HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc01-11-11minutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 11, 2011
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair, Caven Raco at 9:12 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room
2A -2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. Herman Texeira
Mr. Jan Kimura
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Mr. James Nishida
Mr. Caven Raco
Absent and excused:
Ms. Camilla Matsumoto
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
On motion made by Hartwell Blake to nominate James Nishida as Chairperson,
nominations were closed by Herman Texeira, seconded by Hartwell Blake, motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake to nominate Caven Raco for Vice Chair,
nominations were closed by Herman Texeira, seconded by Hartwell Blake, motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
Appointment of Subdivision Committee Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Committee
Members.
Chairman. Nishida appointed Jan Kimura and Chair, Camilla Matsumoto as Vice
Chair, and Herman Texeira as member of Subdivision Committee.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to approve
the agenda, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Receipt of Items for the Record.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura, to receive items
into the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Minutes — Excerpt of a portion of Public Hearing of June 22, 2010, Regular Meeting of
November 23, 2010.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to accept excerpt of
June 22, 2010 and regular meeting minutes of November 23, 2010, motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Request 12/2/10) from Clearwater, to co- locate a telecommunications facilit y at
existing telecommunications facility approved under Variance Permit V- 2002 -2 and Class IV
Zoning Permit Z,-IV-20O2-,5, Tax Ma Key 3 -3- 011:002 Puhi Kauai = Cleawwiee.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
FEB 0 8 2011
Staff Planner Kaama Hull read Director's report (on file).
Chair: Questions for Kaaina?
Staff: Also at a previous telecommunication public hearing before the Commission it
was requested that map be provided that includes all of the telecommunication sites currently
existing on the island of Kauai and that map is behind you folks and I can hand out also an
individual map.
Mr. Kimura: Kaaina, this is all the towers? They said not all wanted to give you the
location of their towers.
Staff: Correct. That is all with the exception of two of the most recent ones that were
erected that haven't been input into the system and that is essentially one that is on the Kukui`ula
bypass, there should be a red dot located on there. And there is also one located next to. ..across
from the Wailua Golf Course in fairly close proximity to the prison.
Mr. Blake: Kaaina, I know the department encourages co-location of facilities. Are
these facilities located where they are, they happen to be located because they cannot be co-
located with others, the ones on the map?
Staff: Many of the ones on the map are co- location sites. That is to say if you see a red
dot that will be a telecommunications site that may have one carrier on it or it may have several
carriers atop the pole and or building that is symbolized by the dot. In cases you also see where
there are multiple dots in one particular location and those locations, Kaumakani being one of
them, there are actually several poles up and that was done in the past. And partly because of the
Kamakani situation where you have several poles holding only one carrier and the visual impact
that that creates the department has somewhat of a practice of recommending co- location and
encouraging co - location in order to dissuade applicants from having several poles or towers at
one site.
Mr. Blake: So is it departmental policy to contain the apparent proliferation of these
communications facilities or is it just wide open?
Staff: Can you clarify the question?
Mr. Blake: My understanding is that right now if a communications company wants to
put up a facility they have to go through the Planning Department, they have to go through the
County. But the County cannot stop them. The County just has some control over the final
design and so forth, is that correct?
Staff: I wouldn't say that is completely accurate. There are things that a
telecommunication facility can be denied on. One in particular would be the visual impact and
the Commission does have an application here that we will be hearing later on today in which the
department is actually recommending denial of the application because of the visual impact. So
the Commission can deny on certain cases. There are also Federal standards that outright
prohibit you from taking action on certain reasons such as radio frequency emissions and
whatnot. But if there are other impacts be it noise created from a generator or visual impacts
created by the structure its self those can be grounds for denial.
Mr. Blake: So my question was, is there a departmental policy governing the ... I started
to say proliferation, it appears to me there is a proliferation of these facilities. And of course the
other side of the coin is that the people who are putting them up have perceived some need for
their service. So again if you are not an eyesore and you are not making a lot of, filling the space
with a lot of ambient noise it seems like you can put your facility up anywhere you want to. Or
are there over arching guidelines that the County has adopted to control where they go?
Staff: I wouldn't say there are over arching guidelines that the County has adopted it is
essentially for this Commission to review if there are impacts that could significantly harm or
impact the surrounding neighborhood or environment. If you find any that there are no impacts
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
%1_
or that are minimal in nature then indeed these are permissible under your findings and
particularly for the application before you today. It is in fact listed as an outright permitted use
within the General Industrial Zoning District however the reason they were required to get a
permit to begin with was because it exceeded the height permissible within that zoning district
which is 70 feet and they requested to go 76 feet. And that is essentially why it is before you
folks today. I should say within the conditions of approval it was also stated that any co-location
requests shall require Planning Commission approval. But the use its self is outright permitted
particularly at the height that it is requesting but those are the existing conditions of approval.
Mr. Blake: So they are outright permitted in industrially zoned properties?
Staff: Correct,
Mr. Blake: And if it is not industrially zoned then what additional hoops do they have to
jump through?
Staff. In say the Agriculturally Zoned District or the Residential Zoned District a Use
Permit is required. But if you will notice in this application no Use Permit is actually required.
Mr. Texeira: Kaaina, where is their proposal on this?
Staff: It is located approximately, it is actually on the map right in here, it is this dot right
here. So the location is already there because it is an existing telecommunications site so they
are requesting to locate their antenna at that site.
Mr. Blake: Off the top of your head Kaaina, how many of these, the total numbers of
sites that are located in industrial areas, what percentage?
Staff There is probably only two or three located in industrial zoning districts. That also
speaks to the relatively small amounts of industrial zoning districts that are on Kauai as well.
Mr. Blake: So all of the rest of them then are subject to Use Permits?
Staff The bulk of them have been subject to Use Permits, yes.
Chair: Kaalna, the change in letting the Director make the decision for this, is this
something new that you are applying beginning with this one?
Staff: No, that condition has been placed on roughly about 20 previous permits and it is
something that the department has found that requiring the co- location in most cases creates an
extra obstacle for the applicant. And more often than not is found to be minimal if having no
affect at all because the uses are permitted and they are going below the existing height of the
pole and they are locating their equipment within the enclosure its self. So that amendment has
been placed, been recommended and placed by this Commission I would say on roughly 20
existing permits and it helps to essentially further encourage as it eases or facilitates the
application process for a co- location.
Chair: So when the department, in this case, when the department applies that particular
thing what changes happen to the Use Permit and who is* ..is the Use Permit its self now the
responsible party, multiple parties, one Use Permit with multiple... whose responsibility is it to
take care of that?
Staff Ultimately the responsibility of the Use Permit or any zoning permit ultimately is
going to fall on the landowner because it is his or her land. Generally the leases that they
execute with the applicants require that the applicant fulfill all the necessary permit
requirements. But ultimately the responsibility does fall on the landowner's shoulders.
Chair: So when the Director approves a change is it change to that Use Permit its self or
is this another Use Permit they get supplied to that pole?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
K]
Staff` It's with the condition that is recommended. It is actually not even so much a
change to the Use Permit as it is a change to the structural facility. The use still remains the
same, potentially you could interpret it as an increase in the use but the use still stays the same.
Chair: The responsibility is going to be to the person that first put up the pole.
Staff: Yes.
Chair: And then when it comes to us are all these poles subject to a height limit?
Staff. They are all subject to a height limit.
Chair: So any exceeding of the height limit will come to us.
Staff: Any exceeding of the height limit beyond the respective zoning district's height
limit would automatically necessitate a Variance Permit. It has been the practice of the
department over the past few years to require under this amendment that any proposal in which
they are either exceeding the height, even if it is within the respective d'istrict's height envelope,
if they are going to exceed the height of a pole or they are going to expand the footprint of the
facility then that would require Commission review and approval. But as long as they are
locating beneath the existing height of the pole or they and they are locating their equipment
within the previously approved fenced off enclosure, generally that is what is interpreted as
minimal, no impact, and able to be reviewed by the Director.
Chair: Any other questions? Can the applicant come forward?
Mr. Eric Schatz: Good morning Chair and Commissioners, Eric Schatz, project manager
for Crown Castle here for Clearwire today.
Chair: Questions for the applicant? Do you know how many Crown Castle owns on
Kaua` i?
Mr. Schatz: I was just having that run through my head as the discussion was going on. I
believe there are currently 7 Crown Castle towers in Kauai County,
Chair: And then you would lease them out to, this particular one is...
Mr. Schatz: On Kauai Crown Castle purchased their towers from telecommunications
carriers who had already put them up for their own requirements. They were generally part of
larger national purchases where Crown Castle is purchasing thousands of towers. So in this
particular situation this tower has 3 carriers there today, the original occupant who put up the
tower, Sprint, later Coral Wireless, Mobi PCS, and Verizon were added to that same facility.
And the application today is to add Clearwire to this facility.
Chair: So because Crown Castle owns the tower, when somebody comes on you guys
come in to do the application?
Mr. Schatz: Typically we would be involved in the application process either directly or
in review of the carrier's application.
Chair: And then you know like on the 3G, 4G, (inaudible), is that like a pipe? I know
irrigation, so the size of the pipe makes a difference to how much water you can carry. The more
outlets you have on the pipe the less potential you have for a pressure drop and all that. Is that
similar to telecommunications facilities?
Mr. Schatz: When we are talking about 3G or 4G or YMAX or LTE, some of those are
industry standards and some of those are trade names if you will. They are all attempting to
describe the delivery of faster data services. So by data services things like streaming video,
faster web access, being able to do all of the additional things that people do on their devices
now above and beyond simply making a phone call or sending a text message.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
rd
Chair: So does that affect the capacity of the tower, the increased usage of wire
communication, does it affect the capacity of the tower?
Mr. Schatz: The capacity of the tower is driven by how much physical infrastructure is
placed on the tower, not necessarily what that infrastructure is aimed at delivering. So whether
they are delivering 8 megabits a second or 36 megabits a second, if it is the same size antenna it
has the same impact on the capacity of the tower. Crown Castle is essentially in the steel and
concrete business or vertical real estate business if you will and they provide the infrastructure
for the carriers to be able to go and locate their equipment and then quickly deliver services.
Chair: So you would call like one of those square things an antenna, that portion an
antenna so if they needed more they could put more around in the (inaudible)?
Mr. Schatz: Typically what has been happening over the
carriers have been adding to the services they offer to consumers
additional investment by the carriers. Some of that investment is
equipment at the ground level, radios; back haul capacity, power
of things. Some of it is also attached to the towers and has coaxi
to deliver those services.
last several years is that as
those services have required
in the form of additional
rectifiers, batteries, those types
al cable running up the towers
Chair: Any other questions? Do you want to add anything to the report?
Mr. Schatz: I think Mr. Hull did a terrific job on explaining what we are up to. I have
read the conditions of approval and have no objections.
Chair: We will call you back.
Mr. Blake: Before you leave, so based on what or in addition to what Mr. Nishida was
asking you, if this is the tower and Crown Castle administers the tower for other users you are
like the landlord.
Mr. Schatz: That is an accurate representation of what we do and I think when the
carriers were putting up towers initially and this speaks to the map here a little bit as well, there
was a point when the carriers really wanted to control these towers themselves. And over the last
10 years or so what has happened is that the carriers have realized that they have significant
amounts of capital tied up essentially in concrete and steel. And by selling these towers to
companies that manage towers and encourage, in fact our business mato is co- location, they have
been able to free up that capital that was previously tied up in these towers to go and pursue new
services and spend money on R and D and spend money on all these other types of things,
developing new handsets.
Mr. Blake: So if a company like Sprint or Nextel wants to add services that emanate
from a particular tower then it's the question of how much space there is on the tower or it could
be a question of how much space there is on the tower for additional antennas?
Mr. Schatz: Typically the carriers would be trying to add services not to one individual
location but to a grouping or an island or a State to try to do these augments so that when you
take your device into that area you can connect on then with the next site for that service. So
when the carriers are ready to offer a new service part of the review process they go through is
what it is going to take for additional equipment, what are our limitations in terms of being able
to place additional equipment or antennas at this site? And then what are the processes that need
to happen to gain approval to go do that.
Mr. Blake: Are you ever in the position of putting up additional towers on the same site
to service your tenants?
Mr. Schatz: Crown Castle typically wouldn't add a second tower. What they would do is
come in for approval for a stronger and/or taller tower at the same location and then once that
new tower was up relocate the existing tenants to it.
Planning Commission Minutes
January I I, 2011
a]
Mr. Blake: The reason I ask is the height limits generate a lot of comment so if you
cannot go up can you add towers and achieve the same ultimate service?
