meeting via email. increasingly larger number. We do not want to look like Kailua or K ne‘ohe in the future. An overview of land use, population and housing characteristics for the North Shore based • The reality is that most new construction has been expansion of existing structures, on the 1990 and 2000 Census and projections from the Department of Planning and Permitting was presented, followed by a discussion of possible revisions to Section 3.5 rather than building new units. Local residents are adding rooms to existing homes to accommodate extended families, as the cost of housing escalates. Residential Areas and Section 3.1 Open Space and Natural Environment. The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. Possible Revisions to Section 3.5 Residential Communities • Remove Pupukea-Paumalu (former Lihi Lani) from the Rural Growth Boundary and Land Use, Population and Housing Characteristics and Projections change SCP land use map designation to reflect the City’s recent acquisition. 450 housing units previously proposed by the former Lihi Lani project should not be absorbed • Why does it feel like there’s so much growth despite a small number of zone changes? in other areas. Response: Some new housing development has occurred, and density is increasing. The population and the number of visitors have also increased. • Need to incorporate Waialua Town Master Plan into current SCP. Sections around • The population data is based on the 2000 Census (7 years old). Can the figures be Goodale-Pu‘uiki have enough land area to absorb the 300-400 additional units proposed in the Waialua Town Master Plan. Future residential development in this area doesn’t adjusted to reflect the present-day situation? have to be single-family parcels. Attached, multi-family housing forms are necessary to provide housing that is affordable to existing residents. The primary goal is to keep existing residents on the North Shore. Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: email@example.com Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #3 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #3 Meeting Record November 20, 2007 November 20, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 • The necessity for appropriately-priced housing is not just related to affordable housing • Adoption of rural development standards is already included as part of the current SCP (which targets individuals making between 80%-140% of the median income). Those in (pg 3-45), but the City has not established such standards yet. Rural development the “gap group” – who make too much to qualify for affordable housing but can’t afford to standards would be one possible tool to help guide development. purchase a home at the current market rate – are not being serviced. Proposed SCP revisions should also include references to the need for “gap group” housing. Possible Revisions to Section 3.5.3 Guidelines • Need to add language to revised SCP that addresses affordable housing need. • Revise first sentence (pg 3-45) to incorporate Waialua Town Master Plan (i.e., multi- family housing around Waialua). • Agrees with current SCP language to keep future housing within the Rural Community Boundary. Revised SCP should clearly express community’s desire that new housing be Possible Revisions to Section 126.96.36.199 Rural Residential located around Waialua and Hale‘iwa to meet the needs of existing residents. • Add language to allow the development of smaller lots (such as zero lot line properties) • Development of 1,400 new housing units on the North Shore as projected by DPP does for affordable and/or ”Gap housing; make sure to identify the areas where such density not seem possible without impacts to the existing rural character and scenic resources. and development is desired (around Waialua and Hale‘iwa). Continued housing growth to accommodate 1,400 units is not desirable. References to housing projections (1,400 units) or the number of units allotted for each sub-area should • Developers need incentives to build affordable housing. Plan should include language be deleted in the revised SCP. Although an inventory by sub-area would provide that addresses need for developers’ incentives. guidance for functional planning, the PAC wants to maintain flexibility and not specify locations for new housing. Each housing proposal should be evaluated individually. • The community will need to change their mind-set and accept the increased density associated with non-traditional single-family development (e.g., affordable and multi- • Homelessness and the need for services/facilities to assist the homeless population is family housing). The Neighborhood Board did not support a recent proposal for a cluster not a land use issue (i.e., SCP should not identify locations for homeless shelters or housing development on Paalaa Road, although the project was consistent with the NS temporary housing facilities). At most, the revised SCP can note the homeless issue and SCP (designated Rural Residential) and was zoned R-5. the need for social services/facilities to assist the homeless population. Possible Revisions to Section 188.8.131.52 Special Needs Housing • SCP should not prohibit residential use of agricultural lands. Housing on AG land is acceptable, as long as the housing supports “legitimate” agriculture. • Current language references “low and moderate income sectors.” Should Gap housing population be added? (HHF to check on definition). Can temporary housing (to service Possible Revisions to Section 3.5.1 General Policies homeless population) be added to this section? • Last bullet (pg 3-44) calls for special needs housing. Consider revising language to Possible Revisions to Section 3.1.2 Planning Principles emphasize need for affordable/gap group housing, not specific to the “special needs” population. • Change “Protection of Recreational Resources” to “Protection and Maintenance of Recreational Resources” (pg 3-50, 4th bullet). Possible Revisions to Section 3.5.2 Planning Principles • Add reference about “ocean resources” to the 4th bullet (pg 3-50). Ocean resources are a • Subdividing existing parcels and building new homes with larger footprints are increasing major asset and recreation resource for the North Shore; need to add references to other density. How can the impacts of increased density be addressed when existing laws and sections. Current SCP does not address aquatic resources. zoning regulations allow for this type of development? Would additional language specifying desired building envelopes, footprints, heights, etc. be useful to preserve Possible Revisions to Section 184.108.40.206 Shoreline Areas existing density, character, and viewplanes? A significant impact is perceived because of the large floor area for new homes. They are not “rural” and they frequently cover too • Revise description to include Sharks Cove Marine Life Conservation District and Kaiaka large a percentage of a parcel. The existing open space requirements for residential Bay. need to be re-examined. • Strengthen language about off-road vehicle use in ecologically sensitive areas (change “discourage” to “prohibit” in the last bullet, pg 3-9). More areas designated for off-road vehicles are needed. Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #3 Meeting Record November 20, 2007 Page 5 of 5 • Insert “and other marine life” after “protect nearshore coral reefs” (1st bullet, pg 3-10). • City and State need to prioritize and coordinate resource management (e.g., land area adjacent to Sharks Cove is owned/managed by the City, while the MLCD is under State jurisdiction). Add new bullet to address management of ocean resources: “Encourage interagency and private sector participation and cooperation in the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of ocean resources.” Possible Revisions to Section 220.127.116.11 Wetlands and 18.104.22.168 Natural Gulches • Verify that the wetlands (pg 3-11) and gulches (pg 3-13) listed in the Plan are correct. Possible Revisions to Section 22.214.171.124 Scenic Resources and Scenic Views • Cell phone antennae sites are a new issue not addressed in the current SCP. Can the SCP encourage clustering of sites, particularly emphasizing the use of existing sites? HHF to check if cell towers are mapped. • Language about undergrounding existing utilities should be strengthened. Undergrounding would enhance viewplanes, increase highway safety, and improve utility service (refer to HECO Oahu Utilities Undergrounding and Visual Impact Mitigation Studies, 2003). New technologies (solar, wind, alternative energy sources) that are desired 20 years into the future should be incorporated. Evaluation of windfarm proposals on a case-by-case basis would address concerns about possible visual impacts. Other Comments/Questions • Map amendments and boundary adjustments will be presented and discussed at a future PAC meeting. • There were no SCP Amendment Proposals submitted for the North Shore. Several proposals were received for Ko‘olau Loa (to be presented at their December 11 PAC meeting). The next North Shore PAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday December 4, 2007, time and place to be announced. The next meeting will focus on possible revisions to Section 3.6 Commercial Areas and Section 3.8 Visitor Facilities. Meeting was adjourned about 9:30 pm. Meeting Agenda • Welcome • Ground Rules • Feedback on PAC Meeting #2 p • SCP Amendment Proposals • Population/Housing Characteristics and Projections ( p ) • SCP Revisions (Chapters 3 and 4) – Section 3.5 Residential Communities – Section 3.1 Open Space and Natural Environment • Next Steps NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 1 2 Planning Advisory Committee #3 November 20, 2007 Ground Rules for PAC Meetings PAC Meeting #2 Follow-Up PAC role and function – Represent various interests and opinions of the larger North Shore community e mail • Draft meeting record sent via e-mail – Serve as core advisory group to guide the planning process PAC meeting objectives • Comments on Performance – Discuss and propose changes at the PAC level prior to Assessment M t i A t Matrix presentation / input from the larger community Discussion protocol • SCP Amendment Proposals – Allow PAC members to speak first – Public participation welcome: comment after PAC discussion – DPP sent letter to landowners requesting and through other public input opportunities amendment proposals by November 15 – Give everyone a chance to talk once before you speak twice – Keep it short and share the floor with others, stay on topic – No proposals received to date – All contributions are valuable – Always be respectful and courteous, despite differing opinions 3 4 SCP Land Use Map Zoning Districts Inventory • 97% of the land area is zoned for Agriculture or Preservation, with about 56% Residential Apartment zoned either AG-1 or AG-2 Industrial 19 ac (0.1%) 723 ac (1.0%) 43 ac (0.1%) Military/Federal Business 350 ac (0.5%) 41 ac (0.1%) AG-1 29,129 ac (37.8%) Preservation 31,924 ac (41.5%) Country AG-2 1,174 ac (1.5%) 13,591 ac (17.7%) 5 6 Source: Department of Planning and Permitting Zone Change Approvals 2000-2007 O‘ahu Agriculture Trends Project Zone Change Acreage Hale‘iwa Commercial Development R-5 to B-1 0.7 • Agriculture has been steadily declining on O‘ahu Number of O‘ahu Farms since 1978 Robichaux Property AG-2 to COUNTRY 2.2 1,200 • Decrease in the number of farms, average size of Aloha Ke Akua High School AG-1 to AG-2 24.9 1,053 976 938 farm, and the acreage in farmland 1,000 1 000 L D Saints Ch Latter-Day S i lE i Chapel Expansion AG-1 AG-2 AG 1 to AG 2 3.9 39 892 880 794 Pupukea-Paumalu (Lihi Lani Property) R-5, COUNTRY and P-2 to AG-2 1,003.0 800 O‘ahu Farms by Acreage (1978-2002) Farms by size: 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 600 District 1998 Acreage 2007 Acreage Acreage Change 1 to 9 acres 822 768 707 696 664 574 400 10 to 49 acres 161 141 156 136 156 152 R-10 Residential 10.1 10.1 0 to 50 t 179 acres 36 27 31 28 28 34 200 R-7.5 Residential 89.0 89.0 0 180 to 499 acres 16 17 21 17 17 15 0 R-5 Residential 674.5 656.1 -18.4 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 500 to 999 acres 2 8 7 5 3 5 1,000 acres or more 9 8 16 10 12 14 A-1 Low Density Apt 15.8 15.8 0 TOTAL FARMS 1,046 969 938 892 880 794 A-2 Medium Density Apt 3.7 3.7 0 B-1 Neighborhood Business 30.4 31.1 +0.7 Land in Farms on O‘ahu Average O‘ahu Farm Size B-2 Community Business 10.4 10.4 0 140,000 126,000 125,932 130,771 I-1 Limited Industrial 1.8 1.8 0 160 139 120,000 140 I-2 General Industrial 28.9 28.9 0 120 129 100,000 91,998 103 79,927 9 92 I-3 Waterfront Industrial 12.0 12.0 0 100 91 89 80,000 70,705 Acres Acres 80 AG-1 Restricted AG 29,156.9 29,128.1 -28.8 60 60,000 40,000 AG-2 General AG 12,560.9 13,590.6 +1029.7 40 20,000 Country District 1,924.3 1,152.6 -771.7 20 0 0 1 P-1 Restricted Preservation 29,307.1 29 30 1 29 30 1 29,307.1 0 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 P-2 General Preservation 2,816.8 2,605.5 -211.3 Year Year F-1 Military/ Federal Preservation 349.6 349.6 0 7 8 Source: State of Hawai‘i Data Book, 1990-2005 Source: Department of Planning and Permitting 1990-2000 Population Trends Employment Characteristics • Agriculture accounts for less than 5% of Total population Total Households North Shore’s employment 1990 2000 % change 1990 2000 % change Honolulu County 836,231 876,156 4.8% Honolulu County 265,625 286,450 7.8% North Shore Employment by Industry (2000) • Education, Health and Social Services North Shore 15,729 18,380 16.9% North Shore 4,825 5,893 22.1% Agriculture (4.8%) Industry accounts for the largest Public Administration and Other Services percentage of employment (19.1%), p g p y ( ) Mokul ‘ia CDP ia 1,667 1 667 1 839 1,839 10 3% 10.3% ia Mokul ‘ia CDP 664 709 6.8% 6 8% (11.5%) Construction (8.8%) followed by Arts/Entertainment, Waialua CDP 4,052 3,761 -7.2% Waialua CDP 1,178 1,128 -4.2% Recreation, Accommodation/Food Hale‘iwa CDP 2,194 2,225 1.4% Hale‘iwa CDP 710 770 8.5% Services (13.6%) Pupukea CDP 4,140 4,250 2.7% Pupukea CDP 1,268 1,455 14.7% Manufacturing (4.1%) Educational, Health, Household Size Social Services S i lS i North Shore Age Distribution 1990 2000 (19.1%) Transportation (7.3%) 1990 2000 % change Honolulu County 3.02 2.95 Under 5 years 1,202 7.6% 1,511 8.2% 0.6% North Shore 3.18 3.05 Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 5-17 years 3,120 19.8% 3,149 17.1% -2.7% Mokul ‘ia CDP n/a 2.38 1990 2000 change 18-64 18 64 years 9,730 9 730 61 9% 61.9% 11,846 64.5% 11 846 64 5% 2.6% 2 6% Waialua W i l CDP n/a 3.31 3 31 Retail and Honolulu County 24.8 27.3 2.5 65 years and over 1,677 10.7% 1,874 10.2% -0.5% Hale‘iwa CDP n/a 2.88 Wholesale Trade North Shore n/a 32.9 n/a Arts, Entertainment, (15.0%) Mokul ‘ia CDP 32.0 35.5 3.5 Pupukea CDP n/a 2.92 Recreation, Waialua CDP 28.5 32.9 4.4 Accomodation/Food Median Household Income Services (13.6%) Hale‘iwa CDP 31.2 33.0 1.8 Poverty Status (Individuals) Pupukea CDP 31.4 41.9 10.5 1990 2000 Professional, Scientific, Professional Scientific 1990 2000 % change Management, Honolulu County $40,581 $51,914 Honolulu County 60,096 7.5% 83,937 9.9% 2.4% Finance, Insurance, Adminstrative, Waste Percent Self-Employed Real Estate, Information 1990 2000 change North Shore n/a $45,000 North Shore n/a n/a 2,426 13.5% n/a Rental/Leasing (4.4%) (1.8%) Management Services (9.7%) Honolulu County 5.5% 6.3% 0.8% Mokul ‘ia CDP $37,045 $50,100 Mokul ‘ia CDP 122 7.3% 180 10.7% 3.4% North Shore n/a 8.7% n/a Waialua CDP $33,428 $46,763 Waialua CDP 322 8.0% 439 11.7% 3.7% Mokul ‘ia CDP 7.5% 7.1% -0.4% Hale‘iwa CDP 292 13.0% 387 17.6% 4.6% Waialua CDP 4.0% 4.6% 0.6% Hale‘iwa CDP $32,000 $39,643 Hale‘iwa CDP 8.7% 8.7% 0.0% Pupukea CDP 361 8.9% 637 15.2% 6.3% Pupukea CDP $38,382 $56,146 Pupukea CDP 16.5% 14.6% -1.9% 9 Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census 10 Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census 2000 Housing Characteristics Age of Housing Inventory Total Housing Units 1,800 1 800 • Housing inventory islandwide and on the • 27% of North Shore’s housing 1990 2000 % change North Shore increased from 1990 to 2000, 1,600 units are 50+ years old Honolulu County 281,683 315,988 12.2% while the % of occupied units has declined North Shore 5,287 6,648 25.7% 1,400 • Average age of the typical • Percentage of owner-occupied units single family unit on the North Mokul ‘ia CDP ia 745 883 18.5% islandwide has decreased 1,200 Shore is 41 years old Sh i ld Waialua CDP 1,258 1,219 -3.1% • North Shore has a larger percentage of Hale‘iwa CDP 838 867 3.5% Seasonal/ Recreational Use units than O‘ahu 1,000 Pupukea CDP 1,450 1,690 16.6% as a whole 1999-2000 800 1994-1998 Occupied Units 600 1990-1994 1990 2000 % change Honolulu County 265,304 94.2% 286,450 90.7% -3.5% 1980-1989 400 North Shore 4,825 91.3% 5,893 88.6% -2.7% 1960-1979 (25+ Mokul ‘ia CDP 624 83.8% 709 80.3% -3.5% years old) 200 1959 and earlier Waialua W i l CDP 1,219 1 219 96.9% 96 9% 1 128 1,128 92 5% 92.5% -4.4% 4 4% (50+ years old) Hale‘iwa CDP 770 91.9% 770 88.8% -3.1% 0 Mokul ‘ia CDP Waialua CDP Hale‘iw a CDP Pupukea CDP Pupukea CDP 1,297 89.4% 1,455 86.1% -3.3% Percentage of Occupied Units that are Owner-Occupied Honolulu County North Shore Mokul ‘ia CDP Waialua CDP Hale‘iwa CDP Pupukea CDP , Vacant Units for Seasonal, 1959 and earlier 1990 2000 h % change Recreational or Occasional Use (2000) (50 + years old) 73,236 23.2% 1,799 27.0% 153 17.3% 557 45.7% 402 46.2% 369 22.0% Honolulu County 137,910 52.0% 156,290 49.5% -2.5% Honolulu County 6,856 2.2% 1960-1979 North Shore 2,279 47.2% 2,595 39.0% -8.2% 304 4.6% 25+ years old) 155,068 49.0% 2,328 35.0% 334 37.8% 519 42.6% 305 35.1% 766 45.6% North Shore Mokul ‘ia CDP 158 25.3% 269 30.5% 5.1% 88 10.0% 1980-1989 41,340 13.1% 1,243 18.7% 259 29.3% 70 5.7% 111 12.8% 265 15.8% Mokul ‘ia CDP Waialua CDP 700 57.4% 619 50.8% 6.6% -6.6% W i l CDP Waialua 15 1 2% 1.2% 1990 1994 1990-1994 24,643 24 643 7.8% 7 8% 622 9 4% 9.4% 77 8 7% 8.7% 34 2 8% 2.8% 25 2.9% 2 9% 10.4% 175 10 4% Hale‘iwa CDP 261 33.9% 292 33.7% -0.2% 1994-1998 17,121 5.4% 566 8.5% 53 6.0% 32 2.6% 21 2.4% 59 3.5% Hale‘iwa CDP 43 5.0% Pupukea CDP 626 48.3% 756 44.7% -3.5% 1999-2000 4,580 1.4% 90 1.4% 7 0.8% 7 0.6% 5 0.6% 48 2.9% Pupukea CDP 104 6.2% 11 Total Units 315,988 6,648 883 1,219 869 1,682 12 Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census 2003 Hawai‘i Housing Policy Study 2003 Hawai‘i Housing Policy Study Highlights HOUSING UNITS g y y Single-Family Distribution By Land Area Sunset Beach to Kaena Point (TMK Zone 6) O‘ahu Total Distribution of Single Family Parcels Single Family Units 2,931 150,957 Sunset Beach - Kaena Point (TMK Zone 6) Condos 381 91,913 <5000 SF (7%) Apartments 153 39,602 >1 acre (16%) ( ) • More than 50% of the North Military Units 0 21,843 Shore’s single-family properties Student Units 0 4,270 are between 5,000 and 9,999 SF Cooperative Units 0 2,881 1/2 to 1 acre TOTAL 3,465 311,466 (5%) % SF Owner Occupied 45% 69% % Condo Owner Occupie 23% 36% TOTAL OWNER 15000 SF to 1/2 5000-7500 SF OCCUPIED UNITS 41% 44% acre (6%) (36%) Condo Total Units/Square Mile SF Average Average SF Median Land of Land Area 10000-14999 10000 14999 SF Interior Area Interior Area Land Area Area (Housing Density) (9%) Aiea-Pearl Harbor (Zone 1) 1,645 785 6,000 38 977 Downtown-Manoa (Zone 2) 1,645 701 7,488 18 4,556 East Honolulu (Zone 3) 1,734 1,152 7,306 35 1,030 10000- Waimanalo Kailua (Zone 4) Waimanalo-Kailua 1 567 1,567 1 084 1,084 7,903 7 903 73 489 7500-9999 7500 9999 SF 5000- 7500- 14999 15000 SF 1/2 to 1 K ne‘ohe-Kawela Bay (Zone 5) 1,336 703 10,646 60 104 (21%) <5000 SF 7500 SF 9999 SF SF to 1/2 acre acre >1 acre TOTAL Aiea-Pearl Harbor (Zone 1) 2,554 7,656 2,231 1,302 323 314 268 14,682 Sunset Beach-Kaena Pt. (Zone 6) 1,228 760 7,943 115 30 Downtown-Manoa (Zone 2) 2,299 3,737 2,756 3,638 579 348 260 12,118 Wahiaw (Zone 7) 1,287 726 7,350 38 353 East Honolulu (Zone 3) 3,747 10,714 7,003 4,941 1,123 556 317 28,602 Source: SMS Research and Marketing Waimanalo-Kailua (Zone 4) 1,749 7,396 8,449 5,374 922 733 1,909 26,604 Waianae Coast (Zone 8) 1,165 629 7,339 68 169 , Services, December 2003 K ne‘ohe-Kawela Bay (Zone 5) ne ohe-Kawela 427 1 256 1,256 458 728 224 1,071 302 1 071 4,398 4 398 Ewa-Pearl Harbor-Mililani (Zone 9) 1,547 862 6,000 165 521 Sunset Beach-Kaena Pt. (Zone 6) 218 1,012 625 256 179 146 480 2,931 Wahiaw (Zone 7) 274 2,234 1,000 616 295 206 231 4,864 TOTAL 1,561 798 6996 610 511 Waianae Coast (Zone 8) 1,450 2,928 934 783 339 482 1,726 8,652 Source: SMS Research and Marketing Services, December 2003 13 Ewa-Pearl Harbor-Mililani (Zone 9) 11,177 27,769 5,065 2,649 506 339 14 537 48,106 TOTAL 23,805 64,702 28,521 18,714 511 3,426 6,799 150,957 DPP Population Projections vs. GP Policy DPP Housing Projections 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 Change North Shore 12,921 15,729 18,380 18,347 19,033 20,081 20,798 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000-2030 O‘ahu islandwide 762,564 836,231 876,156 912,907 952,673 1,037,260 1,117,313 Share of O‘ahu total 1.7% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% North Shore 3,578 5,287 6,648 7,001 7,611 8,099 1,451 O‘ahu 252,038 281,683 315,988 348,285 388,722 428,415 112,427 46.0 Share of % O‘ahu t t l O‘ h total 1 4% 1.4% 1 9% 1.9% 2 1% 2.1% 2 0% 2.0% 2 0% 2.0% 1 9% 1.9% 1 3% 1.3% Source: Department of Planning and Permitting, October 2007 17.0 17 0 % 13.0 11.6% % 5.3% 4.0% 4 0% 1.4% 1.7% 15 16 Source: DPP Annual Report, 2005 Number of New Housing Units Residential Communities - Vision Elements “Limit New Housing to Areas Contiguous to Hale‘iwa and 40 Waialua Towns and Establish Rural Design Guidelines for 40 37 35 34 Rural Residential Development” 30 • New housing in Waialua is located mauka of the mill camp (between Puuiki and Goodale 20 19 Avenues) 13 • New housing in Hale‘iwa is located north of Paalaa Road on lands outside the flood plain 10 • New residential areas are compatible with th region’s rural character, and are the i ’ l h t d 0 developed according to established rural • 163 total new housing units design guidelines and rural development -10 10 constructed on the North standards Shore between 2000 - 2006 • Site planning and design incorporate -15 alternative development options that -20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 encourage open space preservation Source: City Building Permit Records, October 2007 • Existing plantation homes are rehabilitated 17 and affordable to existing residents 18 Residential - Community Concerns Conventional vs. Creative Development • Vision Elements Questionnaire responses – 90% (57) strongly agreed or agreed with vision element – 8% (5) strongly disagreed or disagreed with vision element – 2% (1) blank responses • Design and character of recent residential developments (Sunset Beach Colony at Velzyland, new home construction) has not been compatible with the region’s rural character and desire to preserve open space • Need for affordable housing (sale and rent) for existing residents • Increased housing prices and property values/taxes causing “locals” to move away while new residents who can afford homes move in • Land available for housing is limited by the preservation of i lt l d agricultural and open space areas • Renovation of existing plantation homes is desired • Increase in illegal short-term vacation rentals (under 30-days) reduces the i t fl th inventory of long-term rentals, increases rental/real estate prices t t l i t l/ l t t i and negatively impacts neighboring homes (safety, noise, traffic) 19 Source: “Rural by Design” by Randall Arendt, 1994 20 Section 3.5 Residential Communities Conventional vs. Creative Development • 1,300 new units within the Rural Community Boundary, assuming build-out of existing t lands vacant l d • 1,100 previously-approved units – 770 units at Pupukea/Sunset (445 at Lihi Lani) – 150 units in Hale‘iwa – 60 units each in Kawailoa, Waialua and Mokul ‘ia – 200 units in Hale‘iwa and Waialua adjacent to existing built-up areas • Possible revisions or additions? – Incorporate City acquisition of Pupukea-Paumalu? – Incorporate Waialua Town Master Plan d ti for 300-450 h i recommendations f 300 450 new housing units? it ? 21 22 Section 3.5.1 General Policies Section 3.5.2 Planning Principles Existing policy statements – Capacity within the Rural Community Boundary to Existing planning principles accommodate existing/future housing needs – Follow density and height guidelines – Direct future residential development to Hale‘iwa and Waialua – Adopt rural development standards – Establish rural development and subdivision – Promote compact development standards – Encourage creative site and housing design options – Use open space features to define to preserve rural character i hb h d boundaries neighborhood b d i – Provide housing appropriate for an aging population – Provide bicycle and pedestrian-oriented Possible revisions or additions? streets – Address need for affordable housing? – Provide guidance for new housing in existing Possible revisions or additions? ? residential areas? – Any needed? – Any others? 23 24 Section 126.96.36.199 Rural Guidelines Section 188.8.131.52 Rural Residential Existing guidelines Existing guidelines – Typical single-family homes (lot size ranges from – Single-family homes on relatively large lots 5,000 5 000 SF to 1 acre)) (1 unit/acre, 25-foot building height) – Densities range from 5-8 units/acre, or 10 units/acre p p when alternative development options are used Apply i lt l bdi i i d – A l agricultural subdivision and rural l – Employ rural development standards development standards – Avoid monotonous rows of garages and driveways – Minimize visual impacts of utility structures along neighborhood streets – Ensure compatibility between land uses – New development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood Possible revisions or additions? – Employ building design that provides visual interest – Any needed? and individual identity Possible revisions or additions? 25 – Any needed? 26 Section 184.108.40.206 Low-Density Apartment Section 220.127.116.11 Special Needs Housing Existing guidelines complexes, – Includes townhouse complexes flats and low-rise low rise gg Existing guidelines apartments in Mokul ‘ia, Hale‘iwa and Waialua – Locate housing within or near Hale‘iwa or Waialua – Maintain existing apartment-zoned district boundaries towns within close proximity to public transit, community services and commercial activities 10-20 i / i 40-foot building h i h – 10 20 units/acre; maximum 40 f b ildi height – Up to 20 units/acre allowed; proposals subject to – Enhance the compatibility of apartment districts and community and agency review j adjacent uses Maximum 25 f –M i b ildi height 25-foot building h i h – Maintain a sense of residential scale and provide greater privacy and identity for housing units – Ensure building design is compatible with adjacent residential areas – Ensure building design is compatible with adjacent low-density residential areas Possible revisions or additions? Possible revisions or additions? y – Any needed? – Any needed? 27 28 Open Space – Vision Elements Open Space – Community Concerns “Establish Rural Community, Agriculture, and Preservation Vision Elements Questionnaire responses Boundaries to Protect Agricultural, Open Space and Natural – 98.5% (60) strongly agreed or agreed with vision Resources” element – 1.5% (1) strongly disagreed with vision element “Adapt the ahupua‘a concept in land use and natural resource management” • Protecting open space resources is a priority Areas outside the Rural Community Boundary • Effects of recent developments on rural – Are important to the region’s rural character character and recreational, cultural and – Contribute agricultural, open space, natural, cultural or scenic scenic/open space resources resource value – Older residential properties being redeveloped at greater densities (affects – Include AG lands, important wildlife habitats and sensitive open space, obstructs views) ecosystems, watershed/mauka areas, forest reserves. shoreline areas, wetlands, gulches/streams/drainageways, scenic , , g g y , – AG subdivisions encouraging residential use of AG lands resources, parks and cultural/historic sites – New development considered a threat to open space; need a balance between development and open space preservation – Fear of development sprawl (desire to maintain open space between towns) 29 30 Section 3.1.1 General Policies Section 3.1.2 Planning Principles Existing policy statements Existing planning principles – Adapt ahupua‘a values into land use/resource management –Retain rural character lands, – Protect agricultural lands recreational resources and –Protect significant natural features ecologically sensitive lands and ecologically sensitive lands – Preserve scenic views P –Preserve cultural and hi t i lt l d historic Ensure accessibility t recreational areas – E ibilit to ti l features – Limit impacts from utility installations – Locate new developments within or next to existing Provide –Provide recreational resources developments –Protect scenic views Possible revisions or additions? y –Define community boundaries – Add guidance about density and character of infill developments? Possible revisions or – Modify “location of new developments” principle to address additions? open space between developed areas? p p p –Any needed? – Others? 31 32 Section 18.104.22.168 Mountain Areas Section 22.214.171.124 Shoreline Areas Existing id li E i i guidelines Existing guidelines – Preserve rare coastal resources – Maintain, protect and/or restore native forests and ecosystems – Identify and protect endangered species habitats and ecologically sensitive – Protect nearshore coral reefs areas – Support research to determine causes of coastal erosion – Encourage reforestation and expansion of forested areas – Discourage development/activities which result in beach loss y y – Avoid disturbances caused by utility corridors – Maintain and expand public beach access to the shoreline – Support public-private partnerships to preserve and manage resources – Maintain and enhance existing views along the highway – Acquire and maintain public access easements – Provide adequate setbacks along the shoreline – Support state efforts to seek private landowner agreements and gain access to trails – Preserve and enhance fish/aquatic species populations and habitats – Maintain and enhance mauka trail systems (per the Na Ala Hele Program) – Acquire lands for coastal recreation and shoreline access – Identify historic trails/roads of cultural and recreational value – Base expenditures for coastline maintenance on actual site usage Possible revisions or additions? – Place sand f Pl dredging j t d from d d i projects on l l beaches local b h – Incorporate OHA acquisition of Waimea Valley and City’s acquisition of Possible revisions or additions? Pupukea-Paumalu – Modify “nearshore coral reefs” guideline with specific y g p Others? – Oth ? guidance/actions to address coastal water quality? 