HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcmin071211 KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 12, 2011
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair, Herman Texeira at 9:06 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. Caven Raco
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Ms. Camilla Matsumoto
Absent and excused:
Mr. James Nishida
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig: Before we approve the agenda I would just like to request that the
Commission in its motion entertain the withdrawal of item F.2.d of the public hearing and G.l.d
of the action for this morning but still allow for public testimony as well for the postponement:of
items F.2.e and f and G.Le and f for postponement.
Chair: Any questions on that? I would also like to mention that the executive session
will be held at noon so whenever that comes up that is when we are going to be holding the
executive session. Other than that if there are no other changes is there a motion to approve the
agenda?
Ms. Matsumoto: So moved.
Mr. Katayama: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Wayne Katayama, to approve
the agenda as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
June 28 2011 Motion to approve Special Permit SP-2011-4 with amendments to the
Director's Recommendations for use of an existing single family residence for Transient
Vacation Rental purposes as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No. 904, in Moloa`a,
Kauai approximately gpproximately 220 ft. west of Moloa`a Road further identified as Tax MqP Key 4 4-9-
14:21 and containin-g an area of 0.701 acres (by lack of a majority equal to quorum vote of 3-1-0
motion to approve not carried)=David R. Houston.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta: For the Commission's information staff has passed out the
proposed amendments that were discussed at the last meeting. It is with the highlighted top on
your very first page, it is in the Ramseyer format and basically the revisions are in bold and start
of page 5. There are some deletions, additions,page 6 and page 7,there were two proposed
additions of conditions, 13 and 14. I am open to any questions.
Chair: Excuse me Mike, because we didn't have the full quorum could you kind of go
more in detail so that we could have further explanation for everybody's benefit.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
1
'AUG 0 9 2011
Staff: The staff report starting with the additional findings and forwarded agency
comments, the evaluation discussed the applicant satisfying the requirements of ordinance 904
and qualifying for the provisional permit which then permitted him to apply for the Special
Permit. That is on pages 1 and 2, and starting from page 2 staff discussed and analyzed the
Special Permit standards and it is broken down with the standard followed by the analysis and
that is on pages 2 and 3, and then we go to the conclusion and recommendation. In a nutshell the
analysis part considered the Special Permit standards five points; it considered the General Plan
recommendations which recommended the consideration of different types of transient vacation
rentals including an agricultural district. It included any possible comments and concerns that
may have been submitted by the neighborhood and community which there were none.
Basically the zoning is Open Zone which contains physical limitations applicable to the property,
the drainage area, the soils,the flooding, the high water table. And it then recommended for
approval for this first project before you.
Chair: Thank you Mike. Does the applicant have any questions or any comments in
regards to the changes?
Mr. David Houston: Thank you Commissioners. We did have an opportunity to become
aware of the requested modifications or changes as it concerned compliance with the suggestions
of the Fire and Water. I wanted the Commission to note that we had been aware of the Fire
protection issues based upon the review of the recommendations prior to this meeting and since
that time we have actually installed two separate fire extinguishers at different locations within
the house. And on top of that they saw these rope/metal type fire evacuation ladders that can be
bundled up and then rolled out and we have also purchased two of those so that again we can
have a viable fire evacuation plan in the event something should happen. Obviously we have the
one stairway that goes down but'clearly something could occur to block that so we placed those
fire evacuation type ladders both at an exit door on one side of the building where we have an
exit onto the Lanai and another exit door where we have an exit onto the Lanai as well so they
are in two different spots in reference to the residence its self.
And as a matter of fact there was some discussion as the Commission may recall in
reference to the agricultural use of the property and fhere was a suggestion that we attempt to
utilize the land more for agriculture and I think I had advised the Commission as of the last
hearing that we had planted 2 or 3 trees. Since then we have ordered 3 more trees to be planted.
On top of that of course we have acknowledged the potential for intensive agricultural use on
adjoining parcels and how we would waive complaints about the same and I think we even
discussed the fact that actually represented an airport authority once where people had built
houses in light of the runway being placed there and then complained later and frankly I never
understood the logic of that. We had also agreed to provide indemnification to the County in
reference to issues involving potential liability.
And the only thing I would like to stress at this point is that there has been no public
opposition to the project and really based upon the terms and conditions of the ordinance I have
been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance prior to the time the ordinance
was ever enacted. I chose to adopt the viewpoint that I wanted to cooperate with the
Commission and attempt the honor all terms and conditions of the ordinance because I felt that
was the appropriate way to go. I am a firm believer that we are a society of laws of and as a
consequence it is my job as not only an attorney but as well a homeowner on this island to
operate within the boundaries of the law and do what I can do to make myself at least known to
you as being a person that has complied and literally done everything you have asked of me. As
a consequence of my efforts and a consequence of the ordinance of course we would ask for
approval.