Mr. Schatz: That starts to be a very complicated answer. I will try to keep as concise as 1
can. Over the last 10 years we have seen them move from the carriers on worrying and spending
most of their time trying to fix coverage issues to spending more and more of their time and
money trying to fix capacity issues. There is a limit to how many users can actively use any one
carrier's particular site at a time; essentially you are out of capacity at that site. And you can
either add additional radios and antennas up to the limits of your equipment or you have to add
another site to offload that capacity. So there are times when the carrier is out of capacity at a
site and they can't readily add any more capacity right there and they are going to go a mile or
two down the road and try to split the capacity requirements between two or more sites. We
have seen more and more of that especially over the last 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Blake: Why is that better than adding another tower on the same site?
Mr. Schatz: If you can imagine 100 users surrounding a tower at various distances,
adding additional capacity at that one site may not provide better service to those users. It may
be better served by adding a second site elsewhere and trying to cover some of those consumers
from another location. There is fixed amount of power that is available out of those radios and
every connected users uses a portion of that power. If you can get closer to the users you can put
more users on your system. So having a site well away from where the actual users are in effect
hurts you.
Mr. Blake: Say that again?
Mr. Schatz: Having a site that is located far away from the end user, the person with the
mobile device cuts the amount of capacity that you have. It ends up essentially hurting the
carrier. The ideal situation is to have your facilities as close to the users as you can within the
limitations of the system and the topography that you are in.
Chair: Kaaina, the Kekaha Office Building site, we added another tower to that site.
That was because there were too many carriers for the particular antenna, right?
Staff: Right. The structural bearing of the monopole its self couldn't handle another
carrier.
Chair: Whereas Crown Castle's situation, what he is addressing is the clients that they
have on the tower and then to increase capacity or service it would be better, what he is saying is
it would be better to either go tall or go to somebody else for those existing, your existing
customers or clients.
Mr. Schatz: And that is a carrier by carrier, network by network call.
Chair:
So when a
call is made
the call connects with the antenna that is closest,
automatically
goes to the
antenna that
is closest.
Mr. Schatz: It could be an antenna that is closest; it could be the antenna with the
strongest signal to that mobile user.
Chair: And then the signal goes down to a radio in the shack and the shack sends the
signal up to a satellite or something?
Mr. Schatz: The radios would then connect back to the, we are getting into the intricacies
of network design here, the radios end up connecting to that carrier's main telephone switch
center and then from there, on to wherever that call was destined.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
3
Chair: So the network of towers that are around is not so much related to the
connectivity between the antennas, a direct signal coming to and from each antenna or is that it
too? Do you have to have a system that connects from antenna to antenna?
Mr. Schatz: There are networks that connect the various antenna sites together so that
their backhaul requirements go over the air via the microwave network rather than back down
through a fiber optic or copper cable through say a Hawaiian Tel or Time Warner switch center.
Chair: And on Kauai some of it is like that and some of it is through the lines.
Mr. Schatz: That is correct.
Chair: Any other questions? Anyone in the public want to testify on this agenda item?
Seeing none what does the Commission want to do? Read the recommendation, sorry.
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Questions for Kaaina?
Mr. Raco: All the comments have been received?
Staff: I believe only Fire and Public Works have sent their comments however the
applicant will be required to receive review and approval of a building permit at which time they
will be walking the permit through the various departments and agencies.
Chair: Any other questions? Mr. Schatz, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Schatz: No.
Chair: What does the Commission want to do?
Mr. Texeira: Mr. Chair, motion to approve.
Mr. Blake: Second.
Chair: Move to approve as recommended by the Director's Report,
Mr. Texeira: Right, as recommended by the Director's Report,
Chair: I have a motion to approve the request from Clearwire to co-locate a
telecommunication facility at an existing telecommunication facility, Variance Permit V- 2002 -2
and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-N- 2002 -5, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to approve
Director's Report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92 -5(&2 ), the purpose
of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the evaluation of the Planning
Director. This session pertains to the Planning Director's evaluation where consideration of
matters affecting privacy will be involved.
Chair: I would like to move this to the end of the meeting if that is okay and is there
anyone in the public that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none...
COMMUNICATION
Communication (12/23/10) from Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr., on waiver and
recommendation to eliminate furloughs on a going forward basis effective January 1 2011.
Action to rescind action taken on June 22, 2010 regarding, furlough payroll deduction for
Planning Director.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
7
Mr. Kimura: Make a motion for action to rescind action taken on June 22, 2010.
Mr. Raco: Second,
Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Caven Raco, to approve
communication from Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, motion carried unanimously by voice
vote.
Chair: Does anybody want to speak on this agenda item?
SUBDIVISION
Chair: Subdivision Committee Report No. 9, Tuesday, January 11, 2011. Tentative
subdivision action, Judith C. Page Trustee, et. al., TMK: 1 -9- 002:025, approved 24 Final
subdivision action, S- 200647, Robinson Family Partners, TMK: 1 -2- 006:002, approved 2 -0, and
subdivision S- 2006 -47, Opaeka`a Falls Land Company, TMK: 4- 2- 003:012, -65, 066, approved
2 -0.
Mr. Kimura: Motion to approve.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Moved and seconded, any discussion, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion
carried.
Commission recessed at 9:55 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 10:11 a.m.
Chair Nishida was excused from the meeting temporarily.
UNFINISHDED BUSINESS
Use Permit U- 2011-4, Special Permit SP- 2011 -2 and Class 1V Zoning Permit Z- IV -2011-
4 to permit a helicopter tour landing area for visitation and viewing of Hali`i Falls located on
Hali'i Stream, approx. 1.5 miles west of Kilohana Crater Kauai, further identified as Tax Map
Key 3-8- 001:001 (affecting an area of approx. 1,500 s . ft. = Inter4sland Helicopters, Inc.
[Director's Report received 9/14/10, hearing closed 9/28/10.1
Supplemental Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read supplemental Director's Report (on file).
Vice Chair Raco: Commissioners, any questions for the planner?
Staff: Excuse me, before you start Commissioner Blake l would also like to add the
handouts that were given to the Commission previously were provided by the applicant and was
intended to have a larger scale printout to put on the board however the printing capability
wasn't available for them. The individual handouts, just to explain, the first one in which you
have a blue and red arrow and a circular type of route is the approach route of the helicopter to
the proposed landing site. And then the second one is more of an S shaped route and is the
departure route away from the proposed landing area. The final map depicts the distance, one,
from the Kahili Mountain Park which the red line depicts and is approximately as it states 3.28
miles from Kahili Mountain Park. And the blue line depicts the distance of the proposed landing
site from the nearest residential area which is Oma`o which it states is 5.3 miles exactly.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
1 *1
Mr. Blake: Mr. Hull, how many of the 9 approved sites are currently in regular use?
Staff: The first approvals were actually emergency landing sites on the various trails in
Kalalau by DLNR so we wouldn't say it is a regular use nor is it a commercial site.
Mr. Blake: Tour type use.
Staff: Tour type use would be...
Mr. Raco: The first out of the 9..?
Staff. The first out of the 9 are actually emergency landing sites for rescues, just the first
one. And the ones that are in current operation would be, that we know of , 3, excuse me, 3 of
them, the hanger in Hanapepe.. 9
Mr. Blake: That is No. 4.
Staff: And Keith Robinson's which is No. 8 and Island Helicopters which is No. 9.
Mr. Texeira: So the rest are inactive?
Staff: I believe so.
Mr. Blake: Are they inactive or are they cancelled?
Staff: Well many of them are actually no longer in business and/or cancelled. And I
would have to actually double check on the Niihau Helicopter's permit, that one I am not aware
if it is still active or not.
Mr. Blake: Because these landing permits aren't transferable, right?
Staff I would have to check on the permit it's self. As previously discussed at the last
Commission hearing on this item, while it has been a certain practice in certain cases to state that
the permit is applicable only to the applicant it has been the determination of the County
Attorney that the permits run with the land and not with the applicant. But as to whether or not
specific conditions were crafted to make them applicant specific I cannot answer that question
right now.
Mr. Blake: Do permits generally run with the land unless limited by the department to an
applicant or do they always run with the land regardless?
Staff'. I will defer that to the County Attorney at this point.
Mrs When it concerns land use the permit runs with the land and not the applicant
because you can control the land and not necessarily the applicant. So say in this case it is Grove
Farm who is the landowner so that permit will run with Grove Farm via the applicant as the
authorized agent.
Mr. Blake: Let's look at No. 2, Sheraton Coconut Beach Hotel, request and received a
landing site at the hotel. .
Mr. Jung: If we were to go into detail on each one of these we would have to pull the
conditions out because some of these may have been conditioned to only be temporary and for a
specific time period, one or two years. So we would have to go back and do the research into all
these permits.
Mr. Blake: It seems to me that the bulk of objections to interior landings or landings
away from the helipads have to do with noise. The report from the department talks about not
wanting to add to the proliferation of landing sites. So is there any problem with us making any
Planning Commission Minutes
January 31, 2011
01
future permits and any permits that have not expired operator specific? Because otherwise they
just go on forever and we lose all control.
Mr. Jung: You have to remember your role as you look at land use and not who the
applicant specifically is because you can control the land and what is used on that land but not
the applicant if say they are good natured or whatnot, that shouldn't be necessarily in your
decision making. It should be how it is going to affect the land.
Mr. Blake: I understand that but all of these come in under Use Permits which to me
already removes them from the normal type of density or building permit type rights that accrue
to any (inaudible) piece of property. So if it is a Use Permit then the operator is responsible to
the County not to act in any way that impinges upon the neighbors. So why does that Use Permit
have to go on forever?
Mr. Jung: It doesn't have to go on forever you can constrain the permit for a limited
permit for a limited period of time of say 1, 2, 5 years but you have to balance the amount of
infrastructure that is going to be put into the specific use to see if it is worth say if you want to
make it for 5 years, the Use Permit is only good for 5 years but they are going to put in
infrastructure. It might not be economically feasible to do that so you have to look at each case
as a case by case basis in terms of how long you want to impose a time constraint.
Mr. Dahilig: And just for additional information Commissioner, when we do take a look
at these applications on an individual basis what I have seen in the past is we have been able to
require if there is any kind of change in ownership that the holder of the permit is obligated to
notify the department of that change in ownership. So that is at least from an enforcement stand
point it allows the department to keep up to date as to who is holding this and who is operating
these types of facilities. And when we look at actually a time limitation it is not our
responsibility to make sure an economic model is feasible for a particular applicant. Again our
primary responsibility is to look at whether a use comports with the land use around, other land
uses that are around. So in as much as we would like to enter into a balancing type of situation
in reality our primary job is not to focus on economic viability, our primary focus is really to
make sure that that particular use comports with the other uses that are around in formulating our
recommendations to the Commission.
Mr. Blake: Exactly, so the fact that whoever holds the permit today has to tell that he is
going to sell it tomorrow, I don't know how that helps us because that permit, if we call the
permit it doesn't matter who holds it.
Mr. Dahilig: I think part of where that helps us and it is an element of education, when
we have applicants come before the Commission obviously they hear your concerns and they
practice their business in a certain manner based on their experience here. And maybe this is a
practice we can take a look at internally that when there is a change in ownership on a permit,
particularly ones that are sensitive to the public that we would at least try to educate the holder of
the permit particularly in this type of situation to what were the concerns, why the conditions
were in there and let them know that we are actively enforcing these permit conditions.
Mr. Blake: Is there any reason why we don't have a departmental policy?
Mr. Dahilig: This discussion had come up I believe previously where the number of
landing sites or how we treat helicopter landings can be codified or enumerated through some
type of departmental policy. It is something that we can definitely take a look at with the
Commission, if the Commission would also like to pass rules as to how it would do this,
obviously we can forward that question over to the County Attorney's office for a dialogue that
we can have offline to maybe how we can put some other enforcement or oversight or guidance
documents in writing.
Mr. Blake: I would like to see that happen because everyone is a case of first impression
every time they come up. And you know we talk about the same things over and over and even
though there is this warning in here that says don't use this, if this is approved it is not to be
considered precedent setting. I mean of course it is precedent setting because whoever comes in
Planning Commission Minutes
January I I, 2011
1[o]
tomorrow is going to list this amongst, if this gets approved, along with all the other approved
sites as a reason not to decide against them. And we can say well we are not going to...we are
not going to use that or we are not going to count that argument but the argument is there
anyway. And if helicopters were silent 99 % of the complaints would evaporate but they are not.
And so they fly around the island and I think it is a positive thing that visitors and residents alike
are able to view their home, our home, from a different perspective but it doesn't come without a
cost and that cost is to the peace, quiet, and tranquility of the island.
One of the things that the past, the one at Manawaipuna Falls stated and I think I heard
this applicant state too is competitive advantage. So by refusing me tomorrow you are
automatically telling me that I cannot compete at the same level as the other people who have
been granted the privilege of flying all over the island and landing all over the island. And so if I
don't succeed part of that I attribute to your refusal to allow me to land where, just like all the
rest of them, I am not going to harm the animals, I am not going to harm the foliage, the plants, it
is far away from habitation and so forth. But you are telling me no and you told all these other
people yes. And that is why I think rather than take these on a case by case basis I think we
should have a policy as to how we are going to, if we are going to entertain these anymore and if
so, how. Soother than just stating my opinions, a policy, how do we go about implementing
this?