33 – Others? 34 126.96.36.199 Wetlands 188.8.131.52 Agricultural Areas 3 1 3 4 Natural Gulches, Streams & Drainageways 184.108.40.206 Gulches 220.127.116.11 3 1 3 6 Parks Wetlands (guidelines) Natural Gulches, Streams & – Preserve and maintain all wetlands Drainageways (guidelines) and wildlife habitats – Preserve aesthetic/biological values – Protect Ukoa Pond – Minimize soil erosion and nonpoint – Promote an aquaculture center source pollution and nat re reser e aro nd Loko nature reserve around – Limit uses in these areas Ea Pond – Preserve and maintain natural streams and drainageways g – Design stream modifications to mitigate impacts on habitats – Integrate drainage improvements into the regional open space network flow – Establish permanent instream flo standards gg q Are existing guidelines adequate? Any suggested revisions or additions? Policies and guidelines listed in 35 Sections 3.2 and 3.3 36 18.104.22.168 Scenic Resources & Scenic Views Next Steps 3 1 3 8 Utilit Corridors & Greenways 22.214.171.124 Utility C id G PAC Meetings #4 and #5 Utility Corridors and Greenways – Tentative dates: December 4, mid-January Scenic Views (guidelines) (guidelines) – Conduct planning to preserve open – Discuss revisions space and views – Provide sufficient easement width to permit tree growth • Commercial Areas, Visitor Facilities – Evaluate the visual impact of land use proposals – Provide sufficient width for landscaping t obscure views of l d i to b i f Recreation, • Parks and Recreation Public Facilities and – Locate future overhead utilities overhead transmission lines Infrastructure mauka of the highway – Use utility corridors for pedestrian • Sustainability Concepts – Encourage cooperation to and bicycle routes y i i / h i maintain/enhance views – Present Revised Performance Assessment – Encourage the use of indigenous Possible revisions or additions? vegetation – Expand guideline to address Community Meeting #2 Possible revisions or additions? impacts of new development on February 2008 (t t ti ) –F b (tentative) existing scenic resources? – Add specific guidance for facilities that support new technologies – Present Performance Assessment and proposed – Any others? (antennae sites, windfarm facilities, ) etc.)? SCP revisions – Any others? 37 38 Contact Information • Project website address –http://honoluludpp.org/Planning/North Shore/NS-5yr/NorthShore.pdf S / S / S f • Website to download North Shore SCP htt // h l l d /Pl i / –http://www.honoluludpp.org/Planning/ DevSust_NorthShore.asp • HHF contacts –Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 545 2055 –Phone: 545-2055 –Fax: 545-2050 M il Bishop St t S it –Mail: 733 Bi h Street, Suite 2590 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 39 NS SCP PAC #4 Meeting Record December 4, 2007 Helber Hastert & Fee Page 2 of 4 Planners, Inc. January 3, 2008 • PAC recommends a General Plan revision to lower the population distribution projected for the North Shore and accommodate less growth (e.g., the General Plan currently MEETING SUMMARY identifies the North Shore’s population at 1.7% of the islandwide population). To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File • Change “adjacent to rural community boundary” to “within rural community boundary” (pg 3, 2nd bullet). From: Corlyn Orr • SCP should not prohibit residential use of agricultural lands. Housing on AG land is Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 4 acceptable, as long as the housing supports “legitimate” agriculture. December 4, 2007, 6:30 – 9:00 pm • Amend or revise statement in the draft meeting record indicating “no concern about the PAC Attendees: Antya Miller, Bob Leinau, Carol Phillips, Dan Nellis, Dave Bramlett, Diane visual impact of windfarms” (pg 5, 3rd bullet). Evaluation of windfarm proposals on a Anderson, Gil Riviere, Jerry Driscoll, Kalani Fronda, Kathleen Pahinui, case-by-case basis is desired to address concerns about visual impact. Lisa Izumi, Marianne Abrigo, Mike Lyons, Stew Ring Other Attendees: Bob Nakata (Defend O‘ahu Coalition) Possible Revisions to Section 3.8 Visitor Facilities Mark Cunningham (Defend O‘ahu Coalition) DPP Attendees: Ray Young, CAPB Project Manager • Consensus among PAC that the Kauaian Institute report (Market Segment Assessment HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Rachael Edinger, Corlyn Orr Transient Vacation Rentals on O‘ahu, September 2005) should not be used to describe the illegal transient vacation rental (TVR) problem. Since the study uses the Internet to The fourth Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore Sustainable identify TVR properties, it underreports the number of TVR and should not be considered Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 an accurate inventory of rental properties. For example, one advertised property may at the Waialua Community Association Cottage #2. The purpose of the meeting was to represent/make referrals to 5 unadvertised properties, but the inventory would only count discuss possible revisions to Section 3.6 Commercial Areas and Section 3.8 Visitor Facilities the one advertised property and the 5 other properties would go uncounted. The report of the SCP. prepared under the direction of Marsha Weinert identified 6,000-7,000 TVR units Statewide, which the PAC feels provides a more accurate representation of the TVR Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 6:35. Meeting ground rules were summarized, followed problem. by a review of the draft meeting record from the previous PAC meeting (held on November 20). An overview of the North Shore’s business/employment patterns and visitor industry • Is there a way to harness the high demand for visitor units and turn TVRs into an asset characteristics was presented, followed by a discussion of possible SCP revisions. for the community? Considering that the demand for TVRs seems to be increasing, can the situation be addressed and regulated so that TVRs provide community benefits? The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. PAC members generally agreed that TVRs are not compatible with surrounding residential areas, and that enforcement/regulation would be the only solution to address Revisions to PAC #3 Draft Meeting Record the number of illegal TVR. • 450 housing units previously proposed by the former Lihi Lani project should not be • Delete references to “small-scale country inns” and any other form of visitor absorbed in other areas. accommodations in the revised SCP. The SCP should focus on enhancing residents’ lifestyles and limiting the adverse effects of visitors. Visitor facilities could be • Development of 1,400 new housing units on the North Shore does not seem possible reconsidered during the next five-year review; prohibiting visitor accommodations during without impacts to the existing rural character and scenic resources. Continued housing the interim allows for enforcement of rules on illegal TVUs. PAC discussed the possibility growth to accommodate 1,400 units is not desirable. References to housing projections of considering new visitor accommodations if it follows all of the legal rules. Suggested (1,400 units) or the number of units allotted for each sub-area should be deleted in the new language should read, “Due to the pressures of already strained infrastructure and revised SCP. Although an inventory by sub-area would provide guidance for functional public services – overly crowded roads, wastewater issues, limited police presence, and planning, the PAC wants to maintain flexibility. Each housing proposal should be inadequate State/County agency enforcement – as well as real estate market pressures, evaluated individually. the community does not support any form of visitor accommodations in the North Shore SCP area. Until community concerns about illegal vacation rentals are resolved and • Revised SCP should clearly express community’s desire that new housing be located enforcement mechanisms to resolve the current situation are in place, additional around Waialua and Hale‘iwa to meet the needs of existing residents. legalized accommodations for overnight visitors should be prohibited.” Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: email@example.com NS SCP PAC #4 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #4 Meeting Record December 4, 2007 December 4, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 Revised SCP should also indicate that the “SCP supersedes certain portions of the but the new landowner plans to replace the store. The current SCP language identifying Waialua Town Master Plan.” the location of the country stores is acceptable. Discussion leading to this conclusion included the following: • Incorporate all of the Waialua Town Master Plan recommendations into the SCP, with the exception of the country inn recommendation. Development of a town core as 1. Although the current SCP calls for “country inns…allowed only within the Hale‘iwa recommended in the Waialua Town Master Plan would provide for new restaurants and Country Town and Waialua Country Town districts…subject to a case-by-case businesses in Waialua. review process…developed during the implementation of this plan,” the LUO has not been revised accordingly. Country inns would require Resort zoning, which • General Plan policy for secondary resort areas – “Manage the development of secondary could inadvertently lead to future resort development, or creating a Conditional resort areas in a manner which respects existing lifestyles and the natural environment, Use Permit for country inns specific to Hale‘iwa.. and avoids substantial increases in the cost of providing public services in the area” (Chapter II Economic Activity, Objective B, Policy 7) – is consistent with the community’s 2. Smaller inns (30-40 rooms) are not economically feasible. Market feasibility desire to preserve the area’s rural lifestyle and ensure infrastructure capacity is adequate studies prepared for the Waialua Town Master Plan (Dr. John Knox) indicated that to accommodate proposed developments. a minimum 130-140 rooms are necessary to be cost effective. • The group has a divergence of views about taking a position on the proposed Turtle Bay 3. A small inn would not address or eliminate the TVR problem. People who choose expansion until the Ko‘olau Loa community has taken a position on the issue. Since this TVRs are looking for the experience of living on the North Shore, which is a issue directly affects Ko‘olau Loa (i.e., is within the Ko‘olau Loa SCP boundaries), the different clientele from those who would stay at an inn. Also, the number of North Shore SCP should not comment directly on the issue unless or until Ko‘olau Loa rooms provided by an inn would not be enough to accommodate all the visitors requests such support. However, it should be recognized that SCP boundaries are only who stay in TVRs. geographic boundaries, and the proposed expansion will have spillover impacts to the North Shore, especially as it relates to infrastructure (highways). Turtle Bay markets the 4. The intent for including a recommendation to support a country inn in Hale‘iwa resort’s location as the O‘ahu’s North Shore. Unless or until Ko‘olau Loa requests such Town was to provide a link to the much revered, historic Hale‘iwa Hotel. An inn of support, discussion in the SCP about Turtle Bay should be limited to the subject areas similar scale was seen as another way to restore and promote the historic that would be impacted, such as public services and infrastructure. character of Hale‘iwa town. Several different parties have expressed interest in developing a country inn, but to date, there has been no activity beyond talking, Other Comments/Questions and no real developer on the horizon. There may be several reasons for this, including: (1) high development costs (i.e., real estate prices, infrastructure costs); • Revised SCP should include a summary of the area’s land use and cultural history. (2) the lack of LUO provisions supporting a country inn; and (3) the very real issue Language from Section 3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources (pg 3-40) could be used as a about the limitation of the scale of the inn, and the ability of the developer to make starting point for the write-up. The PAC would provide information and draft language to an operational profit. assist HHF with this effort. Possible resources that were discussed include the North Shore Chamber of Commerce website, Kamehameha Schools staff, and personal • Does the seasonal demand created by the surf industry need to be considered? knowledge from Tom Shirai. Although most surfers stay longer than 30 days, the seasonal demand for housing affects the number of units available for local residents. The PAC agreed that short-term TVR • Sustainability concepts will be discussed at the next PAC meeting. HHF will send PAC (rental for less than 30 days) were of greater concern than long-term rentals by surfers members the State of Hawai‘i Draft 2050 Sustainability Plan for review prior to the next staying for the winter season. meeting. Possible Revisions to Section 3.6 Commercial Areas The next North Shore PAC meeting will be scheduled in January 2008, time and place to be announced. The next meeting will focus on possible revisions to Chapter 4 Public Facilities • Strengthen description of Rural Community Commercial Center (RCCC) to ensure that and Infrastructure, and sustainability concepts. any proposal for development or redevelopment of the RCCC is limited and size and scope, and is intended more for residents than tourists. Revise SCP to indicate that rural Meeting was adjourned about 9:00 pm. community commercial centers “service the immediate community” (pg 3-54, delete “primarily”) • Country stores provide a necessary service to the surrounding community, and should be maintained in their current locations. Kammies Market was demolished a few years ago, Meeting Agenda • Welcome • Ground Rules • PAC Meeting #3 Follow-Up • Business, Employment and Visitor Industry Characteristics • SCP Revisions (Chapter 3) – Section 3.6 Commercial Areas – Section 3.8 Visitor Facilities • Next Steps NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 1 2 Planning Advisory Committee #4 December 4, 2007 Ground Rules for PAC Meetings PAC role and function PAC Meeting #3 Follow-Up – Represent various interests and opinions of the larger North Shore community – Serve as core advisory group to guide the planning process e mail • Draft meeting record sent via e-mail PAC meeting objectives • Comments on Performance – Discuss and propose changes at the PAC level prior to presentation / input from the larger community Assessment M t i ? A t Matrix? Discussion protocol – Focus on regional issues – Allow PAC members to speak first – Public participation welcome: comment after PAC discussion and through other public input opportunities – Give everyone a chance to talk once before you speak twice – Keep it short and share the floor with