Chair: I would like to thank you for flying back in. I suppose you had to fly back in
from the west coast?
Mr. Houston: Yes sir, in fact I flew in yesterday and got here yesterday evening and then
I fly out this afternoon at 1:00 so I am not getting a lot of time on the island but I am hopeful that
August might present an opportunity for an actual vacation.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
2
Chair: Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none what
are the wishes of the Commission? As pointed out to me by the Planning Director a motion was
made the last time so it is already on the floor so it is up for discussion purposes right now by the
Commissioners. Anyone wishing to discuss...motion made to approve...
Mr. Dahilia: With amendments.
Chair: With amendments.
Mr. Blake: I wasn't at the last meeting but I was at the first meeting that we were
addressed by Mr.Houston. I read the reports that were submitted for the June 28th meeting and I
had a couple concerns. Is it going to be a standard or requesting nonconforming use of an ag.
zoned parcel the fact that you cannot subject the parcel to intensive agricultural use?
Mr. Houston: Yes sir,as a matter of fact I think as the Commission report makes clear it
is a category E soil condition which is actually the very worst and the consequence of the size of
the parcel of courso would also prevent any intensive agricultural purposes. But that has not
stopped us from utilizing it for, and I said the phrase recreational agricultural use because frankly
I don't know of a better phrase, but we have planted as I learned this morning not to call them
banana trees but banana clumps and/or mats,I think we have about 10 or 12 of those. We have
Coco palms,we now have papaya,avocado,mango and 2 additional papayas, and 1 additional
avocado has been ordered. That is what I reference in my initial conversation. And we also
agree to understanding there are other agricultural parcels in the area albeit in pretty much the
same condition as mine that if there was ever a situation where intensive agricultural use or
development was contemplated or in fact put into progress that it would not be something that I
would complain about claiming I am a resident,we can't have intensive agricultural down.
Because I understand that if that ever occurred certainly that is something that I have agreed to
abide by.
Mr. Blake: Is that going to become a standard or is it a standard?
Staff. Requiring intensive ag?
Mr.Blake: Well the referendes are always to the possibility of intensive agricultural
pursuits and based on what the report says there are 8 others in the same position as this one.
And I appreciate Mr. Houston following the law and trying his best to do what he can
agriculturally on that 7.7 whatever it is size lot. So is that the standard?
Mr. Dahilia: Commissioner Blake,when we look at the phrase intensive agricultural use
we are specifically looking at section 8-17.10, subsection(d).2.0 and one of the findings that and
as part of the recommendations when we look at the application is that under subsection 3 it says
"The Planning Commission finds that the size, shape,topography, location or surroundings of
the property or the circumstances did not allow the applicant to qualify for an agricultural
dedication pursuant to the County of Kauai Department of Finance Real Property Tax Division
Agricultural Dedication program rules or inhibited intensive agricultural activities." So when we
come up with the recommendations we are looking specifically when we recommend based on a
parcel that is being represented to us as unable to facilitate intensive agriculture we look at the
size, shape,topography, location or the surroundings or other circumstances. And so for
example in this case the parcel is less than an acre,based on State Land Use land,the A list
ratings, it is the worst, it is an E rating. So those two characteristics as part of our
recommendation we feel could qualify could qualify under C but ultimately it is up to the finding
of the Commission when to concur that the characteristics of the parcel did in fact inhibit
intensive agriculture prior to Mach 7,2008.
Mr. Blake: Is this historically taro land?
Mr. Dahilia: That is a good question, I am not sure.
Staff. Not the entire valley, certain parcels,Kuleana was used for taro.
Mr. Blake: Is this parcel taro?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
3
Staff: I couldn't answer that.
Mr. Jung: Are you making a reference to what is required under State law for the amount
of agriculture that is supposed to be going on?
Mr. Blake: (Inaudible).
Mr. Jung: There is no requirement under how much money you have to bring in for the
farming activity or the area of land that has to be in ag.but our CZO does define intensive
agriculture where that provision came out and it means the growing and harvesting of plant crops
for human consumption or animal feed that is primarily for sale to others and involving long
range commitment to one crop such as sugar, pineapple, sorghum or grain. So it is specifically
identified for larger parcels focusing on one type of crop.