Mr. Dahilia: Again there is a legal side to developing a policy which I am sure the
County Attorney can elaborate more on but then there is also a study side that needs to be
conducted. Now whether we have the capability in house to do some type of comprehensive
study on the cumulative impacts of helicopter landings throughout the island or even flights in
general, that is something I don't know. But I would want to have some type of study developed
before we would be in any position to recommend policies or rules to be implemented and
adopted, sorry, adopted and implemented by the Commission because I think there is a number
of environmental factors that need to be considered in the development of some kind of study
like that. And whether we can do that in house or not is really a question I can't answer.
Mr. Blake: Say the study comes back and says the caring capacity of the island is 50
interior landing sites or 150 because that is how big the island is and you could put corridors in
there and so forth. Do we have to except that?
Mr. Dahilip,: You are the Commission.
Mr. Blake: I mean the study says 150 or some huge number is okay and what if we say
no, so what, too bad. I don't care what the study says.
Mr. Dahilia: Ultimately the authority rests with the Commission to adopt whatever rules
it sees fit to manage land use on this island but I would again just be cautious to go into this on a
touch and feel basis versus actually having some type of scientific and social /economic analysis
that is attached to it and becomes some type of basis for the Commission to make a decision to
alleviate any concerns regarding arbitrary and capricious types of decision making.
Mr. Texeira: Does the General Plan in any way address the interior of the island in terms
of protecting our natural resource in addressing something like this?
Mr. Dahilig: With respect to actually helicopter landings?
Mr. Texeira: Or any other activity?
Mr. Dahilia: Maybe what I could do is go over the plan with you and maybe try
tot ..because I don't know offline if the answer is yes or no but I could probably go over the plan
with you and try to see whether this is something that... as the Commission knows we are going
through a General Plan update process right now and that this is something that it feels is
appropriate for future analysis as we embark on this process. And whether the current plan is
sufficient and meets your objectives. There is a lot of broad language about protecting the
natural resources of the island and where development should go and planning growth ranges but
with regards to this specific type of activity I do not believe that it is addressed specifically but I
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
111
think it could be addressed in broader tone. But I can't give you a clear answer at this time but
maybe I can go over it with you and see if what is in there meets your needs.
Mr. Texeira: I wanted to just drive home the point that Hartwell talked about and that is
to ensure that we should have some kind of plan, we should look into this more carefully that
might dovetail into the General Plan or whatever plan.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Mr. Texeira: As a Commission how do we get this point across to the Planning
Department in terms of a motion or what can we do?
Mr. Dahilig: I think your comments over the past few meetings have been very clear
about the concerns that have been raised here and it is something that I think by Kaaina's
drawing of our past actions I think that at least helps frame a discussion point for the
Commission as to what is happened in the past. But from a case by case basis we haven't done a
deep analysis as to the conditions and the reasons why particular things were granted whether it
be for emergency situations or not or for temporary basis, those types of things. We would
definitely have to undergo a great deal of more research and analysis before we were to come
back to you with any type of recommendation as to how to go forward. But it is something that
we hear loud and clear and we can definitely start addressing it.
here?
Vice Chair: Any more questions Commissioners for our planner? If not is the applicant
Mr. Robin Venuti: Good morning, Robin Venuti.
Mr. Luca Rostanio: Luca Rostanio,
Vice Chair: Is there anything you want to add to the discussion or bring us up to date?
Mr. Venuti: I think we can just open it up to questions again. But what Mr. Blake here
and Mr. Texeira, we are in the same agreement, we think this should be looked at as an
individual situation. There is no plan for everybody right now and this is the situation we are
faced with right now. We hope to just get an honest opinion of what are the pros and the cons of
this and how can we mitigate those so there is the least impact and hopefully this is a benefit to
the island and not just us.
Vice Chair: Commissioners, questions for the applicant?
Mr. Texeira: In light of what you just said how would this benefit the island?
Mr. Venuti: I see numerous ways, education; you talked a lot about noise. Helicopters
don't make noise when they are on the ground. We are not in an area that is going to impact
anybody negatively with our approach into or out of the area. We discussed that quite a bit last
time about our routes that are already established and where we fly and where the landing is and
the closest residence and buildings and activities that already taking place in the area or further
down the stream. But from our point of view we are going to have just like landings at
Manawaipuna or wherever we are going to be able to educate people, to give them an
opportunity that they wouldn't have, bring awareness to the island. We talked a little bit about
this at our meeting with Stop DAT and other groups here but it will definitely be an opportunity
for education.
And even in speaking with Mr. Woods about the types of plants and things that are there
in the area, you know we would hope to be able in the future to be able to improve the area by
bringing back some of the native plant species and things like that that were once in the area that
aren't present now. That is something long term and down the road but it would definitely help
everybody including the island in that little area. It is overrun right now with ginger and non-
native plant species that are doing nothing beneficial at all to the island.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
12
Mr. Texeira: In terms of education could you please expand on who on the island would
be educated by this process?
Mr. Venuti: Everybody that is on board, every single passenger that would be brought
there.
Mr. Texeira: But most of the passengers are not island residents, they are visitors. So
how would this impact our local population? We are talking about education, we would like to
see the island educated, the people educated and how would the residents be educated by this
process?
Mr. Venuti: That is something I have never considered. I don't have an answer for that.
How would you suggest?
Mr. Texeira: I don't have a suggestion because they can't afford to, not too many local
guys can afford to fly.
Mr. Venuti: We make that affordable for them.
Mr. Texeira: If something like that was done as a possibility but other than that I don't
see how education except to educate our visitors about these potential sites.
Mr. Venuti: Why would that not be beneficial to educate the visitors?
Mr. Texeira: Secondarily it would be but primarily I don't see that being as a direct
positive impact. You mentioned sometime ago that, ..I think one of the reasons that you wanted
to, you mentioned that previous visitors to Kauai that utilized helicopter services you wanted to
provide this extra site visit for them because they already did previous tours so they were
getting ... not tired but you wanted another reason for them to do an activity or renting a
helicopter to do a tour, do a landing. Does that still hold with you or is that a statement that was
true that I thought you might have made?
Mr. Venuti: I don't remember making that statement. We do have return customers
though, yes.
Mr. Texeira: In terms of doing this activity is there an economic ... in other words are you
not successful right now in what you are doing?
Mr. Venuti: Yes, I would say we are.
Mr. Texeira: So why would you need to do this activity? Is it just to provide a service to
visitors or is it because it is an economic...
Mr. Venuti: Absolutely economical, you bet.
Mr. Rostanio: The reason for having the waterfall landing, my primary reason is to
reduce the noise level of the helicopter industry on the island.
Mr. Texeira: And how would you do that?
Mr. Rostanio: By reducing the number of daily flights. That is pretty simple. If you
have a 2 hour tour that requires going around the island once and it keeps the helicopter busy 2
hours, you go around the island, you fly by the noise sensitive areas once and you keep the
helicopter busy for 2 hours. If you do not have the option of the landing to keep the amount of
time the helicopter is busy for a long period of time of 2 hours, which would require 2 tours and
that would mean going around the noise sensitive areas twice with the same helicopter.
Mr. Texeira: So why can't you just buy another helicopter to expand your tours?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
13
Mr. Rostanio: I don't want to expand the tour I want to limit the number of times I go
around the island on a daily basis and at the same time be able to fill up the business day from 8
to S or whatever the business hours are. Do you know what I am saying?
Mr. Texeira: I know what you are saying.
Mr. Rostanio: So that is why even when we had the meeting with Stop DAT and the
other Fly Neighborly organization on the island that was one of the questions that I asked them
and I was totally surprised at having such feedback on a proposal like this. Because if it is true
that the noise issue is the main reason for not liking the idea of the waterfall landing it doesn't
make any sense because if the noise is the biggest issue the Commission should require
everybody to have a waterfall landing or a site landing and make the tour 2 hours long rather
than 1 hour. The noise created on the island by the helicopter industry right now is from the
people that do not have a waterfall landing. Do you know what I am saying? Because the tour is
only 45 minutes, 50 minutes long, they fill out the schedule the whole day so that makes that
helicopter fly 9 times around the island on a daily basis, 8 times. If they had a waterfall landing
or a stopover somewhere and that flight now becomes 2 hours long, that aircraft is only going to
go around the island 4 times. So now you are passing the Kalalau beach only 4 times a day and
not 8.
So you know what I am getting at, the reason for having the stopover was primarily to be
responsible with the local community and try to limit the number of flights and at the same time
the feedback I am getting is if you have a waterfall landing you are creating more noise. It is
actually the other way around. So that is why I am a little confused about that on the kind of
feedback because if the noise is the issue that should be the number one reason for allowing
somebody to land especially when the applicants choose a location where there is really no
impact whatsoever on an environmental level, biological level, archeological level, or historical
level, anything. The helicopter is the more eco- friendly way of going in and out of any sites
anywhere. Every time we fly the top biologist of the State doing the research at the Ali Kai
Swamp into the bogs where there are the more endangered species of plants statewide, they don't
hike in there, they fly with the helicopter because it is less damaging to fly in than walk in, so
that is the reason why, it was to limit the noise of the helicopter industry on Kauai.
Mr. Kimura: Back in September there was a discrepancy in the rightful ownership of the
company. Has that been established?
Mr. Venuti: You bet.
Mr. Kimura: Right here it says you guys have 10 to 14 flights per day. You are
expecting a 40 percent reduction if you guys are allowed to land at this waterfall..
Mr. Venuti: We do say 14 flights, there is only one possible landing site in the area so if
we maximized the amount of landings possible for the day we would have 4 possible landings at
that site so basically you would do away with 4 of those flights, you would go from 14 down to
10.
Mr. Kimura: The Planning Department is asking that the landowner should be
encouraged to allow other helicopters to land there. Now if the other helicopter companies land
there how many times a day can you land there? Are you willing to give up some of your
landing privileges?
Mr. Venuti: Of course from a business standpoint we want that to exclusive and that is
going to be ultimately like they talked about, that is going to be up to Grove Farm on who they
would...
Mr. Kimura: Didn't you just say to cut back noise of helicopters and that everybody
should have a landing pad next to a waterfall? So you guys are not willing to share that landing
site?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
14
Mr. Venuti: I don't want to of course. I mean that is why we are going through this
whole process, that is why we are here to do it and I am not going to sugar coat anything. That is
the way it is. And ultimately that is not our decision. You guys have suggested that, it was
suggested in the application that I read for the Manawaipuna landing and hasn't been done. That
is just out of our hands is basically what it boils down to.
Vice Chair: Didn't his partner just say...?
Mr. Kimura: That is what I thought I heard.
Vice Chair: You are both contradicting...
Mr. Venuti: Let me put it this way because I don't want there to be any contradictions.
We are here for my company applying for a waterfall landing. It will benefit me financially,
absolutely, first and foremost. It will benefit the island in the noise reduction. That is a fact. If
we are approved we cannot fly, we commit an aircraft to a 2 hour tour with 1 hour in the air, 1
hour on the ground so the noise will be reduced and that is a benefit. And I am here applying for
Inter - Island Helicopters. I am not here applying for anybody else. It is financial for me,
absolutely. It is beneficial to the island because the noise will be reduced.
Mr. Kimura: Wouldn't it benefit the whole island if more companies could land there?
Mr. Venuti: Well as I said there is only one possible landing site.
Mr. Rostanio: On the matter of the sharing the other problem is due to the nature of the
site it's self only one other operator on the island would be able to use the same location due to
the physical dimension of the landing area. All the other companies use bigger helicopters
carrying more people with a bigger diameter and bigger dimension of aircraft. So the sharing
will be difficult (inaudible) of allowing somebody in and out due to the site location and
geographical location and how the site is, the clearance of the site, it would be very difficult for
somebody else using different a type of helicopter to be able to use the same location. There
would be only one other operator that would be able to do that.
Mr. Kimura: So the size of the chopper determines who can land and who cannot land at
the site basically.
Mr. Rostanio: On that spot, yes. We don't want to go over there and clear the brush and
clear the vegetation and make a huge heli -stop. That is why it was chosen to begin with. We
don't want to go over there and clear the whole are and make it big enough to land any size of
helicopter, it would be just the minimum required to safely land that small helicopter that we use
and another operator uses on the island, but to clear everything out. .'just to keep the impact as
minimal as possible.
Mr. Kimura: So your determination of 40 percent reduction would be just 4 flights out of
the 14 flights?
Mr. Venuti: Yes. If we were averaging 14 flights a day then it would be 4 which is not
40 percent.
Mr. Kimura: It's not 40 percent.
Mr. Venuti: No.