others, stay on topic – All contributions are valuable – Always be respectful and courteous, despite differing opinions 3 4 SCP Land Use Map Zoning Districts Inventory Apartment Residential Industrial 19 ac (0.1%) SEE INSET INSET 723 ac (1.0%) 43 ac (0.1%) Military/Federal Business 350 ac (0.5%) 41 ac (0.1%) • Less than 1% (41.5 acres) of North Shore lands are zoned for business use (B-1 or B-2 zoning) AG-1 29,129 ac (37.8%) • No Business Mixed Use districts SEE INSET Preservation 31,924 ac (41.5%) (BMX-3 or BMX-4 zoning) 1998 2007 Acreage District Acreage Acreage Change R-10 Residential 10.1 10.1 0 R-7.5 Residential 89.0 89.0 0 INSET R-5 Residential 674.5 656.1 -18.4 A-1 Low Density Apt 15.8 15.8 0 A-2 Medium Density Apt 3.7 3.7 0 B-1 Neighborhood Business 30.4 31.1 +0.7 Country y AG-2 13,591 ac (17.7%) B-2 Community Business B2 10.4 10.4 0 1,174 ac (1.5%) I-1 Limited Industrial 1.8 1.8 0 I-2 General Industrial 28.9 28.9 0 • Country Town designations in Waialua and Hale‘iwa Town; I-3 Waterfront Industrial 12.0 12.0 0 defined as a “mixed-use center of commerce and AG-1 Restricted AG 29,156.9 29,128.1 -28.8 community activity” AG-2 General AG 12,560.9 13,590.6 +1029.7 Country District 1 924 3 1,924.3 1,152.6 1 152 6 -771 7 -771.7 • Rural Community Commercial Center at Pupukea; P-1 Restricted Preservation 29,307.1 29,307.1 0 defined as a “small cluster of commercial and service P-2 General Preservation 2,816.8 2,605.5 -211.3 5 F-1 Military/Federal Preservation 349.6 349.6 60 businesses to serve primarily the immediate community” Source: Department of Planning and Permitting 1990-2000 Population Trends Labor Force Population Total population Percentage of Population in Labor Force 1990 2000 % change 1990 100.0% Honolulu County 836,231 876,156 4.8% 2000 83.5% North Shore 15,729 18,380 16.9% 76.4% 80.0% 71.1% 73.6% ia Mokul ‘ia CDP 1,667 1 667 1,839 1 839 10 3% 10.3% 66 7% 66.7% 70.1 70 1% 64.7% 64.5% Waialua CDP 4,052 3,761 -7.2% 61.4% 60.7% Hale‘iwa CDP 2,194 2,225 1.4% 60.0% 54.4% Percent Pupukea CDP 4,140 4,250 2.7% 40.0% Total Households Median Household Income 1990 2000 % change 1990 2000 Honolulu County 265,625 286,450 7.8% Honolulu County $40,581 $51,914 20.0% North Shore 4,825 5,893 22.1% North Shore n/a $45,000 N/A Mokul ‘ia CDP 664 709 6.8% Mokul ‘ia CDP $37,045 $50,100 0.0% Waialua CDP 1,178 1 178 1 128 1,128 4 2% -4.2% Waialua CDP $33,428 $33 428 $46,763 $46 763 Honolulu North Shore Mokul ‘ia ia Waialua Hale iw Hale‘iw a Pupukea Hale‘iwa CDP 710 770 8.5% Hale‘iwa CDP $32,000 $39,643 Pupukea CDP 1,268 1,455 14.7% Pupukea CDP $38,382 $56,146 % of Population in Labor Force (2000) Labor Force Population (1990-2000) Population Population % Population 1990 2000 % change Poverty Status (Individuals) 16 years y in Labor in Labor Honolulu County 463,572 447,320 -3.5% 1990 2000 h % change and over Force Force North Shore n/a 9,490 n/a Honolulu County 60,096 7.5% 83,937 9.9% 2.4% Honolulu County 691,015 447,320 64.7% Mokul ‘ia CDP 1,122 1,155 2.9% North Shore n/a n/a 2,426 13.5% n/a North Shore 14,218 9,490 66.7% Waialua CDP 1,986 1,624 -18.2% Mokul ‘ia CDP 122 7.3% 180 10.7% 3.4% Mokul ‘ia CDP 1,512 1,155 76.4% Hale‘iwa CDP 981 1,019 3.9% Waialua CDP 322 8.0% 439 11.7% 3.7% Waialua CDP 2,984 2 984 1,624 1 624 54 4% 54.4% Pupukea CDP 2 271 2,271 2,344 2 344 3.2% 3 2% Hale‘iwa CDP 292 13.0% 387 17.6% 4.6% Hale‘iwa CDP 1,678 1,019 60.7% Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census Pupukea CDP 361 8.9% 637 15.2% 6.3% Pupukea CDP 3,344 2,344 70.1% Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census 7 8 Business Patterns 2000 to 2005 Employment Characteristics • Less than 5% of North Shore residents WAIALUA (96791) 2000 2005 work in the Agriculture industry Number of establishments 48 70 • Education, Health and Social Services Industry accounts for the largest Number of employees 361 403 percentage of employment (19.1%), p g p y ( ) North Shore Employment by Industry (2000) followed by Retail and Wholesale Trade First quarter payroll $1,446,000 $2,188,000 Agriculture (4.8%) Public Administration (15.0%), and Arts/Entertainment, Annual payroll $6,484,000 $9,914,000 and Other Services Recreation, Accommodation/Food (11.5%) Construction (8.8%) Services (13.6%) HALEIWA (96712) Manufacturing (4.1%) Number of establishments 158 187 Educational, Health, Social Services Number of employees 1,412 1,728 (19.1%) Transportation (7.3%) First quarter payroll $6,345,000 $8,828,000 Annual payroll $26,057,000 $39,307,000 Retail and TOTAL Wholesale Trade Arts, Entertainment, (15.0%) Number of establishments 206 257 Recreation, Recreation Accomodation/Food Number of employees 1,773 2,131 Services (13.6%) Professional, Scientific, First quarter payroll $7,791,000 $11,016,000 Finance, Insurance, Management, Annual payroll $32,541,000 $49,221,000 Real Estate, Information Adminstrative, Waste Rental/Leasing (4 4%) R t l/L i (4.4%) Management Services (1.8%) (1 8%) Source: US Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census (9.7%) 9 10 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census Employment Characteristics Where Do North Shore Residents Work? Where Residents Work (2004) Place of Residence North Shore Employment by Occupation (2000) Kawela Production, Mokul ‘ia Waialua Hale‘iwa Pupukea Bay Kahuku Laie Transportation, and Mokul ‘ia 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Material Moving Management, Waialua 4.7% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 12% Professional and Related Haleiwa 10.5% 10.1% 16.0% 10.9% 10.0% 2.1% 0.0% Workplace Location Construction, Extraction, 31% Pupukea 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 5.8% 17.1% 10.3% 2.1% and Maintenance Kawela Bay 2.6% 3.5% 4.4% 10.0% 22.9% 9.6% 1.9% 11% L K h k Kahuku 0 0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0% 2.3% 2 3% 2.9% 2 9% 8 8% 8.8% 0 8% 0.8% Laie 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 7.1% 22.2% 75.4% Farming, Fishing Hauula/Punaluu 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% and Forestry Kualoa/K ne‘ohe/Kailua 1.9% 0.0% 3.7% 2.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.5% 3% Central O‘ahu O ahu 5.6% 9.2% 5.5% 1.8% 1.4% 3.4% 0.5% Pearl City/Aiea/Waipahu 0.0% 3.7% 2.7% 3.2% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% Honolulu 38.3% 37.8% 37.4% 36.4% 24.3% 26.1% 9.8% Sales and Office Other Locations 31.1% 30.5% 28.3% 25.7% 10.0% 14.2% 5.2% Service 22% Source: US Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics 21% % Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) Percent Self-Employed 1990 2000 change 1990 2000 change • 31% of North Shore residents work in Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census Management and Professional occupations, Honolulu County 24.8 27.3 2.5 Honolulu County 5.5% 6.3% 0.8% followed by Sales and Office occupations North Shore n/a 32.9 n/a North Shore n/a 8.7% n/a (22%), (22%) and Service occupations (21%) ia Mokul ‘ia CDP 32 0 32.0 35 5 35.5 35 3.5 Mokul ‘ia CDP ia 7 5% 7.5% 7 1% -0 4% 7.1% -0.4% • About 3% of residents work in Farming, Waialua CDP 28.5 32.9 4.4 Waialua CDP 4.0% 4.6% 0.6% Fishing and Forestry Occupations Hale‘iwa CDP 31.2 33.0 1.8 Hale‘iwa CDP 8.7% 8.7% 0.0% 11 Pupukea CDP 31.4 41.9 10.5 Pupukea CDP 16.5% 12 14.6% -1.9% Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census Where do North Shore Employees Live? Statewide Visitor Trends (1966-2006) Statewide Annual Visitor Arrivals (1966-2006) Where Workers Live (2004) Workplace Location 8,000,000 • Number of visitors to Kawela 7,000,000 Hawai‘i has increased ia Mokul ‘ia Waialua Hale‘iwa Pupukea Hale iwa Bay Kahuku Laie rs 6,000,000 (835,000 800% since 1666 (835 000 Number of Visitor 5,000,000 Mokul ‘ia 12.4% 15.4% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% visitors in 1966 to 7.5 4,000,000 Waialua 14.0% 25.2% 11.0% 4.8% 6.7% 2.2% 0.0% million in 2006) sidence 3,000,000 Haleiwa 4.1% 2.8% 9.7% 2.8% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2,000,000 • Average number of Pupukea p 0.0% 6.3% 14.8% 19.2% 23.6% 16.1% 0.6% visitors present per day Employees Place of Res 1,000,000 1 000 000 Kawela Bay 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0 has increased from 21,000 Kahuku 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 6.7% 18.3% 3.4% 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 06 in 1966 to 188,000 in 2006 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 Laie 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 7.8% 9.7% 68.3% Year Hauula/Punaluu 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 5.8% 8.6% 8.4% s' Statewide A D il N b f Vi it (1966 2006) St t id Average Daily Number of Visitors (1966-2006) Kualoa/K ne‘ohe/Kailua 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.2% 200,000 Central O‘ahu 6.6% 4.2% 12.6% 7.3% 7.0% 7.6% 0.6% 180,000 Pearl City/Aiea/Waipahu 5.8% 7.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 160,000 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% sitors ‘Ewa 140,000 120 000 120,000 Number of Vis Honolulu 19 8% 19.8% 11 2% 11.2% 6 1% 6.1% 4 3% 4.3% 2.7% 2 7% 8 1% 8.1% 3.6% 3 6% 100,000 Other Locations 30.6% 25.2% 39.5% 31.6% 32.1% 26.9% 12.8% 80,000 Source: US Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 13 Year 14 Source: State of Hawai‘i Data Book 2006, Table 7.03 O‘ahu Visitor Trends (2000-2006) North Shore Visitors’ Behavior Oahu Visitor Arrivals (2000-2006) 5,000,000 • 51% of O‘ahu’s overnight visitors visited the North Shore in 4,500,000 O‘ahu Average Daily both 2003 and 2005 (2.1 and 2.4 million per year, or 5,753 O‘ahu Annual Number of 6 575 average and 6,575 per day average, respectively) rs Number of Visitor 4,000,000 Year Visitor Arrivals Visitors 2000 4,719,244 84,910 3,500,000 2001 2002 4,250,863 4,276,077 79,699 82,121 • 86% of visitors said they would be likely to return to the 3,000,000 2003 2004 4,074,141 4,464,551 76,776 83,718 North Shore on their next visit 2,500,000 2005 4,731,843 89,588 2006 4,627,484 87,953 • Visitors with a high propensity to visit 2,000,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 2004 2005 2006 – Stayed in Hawai‘i longer than 8 days 100,000 O‘ahu A O‘ h Average Daily Number of Visitors (2000-2006) D il N b f Vi it (2000 2006) Younger d – Y demographics hi – International and first time visitors 90,000 sitors g p • Highest satisfaction levels with the “natural” experience Average Daily Vis 80,000 (country atmosphere, beaches, big waves/surf) 70,000 • Highest levels of dissatisfaction with beach parks/facilities 60,000 (10%) restaurants (9%) and shopping (9%) (10%), 50,000 Source: North Shore Visitors Satisfaction Survey, DBEDT 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 2004 2005 15 2006 16 Source: State of Hawai‘i Data Book 2000-2006, Tables 7.06 and 7.07 Trends in O‘ahu’s Visitor Unit Inventory Trends in O‘ahu’s Visitor Unit Inventory O‘ahu Inventory of Available Visitor Units (2006) • Number of visitors units Statewide increased almost 400% between 1966 and 2006 (increase of 57,700 units from 14,800 in 1966 to 72,500 in 2006) 30000 Hotel • Hotel units account for the 77.2% largest segment of O‘ahu’s • O‘ahu units accounted for 74.7% of the Statewide total in 1966, compared to 46.9% in 25000 current inventory (77.2%) 22 900 11 100 34 008 2006 (O‘ahu inventory increased by 22,900 units from 11,100 in 1966 to 34,008 in 2006) 20000 • The total number of visitor vailable Units units on the North Shore (809) Statewide and Oahu Visitor Units (1966 to 2006) accounts for 2.4% of the 80,000 15000 Statewide islandwide total (34,008) Av 70,000 0 000 10000 60,000 * Condo/Hotel 13.9% Time share 5000 Apt/Hotel B&Bs Hostel IVU 4.9% Other Number of Units 0.8% 0.1% 0.7% .9% 1.3% 50,000 0 40,000 30,000 * Island of O‘ahu An Individual Vacation Unit (IVU) is defined as “an individual condominium unit (not in a Inventory of Visitor Units (2006) North Shore (Includes Properties Between Percent of hotel rental operation), house, cabin, villa or O‘ahu Mokul ‘ia, Schofield & Hauula) Islandwide Total 20,000 cottage with very limited service, often with Available Available Available only basic cleaning supplies provided.” Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Apartment/Hotel 11 300 1 57 9.1% 19.0% 10,000 Other includes “residential condominium Bed and Breakfast 25 50 --- --- --- --- units, timeshare units, motels, lodges, inns or * No survey conducted in 1995 any other form of property not included in the Condo/Hotel 32 4,728 --- --- --- --- 0 other categories” Hostel 7 244 --- --- --- --- Hotel 67 26,261 , 3 701 4.5% 2.7% 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 06 Source: 2006 Visitor Plant Inventory, DBEDT Individual Vacation Unit (IVU) 56 308 17 34 30.4% 11.0% 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 Timeshare 6 1,655 --- --- --- --- Year Other 9 435 3 17 33.3% 3.9% 17 Source: 2006 Visitor Plant Inventory, DBEDT TOTAL 213 34,008 24 809 11.3% 18 2.4% O‘ahu Transient Vacation Rentals O‘ahu Permitted Transient Vacation Units (Per Internet Search of Advertised Properties) Number of O‘ahu Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) Properties by Area (2005) • 998 properties operating Permitted Transient Vacation Rentals on O‘ahu (2005) (single-family structures and cottages/cabins) Windward (K ne‘ohe to Waimanalo) Homes 434 B&Bs 127 Total 561 % Total 50.2% • 1,117 O‘ahu properties as permitted transient Percent North Shore (Mokul ‘ia to Pupukea) Ko‘olau Loa (Kawela Bay to Punaluu) 246 109 21 5 267 114 23.9% 10.2% found on the Internet in Units Share ti it vacation unit (TVU) on Windward (K ne‘ohe to Waimanalo) 85 58.6% Urban Core (H Ub C (Honolulu) l l ) West O‘ahu (‘Ewa Beach to Makaha) 97 59 17 2 114 61 10 2% 10.2% 5.5% comparison to 145 permitted single-family O‘ahu in December 2004 North Shore (Mokul ‘ia to Pupukea) 32 22.1% TOTAL 945 172 1,117 TVU; suggests that 87% of Ko‘olau Loa (Kawela Bay to Punaluu) 17 11.7% the single-family TVR (i.e., those with a non- Urban Core (Honolulu) 11 7.6% Oahu Transient Vacation Rentals (2005) properties on O‘ahu’s are 0 0 0% 0.0% conforming use certificate West O ahu (‘Ewa Beach to Makaha) TOTAL O‘ahu ( Ewa 145 100.0% 600 127 Homes tl not legal l from DPP) 500 B&Bs • Windward O‘ahu had the greatest number of TVU • Of the 998 total, 85% (853) (561 properties, 50.2%) ties • Over 275,000 of visitors statewide stayed in 400 mber of Propert a B&B or vacation rental home in 2004, up • The North Shore accounted were multi-family units, 16% from the previous year; vacation for 23.9% (267 properties) with 784 units in Waikiki rentals grew more rapidly than B&Bs 300 21 of O‘ahu’s total TVR • O‘ahu hosted 130,700 visitors in B&Bs and 434 • 15% (145) of O‘ahu’s O ahu s vacation rental homes in 2004 (96,000 in 200 Num homes and 34,000 B&B patrons, or 2.2% TVR include “all single-family structures (homes permitted TVU were and 0.8% of O‘ahu visitors) 100 246 5 17 and B&Bs) operating as visitor accommodations; 2 excludes accommodations that are not hotel single-family units Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient 109 97 59 rooms or multifamily structures (hostels, Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) apartments, condos or timeshares)” 0 Windward North Shore Ko‘olau Loa Urban Core West O‘ahu (K ne‘ohe to (Mokul ‘ia to (Kawela Bay to (Honolulu) (‘Ewa Beach to Waimanalo) Pupukea) Punaluu) Makaha) 19 20 Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) North Shore TVR Inventory y TVR Inventory in the Pupukea Area TVR PROPERTIES Census BEACHFRONT TVR Housing % Housing % Homes B&Bs Total Units Housing TVR Units Beachfront Pupukea 160 9 169 2,335 7.2% 63 866 7% Nort Shore Hale‘iwa 54 9 63 869 7.2% 26 242 11% Mokul ‘ia 23 0 23 883 2.6% 10 423 2% th Waialua 9 3 12 1 219 1,219 1 0% 1.0% 5 182 3% Subtotal 246 21 267 5,306 5.0% 104 1,713 6% Kawela Bay 7 1 8 439 1.8% 3 299 1% Ko‘olau Loa Laie 28 1 29 1,024 2.8% 16 302 5% Hauula 30 2 32 1,086 2.9% 2 214 1% Kaaawa 19 1 20 550 3.6% 4 150 3% Punaluu 17 0 17 440 3.9% 4 305 1% Kahuku 8 0 8 518 1.5% 4 130 3% Subtotal 109 5 114 4,057 2.8% 33 1,400 2% K ne‘ohe 26 12 38 11,475 0.3% 6 843 1% Windward Kailua Beach 259 83 342 3,486 9.8% 88 519 17% Lanikai 113 22 135 758 17 8% 17.8% 37 108 34% Waimanalo Beach 36 10 46 363 12.7% 25 63 40% Subtotal 434 127 561 16,082 3.5% 156 1,533 10% Kahala 34 2 36 1,635 2.2% 15 365 4% olulu Hawai‘i Kai 28 1 29 1,843 1.6% 16 596 3% Diamond Head 19 1 20 572 3.5% 7 304 2% Hono Waialae Niu 9 0 9 3,045 0.3% 3 523 1% Other Honolulu 7 13 20 151,564 0.0% 0 NA NA Subtotal 97 17 114 158,659 0.1% 41 1,788 2% Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) West O‘ahu Makaha 30 1 31 3,197 1.0% 12 717 2% ‘Ewa Beach 13 1 14 3,515 0.4% 4 920 0% Kapolei-Ko Olina 12 0 12 4 937 4,937 0.2% 0 2% 0 0 0% Maili 4 0 4 1,537 0.3% 4 94 4% Subtotal 59 2 61 13,186 0.5% 20 1,731 1% O‘AHU TOTAL 945 172 1,117 197,290 0.6% 354 8,165 4% 21 22 Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) TVR Inventory in Lanikai y TVR Inventory on Waimanalo Beach Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) 23 24 TVR Inventory in Kailua SCP Vision Elements “Designate Hale‘iwa and Waialua Towns as ‘Country Towns’” • Hale‘iwa is the region’s main commercial center for residents and visitors, with activities concentrated on Kamehameha Highway • Waialua is a plantation town for residents of Waialua and Mokul ‘ia; is the center of agricultural activity, resident services and the region’s high technology industry g gy y • Building scale and character reflect the towns’ historic “small town” character and rural landscape • Small-scale country inns in both town cores keep visitors in the area longer Source: O‘ahu Market Segment Assessment Transient Vacation Rentals, The Kauaian Institute (2005) 25 26 Community Concerns Section 3.6 Commercial Areas Vision El t Q ti i • Vi i Elements Questionnaire responses – 98% (63) strongly agreed or agreed with the vision element • Country Town designations at Waialua and Hale‘iwa – 2% (1) did not respond • Rural Community Commercial Center designation between Pupukea Road and Pahoa Road p Limit i ld l t t H l ‘i dW i l t th • Li it commercial developments to Hale‘iwa and Waialua; strengthen town core and minimize need to drive • Country Stores – Ted’s Bakery • Establish rural design standards to preserve and promote “country town” character (architectural integrity reasonable height limits town integrity, limits, – Sunset Beach Store density) – Kammies • Promote small local businesses (no big box retailers) – Sharks Cove • P Provide public restrooms in Hale‘iwa town id bli t i H l ‘i t – Paalaa Kai – Waialua Junction • Improve pedestrian facilities (sidewalks/crosswalks) in Hale‘iwa • Possible revisions or additions? p y • Construct bike path between Waimea Bay and Hale‘iwa Town Strengthen description of Rural Community Commercial Center – St th d i ti fR lC it C i lC t • Provide trolley system between Hale‘iwa and Turtle Bay with secure (addressing previously-proposed Sharks Cove shopping parking in Hale‘iwa complex)? • No hotels/resorts; limit new developments to Waikiki and Ko ‘Olina Olina – Incorporate Waialua Town Master Plan recommendations for commercial areas? • Need for legal visitor accommodations that fit with the rural character 27 28 GP Objectives & Policies – Resort Areas Preferred Waialua Area Concept Plan II. Economic Activity B. Objective B To maintain the viability of O‘ahu’s visitor industry 6 – Policy 6. Permit the development of secondary resort areas in West Beach, Kahuku, Makaha and Laie – Policy 7. Manage the development of secondary resort areas in a manner which respects existing lifestyles and the natural environment, and avoids substantial increases in the cost of providing public Source: Waialua Town Master Plan, June 2004 services in the area 29 30 Section 3.8 Visitor Facilities Next Steps • Existing SCP allows “small- PAC Meeting #5 scale country inns within the Hale‘iwa and Waialua Country y – Tentative mid-January 2008 Town districts, subject to a – Discuss revisions case-by-case review process” • Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities and • Possible revisions or Infrastructure additions? • Sustainability Concepts – Address community concerns about short-term vacation – Present Revised Performance Assessment rentals? – Clarify permitting mechanism for Community Meeting #2 “country inns” (Per the LUO, – Tentative February 2008 y hotels are only permitted in Resort and BMX-4 zoning –P tP f Present Performance A t d d Assessment and proposed districts)? SCP revisions – Incorporate Waialua Town Master Plan recommendation for a small country inn at Kaiaka Bay? 31 32 NS SCP PAC #5 Meeting Record January 8, 2008 Helber Hastert & Fee Page 2 of 5 Planners, Inc. affect North Shore infrastructure (especially Kamehameha Highway); and (2) the January 14, 2008 consideration of such spill over impacts should not be construed as tacit approval or acceptance of the expansion, as most, if not all, PAC members oppose the expansion.” MEETING SUMMARY • Amend paragraph in draft meeting record about visitor accommodations to note that the To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File PAC discussed the possibility of considering new visitor accommodations. However, most PAC members felt there should not even be a discussion of new visitor From: Rachael Edinger accommodations until the City and County can achieve control and eliminate the majority of current illegal accommodations (TVRs, B&Bs). Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 5 January 8, 2008, 6:30 – 9:00 pm • Add the word “estate” after real in “real market pressures” (pg 2, 8th bullet). PAC Attendees: Jeff Alameida, Dave Bramlett, Jerry Driscoll, Gerry Meade, Antya Miller, Sustainability Definitions and Concepts Dan Nellis, Gil Riviere, Kalani Fronda, Kathleen Pahinui, Carol Phillips, Jacob Ng, Stew Ring, Paul Sensano, Ron Nishihara (for Lisa Izumi) • PAC members Stew Ring and Kathleen Pahinui distributed a hand-out they prepared on Other Attendees: Mark Cunningham (Defend O‘ahu Coalition) definitions for sustainability to be added to the NS SCP. The PAC felt that these DPP Attendees: Ray Young, DPP Project Manager definitions are broad enough and accurately encompass what they want to say about HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Rachael Edinger sustainability for the NS. The fifth Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore (NS) Sustainable • Discussion on how, if at all, it is possible to make the impacts of visitors sustainable. Can Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at visitors be “managed”? Or can only businesses that cater to visitors be managed? The the Waialua Community Association Cottage #2. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss number of visitors is not an easy thing to control. A lengthy discussion ensued covering definitions of sustainability, and possible revisions to Section 4.1 Infrastructure and Section the impact of tourists to the de facto North Shore population, and the effect this has on 3.1 Parks and Recreation of the SCP. the daily lives of residents. This is especially true when it is considered that the NS SCP area has no resort zoning. Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 6:30. Meeting ground rules were summarized, followed by a review of the draft meeting record from the previous PAC meeting (held on December • It is important to educate visitors that come to the North Shore, more so than ‘manage’ 4). An overview of sustainability concepts and various definitions along with proposed them. Let them know what true Hawai‘i is. revisions to the NS SCP maps were presented. Kamehameha Highway traffic data was presented, followed by a discussion of possible SCP revisions. • Hanauma Bay provides an example of both managing the number of visitors and educating them. The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. • Could there be a way of having a toll to access the NS? At $1 per car, that could bring in Revisions to PAC #4 Draft Meeting Record significant money that could be used for North Shore projects. • Amend paragraph in the draft meeting record about the proposed Turtle Bay expansion • Carrying capacity as a concept is a challenging issue. Achieving balance is a concept that indicates “… the North Shore SCP should not comment directly on the issue unless and goal that is more doable. The group has strong concern for the carrying capacity of or until Ko‘olau Loa requests such support” (pg 4, 4th bullet), by replacing that bullet with the NS, especially with regards to the number of people and fresh water. the following language: “The PAC has spent considerable time discussing the proposed Turtle Bay expansion; specifically they have discussed whether it is appropriate for the • Water needs to be taken into account both island-wide and for the NS community. Do PAC to take a position regarding the expansion. The PAC cannot reach consensus on not want to export NS water to support development in other areas (i.e. Ewa). There are this issue. Some PAC members believe it is inappropriate for the North Shore PAC to also groundwater contamination issues that need attention. take a position on a land use issue which is part of the Ko‘olau Loa SCP. Other PAC members believe the magnitude of the expansion is so significant, the spill over impacts • “Protect those cultural, social, and built resources that identify the sense of community to the North Shore validate the North Shore PAC taking a position.” and rural quality of life for current residents and future generations.” The PAC does agree on two corollary issues related to the proposed Turtle Bay • It was pointed out by the consultant that there may be a need to review a consideration of expansion: (1) the NS SCP should reflect concern about the spill over impacts that would a definition of sustainability across all SCP areas for consistency. The sentiment of the PAC leaned toward an observation that each SCP area is unique and might need a more focused discussion of sustainability. Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org NS SCP PAC #5 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #5 Meeting Record January 8, 2008 January 8, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 • Language in SCP regarding Kaena Point should be changed to read “Protect the natural SCP Maps Proposed Revisions resources of Kaena Point from potentially damaging vehicular traffic and rule out any proposal to construct a roadway around Kaena Point.” (p. 4-8, 1st bullet). • The wastewater icon in the vicinity of Paumalu should be removed from the SCP Land Use Map, as it was probably intended to support the former Lihi Lani project. This should • Possible to have a bypass lane for buses and vanpools? Is there room for this? be consistent with findings of the North Shore Wastewater Management Study in progress. • Projected needs for police and other services are based on resident populations only. Need to add visitor numbers to this. Language in the updated SCP should read “Include • Some members objected to the Kealia Point proposal because they felt that the project visitor population in determining allocations of resources and facilities for the North should be presented to the NS Neighborhood Board and Mokuleia Community Shore.” (p. 4-7, 3rd bullet). In addition, add the actual numbers of visitors and include the Association prior to consideration by the PAC. year the data is from (approximately 7,000 visitors per day, as of 2005). Possible Revisions to Section 4 Public Facilities and Infrastructure • The PAC is wary of saying they want to add capacity to Kamehameha Highway. The planned Kamehameha Highway Safety Improvements, Hale‘iwa to Kahalu‘u project Kamehameha Highway (Project No. 9 2006-2015) is supported. Adding capacity for safety reasons is acceptable, but not for increasing the number of vehicles (and people) who could come to • Discussion about the impacts of additional cars; there is overwhelming anecdotal the NS. The North Shore has reached a “tipping point” in dealing with de facto information that documents the breakdown of the regional highway arterial under population. This is a fundamental assumption in looking at impacts of visitors to the conditions of stress. This no longer includes only days when the surf is large during the North Shore, particularly if you compare the average number of daily visitors to the winter. It also includes weekend days throughout the year. Also, the situation has resident population. Visitors increase de facto population by close to 40%. accelerated negatively in the last 2-3 years. Current conditions have reached a critical stage, especially when acknowledging that the highway has not been greatly improved Water Systems since it was first built. The proposed Turtle Bay expansion will only exacerbate an already intolerable condition. It does not seem possible to add the expected amounts of • There is a desire to keep the water within the moku. This is currently expressed in the cars to the road. SCP and this language should be retained, and strengthened, if appropriate. • The group has concerns about how the gridlock on Kamehameha Highway impacts • Sections 4.2 Water Systems and 4.3 Wastewater treatment need to be updated with emergency vehicles. most current data. • Several roadway projects have not been implemented as it was assumed they would be. Harbors Money has not yet been allocated for the projects. Paul Sensano provided the following information on Hale‘iwa Harbor: • Alternative transportation options should be a priority. Ideas include: pedestrian enhancement (walkways over and under highway); shuttle buses; circular bus routes; • The harbor has grown from 77 berths to 128 berths in the past 10 years, and there is a update of bus routes servicing the NS; a transit center in Hale‘iwa (a current concept City large wait list for berths. Dry dock or dry land storage is needed to support harbor plan); encouraging bike plans (existing bike plan projects should be fast tracked); facilities. The PAC feels that provision of dry docks should be included in the SCP. potentially prohibit tour buses at certain times from travelling on Kamehameha Highway; private enterprise (someone with a van that drives along and picks up and drops off • There are no plans to expand the harbor breakwater. Mid to long term, the current plan people--concern this would be regulated by the Public Utilities Commission). is to stay within the existing harbor footprint. Any additional slips must be accommodated within existing footprint. • Add language in Section 4.1.5, General Policies to provide for residents in evacuation situations and ensure emergency vehicles have access to and from the NS. Potential • Eight commercial operators are currently in the harbor. This is all that is allowed by language could be “Safety and emergency access roads are needed, including possibly permit. This indicates the increasing demand for commercial use of Hale‘iwa Harbor. the following private roads: Cane Road behind Dillingham Ranch in Mokuleia and roads However, the first priority for the harbor should be for recreational users, with a connecting with Drum Road including Cane Haul Road (Twin Bridge Road) in Haleiwa, continuing long waiting list for those users. Kawailoa Road, Ashley Road, Pupukea Road and Motocross/Kaunala Road. COMSAT/Girl Scout Camp (Paumalu) Road is for evacuation only as it doesn’t connect • There is a need for public restrooms, in Hale‘iwa as well as at the harbor. with Drum Road.” • Need for more DOCARE officers to service the North Shore. NS SCP PAC #5 Meeting Record January 8, 2008 Page 5 of 5 • Kaiaka park was previously considered as a site for additional harbor facilities as Hale‘iwa became too congested. It could still serve this function and revert to state management. However the mixed use of Kaiaka Bay nad Kaiaka Bay Park must be carefully studied by the State and the City because of adjoining current and future uses of Kaiaka Bay Park (City), Haleiwa Elementary School (State) and a suggested boat harbor (State) to satisfy the needs of the North Shore Community. Other Comments/Questions • Ensure the NS SCP contains a general sentence somewhere that all laws and EIS requirements should be followed for all projects. • Transient accommodation tax (TAT): what portion of this tax is the NS getting? Scott Ezer to follow up with research on this and provide to the PAC. Follow up: TAT is covered under Chapter 237D, HRS. In Section 237D-6.5(b) (3), the statute addresses how the tax monies collected are to be distributed. 