Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2012 PLANNING Committee Meeting MINUTES PLANNING COMMITTEE February 22, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the County of Kaua`i, State of Hawai`i, was called to order by Nadine K. Nakamura, Chair, at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, February 22, 2012, at 8:50 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio Member Excused: Honorable Mel Rapozo There being no objections the meeting recessed at 8:50 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:50 a.m. and proceeded on its agenda items as follows: Bill No. 2424 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT [This item was deferred.] Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. I would like to see if there is anyone from the public who would like to testify on this. Seeing no one, I would like to ask the representatives of the Planning Department to come forward. Could you please introduce yourselves? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. MIKE DAHILIG, PLANNING DIRECTOR: Good morning Committee Chair Nakamura, members of the Council. Mike Dahilig and Kaaina Hull of the Planning Department. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. We had a public hearing and there was no one here to testify on this. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Nakamura: Would you like to say anything about this bill? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. The synthesis of the bill really stems from the Governor's action in enacting Act 217 at the State level. What Act 217 did is under certain conditions allowed the construction of solar energy facilities on State classified Agricultural lands, and so in keeping in concert with what our General Plan mentions about sustainability, as well as the need for alternative energies, we saw it fit to recommend to the Planning Commission back in the fall to COMMITTEE MEETING 2 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 align the County Code and our permitting requirements with the intent of Act 217. It is to more expediently allow for the construction of these solar energy facilities and as you know we specifically in fact track the exact language from Act 217 for that alignment purpose and really what it does is it allows a fraction for a certain limitation of land on class B through the lowest grade to be constructed without any type of special permit or those types of things. What we would do on the County end is try to align it so that these facilities can be built in a timely and efficient manner. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for that summary. Committee members do you have any questions about this bill? Councilwoman Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Thanks for taking the initiative to integrate the State law into our CZO which is what this bill does right? I guess my one (1) question is about B lands and whether we should allow solar facilities on class B lands. Class A lands are excluded from this so that these solar facilities are not allowed on Class A lands but B lands, they are allowed on B lands and that is a State law. Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So we cannot make a stricter law at the County level or can we? KAAINA HULL, PLANNER: Well currently the County, Chapter 8 of the Kaua`i County Code is stricter in a sense that it is outright permitted B through E lands with a certain fraction allowed on B and C. As far as the County is concerned it still requires to get a use permit for all of these lands. So right now the County Code is stricter than the proposed amendment. To further clarify, the Hawai`i Revised Statutes Section 205 does not outright permit solar facilities on A lands, but it does allow an avenue via the special permit process which the County also processes if it is under fifteen (15) acres. If it is over the fifteen (15) acres then it gets shot up to the Land Use Commission as well. So there are still avenues for facilities on A lands, but concerning B through E lands, it is outright permitted particularly for B and C a fraction thereof. Mr. Dahilig: And just to dovetail on that, given the language in 205-4.5 the Counties may place limiting restrictions, not necessarily denial, but can further refine the uses that are outlined in 205-4.5 to be subject to certain kind of processes at the County level. So, for instance, when you look at the original Act that was passed by Governor Abercrombie, it does list this enabling provision under the 205-4.5 list of uses that are there which then allows through a provisol in 205-4.5 the Counties to, by ordinance, further refine and also place more restrictions on what is considered a permitted use given the State Land Use designations. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I am not understanding everything that was said so let me ask questions to clarify. Kaaina you said that our CZO presently allows, we are presently stricter than this State law? Mr. Hull: Currently right. A utility facility of any sort on agricultural lands requires a use permit. So it is allowed on agricultural lands via use permit process. Under State law with the recently passed Act 217 it is outright permitted on State Ag lands with certain fractions therefor on B and C. No COMMITTEE MEETING 3 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 matter what, A through E designations under County law right now you have to go through a use permit process and a Class 4 zoning permit process. Ms. Yukimura: So say that someone comes to a request that a facility be placed on Class B land would not you say that State law preempts the County law of requiring special use permit? Mr. Hull: No. The State law with the recent passage of Act 217 discontinues requiring a special permit. It does not preempt the County from requiring a use permit or a Class 4 zoning permit. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. So the County can still require a use permit or Class 4 permit for a proposed solar on Class B lands? Mr. Hull: We are mandated to do so at this point. And then let us point out that one (1) of the recent solar facilities that was approved by the Planning Commission was done so a couple of days after Act 217 was passed, and so therefor they had applied for special permit, a use permit, and a Class 4 zoning permit. But because two (2) days before it was he and by the Planning Commission the special permit was then withdrawn because it now met the State's requirements, but they had not met the County's requirements requiring a...in meeting the requirements of the Class 4 and use permit. So they still have to go through that process but the proposed amendments for the County Code before you folks today is of course to no longer require a Class 4 use permit for solar facilities on B through E. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Under what? B through E? Mr. Hull: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: But we do not have to do that? We can actually still require it? Mr. Hull: Currently we are required by law to trigger a use permit, a Class 4 zoning permit, for any utility facility on agricultural lands. Ms. Yukimura: Yes I understand that but this law would water that down? Mr. Hull: It would allow it outright over the counter. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Can we not allow it on Class B lands if we change this bill? Mr. Hull: Actually within the bill on both B and C lands it only allows for a fraction of the parcel to be used for solar utility facilities; either twenty (20) acres of the parcel or ten percent (10%) of the parcel whichever is less. That was just to allow for additional uses up to a certain limit within designation B through C. But if that is the perogative of the Council to outright require a use permit as opposed to allowing it over the counter processing and that would be at your own desire. Ms. Yukimura: I mean I am trying to figure out how this will intersect with our important ag lands which are on different classification from A, COMMITTEE MEETING 4 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 B, and C, but presumably will include a lot f A and B lands. The assumption here p Y P P is� that there needs to be additional scrutiny for solar facilities. I want to acknowledge that they could actually be useful to a farmer if properly sited; it can bring in additional income but on the other hand if it is poorly sited and it for example breaks up the integrity of a field or agricultural potential of the land then it is a problem. And so how do we...and you wouldn't catch that over the counter? Mr. Dahilig: I think (inaudible) get caught over the counter. Based on the general State policy I think the issue of IAL creep by these solar facilities are addressed by the specific language in the State law that says ten percent (10%) of the acreage of the parcel or no more than twenty (20) acres. And so when you look at it in the grand scheme of things when they talk about IAL study of tens of twenty of thousands of acres that the Legislature in their policy said we do not want things bigger than twenty (20) acres on any parcel of land to be allowed on this or ten percent (10%) or less. So there already is a control built in from the State level. Ms. Yukimura: There is a control on size but there is not a control on siting. Mr. Dahilig: That is part of the interplay because certainly there is going to be a competing interest concerning whether the best place for kalo may be the same place also for solar panels that face to the southwest. That certainly is the interplay. Ms. Yukimura: Yes because the sunlight is important to crops. That is why the makai lands are better than the mauka lands because the Y level of solar insulation or whatever, and it makes a big difference in the amount of produce or the ag productivity of the land. So that is why I am asking these questions because we may want to have a little bit more control over siting for important ag lands. Mr. Dahilig: And certainly that is within the prerogative of the Council concerning how much scrutiny does the Council feel is appropriate for these types of facilities above and beyond your simple over the counter permit. We felt comfortable in recommending from the departmental standpoint in conveying it to the Planning Commission that the control entertained by the Legislature on the sizing was a reasonable control at least to not have again this solar creep on ag lands. But if in the Council's wisdom it feels that from a County policy standpoint there is some deeper scrutiny that may be required on maybe B lands like you are mentioning, that certainly is within I believe the Council authority to enact. Ms. Yukimura: Just because I am aware that we are...ag conservation easements are enforced and implemented in places where they have done transfer of development rights such that the development rights have been extinguished and maybe there is just one (1) house instead of five (5) allowed. I know that there is a scrutiny on where the house is sited because if it is sited in the middle of a field the value of that field is gone longterm. And so, it is a detail which you overlook that can affect the ag value of the land, piece of land. That is all I have for now. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you very much for your questions Councilmember Yukimura. Councilmember Kuali`i. COMMITTEE MEETING 5 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you Chair. Aloha and mahalo for being here Planning Director and Kaaina. So the State does not allow any solar facilities on A rated productivity? Mr. Dahilig: It does not allow by definition but you still can get it through the special permit process. Mr. Kuali`i: Special permit. So when you said that the County has a use permit process that would allow on all lands, if the County approved it on A then they would also have to get an approval from the State on A? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. And a lot of times because of the way that 205-6 is written, which is the enabling act for the Counties to have jurisdiction over special permits related to projects less than fifteen (15) acres in size, that it really depends on whether a solar project would be sited on a size smaller than fifteen (15) acres or larger than fifteen (15) acres. If it is smaller than fifteen (15) then it would come to us to also process that State special permit (inaudible) actually bundle it as part of the process with the use permit and whatever kind of Class 4 and variances that may be required. Or if there is a project that is larger than fifteen (15) acres then we would have to process it first and then shoot out to the State Land Use Commission for their own approval only if it is larger than fifteen (15) acres on Class A lands currently. Mr. Kuali`i: So in many ways even though they are trying to preserve and protect A lands, they are allowing this process where it could still come to an exception and be used? So the County's process is no more stringent than the State's process. In both cases A lands, if they got a special use permit or a special permit could be used for it. Does it have anything to do with the size or is it just the who processes it fifteen (15) acres and smaller. The County takes care of the County's permit and the State's permit process and the larger... Mr. Dahilig: Correct. We consider that if this legislation were to pass the Council as is that you are correct Councilmember in that Class A lands would still be subject to high scrutiny that is provided under State and County law. Mr. Kuali`i: And the County already has this process right? Mr. Dahilig: Correct. Mr. Kuali`i: So has there been approvals made on Class A lands in the past? Which kind of leads me to my other question as far as real life examples. We have the big solar farm in Kapa'a that we know about. Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Bosshard was here testifying on another matter. How many acres is that and is it on A, or B, or C lands, or less? Mr. Hull: To my recollection I do not believe there are any A lands involved in the Kapa'a solar facility. In fact I do not believe that there have been any, on any of the agricultural lands on the County of Kaua`i. COMMITTEE MEETING 6 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Mr. Kuali`i: And if it was B or C is it this...does it meet this ten percent (10%) or twenty (20) acre threshhold. Mr. Hull: For the the Kapa'a site it does I believe. Mr. Kuali`i: Yes. So if the entire acreage of parcel, that is the other thing, what defines a parcel? So if that solar farm owns ten (10) acres total then the one percent (1%) would only be one (1) acre? Mr. Hull: Correct. Mr. Kuali`i: So the solar panels could physically only be on one (1) acre. But if that parcel was only five (5) acres then it is half an acre. So according to that formula, is that farm in Kapa'a meeting those... Mr. Hull: I believe it does meet the State Act 217 and if it does not, it can still go through the special permit process. Mr. Kuali`i: But this language that we are considering now for the County, it does not need it or not? And, is there a difference between B and C and why are they lumped together for ten percent (10%) and twenty (20) acres? Following the State? Mr. Hull: Yes. That is just on the State Land Use classification of agricultural land. Mr. Kuali`i: Because if wanted to be stronger more stringent than the State then we could say there is a difference between B and C, B is better and closer to A more productive ag lands, and we could make that percentage an acreage even smaller to preserve more open ag land, good prime A and B ag lands. We could say five (5) or ten (10) acres for B and ten (10) twenty (20) acres for C. Mr. Dahilig: In terms of its own process the County certainly can define that. Just for a little bit more background on Act 217, Councilmember, the law before this particular Act did allow D and E lands. And so when they came through with Act 217 it added B and C to the mix with the restriction of size. So prior to that we, the State had already made the policy call that D and E lands do not need the special permit process notwithstanding even the size of the project. So you almost see it kind of as a gradation that D and E has the largest amount of latitude so the developer, B and C you have a size restriction, and A you still go through the full gamut of special permits in order to meet the State law requirements. Mr. Kuali`i: And that special permit for A lands, does it include Public Hearing and... Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Mr. Kuali`i: That is good. The last part of my question has to do with another real life example and that would be Anahola and the big project coming up there. So what is the parcel in that instance? The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands owns all the thousands of acres there but if in the COMMITTEE MEETING 7 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 community's town center plan they designated smaller groupings for land use what is then being considered the parcel? Mr. Dahilig: I guess just for full disclosures sake when we talk about Hawaiian Home Lands, the County and the State Land Use Commission have no zoning jurisdiction over how Hawaiian Homes chooses to use their lands. But if in the circumstance let's say that there was not that jurisdictional problem we would look at it, and we had the zoning jurisdiction over Hawaiian Home Lands, we would look at where those lines are drawn and say okay is it ten percent (10%) or twenty (20) acres. Then you would make that calculation that way assuming it was B or C lands. Mr. Kuali`i: Which I do not know. Thank you for that information. Thank you Chair. Ms. Nakamura: Chair Furfaro. Council Chair: Thank you. Gentleman thank you for being here. Mr. Dahilig: Sure thing. Council Chair: I want to ask you how we are approaching this from a standpoint of what we know the demand for this alternative power for commercial use will actually be. What does Kaua`i Electric produce in the way of power, measured power with their Public Utilities Commission requiring some redundancy? What is that number? Is it seventy-eight megawatts (78 MW)? What is it? Mr. Dahilig: I think it is in the forties. Council Chair: No I think it is closer to seventy something and I would suggest that you folks perhaps do that research. How much in their strategic plan do they plan to have or be able to accept for solar power into their generation and when you take that how much of the then acreage would it be able g Y g to produce that they would actually meet their needs? We do not know, and we just p Y Y � just them here with us giving an overview of their strategic plan. How much are they going to use for hydro? How much are they going to store in battery? And I think that it is like seventy-eight megawatts (78 MW) including the PUC redundancy of which they have stated to us that they would not use more than ten to fifteen percent (10%-15%) p roduction based on solar.ar. So that point might then oint g that they would use about eleven and a half units for that. As we saw from Mr. Bosshard I think on his farm and how big was his farm? I am asking the Planning Director. Mr. Hull: I believe it is five (5) to seven (7) acres of the solar farm. Council Chair: And how much will he produce from that five (5) acres? Mr. Hull: I believe any where from two to three megawatts (2 MW— 3 MW). COMMITTEE MEETING 8 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Council Chair: Two to three megawatts (2 MW — 3 MW). So if they are only going to buy twelve (12) and five (5) acres gives them three (3) and they got six (6) more in Anahola right? Why are we considering tossing in B lands? Mr. Dahilig: It is a good question Chair. Council Chair: Let us be...your Department needs to figure out those kinds of strategies and you need to pour those questions onto KIUC. Now even if they, go twenty percent (20%) what does that equate to? Whatever that number equates to are not there people that can apply on the C lands, the D lands, and the E lands, how much becomes available? Now, let us go to the other Planning action that is going on: important ag lands. How much are we identifying that we would probably use in the B category? Mr. Dahilig: I do not know if we have broken down the numbers that way. Council Chair: But what I am saying is I think those are the two (2) formulas that you folks need to come to some understanding. Look if we are going to allow this by permit on B lands, and I agree with Vice Chair Yukimura, there may be farmers in A that want to produce some power to run the farm. But, to kind of just arbitrarily indicate that we are probably going to use twelve megawatts (12 MW) or however they measure it on what might not be more than thirty (30) acres, why are we immediately spilling into our prime acreage? By prime I mean A or B. We have so many things moving at the State right now that it would be better to have an opportunity to summarize some of these activities. More importantly thanks to you gentlemen I think we are farther ahead than any other County in getting to a point that we actually have a Strategic Plan for the important ag lands and then knowing what we would need to preserve without a permit. I am not saying we would not permit it, I am saying why take the opportunity away from allowing a Class 4 permit to be heard at the Planning Department? We need to think those parts through, gentlemen, before I am going to vote for something like this. Mr. Dahilig: Understandably Chair. Council Chair: I am glad you understand me. I want to know those pieces before I vote for something like this. Mr. Dahilig: I think when we decided to embark on this particular ZA in-house we did not go down to the level of carrying capacity of KIUC and the PUC redundancies, but what we did acknowledge in-house was that this is not going to be as expansive given the demand supply needs of the utility company and the small proportion that is involved in the actual solar delivery process. Given the amount that was being produced off of Bosshard's land that we did not see this as being something that was going to spawn a whole number of these facilities in terms of taking over ag lands. It was going to be for a limited amount and it was going to be based on whether a solar energy