Mr. Kimura: That is what I thought.
Mr. Venuti: We are not averaging 14 right now.
Mr. Kimura: What are you averaging right now?
Mr. Venuti: Probably about d, 7.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
15
Vice Chair: Did I hear you say that, if you don't mind Jan, where are you flying out of
right now?
Mr. Venuti: Port Allen.
Vice Chair: Port Allen, so you are saying a 2 hour flight, 1 hour in and 1 hour out, it
doesn't take you 1 hour to get from Port Allen to here, right?
Mr. Venuti: No, 2 hours total. The tour would be 2 hours, the flight is the same, the
flight time would be exactly the same, about 50 to 55 minutes in the air. But then with the stop
you are on the ground for an hour so it utilizes the helicopters for a total of 2 hours. You are in
the air for I hour.
Vice Chair: It takes you 45 minutes to get from your heliport to the falls?
Mr. Venuti: Well we include our normal tour route, we stay on the exact same tour route
as usual so if you were to do this tour it would include a... it would be the normal tour and a stop
at the waterfall. We wouldn't offer just fly to the waterfall and land.
Vice Chair: What is that route?
Mr. Venuti: The normal tour routes start off from our base there, Hanapepe, Waimea
Canyon, over the coast, along the coast, Hanalei Valley into the crater and then out of the crater.
Vice Chair: So where is the reduction of flights?
Mr. Venuti: The reduction of flights is because of the number of flights that you could do
in a day because that helicopter will be tied up for 2 hours total. It will be in the air for 1 hour
and on the ground at the waterfall for an hour where if we don't do that our tour, 55 minutes we
are on the ground, right back in the air, 55 minutes on the ground again. So in the same amount
of time you would fly 2 tours as opposed to only being able to fly I tour with that helicopter.
The helicopter is tied up for 2 hours, only in the air for an hour but utilized for two. Is that clear?
Vice Chair: Yes.
Mr. Kimura: How many choppers do you guys have right now?
Mr. Venuti: We just use one right now.
Mr. Kimura: Only one? How many do you have?
Mr. Venuti: Two.
Vice Chair: Any why don't you move to the Honolulu heliports?
Mr. Venuti: Honolulu?
Vice Chair: I mean the Uhu`e, sorry.
Mr. Venuti: That is the way it has always been and I am new here.
Vice Chair: Would you move?
Mr. Venuti: That is a complete discussion for a whole other day.
Mr. Rostanio: I wanted to add one thing regarding the routes, the (inaudible) helicopter
tour company uses on the island regardless of a waterfall landing or not are strictly dictated by
the Federal Aviation regulations. In the past there was a special whole regulation that was
tailored down just exclusively for the State of Hawaii and then as of two years ago they
Planning Commission Minutes
January It, 2011
16
extended to the national level so now everybody involved in the tour industry has to comply with
that section of regulations. And then what they did since the nature of the islands for the State of
Hawaii is completely different between the sightseeing spots on the Big Island versus Kauai,
they added a specific map with required routes, no fly zone, and different altitude minimum
required and all the companies have to maintain and everybody has to follow for the island
regardless of a waterfall landing or not. As long as you are involved in a sightseeing tour by
airplane, helicopter, or anything that flies you have to stay within the guidelines of those
regulations. And due to the map of the island the route that everybody pretty much follows is
pretty much the same.
Vice Chair: Any more questions, thank you. I need to take some public testimony. Is
there anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item?
Ms. Kualei Santos: Good morning, my name is Kualei Santos and I am a salt maker at
the salt ponds located right next to the airport. Just a little history about the salt patch, the only
place in the world that makes salt, past down from generation to generation, it is not sold it is
only given away. So what we do there is strictly cultural. Everything that happens we are the
lowest spot in that whole area so everything that happens affects us. Now I know this is about
landing at a waterfall but I have issues with where they are taking off from. Number one, they
don't have the proper permits. The office they have there is not permitted right now so how can
we even approve a permit to land a helicopter when they are not even permitted for the location
they are in? Issue number one.
Issue number two, I think an archeological study should be done of the waterfall area.
Another thing too is they bring up sound, you know during salt patch season which is during the
summer months they have been asked not to fly over, directly over our salt patch. They continue
to do it every single time. They run their helicopters 20, 25 minutes and all the dust and
everything, it affects us. It affects what we do. We don't make as much salt as we used to and it
is because of all the impacts that go around in the area. And we have asked that anything that
happens to increase business or increase the amount of population that surrounds the salt patch
area that we be notified, that we be brought in to give opinions and state what we need and how
what you do can help protect what we do. And that hasn't happened and it is sad, it is depressing
and it really affects our salt quality and the things that happen there.
Mr. Kimura: Apparently these people just purchased the helicopter company, am I
correct, have you tried working with them lately, with the new owners?
Ms. Santos: There have been attempts by the County to set up a meeting and I have been
willing and able for the past two months and nothing, no telephone calls, there has been nothing.
Mr. Blake: The matter of dust is an issue of how many years?
Ms. Santos: It has been going on forever. I have been making salt for 30 years and it has
gotten worse over the past probably, I don't know, 7 or 8 years. And the amount of traffic that
has been happening has gotten a lot worse.
Mr. Blake: You mean air traffic?
Ms. Santos: Yes, air traffic. And you know what is crazy is that no one regulates that
airport. There is no one. I came to you guys about 6 months ago, 6 or 7 months ago, and said
that most of those people who are located in that airport do not have overnight passes to be there
and that is you guys who permit that. And they don't have the proper permits to be there over
night. They have porta- potties that shouldn't be there, they have office trailers that shouldn't be
there, they leave their equipment there, all of that should not be there over night and yet it stays
there all the time.
Mr. Blake: Since this dust issue is one of such long standing is it just insurmountable?
Ms. Santos: It's just what, I'm sorry? What was that?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
i(►1
Mr. Blake: Since it has been going on for so many years and hasn't been resolved is it
just insurmountable?
Ms. Santos: I don't know. We have had to do a lot of...before back in the olden days we
didn't have all the dust fences, we didn't need to wash the salt so much or we didn't need to try
and protect it as much as we do now because of the dust that is there. And you know the whole
is point is, we are there strictly for tradition, strictly for the love of what we do. We are not there
for profit. None of us make money off of what we do there and yet everyone around the world
loves this salt. The helicopters and the hang gliders, they are there strictly for profit, they make
money but yet they do nothing, nothing to help protect the area. Now you want to fly to a
waterfall? What is to say that you are going to help protect that area, you know what I mean,
when you can't even protect the area that you are at. It is disturbing.
Vice Chair: Any more questions? Thank you Kualeai, is there anybody else that in the
public that would like to testify on this agenda item?
Ms. Abbey Santos: Aloha, my name is Abbey Santos and I am a resident of Hanapepe,
Kualei is my daughter and I want to speak about what my experience is with the helicopter
company. I saw the last meeting TV, I didn't come here just to watch it, I watched it on
television. I guess his name is Luke, he is the pilot, he was saying that they are a good neighbor
in Hanapepe. I think the day that I watched it on TV his helicopter buzzed my house. So he was
hovering in my yard, I don't know how high above my house he was, so thought well he just said
he was a great neighbor I am going to call him up and I am going to ask him why were you
buzzing my house. So he told me "well, I was on a survey and I can do whatever I want to ". I
was completely stunned when he said that he could do whatever he wanted to. I asked him what
kind of survey were you doing and he said I don't have to tell you because of the privacy act.
And I said the privacy act, what does that have to do with the survey? So of course I had to go
on the internet and look at what is the privacy act. The privacy act, I don't know if any of you
are aware of what it is, I am sure you guys do, the attorneys, has nothing to do with taking a
survey. So I spent the next I think two hours making telephone calls and trying to figure out
what kind of survey he was doing.
I finally called Maka`ala from Stop DAT and I asked her if she knew so she said she
would try to find out, I will call you back. She called me back within a half hour and she said the
survey was with I think it was with DOFA, Department of Wildlife or something and they are
surveying the Egrets in the area. Which are on the cliff, there are no Egrets in my yard. So I
called FAA and spoke to them, they called me back and they said yes, it is true. First they called
Inter4sland and they asked him, he called back and he said yes they were surveying Egrets and
it's true they can do whatever they want to when they are doing a survey. There are no rules,
there are no regulations, they can do what they want to and next time he does it make sure you
take photos. So I said thank you very much and I said have there been any other complaints
about this company and he said we don't keep records.
So I think it is very easy for this company to say well there are no complaints because
there are no records of it. And I don't know who you are supposed to call when you have a
complaint about these people but since this has happened I have been of course uber observant of
what is going on with the helicopter and these guys fly over Kaiolino, it is a new little
subdivision n Port Allen. I don't know if you guys know where it is, it is by the Port Allen
Center there are those houses, about 50 of them. It looks like they are flying directly over those
houses on their tour. I don't think that they respect our community and I don't think they pay
attention and I was extremely appalled that the pilot would tell me that he could do whatever he
wanted whenever he wanted to. He never once said I am really sorry Mrs. Santos I will make
sure that I don't do that again. In fact I did speak to him again on the phone, he called me back,
he hung up on me and I can't remember if the owners called me or somebody and they said well,
we will make sure he never talks to you again. He will never call you again. I said thank you
very much. I really don't think these guys are good neighbors so please, I beg you do not give
them a permit. They are not good neighbors in Hanapepe, they really aren't.
Vice Chair: Abbey, anything on the falls, on the landing?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
_:
Ms. Santos: I think they are not good neighbors and I don't know where they are going
to be flying around. I mean all the other companies have a route where they go, right? Everyone
has a route and we all know where they are going, they are going to the Canyon like he said, they
are going to the crater, they are going here. But now you are going to have a random helicopter
flying, where is he going? Oh, he is going to that fall, where is that guy going, he's going to that
fall. They are flying all over the place, it's crazy. You are opening up the island to having
helicopters all over the place. In the 80s I believe when there was that coalition and everyone
was against the helicopters because it was just crazy and insane with helicopters flying all over
the place, all the helicopters got together and agreed, okay, we are going to be polite, we are
going to be kind, we are going to follow, we are going to make our own rules so that we are not
going to impact the whole entire island with all this racket. And if you allow this landing in this
waterfall you are opening up a whole new route where no one else is flying. And these guys can
say oh, we are not going to bother anybody but it's not true. They can say that because there is
no record of who they are bothering, there is nowhere to call. There is nowhere to call. Thank
you for listening, please don't approve it.
Vice Chair: Anybody else?
Mr. Frank Santos: Frank Santos for the record. Back to Hartwell's question about the
dust, last Planning Commission meeting we were here about the airport. We talked about the
dust and that was created by Ken's over grading within his property area. During that time it
wasn't vegetated, the area its self wasn't re- grassed and it stayed like that. After that meeting a
couple days later one of Ken's employees got a hold of me and told me don't worry Frank, we
are going to gravel that whole area so you guys won't have this problem with dust. And that
never happened till today. And that is one of our issues protecting the salt ponds is controlling
the dust from all these different entities that are moving into the air strip.
Now just sitting here this morning and listening to the meeting that is going on, we are
talking about helicopters landing in this remote area at this waterfall, there is only one way in,
one landing zone, and only one pilot can get there and we are not talking about if something
happens up there. How will we send our rescues teams in there and we are putting their lives at
risk to get in remote area like that. The closest area they were saying is 8 miles from this remote
area. We are putting the tourist in jeopardy in an (inaudible) like this. There is not enough
studies like the Commissioners brought up earlier, there needs to be more studies and more
planning. It sounds like a big liability right here and I think you should do more studies and find
out safety measures in protecting our citizens. If we are going to educate our citizens who take a
helicopter ride we want to make sure they are safe, thank you.
Vice Chair: Any questions? Is there anybody else in the public that would like to testify
on this agenda item?
Ms. Cheryl Lovell - Obatake: For the record my name is Cheryl Lovell- Obatake. Mr.
Chairman I would request that you look at the Planning Director's report on page 2, on the legal
requirements, paragraph 2, "In accordance with section 8- 19.6(d) the public hearing for this
matter is scheduled on September 28, 2011."
Vice Chair: Which Director's report are you looking at, the old one or the new one?
Ms. Lovell - Obatake: I don't know but it's in the back but when somebody gives me
something like this, I read everything and it says legal requirements, November 13, 2007. So is
that a discrepancy?
Staff. Yes. I apologize but that is a typo, it should read 2010 as the public hearing was
held on September 28, 2010.