44.8% of total revenues are to be distributed to the counties. 44.1% of the 44.8% (or 10.2% of the total revenues collected) are to be distributed to the City and County of Honolulu. There are no apparent restrictions on spending the money for the counties. The language appears to mean that the monies are paid into the respective County’s general fund. • Ensure that section 4.4 has renewable energy language in it. • One perspective suggests that the city should concentrate on maintaining existing parks before acquiring land for new parks or developing others. Another perspective suggests that we should not pass up the opportunity to acquire new land for future parks; the land could be lost to other uses. • All PAC members who have SCP language additions or changes should e-mail the exact wording to Scott Ezer (email@example.com). The next meeting will be a Community meeting, which will be targeted for sometime in mid- late February 2008, time and place to be announced. (Subsequently, this date is now targeted for mid-April). The community will be presented with what the PAC has been discussing, with a chance for small group discussions. The next North Shore PAC meeting will be held after the Community Meeting. Meeting was adjourned about 9:15 pm. Meeting Agenda • Ground Rules • PAC Meeting #4 Follow-Up • Definition of Sustainability • Proposed SCP Map Revisions • Public Facilities and Infrastructure – Overview – Possible Revisions • Next Steps NORTH SHORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Planning Advisory Committee #5 January 8, 2008 2 Ground Rules for PAC Meetings PAC role and function PAC Meeting #4 Follow-Up – Represent various interests and opinions of the larger North Shore community – Serve as core advisory group to guide the planning process • Draft meeting record sent via e-mail PAC meeting objectives • Any comments? – Discuss and propose changes at the PAC level prior to presentation / input from the larger community Discussion protocol – Focus on regional issues – Allow PAC members to speak first – Public participation welcome: comment after PAC discussion and through other public input opportunities – Give everyone a chance to talk once before you speak twice – Keep it short and share the floor with others, stay on topic – All contributions are valuable – Always be respectful and courteous, despite differing opinions 3 4 Sustainability Sustainable Development “Development which meets the needs of the SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: present without compromising the ability of A 2-WORD PHRASE WITH A 1,000 MEANINGS future generations to meet their own needs.” - Brundtland Commission, United Nations (1987) • Recognizes the relationships “Man everywhere is a disturbing agent. between: Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of – Natural resources Social Equity nature are turned to discords” – economic prosperity - George Perkins Marsh, 1864 – social equity • Meshes the need to preserve, Sustainable Metropolitan growth “is fast absorbing the rural enhance, and interrelate economic prosperity, the Economic hinterland and threatening to wipe out many of integrity of natural Environment Prosperity the natural elements favorable to life…” ecosystems, and social equity - Lewis Mumford, 1956 5 6 Sustainability Context Sustainable Development “Sustainability implies….a vastly reduced energy budget for cities and a smaller, more compact urban pattern interspersed with productive areas to collect energy, grow crops for food, New Development Terms fiber, and energy, and recycle wastes…” • Smart Growth “Sustainable communities acknowledge environmental • New Urbanism constraints – from limited groundwater and wetlands to global • Traditional Neighborhood Development climate change…” • Green Development “Sustainable communities work within physical and biological limits” • Low Impact Design “Economic and social changes that promote human prosperity and quality of life without causing ecological or social damage” 7 8 Draft Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan Guiding Principles of Sustainability (October 2007) (Draft Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan, October 2007) • Our sustainability goals, actions and measurements are “Sustainability in Hawai‘i means achieving a guided by balancing economic prosperity, community and social well-being and environmental stewardship quality of life that: • We respect and live within the natural resources and limits of – Respects the culture, character, beauty and our islands history of our state’s island communities • Sustainability cannot occur without a strong, diversified and dynamic economy – Strikes a balance between economic prosperity, • Our cultural traditions, history and sense of place are social and community well-being, and honored environmental stewardship • We make decisions based on meeting the present needs without compromising the needs of future generations – Meets the needs of the present without • The traditional values and principles of the ahupua‘a system compromising the ability of future generations to guide how we manage our resources and behaviors meet their own needs” • Everyone — individuals, families, communities, businesses and government — has a responsibility for achieving a sustainable Hawai‘i 9 10 SCP Land Use Map Proposed Revisions SCP Open Space Map Proposed Revisions • Change “Rural Residential,” and “Rural” • Change “Rural Communities” at Pupukea to Existing SCP Land Use Map designations at Pupukea to “Agriculture” “Agriculture” • Move Rural Community Boundary makai of • Move Rural Community Boundary makai of proposed “Agriculture” area Existing SCP Open Space Map proposed “Agriculture” area Proposed SCP Land Use Map Proposed SCP Open Space Map 11 12 SCP Public Facilities Map Proposed Revisions Kealia Point Amendment Proposal • Change “Rural Communities” at Pupukea to Existing SCP Public Facilities Map “Agriculture” • TMK parcels 6-8-002:010 • Move Rural Community Boundary makai of and 014 (5.6 and 7.5 acres, proposed “Agriculture” area respectively) • State Agricultural District • P-2 Preservation Zoning 13 14 SCP Vision Elements (Public Facilities & Infrastructure) Vision Elements Questionnaire “Enhance the Region’s Recreational and Educational Potential” • Use of Best Management Practices Responses minimizes soil erosion from • Improve park facilities and expand agricultural lands “Enhance the Region’s Recreational and Educational Potential” beach parks when feasible; make maintenance and improvements to • An adequate circulation network for • 90% (58) agreed or strongly agreed with vision element existing beach parks and additional all modes of transportation • 8% (5) disagreed or strongly disagreed with vision element access to the shoreline a priority (roadways, transit, bikeways and pedestrian paths) links the region • 2% (1) did not respond “Provide Adequate Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Services” • Other priority needs include retention “Provide Adequate Public Infrastructure, Facilities and of Waialua Public Library and • Infrastructure does not detract from maintenance of existing parks Services” scenic amenities, recreational • 93% (60) agreed or strongly agreed with the vision element opportunities, open space or other • Proven alternative energy sources, amenities including solar, are encouraged • 5% (3) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision element • New major facilities are centrally located “Adapt the Ahupua‘a Concept in • 2% (1) did not respond • Adequate, environmentally sensitive Land Use & Natural Resource wastewater treatment systems have Management” “Adapt the Ahupua‘a Concept in Land Use and Natural minimal impact on groundwater and Resource Management” ocean resources • Planning and implementation of land use decisions and land-based actions • 89% (57) agreed or strongly agreed with the vision element • Improved drainage controls mitigate consider the effects on coastal • 5% (3) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision element storm runoff and flood hazards; adequate drainage infrastructure waters and the nearshore ensures continuous runoff environment • 6% (4) did not respond 15 16 Community Concerns Community Concerns General Infrastructure Issues • More funding desired for North Shore improvements Water Systems • Need better cooperation and coordination between • Upgrade Mokul ‘ia’s existing water distribution system private landowners and government agencies • Protect North Shore aquifers and watersheds Transportation Systems • Incorporate BWS North Shore Watershed Management • Existing capacity, condition, safety and traffic on Plan (pending) highway is unsatisfactory Wastewater Treatment – Resolve traffic congestion and bottlenecks (Pupukea, Waimea Bay, Laniakea) • Replace existing wastewater treatment systems and – Complete Waimea rockfall mitigation protect coastal water quality – Keep Kamehameha Highway two lanes • Incorporate North Shore Regional Wastewater – Limit new development until highway capacity is Alternatives Plan (ongoing) clearly understood – Address highway condition during storms and surf Drainage and Flooding – Lack of beach parking impacts highway traffic – Need regional emergency bypass roads • Need infrastructure to correct existing drainage and • Improve alternative transportation systems flooding problems across the region – Bikeway between Waimea Bay and Waialua • Address potential flood hazards in Waialua and Hale‘iwa – Pedestrian facilities in Hale‘iwa and Waialua • Waialua-Kaiaka Bay Watershed Study remains unfunded – Hale‘iwa – Turtle Bay Trolley System 17 18 Community Concerns Public Infrastructure Map Symbols Public Safety Facilities • Increased police presence (more staffing) • Waialua fire station replacement • Water tanker near communities needing better fire protection • Additional water reservoirs to support fire fighting capability • Emergency response units at Sunset Beach • Emergency shelters outside of flood plain that can accommodate the existing population Parks / Recreational Facilities • Improved facilities (restrooms and parking) and better maintenance • Concern about the increasing number of visitors using the beach parks 19 20 1 Kamehameha Highway Baseline Proposed Turtle Bay Expansion DOT Traffic Counts – February 2003 (Weekday) Traffic Impact Analysis – Taken north of Hale‘iwa Bypass/Kamehameha Hwy Intersection • Year 2028 Scenario assumes – 14,685 total vehicles per day full build-out Total Vehicles/Hour Vehicles/Hour 2005 – 950 vehicles/hour (VPH) during AM weekday peak hour (11-12) Vehicles Entering the Site Exiting the Site – 2,500 new hotel rooms AM Peak Hour 1,063 755 308 – 1,000 recreational homes – 1,268 VPH during PM weekday peak hour (315-415 pm) PM Peak Hour 1,822 776 1,046 – 48-acre beach park Kawailoa Beach Park Field Counts – May 2005 (Saturday) Saturday Peak Hour 2,065 1,124 930 Proposed Roadway Improvements1 1985 – 1,607 VPH (715 westbound, 892 eastbound) during peak hour PM Peak Hour • Construct the West Kuilima Drive 977 475 502 (Alpha Road) and Kamehameha 2010 Projections (based on DOT traffic count data) Saturday Peak Hour 910 417 493 Highway intersection – Highway traffic projected to increase 3.28% annually • Construct improvements including left turn storage and deceleration – 1,870 VPH (832 westbound, 1,038 eastbound) during Saturday peak lanes on Kamehameha Highway hour at Kuilima Drive and Marconi Road – LOS “E”, V/C ratio increase to 0.60 • Signalize Kuilima Drive, West Source: 2005: Proposed Turtle Bay Resort Master Plan 2000 Kawailoa Traffic Projections (forecast in 1985) Traffic Impact Analysis Report Update, September Kuilima Drive (Alpha Road), and Marconi Road intersections with 2005 Kamehameha Highway í13,400 vehicles per weekday; 17,996 vehicles per Saturday 1985: Kuilima Resort Expansion Revised EIS, Group 70 International (Austin Tsutsumi • Construct bus turnouts along Kamehameha Highway fronting í1,080 VPH peak weekday; 1,511 VPH peak Saturday Associates) the resort 1 1 Source: Turtle Bay Resort Roadway 2000 Data from 1985 Kuilima Expansion Revised EIS, All other data reported from Kawailoa Beach Improvements Implementation and Phasing Park Improvements Traffic Assessment Report, August 2005 Plan, November 2005 21 22 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Ongoing or Proposed Roadway Projects Federal Projects Existing bike facilities include: • Drum Road Rehabilitation from Helemano to Kahuku scheduled for 1. Ke Ala Pupukea Bike Path completion in 2008 2. Hale‘iwa Bypass Signed Shared Roadway State Projects No future highway capacity improvements identified for the North • $1.2 million allocated for Laniakea Shore in the ORTP 2030 Bypass environmental study Inset • Funding for Waimea rockfall mitigation pending • Kamehameha Highway Safety Improvements, Hale‘iwa to Kahalu‘u (Project No. 9, 2006-2015 timeframe (O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030) Inset City Projects • Waialua Beach Road street and bikepath lighting improvements (FY 06) pending construction • Pupukea Road rockslide potential inspections and improvements ongoing (FY 06) • Guardrail Improvements at Waialua Beach Road, Alapio Road, Source: Bike Plan Hawai‘i 2003 Pupukea Road and Hale‘iwa Road ongoing (FY 06) • Hale‘iwa sidewalk construction cancelled 23 24 Section 4.1 Transportation Systems Section 4.2 Water Systems • Year 2000 water demand = 2.8 mgd Includes roadways, transit (bus service), • Year 2030 projected demand = 3.4 mgd bikeways, airports and harbors • Ongoing or Proposed Projects Possible revisions or additions? – BWS Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (FY2007-2012) • Kamehameha Highway-Sunset Beach 16-inch main (Paumalu Stream • Address current highway capacity concerns and to Kaunala Street and Kahae Road to Pupukea Road) potential impacts of the proposed Turtle Bay • About 8 miles of waterline replacement projects expansion? – Mokul ‘ia Water System Feasibility Study funded (FY08) • Identify priority improvement projects? • Possible Revisions and Additions? • Strengthen guidance for regional emergency access – Incorporate BWS North Shore Watershed Management Plan road? (2007); BWS long-range plans for water development are not to • Any others? export water – Include language to address condition of existing water distribution systems? 