Mr. Blake: My concern is if you don't do sugar,pineapple, sorghum, or grain and you
don't feel like working really hard on your pastoral piece of property you can avail yourself of
the impossibility of intensive ag. use. And although we say that our decisions are not to be
regarded as precedent for somebody coming down the same track in the next 6 months how do
we avoid that? It is going to get thrown up at us every time and each one is treated like a case of
first impression. So if somebody wanted to, if an owner of a little over half an acre had a house
on it and put it all into taro to me that is intensive,that is labor intensive. You don't just plant
the taro and Iet it go and 2 years later go back and harvest which you can do with citrus or
(inaudible) or bananas or mangos or anything else. And that is why I kept asking is that a
standard,what I consider my inability to intensively farm this parcel. And I know that times
have changed and the amount of time that we want to spend in the garden varies on the one hand
and we keep touting sustainability with the other so it me it is a difficult decision.
Staff: Commissioner Blake, let me also add that one of the other considerations for
intensive ag. is the minimum lot size required by Real Property Division for dedication,that is 5
acres. In no case of All the applications that are made can/is anyone doing intensive ag. on a lot
smaller than 1 acre. Not intensive ag., it is agriculture for home consumption,personal use, or
enjoyment by their guests. They are doing ag. And to that point it is really encouraging because
the limitations that the ordinance say, is it dedicated to Ag. or do you have a schedule E I think
for additional farm income,but nowhere does it say home consumption Ag. And in many
instances you are going to see the following applications as they come,there are guys who can
do it and they are doing it under some very difficult circumstances but it doesn't meet your
concern. But they are doing Ag. and to that I give a lot of credit for but it is the limitations of the
ordinance 904 and all the other considerations, General Plan, CZO, Special Permit from the Land
Use Commission,throwing all those together into a hopper and mixing it and trying to address
all of those concerns, every single one of them is going to be different. And you will be amazed
at what comes before you. There will be others like this or worse but there will be some that are
really impressive and they can't dedicate their land to Ag. and you can't call it intensive Ag.but
they are doing Ag. It is better than the 1 papaya or 1 chicken or 1 horse and yes, I am doing Ag.,
it is way better than that.
Chair: Anyone else wishing to comment?
Mr. Katayama: I think Commissioner Blake's question is sort of the essential issue that
we need to address. I guess what gives me comfort is that Special Use Permits by their nature
shouldn't be forever. I think those conditions have been embedded with the application. So
relying on an applicant's vision for his property, if that changes, I think hopefully the
Commission will then have the ability to review the use. But I think in no way would a Special
Use Permit be used to replace a rezoning and forever preclude any kind of agricultural use
because that is what the zoning is and the applicant is applying for a special use within that. I
think it is the judgment of this Commission that is that supportive or is that conducive to the
current zoning and does it fit well with the surrounding land use.
Chair: Anyone else? If not,would you state the motion?
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioners,the motion on the floor is to approve Special Permit SP-
2011-4 with amendments.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
4
Chair. We have had a second, we have had our discussion, and we will have a roll
please.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve the
department recommendation �is amended, motion carried unanimously by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Kimura, Matsumoto, Katayama, Blake, Texeira -5
Noes: Raco -I
Absent: Nishida -I
Not Voting: None -0
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Letter of Transmittal, Status Report and Time Extension request by State of Hawaii,
Department of Transportation,Airports Division, as required by Condition No. 8 of Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2008-13, Shoreline Setback Variance SSV-2008-3,Tax
Map Key(4) 3-5-001:008, Llhu`e, Kauai =State of Hawaii,Department of Transportation,
Airports Division.
Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read staff report (on file).
Chair: Any questions for our planner?
Mr. Katayama: The reason for the request for the extension?
Staff: The letter states that it was a funding or the lack of funding but I think the
applicant could better attest to that perhaps.
Chair: I wanted to at this point just ask if we gave any questions of the planner and then
we can go back. Anyone else want to address our planner? There being none I would like to
welcome the applicant, state your name please.
Mr. Jeff Doran: My name is Jeff Doran with DOT Airports Division.
Mr. Kataama: What is the reason for the extension?
Mr. Doran: The decision is made by the Airports Division on Oahu as far as funding,
the priority as far as projects and work to do with money we have budgeted.
Mr. Katayama: Is there any environmental exposure here?
Mr. Doran: That is why we are addressing it as far as the slope. It is a former County
dump I believe and there is rubbish exposed.
Mr. Katayama: And mediation should be completed within the next 2 years?
Mr. Doran: I can't comment on that. I consult the State budget manager on this as far as
the division (inaudible).
Chair: Anyone else, any other questions? If not I have a question, you are requesting a 2
year extension,in your own mind's eye in view of the fact that the State is going through some
really tough economic times do you envision in 2 years that the State will have sufficient funds
to complete this project, to undertake this project? I know I am putting you on the spot that is a
real tough call. I mean personally I do not and I think it is going to take our legislators on the
island to push this project forward. My question I wanted to ask you is in terms of the DOT
Airports Division how high on your list of priorities for projects? Everybody is trying to get
their projects through.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
5
Mr. Doran: It's hard to say. We have runways coming to the age of 20 years old which
of course is a priority for safety and supporting travel.