Ms. Lovell- Obatake: Yes because it would be on a Wednesday, okay, just checking. I
would like to start my testimony. I would like to support the previous testimonies given by the
Santos family. I can recall many years ago in 1999 and 2000, Ms. Wilma (inaudible) was an
intervener for the helipads at the Burns Field and I can recollect all of that because I was here. I
had gotten many kupuna's testimonies or support of the salt pans like Papa Awai, Henry Awai
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
19
who is no longer here. Unfortunately I don't know whether you are aware of the chronological
events that happened during that year up to now. As stated by the previous speakers on the area
where Burns Field is fuel tanks, porta- potties, and even the whole entire property at Burns Field
according to Ms. Wilma (inaudible) is illegal. An EIS and the Department of Transportation on
the Airports Division needs some clarification. I think that the Planning Department needs
clarification from the Airports Division to clarify the unfinished business of the intervenership
on the salt pans.
I wanted to get into the application of the planner/Director's report. I am kind of
questionable about the ownership of this Inter - Island Helicopters and why Ken D'Atillo was not
here today to clarify the ownership. I think it is a question in everybody's mind. I try to figure
out all the caring capacity of the helicopters flying, 42 to 70 people visiting the falls daily, 10
helicopters by 7 individuals, that is 70. And then 70 times 6, 420 passengers, 7 days a week is
2,940. I find that very impacting and I would like to also agree with the geological studies and
ecological studies and historical studies. And I would recommend that the Planning Department
not accept this permit for the fact that I feel that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
with the Federal government because it is an FAA allowing helicopters to fly. It is a Federal
entity and they should make comments regarding the ACHP which is the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. It is very important because of the historical significance and what kind of
Hawaiian consultation do they have to educate? I would like to know who that person is. I
would like to leave a copy of section 106 and that you contact the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to review this application because it is okayed by the Federal Aviation Agency,
thank you very much.
Vice Chair: Thank you, is there anybody else in the public?
Ms. Valerie King: Hi, my name is Valerie King and I work for Inter-Island Helicopters.
I am the office manager there and I have done nothing but try to work with all these people who
say that they have called us. They have never called us and as far as Ms. Santos...
Vice Chair: You know what...
Ms. King: I am just trying to say what she was saying that we don't try to work with
them. We have tried to work with them. And as far as the waterfall landing we haven't done
any waterfall landings since I started, thank you.
Vice Chair: Is there anybody else in the public?
Ms. Lovell- Obatake: For the records again my name is Cheryl Lovell - Obatake. There
are several things that are in the planner's report that needs to be looked at carefully, especially
with the Niihau Helicopters, Keith Robinson and Island Helicopters. How many helicopters are
at Burns Field and how many are departing from that area? We are only hearing synopsis of oh,
we are in Li1iu`e, but we need to really, really identify the departure areas especially for this
helicopter that is even going further on the other side. I have a problem with real estate, the
practices of, principals and practices of Hawaiian real estate. When I studied for real estate I
knew that the land that I am on all the way up to the sky, that was mine. And evidently this is
not happening where helicopters are continually going across private property. I think
clarification with the Real Estate Commission identifying the real (inaudible) of who is passing
over on whose air space. And I would recommend someone get some clarification on that on our
air space, thank you very much.
Vice Chair: Any more second calls, if not I will bring the meeting back to order and we
will take a 5 minute recess. The planner has gone to get the Commission some information.
Commission recessed at 11:19 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 11:45 a.m.
Vice Chair: Can the applicant come up please. You have heard some of the comments
from the public and there are a few concerns from the Commission that we would like to have
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
20
you work out some of the things that we have in mind with the planner. Is there any leeway that
you can give us to extend so we could defer the item for today?
Mr. Venuti: Yes, you bet. Are you going to give him and list and then he can deal with
us? Do we have some sort of timeframe do you know?
Vice Chair: So you are okay with that if we defer this?
Mr. Venuti: Sure.
Vice Chair: Is the Commission okay with that?
Staff We can go to the next meeting if you want that. We can also, I don't know if you
want to give the department ... I believe we also have the discretion to set it the first meeting in
February or I believe the department has the discretion to set it when it has the necessary
information. I will double check with the County Attorney, is it open ended?
Mr. Jung: If you want to just work out the date and then figure out when you want to do
it that is up to the department.
Vice Chair: So we will try to give you as much time as we can. Just one last question
that I had, what were your meetings with Stop DAT, I don't see of any of their representatives
here today.
Mr. Venuti: I think it went quite well actually in my own opinion. She had concerns that
she had already voiced here but most of what she was concerned about that was specific to the
waterfall landing was noise issues. She had the same exact questions, how is your business
going to reduce the noise or is it going increase the noise. She had the basic same questions. I
think overall it went quite well and Kaaina was there.
Vice Chair: Was there anything in writing that she provided that she willing to us?
Staff. There was no physical documentation or physical agreement that was generated
out of that meeting. They came together, they wanted the department to impose certain
regulations on the industry for which I had to inform the members of Stop DAT we didn't have
jurisdiction or where in a place to impose said conditions. But they did have a meeting but no
physical agreement was generated out of that meeting.
Mr. Venuti: The only thing she really wanted us to agree to was to the Stop DAT
program and to fly a specific route. But at the same time then she was unable to produce any
map or anything they had ever come up with. She said there was a map but she couldn't produce
it and so at the end we just said we will be more friendly, we will try and do it and we have had
no complaints from her since. And if she comes up with a map and we can agree to it then yes,
we are willing to work with her.
Mr. Blake: Are you participating in the Air Tour Operator's Helpline?
Mr. Venuti: Say again, the Air Tours?
Mr. Blake: Operator's Helpline.
Mr. Venuti: No we are not and that was one of her biggest complaints was that she saw
that as just a fagade, just as something that the operators were using to circumvent talking to her
and to their group. She thought it was basically a joke she said, that it was away for people to
show that they are paying this money to have a place to call and then after the complaints, the
initial call was being made, there was so follow through on that. And she has found that it is a
lot more helpful if you contact her or members of her group.
Mr. Blake: And when you are saying her you are talking about Ms. (inaudible)?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
41
Mr. Venuti: No, Maka`ala.
Mr. Blake: Maka`ala, Stop DAT.
Mr. Venuti: Yes.
Mr. Blake: So your impression was that Maka`ala did not think that the air tour helpline
was effective.
Mr. Venuti: Yes. She prefers the Stop DAT and fly neighborly programs over that in my
opinion.
Mr. Blake: Have you pulled all the offending ads?
Mr. Venuti: Yes, absolutely, as far as I know and we haven't been contacted by anybody
saying otherwise so yes we have, absolutely.
Vice Chair: So we will motion to defer, is there anybody in the public that would like to
testify on this agenda item one more time?
Ms. Lovell- Obatake: For the record my name is Cheryl Lovell - Obatake. May I
recommend to the planner to do some specific research on the real estate practices, principals and
practices of Hawaiian real estate regarding the air space and privacy, Also on the Department of
Transportation Airports Division at Burns Field, Hanapepe, I would like to see some clarification
of the Department of Transportation's authority of Burns Field and what they have allowed and
the capacity and the permits that they have given out because it is affecting salt pans. And I
believe, I just confirmed with Kualei that the salt pan area is registered, it has State Historic
Preservation Division number and I think it should be well protected. And having that number
the State Historic Preservation Division should be making some comments and if not the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should be making comments to a historical site,
especially natural resources, Hawaiian resources.
Also the detrimental fuel tanks on Burns Field and why I am particularly hitting on Burns
Field is because the departure and return, that is twice, over whatever route they are taking, that
should be highly considered. People from afar don't know the significance or sensitivity of our
resources and think they can make money and do whatever they want. However when the huli
comes and when native Hawaiians or Kanakamaoli stand for what is believed in their own
kingdom, I'd like this to be evidence of the crimes that have been committed for many, many
years of our natural resources and how they have been depleted and we need to go to Costco
now, thank very much.
Vice Chair: I'll bring the meeting back to order, if I could get a motion to defer this
agenda item.
Mr. Blake: So moved.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Vice Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Herman Texeira, to defer
action, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed for lunch at 11:55 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 1:20 p.m.
Chair James Nishida returned to meeting at 1:20 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (NONE)
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
22
NEW PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit U- 2011 -6, Variance Permit V- 2011 -1 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV-
2011 -6 to permit the construction and operation of a telecommunication facility that includes a
165 ft. high stealth monopine (a monopole designed to look like a pine tree) and associated
equipment at a site located on a cane haul road approx. 90 ft. north of the cane haul road's
intersection with Kaumuali`i Highway y ntersection. said intersection is located approx. 1.7 miles
west of the Kaumuali`i Highway and Kp u Road intersection, and gpProx..40 miles north of that
area generally referred to as Halfway Bridge further identified as Tax Map Key 3 -4- 001 :003
and affecting a 600 s . ft. portion of a 2,668.037 acre parcel = S r intWextel. Director's Report
received 12/14/10.1
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read Director's Report (on file).
Chair: Questions for Kaaina?
Mr. Texeira: In terms of the location of this proposed site is this the highest area in terms
of the topography of the area? Is this the highest site?
Staff: It is actually in the middle of a sloping hill so technically at least on the
Kaumuali`i Highway within the near vicinity of the proposed site there are higher areas. But I
will actually defer that question to a certain extent to the applicant.
Mr. Karl Young: Good afternoon, Karl Young representing Sprint/Nextel. Thank you
very much for allowing me to make this presentation on behalf of Sprint/Nextel. They are
proposing as Kaaina mentioned a stealth monopole. This is an example, this one at Hawaii Kai
Golf Course, another one at Kalihi Elementary, and another one at (inaudible) tennis courts up in
the gated community. This is the area that they are trying to cover of Kauai, basically this little
road here, so the tree tunnel road is right back here going towards Po`ipu. So this is the area
proposed to be covered, this would be Lihu`e by the way. The proposed site would be
approximately here, if you are looking on this map it would be approximately about there on the
map on the wall.
There is currently coverage from Lihu`e from a site there, there is a site on top of the
mountain here that provides coverage, a little coverage going this way. But because of the
mountain the way it is for some reason, I am not exactly sure, I think it is here, it doesn't cover
this are well. In fact it doesn't cover it at all, it is a dark spot here, so it only covers 3 miles.
They are proposing to locate it on the Grove Farm property that extends back to the mountain.
The proposed location would be off of the main highway on an access road, cane haul road, and
off to the side. It would be triangle shaped, there would be a generator. This is the monopole
here. At the very top there would be approximately 5 feet for foliage. The antenna would start
after it at about 160 feet and the center would start right about there and there would be a
location here available for collocation.
So looking at a topography map, answering that question why this was selected. This is
probably ... and I have done this for about 15 years, probably the hardest thing to site I think I
have ever come across. One of the problems is this area is extremely rural. There are no utilities
here so access to power is extremely difficult. Cell sites are just like the wireless phone in your
home, you have to plug it into power and to a telephone jack, same thing. So we couldn't find
power, the only power available is at Halfway Bridge about here which is about a quarter of a
mile away. So just to bring the power alone, over there, almost shut the site down, just the cost
alone. And also to make it work, so here is Halfway Bridge, this is where the power it located,
you can see the elevation. I took this off of Google. It is about 320 feet here. They need to see
through this gap here through the mountain where it is cut for the highway. In order to see
through that and see towards tree tunnel to provide the coverage needed to hand it off to the tree
tunnel it had to be of an adequate height to see through here. The problem is there is about 100
foot elevation change.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
23
The other challenge that we face as well is that all the land as this is an engineered piece
of land here along the highway, everything slopes away. So everything, if you go this way
everything goes down, if you go this way it goes down and actually this road actually goes down.
So if you know this area, if you have driven back there, there is a back road in the access way as
you approach and go towards Waimea side, the road actually slopes downward. And there is a
very high bank along the highway and in order to do that we would have to be even closer to the
road and we literally couldn't find anything. We thought about going up here, there is no power,
there is also no road. You would have to clear a forest of Albesia trees in order to even get to
this hill.
Mr. Raco: There is a pasture there.
Mr. Young: In order to get to this little road here. Just to get to this hill there is a forest
of Albesia trees. There used to be a road according to the landlord but we would have to clear
the forest and then build a road and then bring the power from here which is about three quarters
of a mile and then up, that would make it about a mile. So literally after searching for literally
about 9 months, we drove the hillsides and everything we couldn't find anything but this little
spot and using Google maps and everything. And that is the closest we could get to power, that's
it. So it is not ideal at all to build a tower this tall, it is very expensive, it is about 17.50 per foot
and that gets very expensive. And then running the power here, it is not a great solution.
In terms of alternatives the first site we looked at was the Verizon monopole proposed
here. So at that time negotiations, we are still ongoing with Verizon, that is how long we have
been looking at this and so they have entered into negotiations and they have received a permit.
But we looked into this to go on and collocate but right now this site doesn't exist on Verizon's
books. And the way it works is they have to receive all governmental approvals and there are
some government approvals they haven't received and typically what happens is Fish and
Wildlife can take a very long time, it can take 2 years. And so it doesn't even appear as a site
that we can collocate on so we can't even have this discussion, we could have a discussion with
the landlord. So we did look at that
Another site that we have explored that is a possibility is the Kauai Humane Society.