2005 Sustainable Yield (million gallons per day) Sustainable Water use Unallocated – Any others? Aquifer Yield (SY) Permits Issued SY Mokul ‘ia 12 8.3 3.7 Waialua 40 30.3 9.7 Kawailoa 39 1.5 37.5 TOTAL 91 40.1 50.9 25 Source: O‘ahu Water Management Plan Overview, BWS 26 Section 4.3 Wastewater Treatment Section 4.6 Drainage Systems • Hale‘iwa Road Drainage Ongoing or Proposed Projects Improvements Engineering • North Shore Regional Wastewater Study Completed (2003) Alternatives Plan ongoing Possible Revisions or Additions? • Ongoing or Proposed Projects – Kaukonahua Stream Dredging • Maintain reference to subregional Future (planning and design) wastewater treatment plants located in WWTP Waialua, Haleiwa and Sunset Beach? – Kiikii-Kaukonahua Stream Dredging (planning) • Any others? – Kaiaka Bay Watershed Demonstration Project (ongoing) Future – Waialua-Kaiaka Watershed Restoration WWTP Study (pending Federal funding) • Possible revisions or additions? – Add policy to address coastal water quality? – Strengthen language requiring infrastructure improvements (eg. dams) Existing WWTP and maintenance of existing infrastructure? Future – Any others? WWTP 27 28 Section 3.3 Parks and Recreation HHF Contact Information Ongoing or Proposed Projects • Mokul ‘ia Beach Park Water • Ka Waena Beach Lifeguard Main Service Tower Replacements • Email: firstname.lastname@example.org • Waialua District Park Gym • Banzai Rock Beach Support Park Renovations • Phone: 545-2055 • Sunset Beach Recreation Center • Hale‘iwa Ali‘i Beach Park John Kalili Surf Center Renovation Improvements • Fax: 545-2050 • Velzyland Lifeguard Tower • Hale‘iwa Beach Park Erosion Study Replacement • Mail: 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 • Waialee Beach Park Master Plan • Kawailoa Beach Master Plan Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 (Chun’s Reef) Possible revisions or additions? • Add policy for “long-term development of a public golf course” for consistency with the Vision for the Future? • Any others? 29 30 Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #6 Meeting Record May 28, 2008 Page 2 of 4 o An inn in Hale‘iwa honors the heritage of the town. June 24, 2008 o The illegal rentals in the community are such a problem that it’s important to MEETING SUMMARY have an option to accommodate people in something other than a resort. To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File o The Hale‘iwa Town Plan calls for a small country inn. From: Rachael Edinger o Revised SCP language should delete the language that stipulates an inn Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 6 should be limited to 40 rooms, and instead, let the market decide what the May 28, 2008, 6:30 – 8:00 pm size will be. Also, cottages and bungalows should be allowed. o The intent is to not allow a huge structure, and the language of the SCP PAC Attendees: Marianne Abrigo, Dianne Anderson, Dave Bramlett, Jerry Driscoll, Kalani should clarify this point. Fronda, Josh Heimowitz, Lisa Izumi, Bob Leinau, Gerry Meade, Antya Miller, Dan Nellis, Jacob Ng, Kathleen Pahinui, Carol Phillips, Stew Ring, Martha Smith o Want it to make sense for the community; e.g., a plan that will enable a good project Other Attendees: Reed Matsuura, Councilmember Dela Cruz’s Office DPP Attendees: Ray Young, DPP Project Manager, Bonnie Arakawa, Chief, Community • It was pointed out by Scott Ezer that there are currently no land use mechanisms to allow Planning Branch, DPP an inn in Hale‘iwa. Options for zoning controls would be to: zone it ‘resort’; or treat is as HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Rachael Edinger a conditional permit with set criteria and standards. The sixth Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore (NS) Sustainable • Need to look at who was at the community meeting, what their interests were, who they Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 represented in the community. Why were they in support of an inn? Would they benefit at the Waialua Community Association Cottage #2. The primary purpose of the meeting was from an Inn? to discuss subjects where there appears to be a difference between the direction the PAC has suggested for revisions to the SCP, and comments received at the Community Meeting No. 2 (CM #2) held on April 15, 2008. One week prior to the PAC meeting, PAC members • Some PAC members were worried about the precedent that would be set by allowing the inn, and therefore felt that restrictive language regarding inns needs to be in the SCP. were e-mailed information to be discussed, which included the Community Meeting #2 summary, and a matrix of all comments received during the breakout group discussions • Some PAC members were concerned that the location of the proposed inn suggested by showing which subjects varied between the PAC and those discussed in CM # 2. The the Waialua Town Master Plan at Kaiaka Point was inappropriate and should instead be PowerPoint presentation from the Community Meeting was also included in the meeting summary. located in the town district. Waialua has less commercial activity than Hale‘iwa and doesn’t have the history of an inn that Hale‘iwa does. In addition, unlike Hale‘iwa, Waialua does not have special district regulations, and therefore there are no design Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 6:30. The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. rules that govern development in Waialua. Delete Small-Scale Inns from Hale‘iwa and Waialua Towns Comments received at CM #2 indicated opposition to the proposed changes by the PAC • Even though the Waialua Town Plan talks about an inn, it is important to take this in (deletion of small-scale inns in the SCP). Those who attended CM#2 expressed their desire context - the plan is economically-driven (rather than design oriented). The inn idea was one possibility of what could revitalize Waialua. to continue to provide for opportunities for a small-scale inn in Hale‘iwa and Waialua Towns. Many participants suggested that the market should determine whether or not such facilities • Some PAC members would reluctantly support leaving language in the SCP regarding are built. inns, but there needs to be language saying ‘no resort zoning’ and acknowledgement that • Antya Miller had e-mailed suggested SCP language relating to small-scale inns that could the Waialua inn is for economic reasons. address the concerns expressed by the community. Since not all PAC members had • There was a general consensus among the PAC to drop reference to a small-scale inn in received it, she summarized her position: Waialua. Pacific Guardian Center x 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 x Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 808.545.2055 x Fax 808.545.2050 x www.hhf.com x e-mail: email@example.com Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #6 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #6 Meeting Record May 28, 2008 May 28, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 • One PAC member expressed a desire to hear about what the youth of the community rural community commercial center is a small cluster of commercial and service think. The PAC needs to consider what jobs might be available for future workers as they businesses which service primarily the immediate community…” (p.3-54). grow up, and how to get them to come back or provide opportunities for them to stay in Other Comments/Questions their community. • Make sure the SCP language on park maintenance is strengthened. • It was pointed out that many at the Community Meeting may have been so adamant about keeping in the language allowing for an inn, in reaction to the problem regarding • SCP should acknowledge Haleiwa Town Plan. the explosion of illegal vacation units in the region. • Overall the language of the SCP should be strong, take out all of the ‘should’ and replace • Perhaps “rooms” is not the correct unit to measure density for the inn. Instead, we could with ‘shall’—this was put in during the original writing of the SCP, and was subsequently use square footage, or something else. The Backpackers Inn can accommodate 125 taken out by the planning commission. Would like to at least try again, and if it is taken people, but you don’t really notice this number of people; this facility seems to blend in out, the PAC would see where this was done. well with its neighborhood. The next steps are to incorporate the revisions to the SCP language that’s been discussed in • A 40-room inn is not going to affect the large quantity of people who want to stay on the the PAC and community meetings. The draft plan will be reviewed by the City and North Shore. Illegal vacation units are in the 100’s; so one inn won’t take care of all of distributed to the PAC for review, and followed by meetings with the Community and the the demand. By comparison, Koele Lodge on Lanai has 102 rooms. Neighborhood Board. • Need SCP language to be “brutally” clear, so that DPP can easily enforce it. Meeting was adjourned about 8:00 pm. • Modify SCP language to address differences between Waialua and Haleiwa (esp. lot sizes). • Bungalows are troublesome for reasons related to security and enforcement. Overall the PAC was not in full agreement concerning the exact SCP language for inns. Those who were initially opposed to any mention of an inn in the revised SCP agreed that they could live with the language currently in the SCP, as long as it also includes language that precludes resort zoning, the limit on size remains, and reference to cottages and bungalows is not included. Rural Community Commercial Center (RCCC) Some comments received during the Community meeting suggested letting the market decide the size and form of development at the RCCC. • HHF mentioned that historically, B-1 Neighborhood Business District zoning build-out densities were one-half of that permitted by code. • The existing SCP language is clear, and says the RCCC should attract visitors and residents, and there are specific guidelines presented for building form; this should allay the community’s concerns. • To clarify and strengthen the paragraph, it was suggested to move the last sentence of the paragraph to the first sentence so that the paragraph starts “The area between Foodland market and the adjacent commercially zoned properties between Pupukea Road and Pahoa Road is designated as a Rural Community Commercial Center. The Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #7 Meeting Record October 8, 2008 Page 2 of 5 October 21, 2008 x Incorporating concepts of sustainability MEETING SUMMARY x Accepting the landowners proposal to change the land use designation at Kealia Point To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Five-Year Review Project File from Preservation to Agriculture From: Corlyn Orr NS SCP Revision Process/Schedule Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Meeting No. 7 Scott presented DPP’s proposed schedule: October 8, 2008, 6:30 – 8:30 pm o The PAC and DPP would review the Preliminary Draft concurrently, with all PAC Attendees: Marianne Abrigo, Jeff Alameida, Dianne Anderson, Dave Bramlett, comments due in writing by October 20. Jerry Driscoll, Kalani Fronda, Josh Heimowitz, Antya Miller, Dan Nellis, o HHF would review comments and prepare the Public Review Draft of the revised Jacob Ng, Kathleen Pahinui, Carol Phillips, Stew Ring North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan for publication on November 1. Other Attendees: Reed Matsuura, Councilmember Dela Cruz’s Office o Community Meeting #3 presenting the Public Review Draft tentatively scheduled for DPP Attendees: Ray Young - Project Manager, Bonnie Arakawa - Community Planning November 18. Branch Chief, Kathy Sokugawa – Planning Division Head o HHF would then prepare final draft of the revised North Shore Sustainable HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Corlyn Orr Communities Plan for Planning Commission review. The seventh Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the North Shore (NS) PAC members raised two concerns with the proposed schedule: Sustainable Communities Plan (SCP) Five-year Review Project was held on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at the Waialua Community Association Cottage #2. The primary purpose of o Process does not allow PAC enough time to review the draft and consider proposed the meeting was to answer questions and receive comments on the Preliminary Public individual revisions and/or comments as a group. PAC would like the opportunity to Review Draft Revised North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan (referred to as review comments from other PAC members, and come together as a group to “Preliminary Draft”). An electronic copy of the Preliminary Draft was distributed to PAC discuss revisions/comments. It is important to the PAC that the Public Review Draft members via email on October 1, 2008. reflects the group’s consensus. o The City Planning Team’s (DPP and HHF) proposal for concurrent review limits the Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 6:30. The meeting discussion is summarized as follows. PAC’s ability to influence the document. The PAC is concerned that DPP’s position on various provisions of the Public Review Draft may be contrary to those of the PAC, Summary of Major Proposed Revisions and that the Public Review Draft will not be an accurate portrayal of the community’s sentiment, as represented by the PAC. It is important to PAC members that they are Scott opened with an overview of the major proposed revisions, as summarized at able to review DPP comments and see the rationale for any DPP revisions to the Community Meeting #2. Major proposed revisions include: Preliminary Draft. Citing their past experience with the preparation and review of the original NS SCP, the PAC would like the opportunity to present the City administration with a draft that fully represents the community’s sentiment. x Language that addresses Turtle Bay Resort expansion and its impacts on North Shore infrastructure The PAC proposed that they be allowed to review/comment on the Preliminary Draft before x Strengthening the description of the Rural Community Commercial Center to ensure that DPP review. DPP would then receive and comment on the “community’s” version of the development proposals service the immediate community, are limited in size and scope Preliminary Draft, before publishing the Public Review Draft. This two-phase review process x New language to