Chair: So at the Lihu`e Airport your priority right now is the runways?
Mr. Doran: We have runways coming of age of 20 plus years old which need to be
addressed. The list as far as priorities, I am not directly behind the wheel of that as far as project
is the highest priority.
Chair: So going back to the project its self, you talk about erosion,has that accelerated
over the last few years? Is it getting much worse? What is the rate,how much longer can we
wait on this?
Staff: There is only a small (inaudible) beach at the base of this area so the erosion is
more not sand related but sloughing and rocks and as well as debris.
Mr. Doran: I can comment as far as over the last 15 years, I haven't seen much large
dramatic deterioration. I know we have put up a berm on the top of the slope to mitigate as far as
sheet flow of the rain water so we did what we could.
Chair: Anybody else?
Mr. Katayama: Do you have a sense of what the value of the work left to complete the
project is?
Mr. Doran: I don't have that right in front of me.
Mr. Katayama: Just in scale of(inaudible), is it millions or billions or hundreds of
millions?
Mr. Doran: Millions.
Mr. Katayama: And DOT has their own separate funding source for airports and
harbors?
Mr. Doran: I know we do get Federal funds but I don't know all the details.
Chair: If no one else is going to ask any questions of the application I would like to
thank you and call on the public for anybody wishing to testify on this agenda item. Seeing none
we are back to the motion. Can you just mention the motion, what would the motion be exactly?
Mr. Dahilig The motion requested in the report would be to accept the status report as
well as extend the permit for 2 years.
Chair: Before I call for the vote could I have your recommendation.
Staff read department recommendation(on file).
Chair: Thank you, does this require two motions?
Mr. Dahilig: One motion.
Chair: Just one motion to accept the report and grant the extension.
Mr. Dahilig: Unless the Commission wants to split it.
Chair: It is acceptable that we could just have one motion to accept the report and grant
the extension.
Mr. Blake: Before you do that can I ask a question? Right now nothing is happening and
DOT wants a 2 year extensioh so that something can happen?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
6
Mr. Doran: Yes,we are designing a project to stabilize the slope and address issue.
Mr. Blake: But is any action contemplated in the near future or immediate future? I
know you can't finis it but are you doing anything?
Mr. Doran: There is a person on Oahu working with consultants are far as design.
Mr. Blake: So there is progress albeit it small.
Mr. Raco: Did you say design?
Mr. Doran: There was a design done years back and again I don't have all the
information on this,the price was to an excessive level so there was a redesign done.
Mr. Raco: You had to go back and redesign and the reason for the redesign?
Mr. Doran: I don't know exactly why.
Chair: Anyone else?
Staff I think Commissioner Blake was trying to find out what kind of research or
funding opportunities DOT may have looked for. Is that what you were trying to say
Commissioner Blake?
Mr. Blake., Well they are asking for 2 years,they have had x amount of years already so
my question is are we just going to sit here until 90 days before the deadline comes before any
action is going to take place? Or is there an ongoing program, do they have suspense dates or is
this something that we need status reports on?
Ms. Matsumoto: I was going to ask for a status report.
Chair: You want an annual status report or every 2 years or how would you...
Ms. Matsumoto: Every year.
Chair: Annually.
Mr. Blake: I would like to see an annual and a 6 month, 12 month and an 18 month
status report myself. We know it is a question of priorities. If that is the case it seems like a low
priority so the only way to keep the focus on this is to make them do something about it. And if
there is no need to do anything until you come in for another extension then nothing is going to
get done.
Mr. KatUama: Mr. Chair, I guess the ultim4te action would be is there a default option?
Mr. Dahilig: May I suggest maybe two things, there are a number of questions that the
Commission is raising that I think are appropriate and still need to be addressed. And may I
suggest possibly deferring this matter one meeting so that we can send correspondence both
orally and directly to the Director of Transportation concerning the priority of this project with
respect to annual funding requests to the legislature or if there are any other types of revenue
funding such as revenue obligation bonds that could be put on this. And secondly is, given the 2
year extension request is a response back to the Director of Transportation asking them what are
they planning to do over the next 2 years in order to allay some of what I am hearing as the
Commissioner's concerns. That would be my suggestions given in light of the discussion here
this morning.
Mr. Raco: Wouldn't it be proactive to approve the extension and you have
correspondence as far as...the bottom line is that the State, and we all know the economy,there
is no funding and that is why these projects are in my opinion,regardless of why nothing has
happened, in my opinion the dump has been exposed for my whole entire life. So I don't think
anything environmentally is going to change from now to then.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
7
Mr. Dahilig: I think it is more a suggestion along the lines of if the Commission wanted
to put contingencies on top of the 2 year extension, whether those can be inserted and what
would they look like if those were things that were conditions of approval. Because it sounds
like there is more than just a 2 year extension that the Commission wants,that there are certain
curbs or certain statuses or certain conditions subsequent that the Commission wants attached to
the 2 year extension.