We are a little late as someone has rumored, not official yet, there is no agreement, they have
started negotiations with Grove Farm and so they are first in. The challenge we have is their
network design for Verizon requires 2 sites to cover this 3 mile stretch, Verizon is here, they are
rumored to be proposing a site here at 120 feet. In order for Sprint to fulfill the objective from
this location it would require a 140 pole. So we are kind of caught in a dilemma, if they are in
first, they do negotiations first and they request a permit it will be at their minimum requirement,
120 feet. It will not fulfill our coverage objective at all because of where our second site it.
They have 2 sites covering this. Our second site would be on this ridge which would cover part
of this. So that is kind of the dilemma we are in. We would like to go somewhere else, this is
not a good solution for us, it is very tall, it's very expensive, extremely expensive.
The only way in which this site makes any sense at all is one site covers two and it is receiving
Federal funding for the site from the Universal Service Fund to benefit rural communities. So
they had to petition for it and ask for it. Other than that all carriers have basically abandoned any
attempt to try to put a site here before this because of the cost.
So these are the photo simulations from Halfway Bridge its self, you can see the bridge
here. The markers inside of the application, the picture in the application matches the arrow so
this is the direction in which the photo was taken and then from that direction it wouldn't be seen
from that location. As you get closer, see the blue arrow here, as you make this turn you will see
it slightly in the distance and you can see it, there is a little backdrop there. As you get closer it
would be visible. And the way this is scaled, Kaaina did ask me how it was scaled, these utility
poles across the street, we get a measurement typically of 25 to 30 feet and this tree we did
measure about 30 feet. This is what it looks like closer up, what we think it would look Pike
given this being a scale of about 30 feet, that one as well, and from the opposite end, from the
Waimea side and a little further back as you come out of the gap.
So some of the things that are coming up for telecommunications regarding health,
safety, some of the items that were brought up, the general welfare, one is I realize you folks do
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
24
have a difficult jab in deciding what to do with landlord's rights, the law, County guidelines and
balancing the general welfare and the greater good. One of the things that is being proposed
already that is already happening is there are things like online medical care. There is also a
mobile, Kaiser has a mobile health truck that goes around the Big Island and that is to provide
care to rural areas because a lot of people are basically uninsurable because they are past the
mortality distance. There was an article written in the Advertiser when they were there about
how they are using these ambulances already on Oahu and the plan is to use it on all islands,
especially where there is limited health care. What they do is they attach an ekg to people and
immediately you can monitor signs using wireless coverage on the road and it is actually saving
people's lives because you can have them prepped and ready, the chart is pulled. And in the
mainland they are already beginning to administer care through wireless services while people
are being transported to an EMT. And for example they would use a hand cam and a doctor, a
specialist can actually be in the ambulance on a very long commute which can actually save
somebody's life.
Civil Defense is also, and as you know is part of the application, they have endorsed this
and in speaking with them they said Kauai is of greater concern because they have a history of
very large natural disasters and they have very big plans for them in terms of what needs to be
done. Oahu is a concern but it hasn't been hit like Kauai has been hit, in the case of 82, 92,
2002 we skipped, 72. So anyway they are saying that it will contribute to the public safety so in
regards to safety it does make a positive impact. And with regards to other forms of care there
are also devices that people wear right now, I think I had one before on another page in your
application, it shows that they are actually proposing for 2012 devices that monitor your heart in
heart patients and elderly patients, that they actually administer medication as needed and it is
radioing this information to your healthcare provider. And it can actually call the doctor if
anything should happen to you while you are jogging and it will actually call the hospital and the
ambulance will come based on GPS coordinates and come and pick you up. But none of that is
available unless you have wireless coverage. And that is the future of medicine so in terms of
planning that is the future of medicine, especially in underserved areas.
So the projection for the Hurricane watch right now, this was taken off a news station, an
El Nino, they are expecting in 2013 to come back. And the importance of this site is that every
one of the carriers has a problem here. This major artery here for 3 miles is uncovered and this
major artery provides service to the emergency services for the entire South Shore. And so this
is of concerns for Civil Defense. It is something that we are, Sprint is mandated to provide, they
are mandated by the FCC as part of their license to provide coverage on all the major highways.
That is part of the justification as to how they got the funding for this site. In terms of location as
well as some of the concerns we have and some of the challenges we have is that there are strong
recommendations for collocation and we would like to go on some of these sites. Some of the
things I would like the Planning Commission to consider are that when collocation is so strongly
encouraged sometimes it does place a burden on carriers in their negotiations. Once the
landowner knows that there is a strong inclination here it creates a situation where they basically
can put a gun to our head and say pay us a lot because you can't go anywhere else.
The other thing about collocation is that it assumes that one, the landlord knows that there
is an advantage. There is also that the carrier has a reason because of competition not to
cooperate and there are many ways not cooperate. So for Verizon we had gone to them but they
have a history of not cooperating. Cingular had a history of not cooperating and they had an
exclusive on Kauai and they would tell us privately "we are required to do this by the County
but I am letting you know right now ", they would say right to my face that "we are not going to
let you collocate on this pole. We will delay this, we will make sure your time runs out, your
budget time runs out and we will not let you go on this pole because why should we ?" So
understand that you have concerns and the carriers want to comply with these things, it is easier,
it is simpler, it is faster, the zoning is already done, its already built. But a lot of times there are
business reasons that people will use to not cooperate and they will make things up. So that has
happened quite a bit. So with Verizon it is a very similar situation, sometimes it can take 3 years
for them to get an agreement signed. So that is basically it.
Chair: Questions for the applicant?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
25
Mr. Texeira: In the general scope of things do we have any other underserved areas on
the island besides this one?
Mr. Young: There are many underserved areas and a lot of sites that have been recently
approved, Wailua, Kekaha, they were all done with the help of the Universal Service Fund for
Sprint and so Sprint has applied for those monies and have received them. There is another area
and that is Princeville and that is another area that is not served.
Mr. Texeira: So the goal is to have the entire network of roadways (inaudible).
Mr. Young: At minimum, just the highways. Just in case you are concerned about
proliferation of antenna the cost benefit for building antenna, it doesn't make lot of sense on
Kauai. There was a question about why antenna sites are built, they are built on complaints.
The community says we don't have coverage here and I use this road a lot and that is why a site
is built so it is based purely on feedback because once you sell a cell phone you don't know
where it goes. They have funds also for Princeville but it just depends on how the community
receives that.
Chair: Other questions? Kaaina, the Verizon site, what is happening with that?
Staff Which Verizon site?
Chair: The other monopine that is by Kahili Mountain Park.
Staff They received approval from this Commission approximately 5 or 6 months ago I
believe and I believe they have received at least from the Planning Department building permit
approval. Whether or not the other County or State agencies have given them approval, I am not
aware.
Chair: Do you know what time that building permit approval was given and signed off
by the Planning Department, like months ago?
Staff: It has been a few months. If you want exactly I would have to check on that for
your folks.
Chair: For Sprint, that monopole site there, does that work?
Mr. Young: It works, it would work. There is no problem with us going there. They
have received building permit approval and zoning approval. They haven't received all their
other government approvals so some of the Federal requirements.
Chair: Kaama, do you know if one of the problems with that would be like the bird
intrusion, that kind of thing?
Staff U.S. Fish and Wildlife has sighted utility poles as potentially problematic for
endangered avian species. Whether or not they require a habitat conservation plan is a whole
separate issue.
Chair: What I was thinking was where this guy's site is from as far as the flyway is
concerned it is kind of settled in there with trees all around it so I was wondering if that Verizon
site, because the view from Kahili down toward Ko1oa ... I don't know if the birds go that way
but. ..you don't know if that was one of the problems with sighting that pole. You don't know
whether the birds and these monopines create a problem too because you can actually, it is a
pretty big shape. It is not like a wire stringing across the valley.
Staff. I will just state that I know that in the past U.S. Fish and Wildlife has sighted
towers and monopoles as potentially problematic for avian species. Regarding that specific site
near the Kahili Mountain Park, I can't say whether or not that has been pulled into such review
or not.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
26
Chair: Would somebody know whether that is a flyway because they have been radaring
and sonaring the different sites around the island. I see that radar truck going around.
Staff: I am not sure if that site has been listed as a designated flyway for Newel
Shearwater or other endangered species.
Chair: Hartwell brought up the point about sighting these monopines, sighting the sites
together, what about that, rather than putting them up in the middle somewhere else, sighting
them right next to the Verizon site.
Staff: At least in. ..there is no official policy but at least in previous discussions
concerning antenna farms where they do site the poles together. Generally that has been a bit
more concern for the department as well as the public just because of the visual impact that such
sighting has and the most blatant one being the Kaumakani site where you have about 4 or 5
separate poles I believe.
Mr. Texeira: Would this not be an effective trade off though? Because if they were to
relocate to that Verizon site because of the height.
Staff I think, and perhaps the applicant can discuss this a little bit further but what the
department would encourage and recommend at this point is that if the Verizon site is sufficient
for Sprint/Nextel then not so much establishing another monopole or monopine, but in fact
collocating the equipment on the previously permitted pole.
Mr. Texeira: How does the applicant feel about that?
Mr. Young: We are fine with that. The challenges that we face with dealing with some
of the entities, some of the entities are more difficult to deal with than others and landlords can
be more difficult. Grove Farm has a history of being an easier path than the Knudsens and I am
related to one of them and it doesn't matter, the President, so not at all. So my choice is to not
go there either but we would definitely do it but the other problem is of all the carriers, if you
think of Verizon and T- Mobile, Sprint and AT &T, Verizon is number one by a long stretch. And
one of the things to consider is that they are going to take off and everybody is afraid of this and
there is already talk of anti -trust because they are going to get the I -Phone and they have a strong
network. But they consistently block people. They very much slow roll collocation and funds
run out and they know that. There is a budgeted timeframe for the money received and so they
try to run this clock as long as they can. So that is a very difficult thing for us to consider as
well.
I understand the pressure is on the County. We would prefer going on a pole that is
existing that is already zoned, it is very simple. To build another one is very expensive. In terms
of antenna farming I think in this case it would be a preferred alternative. In the case of
Kaumakani it is a little different and at that time there were no stealth poles, for one, two, it's on
a hill. This is near an existing grove of pine trees, another pine tree, I don't think it would
be...that is just my opinion, it wouldn't be as bad. And also if you had to service all 4 carriers
you can't put them on 2 poles anyway. I mean you can't put it on 1 pole; you can't put all 4 on 1
pole so 2 eventually would be needed.
Chair: Why is that?
Mr. Young: It can but this is the dilemma we always face, it is height versus, there is
collocation and then there is visual. In order to have collocation you need height and so there is
always this compromise and so you end up compromising height and then that means you
compromise collocation. So if you have a desired height of 100 ft and they need to be 10 feet
apart, those people, it's just not going to work as you get lower and lower so you have to make it
higher and that is usually not the direction that Counties like to go. And that is what causes, that
is what requires the need for more than 1 pole so it is kind of a rock in a hard place situation.
Chair: Questions for the applicant?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2411
27
Mr. Texeira: In your mind are other carriers besides Verizon looking to do the same
thing?
Mr. Young: Everyone has to cover this. This is a problem here, absolutely. This is a
huge problem. Right now AT &T covers this with spotty coverage from this mountain up here
and is very poor. No one has coverage here. There is a big gap and anyone who uses cell
phones knows that. You have probably just trained to not use it already for about 3 miles, right?
This is a huge problem just from the FCC guidelines point of view and E911 requirement. As
part of receiving a license they force you to comply with certain benefits for the community.
You don't just have this right; you have to give something back. Automatic 911 calls that have
to be free or locating a person. These are things that are forced on them by the FCC. So they
definitely have to do this, absolutely.
There are two things that could happen. If this other pole gets built this would be a
departure and something unusual but you would ask them to build it taller which is a financial
burden on them. But building it taller would allow for more collocation and that could actually
solve this problem here coming that way, at least most of it.
Mr. Texeira: How many companies can collocate on your pole with your proposed pole?
Mr. Young: The proposed pole, depending on how they mount their antenna, if you put
one antenna per sector you could put everybody on the second level possibly but they don't like
to do that. But that is something that you require, all of them have collocation, you require
Sprint build the pole to be strong enough to accommodate everyone at the second tier.
Chair: What was your point, you would have to make it big enough so that all could be
up there at the top?
Mr. Young: When you have a crow's nest, depending on how they do it, I mean they will
tell you all kinds of things, they will say well I am here so the next guy can only be at 10 feet.
That is not necessarily true. If you build it big enough they can handle two people. So when you
talk about a hotel, Crown Castle mentions that this is basically vertical rental space, you
can ... what is the term when people share a room, you basically share the same spot. They don't
Like to do that, they say they can't do that, but you look at every building that has antenna, they
are all next to each other. So it is not desirable, it is not something engineers like to deal with
but it can be done. If you tell them they have to collocate at the various heights and that is the
collocation requirement and you force them to do it then they could do it actually.