control illegal visitor units would enable the PAC to see DPP’s changes and their rationale for the changes, and make x Stronger language (from “discourage” to “prohibit”) regarding the conversion of the review process more transparent. It would be acceptable for DPP to makes changes to agricultural land to “fake farms” the document, as long as the PAC has their own chance at the document. This would help x Removing Pupukea-Paumalu property from Rural Community Boundary area to address the PAC’s fear that their proposals and concerns may not be accurately x Support for emergency by-pass road and evacuation routes across the SCP area represented before the Planning Commission and City Council. x Deleting small-scale inns from Waialua Town x Incorporating most of Waialua Town Master Plan recommendations x Incorporating references to the North Shore Wastewater Management Plan and North Shore Watershed Management Plan Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #7 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #7 Meeting Record October 8, 2008 October 8, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 It was agreed that: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Planning Advisory Committee #7 o Written comments on the Preliminary Draft (from both the PAC and DPP) are October 8, 2008 due to HHF by October 20. Comments not submitted by the deadline will not be Original Notes – transcribed at the meeting (page 1) considered. x Suggest using language in the 1st policy under 3.71 for Section 126.96.36.199, relating to industrial uses o Following the October 20 comment deadline, HHF would compile the PAC’s comments and distribute to all PAC members for their review. x Haleiwa Mauka Park – not shown as existing or future on land use maps; project has been eliminated o HHF would convene PAC meeting #8 (targeting the last week of October) to discuss x Page 2-9: appreciate having low impact development reference and resolve the PAC comments on the Preliminary Draft, if necessary. x Suggestion to incorporate language from the Waianae SCP re. rural subdivision standards (per Stew o HHF would prepare a Revised Preliminary Draft based on the outcomes of PAC Ring handout), maybe on page 3-39 line 16-19 or wherever it fits best. Meeting #8, and submit to DPP for review. DPP would then review and comment on the PAC’s Revised Preliminary Draft, and direct HHF on the preparation of the Public x Page 5-4, last line of section 5.5: would like to see EIS required for significant zone change. HHF to Review Draft to incorporate the PAC’s proposed revisions as may be deemed clarify language. It was suggested that “or an EIS, if required” be added to the end of the sentence. appropriate by DPP. x In general,, when appropriate, change “should” to “shall” o After receiving DPP’s comments, HHF would circulate DPP’s comments to the PAC, x Strengthen language about ag land and fake farms. Current draft does not solve the problem. Need to along with electronic copy of the Public Review Draft. A ninth PAC meeting would be more specific about what defines ag (eg. Does having 20 cows define ranching?). There is a lack of follow if the PAC was dissatisfied with DPP’s revisions and the Public Review Draft. enforcement because inspectors are unable to enforce current ag. laws (because of how they’re written) o HHF would distribute copies of the Public Review Draft to the public for comments x City Council AG Task Force looking at proposals to address fake farms. DPP to provide language to only after the PAC had a chance to review. strengthen AG section. PAC Comments on the Preliminary Draft x Residential section: would like to see number of units. Also need to specify that it’s a mix of housing to meet various economic needs. Proposes limit of 400 units for Haleiwa, change “400-500 new homes” (see attached pages) to “units”. Also want to have language that ensures adequate infrastructure is in place when units are developed (need to review Section 4., page 4-1) Meeting was adjourned about 8:40 pm. x Page 4-13, line 6, change “discourage” to “prohibit” x Page 3-8, lines 13-17: add “and shoreline beaches” x Page 3-6, lines 16-20: add “dogs, cats and rats” x Page 3-61, lines 17-18: Suggest deleting “40 rooms” (although this needs to confirmed with the PAC). Clarify Plan to say that there should only be one inn in Haleiwa. x Add language to Parks and Rec section to note need for parking at park facilities. x Section 3.5: want to add anecdotal data about tourism influx. 51% of all tourists visit North Shore; about 7,000 visitors per day – see 2005/2006 DBEDT Tourism Study x Visitor Accommodations: make it clear that B&B and vacation rentals are no go until current situation is enforced. Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #7 Meeting Record October 8, 2008 Page 5 of 5 North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan Planning Advisory Committee #7 October 8, 2008 Original Notes – transcribed at the meeting (page 2) x Page 2-9, line 44: need to clarify rural streetscape design – want to add wider street skirts x No specific reference to limiting the need for nighttime lighting in the Plan x Page 2-12, line 28: add “Identify and provide protection for residents from flooding and other natural disasters” x Page 3-30, line 29: delete Aweoweo Beach Park, not large enough to expand x Page 3-10, line 5: add Waialua Lotus Fields to wetlands; near Wailua Beach Road/Haleiwa Beach Road intersection x Page 4-3, line 9: need to better define Kamehameha Highway realignment x KS’s Papailoa residential proposal would be inconsistent with the current density in the area, based on the proposed guidelines for Rural Residential. x Considering the deteriorating condition of Hale‘iwa Beach Park shoreline, Plan needs to include language about the impacts of hardened shorelines and the need to accommodate natural erosion processes and shoreline retreat. Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #8 Meeting Record November 17, 2009 November 24, 2009 Page 2 of 4 MEETING SUMMARY x Added language regarding the importance of rural standards for residential subdivisions x Clarified intent of Rural Community Commercial Center To: North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan (NS SCP) Five-Year Review x Specified number of new housing units in Hale‘iwa town Project File x Expanded preferred uses in Waialua Town industrial area x Added language about the number of tourists visiting the North Shore From: Corlyn Orr x Added statement about the need to address illegal vacation rentals x Removed reference to the country inn in Waialua, clarified desire for one country inn in Subject: Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting No. 8 Hale‘iwa, and added statement that “resort zoning is not appropriate” November 17, 2009, 6:30 – 7:45 pm x Added statement that there be no further expansion of resort accommodations at Turtle Bay, primarily because of spillover impacts to the North Shore SCP area PAC Attendees: Marianne Abrigo, Dave Bramlett, Jerry Driscoll, Kalani Fronda, x Added statement of support for a Laniakea bypass or Kamehameha Highway Brian Griffiths, Laura Kodama, Bob Leinau, Antya Miller, Dan Nellis, Kathleen realignment, to reduce impediments to traffic flow Pahinui, Carol Phillips, Stew Ring, Gil Riviere x Clarified desire to maintain Kamehameha Highway as a two-lane highway Other Attendees: Reed Matsuura, Councilmember Dela Cruz’s Office x Added language about the need for secondary access Dean Minakami, Castle & Cooke DPP Attendees: Ray Young, Project Manager DPP Revisions Bonnie Arakawa, Community Planning Branch x Added discussion explaining how the concept of “sustainability” relates to the City’s Kathy Sokugawa, Planning Division Chief planning system and the DP/SCPs HHF Attendees: Scott Ezer, Corlyn Orr x Updated population and housing projections using 2035 as the planning horizon x Updated housing statistics using 2009 data The eighth PAC Meeting for the North Shore (NS) Sustainable Communities Plan (SCP) Five- x Rewrote key vision elements to be active statements from the perspective of the year Year Review Project was held on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at the Waialua Community 2035 (e.g., changed “Retention of cultural and historic resources” to “Preserve and Association Cottage #2. The primary purpose of the meeting was to answer questions and protect…” receive comments on the revisions DPP made to the document since the PAC’s last review. x Replaced Rural Community, Preservation and Agricultural Boundaries with “Rural DPP’s next steps will be to circulate the Public Review Draft for public comment. An electronic Boundary” for consistency with other DP/SCPs copy of the November 3, 2009 Public Review Draft was distributed to PAC members via email x Added policies/guidelines to address outdoor lighting on November 3, 2009. x Added discussion of “Important Agricultural Lands (IAL)/Act 183, 2005” to the Appendix Scott Ezer convened the meeting at 6:35. Scott opened the meeting by thanking all attendees x Reorganized policies and guidelines to reflect DPP’s guidance about what constitutes a for their continued dedication and commitment to the project. He followed with a synopsis of policy and guideline HHF’s and DPP’s efforts since the last PAC meeting, including several months for DPP to work with a consultant tasked to review all of the regional SCPs and suggest revisions that would Comments and the meeting discussion is summarized as follows. ensure consistency between the SCPs, and many hours spent discussing/deliberating DPP’s proposed revisions. x Current November 3, 2009 Draft generally reflects the sentiments of the PAC. There are several instances where the revisions made by DPP have improved upon and/or Corlyn Orr then presented the major revisions attributable to the PAC and DPP. strengthened the language that the PAC wanted. PAC Revisions x The next steps following this PAC meeting will be to hold Community Meeting #3 and x New vision element added to describe the North Shore’s principles of sustainability publicize the Public Review Draft (targeting week of December 14 for meeting). It is x Recognition of Pupukea-Paumalu public acquisition due to community’s lobbying possible that comments received on the Public Review Draft will result in revisions to the x Various additions and/or revisions to clarify/strengthen intent of plan document. Following the public review process, the Draft NS SCP would be reviewed by - "Discourage off road use on coastal dunes…” changed to “Prohibit….” the Planning Commission, then by the City Council. Tentatively, the schedule includes - “Discourage an ocean outfall…” changed to “Do not permit…” transmitting the Draft NS SCP to the Planning Commission in late Spring 2010. Since - Language to clarify agriculture: “Do not allow ‘fake farms’ or ranching as a ruse” changes are possible at each stage, it is important that PAC members and the - Expanded aquaculture policy to specify, “clean-up of former Dillingham Quarry” community remain involved in the review process. x Added statement about emergency use of Drum Road, and using former cane haul and agricultural roads for emergency access. Helber Hastert & Fee Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc. Planners, Inc. NS SCP PAC #8 Meeting Record NS SCP PAC #8 Meeting Record November 17, 2009 November 17, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 x The City is required to review the General Plan every 10 years. DPP is in the process of x There has been a recent increase in the service industries/population servicing the contracting a consultant to conduct the General Plan review. The upcoming review second home market (e.g., landscaping, housekeeping services). Although the NS SCP could identify possible changes to the General Plan that could bring it more in line with does not specifically address this growing sector, statements describing the need for the SCPs. affordable housing have been added to the revised Draft. x Many positive changes have been made as a result of the SCP review process, x City has rural development standards for Agricultural and Country zoned land; No rural comparing this draft to the NS SCP that was adopted in 2000. It will be important for development standards for Residential zoned land. There are no State Land Use Rural PAC members to show their support for the current draft at the Community Meeting. Districts on O‘ahu. x Change references to “A Country Inn” to “ONE Country Inn.” Also, on page 3-83, line x City Council is considering a bill that would limit the size of farm dwellings to 1,500 27, change “…should be allowed….” to “may be allowed.” The current use of “A” (as square feet. opposed to “ONE”) is ambiguous. These revisions would clarify the desire for only one country inn. x Modifications to the Hale‘iwa Special District Design Guidelines would be needed to regulate lunch wagon siting/use. x Chapter 5 Implementation Matrix identifies agencies with implementation responsibility. This adds a level of accountability that was not in the 2000 NS SCP. Proposed Schedule DPP plans to distribute the Public Review Draft via mailout and DPP’s website. Community x The issuance of residential building permits does not typically address impacts to view Meeting No. 3 is possible for the week fo December 14, which would be followed by a 45-day planes, although building height limits are regulated by the permit process. View plane public review period and a proposed comment deadline of February 1, 2010. Thereafter, protection is considered as part of other types of development permits, such as a Zone preparation of the pre-final Plan would take approximately two months. Submittal to the Change or a Special District permit. Important existing views will be documented as part Planning Commission is anticipated in late Spring 2010. of the overall NS SCP Five-Year Review project. Meeting was adjourned about 7:45 pm. x The SCP is not meant to be a regulatory tool like zoning. Although the NS SCP is adopted by ordinance, it is difficult to enforce because it is a guidance document for land use. There is a need to establish codes, enforceable standards and implementing actions to support the policies and guidelines established in the SCP. x Use of agricultural lands and support for agriculture is important for the North Shore. There is a need to ensure that the treatment of agriculture and agricultural lands is consistent across SCP regions. x The statement added to the Appendix describing the mapping of IAL is an acknowledgement of ongoing State/County efforts. The intent is to use the AG- designated lands indicated on the SCP Land Use Map as the starting point for IAL identification. Currently there is no State funding for mapping of IAL. The same language will be used in all SCPs. x The North Shore is short of public restrooms and the SCP should include statements addressing this concern. x The reference to “7,000 visitors per day” (page 3-83, lines 8-15) reflects the number of tourists (not local residents) who visit the North Shore. The current draft needs to be revised to note the additional impacts of local residents visiting from other parts of O‘ahu. Suggest that the first paragraph in Section 3.8 be moved to Section 3.5 Residential Communities, with a condensed summary in Section 3.8.