Chair: Anybody else? My comment,to me it doesn't sit in the hands of the DOT
because it is a political thing. It is who can influence the DOT the most to get what projects they
want to move forward. I think it sits in the hands or our legislators and as a body could we send
them a letter or what can we do to bring attention to this matter other than through the public
forum as we are doing right now? Could we as a body send a letter to our legislators suggesting
that this is an important item?
Mr_ ._.Jung In lieu of a letter I think what you guys have done in the past with time
extensions on certain projects is require performance steps where they have to meet certain
things. And I think what Mike suggested may be appropriate if this body wants to take it up in
terms of outlining where they are going to go with the project timetable or something.
Chair: You are asking the DOT to come up with a timetable,right? But to me that
doesn't change anything. They will come up with a timetable but there is nothing they can do. I
don't what can be done with a timetable.
Mr. Dahilig: I think part of the balancing here is if this SMA permit is that important to
be extended because normally these things are for 2 year approvals, that if they are asking for
another 2 year extension that they are giving the inclination that this is a priority. If not then the
permit should lapse and they should come in and reapply again and that is essentially the affect
of the request, the way I interpret the request,today. It probably is a delay tactic, yes, but there
is a reason why these permits are only for 2 years and if the Commissioners feel uncomfortable
with the inclinations that DOT are giving with respect to whether they are even going to utilize
this 2 year period and need more assurances along those lines then certainly that is something we
can entertain. Because ultimately if this is something that the Commission feels and I would just
suggest this, is not going to happen in 2 years then maybe an extension isn't warranted at this
time.
Chair: Isn't it going to cost the State DOT more monies to come up with a brand new
application?
Mr. Dahilig It could but if also their design changes or other types of matters that could
change the consequence of value engineering project then that is something to take into
consideration as well.
Chair: I personally wouldn't want to make it more difficult on the DOT to move this
project forward especially if it is going to cost more money. We cancel this application, we
terminate this application and the DOT, it has to go right back through their priority list I would
assume. Right now it is active and so I personally would not want to see something like that.
Mr. Blake: I agree with you and if we let it lapse that is another year or more cranking it
up again so why not ask them to come back with a plan? Make them as much as we can tell us
what are they going to do about it.
Chair: So how would you structure that in terms of...that would be like an extension for
1 year and then come up with as you recommended a prioritized list.
Mr. Jung: Project timetable.
Chair: A project timetable.
Mr. Blake: I don't have any problem with 2 years with a project timetable and status
reports at the end of a year, I mean month number 12 and month 18.
Chair: So that would be 12 months from today?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,201 I
8
Mr. Blake: Yes.
Chair. And then another 6 months after that.
Ms. Matsumoto: Could you also add in a request for the timetable to be available in a
year? Is that appropriate?
Chair: That is what you are mentioning, right? Oh, I see what you are saying.
Ms. Matsumoto: You have a status report but during that time of the annual status report
to encourage the State to have the plan available at that time as well.
Mr. Blake: Is there any problem with having the timetable due sooner?
Chair: Than 12 months?
Mr. Blake: Than 12 months.
Chair: Maybe you can respond to that.
Mr. Doran: I was just looking at the letter from the current Director asking that the
permit remains current so work can commence immediately once the funding is obtained.
Mr. Blake: Once the funding is obtained it can be...how long is (inaudible).
Chair. But you have to release the funds too.
Mr. Blake: I appreciate that but give us something we can look at.
Chair: So what is your recommendation sir?
Mr. Blake: That the timetable be submitted within 6 months,the status report 1 year and
status report...
Chair: Would you like me to take short break?
Mr. Katayama: No I think we are okay. I guess the Planning Director's recommendation
I think it is appropriate to explore what the facts are and what the department's intentions are. It
also gives the opportunity for the Director to see if they raise a default option in attaching even a
performance bond.
Mr. Raco: Mike, this is the first extension that we are letting them have. Like I said we
could grant the first extension(inaudible) or a status report within the 2 years now they know the
conditions and the concerns of the Commission. We wouldn't be hurtful just to give them the
extension,right?
Mr. Dahilig: Again it is up to the Commission's discretion whether to actually move
forward with approval today or not but my recommendation is partly based on given the
questions and things that maybe I hadn't considered whether DOT even made a request as part
of their executive budget request to the legislature for funding for this project. And whether
something like that bears upon the intention of the Department of Transportation to actually
move forward on this project in a serious manner as just a delay tactic. So again it is not that I
have an objection or anything but I believe there is further evidence there to indicate what the
Department of Transportation's real intention is behind this project or whether it is simply just to
extend the permit because they don't want to go through the permit process again.