Staff. If I could interject a question Karl, generally telecommunication providers want to
put or it is pretty standard operation to place 12 panel antennas at a given height. Would this
pole be able to accommodate 24 to 48 panel antenna at the second tier?
Mr. Young: With enough money you can build anything basically so yes. Now when
you say 12 antennas, 12 is what they ask me to go out and get and they ask for that and usually
that is for collocation because they like to sell the pole to a pole carrier. The carriers typically
use only about 6 antenna placements and they sell the other ones and so as they ask for these
things it makes it more desirable to sell. I am probably going to get in a lot of trouble for this but
that is basically what they are doing. That is just the truth. That is what they are doing.
Chair: Any other questions? Kaaina, as far as the visual, the Verizon site when you are
headed towards Waimea you miss seeing that pole because there are the Albesia in the way.
When you are coming back towards Lihu`e it is kind of set down behind the hills so that you
only come up and you can see them for a short section and then going down.
Staff Yes. Coming from one direction it is I believe (inaudible) would not be visible at
all but coming Lihu`e to Waimea, going Lihu`e to Waimea it would be visible. But where the
department and the Commission agreed is that it would be set back a fair amount from the
designate scenic roadway corridor as well as it would not have the silhouetting affect that this
subject application has in that the mountain range is located behind it and in affect nullifies or
mitigates that silhouetting affect that an excessive height could generate.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
'r
Chair: So the Verizon site, when you could see it, the mountain is there. But in this case,
in the Sprint case, when you are coming across Halfway Bridge headed west at certain points
you are going to be able to see it and the silhouette is going to be on the mountain even though
there are trees similar heights within that area. And when you are coming back down you are
going to see it because it is just sticking up there close to the road.
Staff* Correct. So for certain portions there would be a backdrop in which the silhouette
would be mitigated or nullified however at certain approaches or at certain distances, indeed all
you are going to have is the sky backdrop and with that the silhouetting affect would be created.
Chair: And when those guys cut the trees down to make electricity for us I guess at some
point we are not going to have those trees around.
Staff: Correct,
Chair: Does anyone in the public want to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none what
should we do?
Mr. Texeira: One more question. This is precedent setting so how do we handle this for
potential future applicants if this is approved, if the height limit is approved.?
Staff: If the height limit is approved...
Mr. Texeira: If the current height is approved.
Staff: Well each application is reviewed on a case by case basis and when the department
reviews it and evaluates it and gives a recommendation it is on a case by case basis in which in
this case we are recommending denial. However if the Commission finds otherwise it would be
incumbent upon the Commission to make that review or establish what the reasons are for
approving it as it pertains to this particular case.
Mr. Texeira: In recommending denial do you see an alternative solution? I know you are
recommending denial but do you see any alternative solution to this besides the Verizon site?
Staff I think that would be up to the applicant to look in to. Right now (inaudible) to
review this site and see if it is compatible with the various rules and regulations of the County
and right now we are finding that as far as for a telecommunication facility, indeed it could be
compatible. However given the excessive height it is not compatible in particular with the
proximity to and the effect it has on the designated scenic roadway corridor.
Chair. The next step with be to either extend the public hearing or close the public
hearing.
Mr. Raco: Well Herman, should we address that question to the applicant and see if there
is...?
Mr. Texeira: I will do that. In view of what I just asked the planner do you see any
alternative plans in addition to what you have proposed now?
Mr. Young: The plans that I would recommend to them is basically we are kind of boxed
in, that is the way I feel. It's like we are told we don't want any antenna farms, we want
collocation but yet we don't have a cooperative landlord or collocater. So the alternative in my
mind is to build another site next to where Verizon is but we go into negotiations with the
landlord and say okay, we have two scenarios, if they build the pole we will go on because that is
preferred, but if not then we would come back here and ask for a site because it is not being built
quickly. It is not being built maybe. Sometimes they move money around and they may not
build it for 5 years. So that is the concern that we have. I just feel boxed in with some of these
guidelines. I could probably go back to them and say hey, this is a possibility because it is a little
different. They might have a little bit more latitude because they are not on top of a hilltop; it is
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
P
stealth so it wouldn't look like Kaumakani. But we would have to build it for collocation and I
think they would be okay with it because this is not their idea of a good thing either, not at all.
But they feel trapped that they have to wait for Verizon and they have x amount of time to use
this money so they keep getting squashed be all the different requirements.
to?
site.
Mr. Raco: So the Verizon site at Kahili Mountain Park, that is the one you are referring
Mr. Young: Yes.
Mr. Raco: That is Verizon.
Mr. Young: Yes,
Mr. Raco: And if you could correlate with them then you wouldn't have to build this
Mr. Young: Absolutely not.
Mr. Raco: But because of difficulties of Verizon taking their time to build that site you
are eager to provide service. Did you try going to the landowner in building the site? Has
Verizon planned already to...?
Mr. Young: To their place?
Mr. Raco: Yes.
Mr. Young: No, he can't do that.
Mr. Raco: So that puts us at a sticky situation too because then we will be approving
potentially two sites.
Mr. Young: Right which boxes us in to another place so we are kind of forced to go
somewhere else so we are basically caught in this to find something else?
Mr. Raco: Kaaina, the site at the Adventist entrance, that is not a collocation?
Staff: You are talking about the Kahili Mountain? The Kahili Mountain Park site is one
in the same as the 7th Day Adventist,
Mr. Raco: Is there a timeframe that they need to build something like this or when the
application is...
Staff. No timeframe was imposed upon the applicant. However concerning the situation
of telecommunication providers needing to get into a particular site and others that have secure
permits however they have yet to erect the site, there may be ways the department can work in
looking at previously approved telecommunication sites. As was previously discussed at this
meeting, approvals, while there is a authorized agent or authorized applicant they technically are
for the use of the site as a telecommunication facility and there may be ways to look at
(inaudible) or stating that this site has been approved regardless of who the applicant is and
sending that on to the landowner. In the case of Kamakani that was the exact reasoning and
logic used by applicants to erect second and third poles, was the previous applicant that was
given approval has not erected at the site and we need to get on line now. And what we
essentially have now are 5 poles out there. So while it is a hard situation to be in I would advise
caution on entertaining it just because of that.
Mr. Raco: Would the department be against in a condition if we did give the applicant
the approval that in the event that the Kahili Adventist site is built prior to him coming up with
his drawings for his approval that we could delete this application and then he would be able to
go to Kahili.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
30
Staff: To that I would say that this site was reviewed by the department not in
conjunction with the Kahili Mountain site. While the Kahili Mountain site obviously has some
connection with the telecommunication industry it has been determined by the department that
this site is not appropriate for a 165 foot monopine. And that is all I could say to that. There
may be ways in which the applicant can work with going to the site that has been approved for
150 ft. monopine and was found appropriate for that area, referring to the Kahili Mountain site,
but as it stands right now the department has reviewed this site and found it incompatible with
the proposal.
Mr. Dahilig: Just to dovetail on Kaaina's comment. This is an application that we
brought in the regulatory team to discuss and so this was not something that was. ..we spent
some time on this because ultimately there is a health and safety element to it but our
responsibility primarily again revolves on whether a particular use and in the specific case
because it is a variance permit. It is something that goes beyond what is allowed in these areas
that we were primarily concerned again with the height and whether this 165 foot height would
be a reasonable deviation from what is normally allowed in this zoning area. And from what we
evaluated and what we discussed for quite some time, this was something that was just a little too
high. Now we understand the economic and Federal regulatory constraints that the applicant is
under and certainly we should acknowledge those. But we have to make the decision for
recommendation absent economic considerations and that is a legal standard that we have to
abide by. Unfortunately we just didn't feel that 165 feet was appropriate.
Mr. Raco: So my question to that is if the applicant has Federal regulations to fulfill that
he needs to provide a service, right?
Mr. Young: Yes.
Mr. Raco: Why aren't these applications being presented by the landowner or why can't
we force the landowner to either build the structure or get someone else to build it other than
what the sticky situation is right now.
Mr. Dahilig: I think a lot of it, again it involves, it is not the landowner that is seeking to
host these cell towers it is the cell companies asking for permission from the landowner. It is
hard for me to gauge and understand if Grove Farm even does have a methodology or philosophy
regarding cell tower sites. They may see many cell towers as more income for them, they may
see it as a nuisance but they are willing to accommodate so they want it in one place. It is hard
to say what Grove Farm's philosophy is. All we can take it as is that the applicant has been
empowered by the landowner to come and ask us for approval. We have made our
recommendation as such but we really wouldn't see it as the responsibility of Grove Farm to say
you have to host these things.
Mr. Raco: Or provide construction.
Mr. Dahilig: Or provide construction.
Mr. Raco: Or in a timely built manner.
Mr. Dahilig: Right. That is really, that becomes an agreement between the applicant and
the landowner and whether the applicant can fulfill the conditions... because all they are asking
for is permission to put this thing up and Grove Farm really doesn't get involved in the
operations or the timely construction of these cell towers.
Mr. Raco: What it sounds like to me what is happening is that these cell companies are
buying entitlements almost and holding those entitlements so other competitors cannot come in.
And if they have a service or don't want to provide that service they can take their time as far as
building the site. To me that is a concern because then we will get more of these sites asked to
be put on more various pieces of property.
PIanning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
31
Mr. Dahilig: I think today's discussion with this gentleman as well as with Crown Castle
was very enlightening in terms of how our approvals can interplay with either keeping somebody
in the market or someone being boxed out of the market. And moving forward it may be
something that we look at in the future cell approvals about maybe expiration of permits as part
of the conditions that are on there so that we don't become inadvertently a barrier or an enabler
in this business. So we definitely hear that concern but again a lot of this really boiled down to
one issue and it was an issue of height. There are not that many structures that go beyond 100
feet on this island let alone 165 feet and the prominence of it, definitely we were concerned
about the roadway corridor in this recommendation.
Chair: So what does this Commission want to do about the application?
Mr. Raco: I have one more question for the applicant. With the denial from the
department is there any room for you to lower your standards?
Mr. Young: In terms of the height?
Mr. Raco: Yes, is it purely just because of the topography?
Mr. Young: This thing is so expensive this is it, that's all they can afford. They going to
write what they can do and that is it.
Mr. Raco: But can you come down?
Mr. Young: They would sacrifice a little bit but it's not enough I think that it would
make a significant difference.
Mr. Raco: So what is that?
Mr. Young: The pole might come down to 150 but that is about, what they are doing is
going for maybe By to maybe C- suddenly, coverage.
Mr. Raco: Because right now there is no coverage in there.
M_ r. Young: There is zero so it would provide something, it would. It wouldn't be ideal
and we don't always get ideal.
Mr. Raco: Because the one at the golf course there by the correctional facility, how tall is
that one?
Mr. Youniz: 70.
Mr. Raco: So would a 70 foot pole provide a little bit of service in that area?
Mr. Young: It wouldn't justify the cost at all.
Mr. Raco: But 150 would.
Mr. Young: You know it barely makes it at this. It has been a very difficult approval
process just to get this far. Even in house this is not easy, it is extremely expensive and it covers
very little.
Chair: Kaaina, the 150 height, that is not something you guys considered? You only
looked at the 165, would you have to look at it at the 150?
Staff Yes, it is not something we did consider. We would have to huddle and analyze
that.
Mr.
Kimura: It
is just for
Sprint that you don't have
coverage in there or this is for like
Verizon, AT &T. Does
AT &T or
Verizon have coverage in
there?
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
32
Mr. Young: AT &T does coverage, it is very spotty, and it comes from the mountain.
Mr. Kimura: But there is some kind of cell phone coverage in there.
Mr. Young: They have some cell phone coverage.
Mr. Kimura: So this is just for Sprint that you don't have any coverage.
Mr. Young: Correct. We are only here representing Sprint. I know that Verizon is
building that pole to have this coverage so currently the only person that has coverage is AT &T
and it is very spotty.
Mr. Kimura: I was going to say because I pulled over on the side of the road there and
used the phone and I did have coverage.
Mr. Young: For AT& T probably.
Mr. Kimura: For AT &T.
Chair: We are back to the application, what are we going to do with the application?
Mr. Raco: So we have to motion to close the public hearing, move to close the public
hearing.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Herman Texeira, to close the
public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Raco: I think I want to give a chance to the applicant to just keep talking with the
planner. They are asking for denial, I just want to give you a chance to see if you can work it
out.
