• Let’s limit the sizes
• Bike path letter on point
• Koke‘e entry station bad idea
Let’s limit the sizes
Most of us seem to agree buildings on Kaua‘i should be limited to a certain size. They should not be so tall they scrape the sky. They should not be so broad they cover the island. Buildings on Kaua‘i should remain and be limited to human scale. People who want to build gigantic architecture are still free to do so — elsewhere. On Kaua‘i, we already agree buildings should be no taller than a coconut tree, but over just how much expanse should they be permitted to sprawl? Where should we place this limit?
An acre is a standard unit of measure for the “outdoors.” For better or worse, it is of a size that works well with the landscape that surrounds us all, and so we still use it. Not the metric system. How big is this thing we call an acre? There are 43,560 square feet in 1 acre, but that is a pretty big number — hard to picture, too many feet. One way to get a better sense of this scale is to understand that an acre is equal in area to about 91 yards of a football field. The entire 100 yards of the field and both end zones totals roughly 1.32 acres. “Yard” and “field,” you will note, are words of or about the outdoors, not the “indoors.” Not of the human scale, like “foot.” Acres are not used to measure the insides of buildings — human space. Although the origins of the acre, and how it came to be the size it is today are lost to us, today this unit of measure is still in use because it is of a size that works well for its application — to describe the size of the landscape that surrounds us.
No building on this island should have a “footprint” bigger than 1 acre.
The 75,000 square feet proposed in the present “still too big box bill” is just that — still too big. No building on Kaua‘i should have more than 43,560 square feet. This “limit” is almost 2 acres. What if the limit for building height was not the coconut tree, but the Cook Pine? No structure on the island would be allowed to be over 120 feet tall. Some limit. Once a “big box” becomes bigger than 1 acre, it is no longer architecture, it is landscape, it is retail sprawl. If Kaua‘i is to retain it’s charm and special sense of scale and place, we should not permit buildings larger than 1 acre as some Mainland communities have too easily allowed. The Mainland has vast wide open spaces. Kaua‘i has barely as many square miles as we have Realtors. Truly, our island is tiny, and our limits on size should be more aggressive than elsewhere. Kaua‘i is not the size of California. The rules should be different here.
Just as we wisely use the coconut tree to set the maximum height of buildings and put some kind of brake on what market forces might permit, the maximum size limitation for retail structures should be no more than 1 acre, specifically 43,560 square feet. Anything bigger this is one of Goldilock’s Papa-bear sizes: TOO BIG.
Jonathan Jay
Kapa‘a
Bike path letter on point
Mr. Glenn Mickens, you are right on in your letter (“Bypass does alleviate traffic,” Letters, Jan. 9). You have touched upon many of the reasons why this bike/pedestrian path should not become a reality. We’ve already spent way too much moneys (taxpayers and county) and spent way too much time on something that will be used only for recreation and not for commuting to and from work/shopping.
I would also like to point out that if this bike path goes along the Kuhio Highway then, what will happen when our state highways want to expand the highways into four lanes (It’s been on the books for over 15 years)? Are they going to shove the bike/pedestrian path farther into the golf course so the state has ample room for expansion? I don’t think so. Furthermore, I have seen many vehicles traveling north come crashing though the flimsy hedge which borders the golf course between holes 6 through 12. I would hate to see a person or persons get seriously injured because the path was in close proximity to the highway. Then who are you going to blame?
Originally, wasn’t the path going to go along the shoreline (for scenic beauty, etc.)? Well, who changed it? Again, show and tell one thing, then do something else. That’s the government way.
I would also like to point out that there are plans to move the entrance to the golf course (to accommodate the bikers/pedestrians) farther north to a location right across the entrance to the Kaua‘i Community Correctional Center (jail). If that happens, there is going to be chaos, and a very real possibility that someone is going to get into a bad accident. Can you imagine? There are going to be turning lanes into and out of both the jail and the golf course, not to mention traffic traveling north and south. What happens when the contra-flow is operating? Good luck.
Like I’ve mentioned before, concentration and focus should be on alleviating the traffic congestion on both the Kuhio and Kaumuali‘i highways.
Michael Kiyabu
Kapa‘a
Koke‘e entry station bad idea
I attended the meeting regarding the Master Plan for Koke‘e on Monday. After the presentation by the Department of Land and Natural Resources I gave testimony on several issues. One of those issues regarded the proposed “entry station.” I spoke in favor of it and that was because I felt that a manned 24 hour a day entry station would be a deterrent to those people who are illegally removing forest materials from Koke‘e.
Since then it has been brought to my attention that there is no plan nor funding to keep the entry station open 24 hours a day. That being the case, I have withdrawn my support for an entry station. If the entry station were to act as a deterrent but not be manned 24 hours a day then it is no deterrent at all and need not be constructed.
Another issue I wanted to but did not bring up is the entry fee. I support the entry fee but only if all the moneys gathered were to go directly to serve Koke‘e and Waimea Canyon state parks. This along with the funds already allocated for Koke‘e by DLNR. If those fees do not remain on Kaua‘i for the maintenance of the parks then there is no reason to charge any fee.
In the event fees are charged, the residents of Kaua‘i should not have to pay the fee. There should also be no fee for all kanaka maoli regardless of resident location.
Sharon Pomroy
Anahola