Mr. Raco: I think that is the case. Like I said before the economy is bad and there are
projects that are dropped and there are projects that DOT is doing. He said it himself that it is
not really a priority, there is more safety projects are that are in their priority with a limited
budget that the State is doing.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,20I 1
9
Mr. Dahilig: And so I think part of the correspondence that may be as a consequence of
this discussion I may want to look at if it is tossed back to my department to actually contact the
DOT Airport's Planning Branch and determine whether there is actually...in the transportation
level there is a step and they have an outlay for appropriations over the next 6 years. Whether
this is actually, if they have a similar program and this is...where is this in that program because
if this is not even on the program or is 6 years from now then my recommendation may want to
change based on that.
Chair: Earlier you suggested deferring this item.
Mr. Dahilig: To defer this item just to the next meeting so I can work with the planner to
contact the Airports Division Planning Branch to determine where this is on their capital outlay
for the upcoming fiscal years.
Chair: Would it be possible at that time to also craft some of the recommendations that
we made so that we can look at it and discuss it?
Mr. Dahilijz: Sure.
Chair: What is the pleasure of this Commission?
Mr. Katayama: Move to defer.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those is favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto,to
defer to 7/26/11, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed at 9:52 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order t 10:11 a.m.
Chair: Before we move forward to the next agenda item I would like to go back to the
original agenda and that is call for a motion for the approval of the minutes.
Mr. Raco: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion on the minutes, if not all those in favor say aye, those opposed,
motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve
meeting minutes of April 12,2011 and June 14, 2011, motion carried unanimously by voice
vote.
Chair: And the second item on the agenda which I didn't cover is the listed agenda items
that we have. Can we have a motion to approve the listed agenda items?
Ms. Matsumoto: So moved.
Mr. Blake: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to receive
items into record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
10
NEW PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit U-2011-15 and Class IV Zoning;Permit Z-IV-2011-15 to permit the
construction and operation of a wastewater treatment facility at a property located on K61oa
Road, approx. 110 ft. west of the intersection of Koloa Road and Waikomo Road, KBloa, Kauai,
and further identified at Tax Map Key 2-8-008:014 =N F Kawakami Store, Ltd. [Director's
Report received 6/28/111.1
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read Director's report(on file).
Chair: Are there any questions for our planner? Seeing none I would like to call on the
applicant.
Mr. Jonathan Chun: Good morning, Jonathan Chun on behalf of the applicant. Also in
attendance is Brad Suizu from Aqua Engineering who is engineering the system. Also in
attendance is Bill Powell who is representing the owners and F. Kawakami Store and also we
have (inaudible) Director and Vice Chairman Ester Williams Kawakami on behalf also of the
applicant here in attendance today. If it pleases the Chair and the Commission I have a short
power point presentation that we did present to the K61oa Community Association about this
project and it will help everybody to visualize what it looks like and where it will be located.
With the Commission's indulgence I can show that very briefly.
Chair: Sure, how long is it going to take, about 5 or 10 minutes?
Mr. Chun: We set it up for about 5 minutes maybe. Again this wastewater treatment
facility is for the K61oa Big Save Store located in Koloa and also for the adjoining single family
dwelling that is located on the property. We stated in the report the reason for this project is the
EPA established a deadline of April, 2005 to close the existing large capacity cesspool. If the
applicant is not allowed to do this they are facing a 25 thousand dollar per day DOH fine and
right now it is being serviced by a cesspool which means that the affluent is completely untreated
and it goes directly into the ground right now. It is relatively small system, it is not very big.
What it is, is it is going to take the water from the meat department, water or the afflu6t from
the produce department, from the deli or Subway area and water to clean the premises and it will
be discharging it into the tanks that we will see later on. Also what will be closing down is the
existing cesspool for the single family dwelling that is also located an the property. So there will
be two cesspools that will be closed as part of this project.
The total capacity for this system is less than the 50 dwelling units so it is relatively
small. And the reason I mentioned the 50 dwelling units, the Department of Health requires a
formal EIS in the event that it services more than 50 dwelling units and the capacity for this is
much less. It is better for the environment. The wastewater will be treated to the R-2 level.
Right now there is no treatment for it. It will be utilizing what we call the fast treatment system
and it will be discharged into two on-site injection wells. And there is a benefit of that, rather
than if we were to be going down with the HOH facility and the regional plant that they are
talking about affluent would have to be transported through the streets and adjoining lands so
that has a potential of breakages or stoppages in the lines. If you have the sewer treatment
facility right there on the property we limit any potential for accidental discharge or breakage.