Mr. Young: I appreciate that. I was fully aware of what was going to happen here and
what the recommendation was going to be and what is likely if I were him is I would recommend
the exact same thing. But I just thought it would be a valuable exercise to present some of the
challenges we have and how we have all these regulations to follow and all these requirements
and subtle requirements that are kind of in house requirements and it kind of forces us to make a
decision we really don't want to make. This is not something we want to do but it is kind of
forced. We are kind of stuck. It's like okay, we can't go here, we can't go there, the landlord
says we can't, the other guys says we can't, the County says we can't and it is just what do we
do. So it is just kind of basically creates some situations that are unintended but I thought I
would just bring it out and if that could help with the process. I mean we could go other places,
we could go to the Humane Society and put something there if it was seen by the landlord as
something that made sense to have 2, possibly.
Mr. Raco: And I don't know if this helps but if we could get some kind of update on the
Kahili. We have a sticky situation so Chair, I am not comfortable today on voting on the
recommendation.
Chair: We are going to need an extension to the time period, we closed the public
hearing, do we need..*?
Staff No extension, we will probably have this back within 2 to 4 weeks.
Chair: So motion to defer.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2411
33
Mr. Dahilig: I guess given in light of the Commission... given the Commissioner's
inclinations let's do as suggested and let's try one more go around with the applicant and I guess
we will request a deferral on the item.
Mr. Texeira: Looking at that Grove Farm site, I mean the other site at Kahiii, is it
possible we could contact them?
Mr. Dahilig: I think we have to look at this in a (inaudible). Essentially we would not
want to become an intermediary or broker or a mediator between the cell companies but it is
definitely something that as Commissioner Raco suggested we could look at, if we were to
change our position we could look at conditions more for encouraging the company to seek
collocation or encourage ... we have heard all the comments and we will put it on the table again.
Mr. Raco: Karl, in our respect your comments and your hardship on the reasoning of the
height, it is kind of high but being the topography I see that very clearly within your
presentation.
Chair: So we need a motion to defer?
Mr. Dahilig: If I could Chair.
Chair: Is there a motion to defer?
Mr. Kimura: Make a motion to defer this agenda item.
Mr. Raco: Second,
Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Caven Raco, to defer action,
motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed for caption break at 2:25 p.m.
Meeting called back to order at 2:33 p.m.
Use Permit U- 2011 -8, Variance Permit V- 2011 -2 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z 4V-
20114 to construct a new softball stadium at Kapa`a High School, located along Maillhuna
Road, gpprox. 550 ft southeast from the intersection of Mailihuna Road and Silva Road Kapa`a
Kauai, further identified as Tax Map Key 4 -6- 014:031, and affecting a2.4 acre portion of a
52166 acre Marcel = State ofHawai`i, Department of Education. (Director's Rersort received
12/14/10.
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read D'irector's report (on file).
Chair: Questions for Kaaina? Can the applicant come forward?
Mr. Galen Nakamura: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Galen Nakamura,
representative for the Department of Education, the applicant in this action. I would like to thank
Kaaina for the completeness and thoroughness of the Director's report. It is a complete
description of the project and the justification for the project. There is one clarification I would
like to make to the report to item 8 under the Use Permit subsection under the preliminary
evaluation section of the Director's report on page 5. Item 8 states that "Because the proposed
project is located on a major flyway for major endangered seabirds tournaments would only be
held during daylight hours. Evening games will be prohibited during seabird fallout season".
The clarification is that tournaments will generally be held at night however girls softball is a
spring sport, it is played between March and May so no tournaments would be scheduled during
the seabird fallout season which is between mid September and mid December. And the field
lighting system will not be used in any event for practices, games, or tournaments during
Planning Commission Minutes
January 1I, 2011
34
evenings during mid September through mid December. And with that clarification I have
nothing further to add.
Chair: Questions for the applicant?
Mr. Kimura: Are you guys going to take away any of the ... I know there is a soccer goal
here, are you guys going to be taking away the field for soccer practice?
Mr. Nakamura: I believe the soccer practices will be relocated to another location. I am
not sure exactly where. The Athletic Director Greg Gonzales is here, he may be able to answer
that question.
Mr. Greg Gonzales: Greg Gonzales, A.D. at Kapa`a. Yes, right now we do use this field
where the softball field is going as a practice field for soccer and so that would somewhat limit
for our soccer teams in the winter.
Mr. Kimura: But they do have alternate locations to practice?
Mr. Gonzales: We also have a football field that is a little bit lower than this field and
usually two of our teams practice on the soccer field and then currently since we have 4 teams at
our school at least one or two of our teams use County facilities for practice like Kapa`a Beach
Park. Lately they have even been going to Lydgate.
Mr. Kimura: So building this facility will not jeopardize their practicing.
Mr. Gonzales: It hurts a little bit but there is a give and take here.
Mr. Kimura: But there are other facilities for them?
Mr. Gonzales: Sure.
Mr. Kimura: And it won't affect the baseball field that you guys have there now?
Mr. Gonzales: Not at all. They would just be adjacent to one another.
Mr. Kimura: I am just saying that it's about time.
Mr. Texeira: The soccer field, do you plan to recreate that field for baseball? It seems
like that was sort of a sloping, it wasn't really that level whenever I go down there.
Mr. Nakamura: I believe there will be some slight grading that would be done to
accommodate the new location.
Mr. Texeira: So where would the backstop be, in what direction?
Mr. Gonzales: It is going to be oriented the same way as the baseball field.
Mr. Texeira: So northeast.
Mr. Gonzales: Yes.
Mr. Kimura: You would be hitting it towards the football field side.
Mr. Texeira: I was just curious.
Mr. Kimura: This is the existing baseball field here.
Mr. Texeira: Correct. But you know the backstop is facing northeast, they are hitting
towards Kealia.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
35
Mr. Kimura: Towards the football field.
Mr. Gonzales: That's right. I guess that would be the right direction.
Mr. Kimura: Toward Kedlia Bridge, in that direction.
Mr. Blake: Are these facilities open to the public?
Mr. Gonzales: I will address that. I would assume like any of the facilities on our
campus, yes they are, anyone can apply for use of school facilities.
Mr. Blake: Do you have a senior league that plays there now in the Kapa`a baseball
field?
Mr. Gonzales: Not on our baseball field but they utilize the softball field at the County
facility down in Kapa` a. We don't have a softball field at our campus now, just the baseball
field.
Mr. Blake: This I going to be the softball field.
Mr. Gonzales: This will be the softball field.
Mr. Blake: Superior to the County field.
Mr. Gonzales: I think so.
Mr. Blake: And much more desirable.
Mr. Gonzales: Probably.
Mr. Kimura: I wouldn't have to deal with traffic.
Mr. Gonzales: I am going to assume that many in the community are going to want to
use this facility.
Mr. Kimura: I am 50,1 will be playing senior league soon.
Mr. Texeira: One question Greg, how do they get from the parking lot to the playing
field? Are they going to have to walk from the existing parking lot?
Mr. Gonzales: I believe they are going to put in a little bit of parking for handicap really
close to the field. These guys back here can tell you more about that but the rest of the general
public will have to use the existing parking lot and walk down.
Mr. Kimura: It's what, 50 yards?
Mr. Gonzales: It's maybe 150 yards.
Mr. Kimura: From the parking lot to the existing baseball field right now?
Mr. Gonzales: To the existing baseball field it is close but this is a little further.
Mr. Kimura: Right behind the tennis courts, right?
Mr. Gonzales: Yes,
Mr. Kimura: So you are talking like 20 yards more.
Mr. Gonzales: It's not that much further.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
36
Chair: Any other questions for the applicant, thank you. Anybody in the public want to
speak on this agenda item ?. Seeing none...
Mr. Raco: Motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to close the public
hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Raco: All agency comments good?
Staff: All that we can anticipate at this time. As in previous zoning applications the
applicant will have to apply for a building permit to construct the facility at which time they are
going to have to go through several sets of other agencies and receive their approval.
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Kaaina, just on that, you had some other things in there in the report about the
Title 9 stuff and as represented by the applicant no night games during the flyway. That is all
something that need not be in the conditions? Or because it is part of the report they have to
abide by it?
Staff In the first condition it states as represented by the applicant so if there are any
specific conditions concerning either Title 9 or the flyway that the Commission would like to
impose those can be further elaborated upon and made into specific conditions. However the
department reads it right now as represented by the application, that is what is imposed, and if
something is altered it is at the discretion of the Director whether or not he or she feels that the
Commission needs to review such change.
Chair: So what we approve is this whole report, not just the conditions.
Staff: Correct the whole report and the application.
Chair: What does-.the Commission want to do?
Mr. Kimura: Move to approve as read from the Director's report on this agenda item.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Moved and seconded by the two Kapa`a guys, all those in favor say aye, motion
carried.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Herman Texeira, to approve staff
recommendation, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed at 2:56 p.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 3:00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
F_ or Acceptance into Record — Director's Reports Scheduled for Public Hearing ,on
1/25/11. (NONE).
For Acceptance and Finalization — D'irector's Report for Shoreline Setback Activity
Determination,
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
37
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR- 2011 -5 for a shoreline determination Tax
Map Key 4- 03-007:028, Wailua, Kauai, for acceptance by the Planning Commission = BH-
JMIR Kauai Hotel, LLC.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read D'irector's report (on file).
Chair: Lisa Ellen, what project is this?
Staff. I believe it is called the Beach Boy, is that correct? I can point it out on the map.
Chair: Any questions for Lisa Ellen? Do you have anything to add to Lisa Ellen's
report?
Mr. Jim Chatfield: No, good afternoon Commissioners, my name is Jim Chatfield. I am
a partner with JMI Realty and I run our design and construction. Nothing to add I just wanted to
say thank you and we really look forward to renovating the hotel. It really needs a lot of deferred
maintenance. It has kind of been left in a state of disrepair with the limited budget for the last
few years and we just look forward to embracing it, renovating it, and with good respect to the
resources and the people just turning it into something that is nice for visitors both local and
visitors to the island to really come and enjoy. And that is really it and I just wanted to thank
you for your time.
Mr. Raco: So your remodeling work would start this year?
Mr. Chatfield: We are hoping that the remodel work starts, if everything goes well, in
early February.
Mr. Raco: Very good.
Mr. Texeira: So this is a phase, the remodeling, you will be doing it in phases and will
you be remodeling all the rooms or partial?
Mr. Chatfield: We are going to start with the exterior. The exterior is in pretty bad
shape. When we took over ownership of the hotel in October a lot of life fire safety issues were
really not up to speed so we have done some renovation of life fire safety systems. We are next
going to turn our attention to the exterior because there is a lot of cracking and a lot leaks,
railings are not in very good shape. So we are going to turn first to that kind of critical envelope
type issues and update the look of the hotel, the porte- cochere will look a lot different when we
are done as far as just upgrading the feel of it. When that is all done we think that that work will
take from February probably until July. Then we will take July and August to kind of take our
breath and see how our budget is doing and then hopefully in September we will start renovating
the public spaces and we will spend quite a bit of money in the public spaces, the lobby, the
restaurant, and the bar. And at that same time we will do a limited remodel of the guest rooms.
The guest rooms actually aren't in bad shape, they are in pretty good shape but we are going to
update them. They still have old TV's and old armoires, we are going to update those, update all
the bedding, replace the carpet, etc. But I would say most of our budget will be spent exterior
first, then public spaces, then guest rooms.
Mr. Texeira: How long is this entire process going to take?
Mr. Chatfield: I think it will take from February, next month, probably until ... we will be
done in the summer of 2012.
Mr. Texeira: And how will employment be affected by this, your employees.
Mr. Chatfield: Our employees will not be affected. We will keep the hotel open. We are
working very hard to keep the hotel completely open, staff, 95 percent have been retained. Only
just performance issues have been the only changes but staff is intact, great staff, people have
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2011
in
been there for 30 years and so they are all staying and it has really worked out well. We have
actually increased the staff since we took ownership.
Mr. Texeira: Your construction work force will come from where?
Mr. Chatfield: Local, we are hiring latent construction and we have Zalensky as our
painter, our roofer is going to be A &R. I think that Dorvan Lees will be our mechanical, those
are the big ones that we have so far so all local folks. McKelvy and Associates is our landscape
architect. We haven't gotten that far in landscaping yet but that will be a pretty good scope and I
think we will use Kauai Nursery or I am not sure how else we are looking at, a few other local
nurseries too. There are a few things we will have to bring over from the mainland but by in
large everything should be local.
Chair: Any other questions?
Mr. Kimura. I just wanted to make a comment and say thank you for hiring all Kauai
contractors, that is one thing we look forward to or try to encourage from our applicants.
Mr. Chatfield: And that is why I like being in this business. I meet a lot of people and I
have met some great people here, very nice folks.
Chair: I need a motion for acceptance.
Mr. Blake: So moved.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Jan Kimura, to accept staff
recommendation, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: The next item is the executive session but we are going to postpone that to our
next meeting when we have Cammie and maybe the new guy.
ADJOURNMENT
Commission adjourned the meeting at 3:08 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 111 2011
39
Respectfully Submitted.
Commission Support Clerk