provider was able to reach some type of agreement with KIUC to actually accept the power. Council Chair: But just know where I am coming from. I do not want this thing to spawn a bunch of tadpoles that are all over our ag lands. Mr. Dahilig: Exactly. COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Council Chair: C lands, D lands, E lands, how much do we have? How many we identify for solar production without a Class 4 permit and then say to ourselves the other two (2) categories may still need that permit and that hearing process. But let us use these marginal lands that the best thing they can cultivate with the screen south is power. But how much is the KIUC group thinking about their strategy? How much are they willing to take on? I think we need to do that exercise and I have complete trust in you guys that you would do that but I am not prepared right now to say just throw in B lands. Mr. Dahilig: That is a fair consideration, Chair, and I think as this process goes along we can definitely do more calculations in-house to try to answer some of your questions. I do want to acknowledge that as part of the thinking in-house and I will acknowledge that we did not maybe have the discussions with KIUC that maybe you are suggesting, but what we do know is that given the County's experience with endangered birds that the gamut of renewable resources that are available for KIUC in order to meet that State mandate of I believe is forty percent (40%) of generated power by a certain timeline, that the only real options available to the utility company are hydro and solar because wind is already out. Council Chair: Understood. We have all been through that, and for me coming through Hanalei, I think there is a lot more value in that district on height restrictions but we have these other alternatives in Hanalei, in Wainiha with hydro, with solar. But how much are we really anticipating the demand for that will be and what kind of acreage it will cover and once we know that then we know if we need to purge into B lands. That is all I am saying. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your work, but please understand, do that. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you Chair Furfaro for those questions. I have a couple of questions. Do we have preliminary IAL maps at this point that are available to the public? Mr. Dahilig: We do have the slider and I am not talking about a small burger but it is that interactive program that we do have. I believe it is on the website that you are allowed to say okay based on an IAL score of zero (0) to "x," this is what is encompassed in what would potentially be IAL. So there is the final kind of recommendations concerning what is that inflection point that says anything above that should be considered IAL as well as this notion of incentives and next steps that are currently being hashed out. Ms. Nakamura: Do we know how many land study bureau land classification rating B are located on the preliminary IAL maps? Mr. Dahilig: I do not know if that has gone that far to cross-reference. Ms. Nakamura: Could they do an overlay you think? Mr. Dahilig: I think they could do an overlay but the difficulty I think was that they have not been able to pinpoint an actual IAL score upon which time they would say okay here is the overlay of the twenty-eight (28) or twenty-nine (29) scored lands with the land study bureau classifications. Because that number still has not been fixed yet it becomes more of a data mining element. COMMITTEE MEETING 10 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Whereas if you say we want scores of twenty (20), here is the twenty (20) cross-referenced with B lands and above. Ms. Nakamura: Okay. So it is still pretty preliminary? Mr. Dahilig: It may not be impossible; it is something we can try... Ms. Nakamura: You want to look into that and see because that might address Councilmember Yukimura's concerns. Mr. Dahilig: Certainly. Ms. Nakamura: And then I think Chair Furfaro's concern about how much more acreage is needed by KIUC if...because they are only going to accept so much solar power into the grid. So kind of give us a range of what that number might be, was it translated into acreage? Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Nakamura: I think that would be helpful. Mr. Dahilig: Would it be helpful to maybe take the point scale and say the amount of B lands in five (5), ten (10), fifteen (15), five point increments, would that be helpful? Ms. Nakamura: That might be. But I think Chair Furfaro's question might determine how important this second question is. If we have a range that is very small then maybe we do not need to do all this detailed work. It becomes clearer that maybe it is like you said, there is not going to be a lot of applicants out there, but if you could explore that possibility? Mr. Dahilig: Sure Chair. Ms. Nakamura: Just one (1) more question and this is a follow-up to one (1) of the Airport's comment that they were concerned about some of the solar energy facilities impacts on the pilot's vision. I just was wondering whether we, and I understand that there is a form that the FAA requires around the airport vicinity. So I just wanted to clarify that the forms that they have... We also have ag lands around the airport, and I just wanted to make sure that the FAA review process covers those ag lands just so that there is some type of review. Maybe you might have a comment on that? Mr. Hull: I just wanted to clarify, you wanted us to solicit additional comments from the Federal Aviation Administration concerning agricultural lands? Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Mr. Hull: In dealing with the FAA in past practice there are certain structures that FAA outright prohibits in and around an airport. There are certain structures that require their review and may require mitigation measures to be imposed, and then of course there are certain structures that are outright permitted around airport areas. So whenever something is proposed, the COMMITTEE MEETING 11 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 applicant has to go through that process with the FAA. Case in point would be a recent application we approved for a solar facility near Port Allen. That is not the main airport for the island but there is an airport in that vicinity. While the FAA did not request that the Planning Commission or the Deparment impose certain conditions, they did require the applicant to come in and work with them to ensure that the facility would not affect any aviation flight patterns. Ms. Nakamura: Then if that is the case you can disregard that last comment and just focus on the first two (2) that we talked about. Thank you Kaaina. Questions? Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Thank you. With respect to A lands you have explained that solar facilities could be allowed but it is allowed through a special use process as well as a use permit is that correct? Mr. Hull: A special permit process which has certain criteria particularly concerning the preservation of agricultural activities and then a use permit process in a Class 4 permit process which does include the preservation of agricultural activities but also is focused on compatability measures concerning the environment of the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Yukimura: So those are the two (2) processes that are used to evaluate a proposal for Class A lands? Mr. Hull: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: And you feel that they are sufficient in terms of protecting Class A lands and facilitating solar if there is a protection of Class A lands? Mr. Dahilig: I guess at this point, from a County policy standpoint we do not make a distinction between the different classes of lands because they are considered utilities. And so hence beyond the highest level of scrutiny the County requires which is the variance, the use permit, Class 4 permit process is higher. It is not as high as the variance but it is a higher level of scrutiny and that is paired with the State's policy which specifically says for A you do get that dual action of permitting scrutiny from the State side as well as the County side. But at this point we do not make any distinction between whether it is A, B, C, D, or E. Ms. Yukimura: Well I am thinking we should have a higher level of protection maybe for A and B lands. We need to scrutinize our other regulations that have existed in terms of the State policy of facilitating solar. Maybe compatability with other uses is not that critical in terms of the priority of renewable energy. I just wondered if there had been any thought process applied like that to our framework of permitting. Mr. Dahilig: Yes. I think it really came as a consequence of the potential scale of the project. As I mentioned to the Chair, we did not go into specific megawatt detail but we knew from a back of the envelope analysis that we are not looking at these with thousands of acres turning into solar. These are going to be real...you are just going to see a few of these projects. This is not going to spawn dozens of projects, and so in terms of compatability of use and whether it was going to start swallowing the availability of ag lands, we did not think it was that COMMITTEE MEETING 12 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 much of...we did not think it was on the scale of thousands of acres, we saw it on the scale of tens of acres. So that was kind of our analysis when we are looking at competing interest for the property. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. So I think the Chair's direction is very worthwhile in terms of looking at what you just mentioned: the overall potential of ag land usage by solar facilities. There is just one (1) thing in the future that we are assuming which is that there will not be developed batteries that can store solar to make it firm power in which case then KIUC would be able to take a lot more solar. So that is just the state of technology with respect to those batteries needs to just be projected a little bit because if in the next ten (10) years they get good batteries, and I have no idea what the status is of that technology and turn it into firm power, then KIUC will be able to take a lot more solar. Mr. Hull: To that I would just add that with the exception of the Kapa'a Solar facility that was approved, all the other solar facilities that have so far been approved by the Planning Commission do have batteries with them and the bill anticipates battery usage in as so far as it's accessory to the solar facility. That is to say KIUC could not just propose a battery and say it is a solar facility and it would be outright permitted on agricultural lands. But insofar as it comes with the solar facility, it would be wrapped-up within that. Ms. Yukimura: But is the battery the state of technology, and I am really ignorant on this, is it such that it actually converts that solar facility to a firm power producer? Mr. Hull: As represented by the applicants, yes. Ms. Yukimura: And still there then is that limitation on how much solar they can take? Because my understanding was the fact that it was not firm power