This is also cost effective because this system is basically a gravity flow system, the affluent
from the store will flow through gravity to the adjoining property where the facility will be
located.
We are recognizing there are certain impacts on this facility. First of all is the visual
impact so we have looked at ways to minimize the visual impact on the community. We have
done that by the fact that all the major facilities tanks will be located underground. Only two
small pumps and emergency generator will be above ground. The whole system is designed to
be unobtrusive. We are also recognizing that there is a noise consideration so the two pumps
will be located within a housing unit which is designed to mitigate noise and the pumps will be
located away from the existing residential dwelling. Other concerns raised by the Community
Association were the odors, what we have is the tanks will be vented away from the existing
dwellings. The vent will be located on the very top of the store so once it goes up into higher air
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
11
elevations it will dissipate a lot quicker. We will also be utilizing scrubbers to reduce any odors
and the location of the vent eye on top of the store will allow it to dissipate.quickly.
I want to show basically where the system is. This is Koloa Road over here,the existing
Big Save Store is in this parcel here on the corner and the subject parcel is right here next door.
This part of it is basically vacant; the single family dwelling on this parcel is located right where
my pointer is located right now. The post office is roughly over here across the street and First
Hawaiian Bank is over here somewhere and the Buddhist Church is on this corner here. The
existing site conditions,as you can see this is the Big Save Store. We plan on, and this is the
vacant front portion of the lot; we plan on building the facility right in this area here next to the
trees. This tree will still be there,we won't be taking that tree down. Another view of the
site...so it gives you a good idea in terms of what the existing site looks like and what is around
there. This is the existing single family dwelling that is located on the property right now,it will
not be impacted, it will still be there, we will not change anything on that building. Access of
course is through this driveway off of Koloa Road and that is the existing tree close to where...I
believe the tree will still be there it will not be affecting the tree.
The proposed facility layout, again to orient,this is the parking lot of the Big Save Store,
here is the store its self,the existing single family dwelling and the location of the tanks will be
here and the injection wells gore over here. As you can see this was a landscaped area in the
previous pictures that you saw. This is a drawing or a diagram of how the system works. The
affluent will come into I believe this tank over here,it will go to either one of these to what we
call aerobic fast units where it will be aerated and there is where the pumps are needed to aerate
these units here. And it will be circulated. The circulation of course breaks down the matter
over there and the bacteria. What will it look like and that has been a common question,what
will it look like once it is completed. Basically it will be something like this,this is an existing
facility that was built on the Big Island and this is the location of the underground tanks. Of
course you are going to have manholes to get access to them and that is what it looks like.
This is what the pump facility will look like. It is roughly about 4 feet high,each block is
about 8 inches or 12 inches I guess but no more than 4 feet high or 4 feet long. I have another
picture showing it, we will have 2 of these. We might put in these larger manholes rather than
the round ones. This is what a square one looks like if we use the square ones. This is a close up
of the pump housing. As you can see it is already housed in a structure that is designed to
minimize noise. Again another view of what the pump housing looks like.Again we will be
having 2 of those. And that is it. We thank you for your time. Just to let you know we have been
in contact with the Koloa Community Association. We have met with the Directors and we
gave basically the same power point presentation to them and I can let you know what their
concerns were.
Chair: Thank you for the presentation, are there any questions of the applicant's
representative?
Mr. Blake: So will there be any exposed water?
Mr. Chun: No. The affluent will be by gravity flow through conduits underground
basically I think underneath the parking lot going down to the wall teat you saw. And I think the
pipes,will the pipes along the wall be on the top of the wall or underground?
Uni&ntified Speaker: Below the wall.
Mr. Blake: So it is a contained system.
Mr. Chun: Yes.
Mr. Blake: Does the water have to be treated?
Mr. Chunia: This is the wastewater treatment.
Mr. Blake: So where you are treating the water it is not exposed?
Unidentified Speaker: No it is all contained in concrete tanks.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
12
Chair: Excuse me, could we have your name please?
Mr. Brad Suizu: Brad Suizu, Aqua Engineers.
Mr. Blake: With regard to the pumps being housed in sound attenuation structures how
much attenuation is there? That is right in the middle of town. Will a pedestrian be able to hear
it?
Mr. Suizu: They probably will hear it, yes.
Mr. Blake: And how much will he hear?
Mr. Suizu: Something similar to a refrigerator.
Mr. Chun: Probabl} Commissioner Blake, probably during the day the traffic noise will
probably drown it out. During the night you will probably hear it like a refrigerator running
outside. And that is one reason we located it closer to the road as opposed to closer to the
residential structure.