is what limits the amount of solar that KIUC can take. Mr. Hull: Yes, and the applicant addressed that. I think that was one (1) of the big concerns about the study that the County commissioned concerning sustainable energy in spending reserves and the applicant specifically talked about how their battery capacity preempts that concern about spending reserves, and that it will store the energy produced on site by the solar panels. Ms. Yukimura: Well all that says to me is you need to further research that number that the Chair is looking for with KIUC. Mr. Dahilig: Just one (1) more side note on the issue of the storage, there also have been people that have approached us regarding non-pv but yet solar concentrated types of technologies. So it is not limiting just to photovoltaics alone that when we are looking at solar facilities where else in our minds considering concentrated solar, or super heated fluids as a means of also harnessing the sun and using that as a renewable resource. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for the clarifications and your questions. Are there any other questions? If not I'd entertain a motion to defer to our March 7, 2012 Committee Meeting. Ms. Yukimura: And we are back in session? COMMITTEE MEETING 13 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Ms. Nakamura: Excuse me. Discussion first. I asked earlier if anyone wanted to discuss this matter and there were not any. Yes Councilmember Chang? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Chang: Yes. Before we defer, there was a lot of discussion about IAL, so just for the benefit of those out there wondering what is IAL, I think it is important that we clarify that it is Important Agricultural Lands; the study that we are going through. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for clarifying that point. Yes, we tend to use a lot of acronymns here. So any other discussion? Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Yukimura, seconded by Councilmember Chang, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2424 was deferred. Bill No. 2423 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 14, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION FUND [This item was deferred.] Ms. Nakamura: We will suspend the rules and ask if anyone from the public would like to testify on this matter. Mr. Mickens. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GLENN MICKENS, RESIDENT: Thank you Nadine. For the record Glenn Mickens. It is not on this but I just have a question in procedure. Will it be the policy of the Council going forward to only allow public testimony before presentation as given opposed to prior policy where public testimony was given after the presentation? I know Jay has always... Ms. Nakamura: I will ask Chair Furfaro to answer that question. Council Chair: I will leave that discretion to the Committee Chairs. I know I always ask for the testimony after the presentation. Mr. Mickens: Yes. Council Chair: It is my practice but we have members that practice testimony upfront. There is no rule, that indicates it should be "pre" or "post"; it is up to the individual Committee Chairs. Mr. Mickens: I did always appreciate your view on this thing because sometimes you listen to people testify, you have questions. Prior to that time maybe you do not have questions but I am not questioning your rules. I just wondered if going forward if that is going to be...you will stay with that policy then Jay and the other members... COMMITTEE MEETING 14 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Council Chair: The policy is the discretion is done by the individual Committee Chair and I will be planning to leave it that way. Mr. Mickens: Okay. Council Chair: My habit is take it at the end but it is an individual Chair's decision. Mr. Mickens: Okay. So... Ms. Nakamura: And I can add to that that as an inexperienced Committee Chair I will take that into consideration going forward. Mr. Mickens: Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Any other testimony on this matter? Back into Committee Meeting. Committee members, comments? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura: Madame Chair, I know that at our last Committee Meeting we had substantial discussion about different provisions and I know that one (1) of our questions was for the County Attorney as to whether if we wanted to change the percentage of certified revenues, real property tax revenues that is allocated to the Open Space Fund, that we might have to introduce a new bill. I think those questions have been sent forth but are not yet answered? Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So it seems appropriate that maybe we defer. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Yes, the questions were recently forwarded to the Administration and we really want to give them appropriate time. A set of questions were sent to the Planning Department and a separate set of questions to the County Attorney's Office. We would like to give them time to think through those questions and respond in writing so that we can have a better discussion at the Committee level. So I would be happy to move forward with that deferment. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Yukimura, seconded by Councilmember Chang, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2424 was deferred. 3 COMMITTEE MEETING 15 FEBRUARY 22, 2012 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ihilani C.J. Laureta Secretary APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on April 4, 2012. NADINE K. NAKAMURA CHAIR, PLANNING COMMITTEE