Mr. Katayama: In the event of a power failure what will happen to the affluent and the
process?
Mr. Suizu: The Department of Health requires us to have backup power so a backup
generator would be placed as part of the treatment system and so the backup power would power
the compressors or pumps for aeration. But the overall flow of the system is gravity so there will
be no impact on the flow.
Mr. Katayama: So in that footprint where was that generator?
Mr. Suizu: It is in back of the residence.
Mr. Katayama: In terms of the overall capacity at the current flow rate what is the
percent of capacity of the system?
Mr. Suizu: The capacity is more than double.
Mr. Katayama: And in terms of responsibility for the operation I assume that the
applicant, N. F. Kawakami Ltd., will have the underlying land ownership and land lease or land
ownership?
Mr. Chun: The land is owned by N. F. Kawakami.
Mr. Kata ama: But the generator of the affluent will be a third party?
Mr. Chun: I think N. F. Kawakami also owns the adjoining land which Big Save is on.
Mr. K gtayama: But they no longer own Big Save.
Mr. Chun: They still own the land so they will be leasing...
Mr. Katayama: But the generator of the affluent is no longer there though.
Mr. Chun: Right but I think that is going to be along with, that will be an agreement that
was reached between the other company entity that owns or leases the store and the landowner
N. F. Kawakami Stores Ltd. But yes it was designed specifically for the store use so N. F.
Kawakami will be operating the system with a separate lease with Times.
Mr. Kaiak So if there are any events N. F. Kawakami would be the responsible
entity.
Mr. Chun: Yes that is our understanding how the relationship is going to be working.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
13
Chair: Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter?
Mr. Kimura: You have this grease interceptor so that is going to go straight to the septic
tank too?
Mr. Suizu: The front of the store, the deli, the piping would be directed to the grease
interceptor and from the grease interceptor to the pre-loader which is part of the treatment system
or the start of the treatment system.
Ms. Matsumoto: Just a question about that property with the house on it, so that is one
whole property that is owned by the Kawakami's and then the house is I guess rented out or
used?
Mr. Chun: Yes,the single family house located on the property is rented out by N. F.
Kawakami Stores Ltd. to the existing tenant.
Mr. Kimura: The residence, do they accept the emergency generator being right next to
their house?
Mr. Chun: I know N. F. Kawakami has talked to the existing tenant and the tenant was
comfortable with what is going on. The emergency generator will be hopefully not used but it
will be run once a month just to keep the generator up. The plan is to do it during the daytime
when people are working and not home. If it goes on during the night or whenever the electricity
goes out,we don't know when it will go off but it is going to be housed in some kind of housing.
It will probably be louder than a refrigerator, we don't know. If it becomes a problem I think
what N. F. Kawakami will be doing is putting maybe a concrete half wall around it to contain
some of the noise but we can't anticipate what is going on. For the other sound for the 2 small
pumps in the front of the yard we did bring that that question to the K61oa Community
Association along with the potential of putting a shed over the existing structures already and the
comments from the Community Association was they would prefer to just landscape it because if
we put a shed over the existing pump housings now that shed will be definitely bigger than the
pump housing which is only about 4 feet. They are concerned that if we go 4 to 5 the
landscaping would of course be 6 feet so it would have a bigger visual impact on the community
in terms of something there as opposed to right now the existing landscaping in that area, if you
looked at the landscaping in the parking lot the wall its self is about 4 feet. So just continuing
that landscaping right now will be fairly close to what it is in terms of the existing visual impact.
That was a comment we received, we are open of course to doing that but that is a value
judgment, subjective judgment in terms of what would the Commission want to see more. We
don't believe that the sound from the pumps will be a big issue. The generator we are sensitive to
that and if need be we will put a wall around that generator.
Mr. Kimura: So right now the resident accepts that proposal from you guys?
Mr. Chun: I believe that was discussed and that was my understanding and Mr. Powell.
Ms. Ester Kawakami: I am Ester Kawakami Williams. Our property manager Bill
Powell did speak with the tenants before they moved in because obviously the supermarket is
right there and we knew that we would be doing a lot of construction. So they are aware of it
and there was a disclosure in the lease agreement about it. The area where the backup generator
is going to actually be in the corner behind where the carport is and then right next to the carport
is the kitchen and the living room and bedrooms are actually on the other side of the house so
hopefully if we can do that obviously during the day with the backup generator is should
minimize any impact on the tenants.
Chair: Anybody else?
Mr. Blake: How long are the generators capable of running? If we had a hurricane these
can run the store for like 2 or 3 weeks?
Mr. Suizu:. This generator is not meant to run the store.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
14
Mr. Blake: I mean, excuse me, handle the affluent from the store for a 2 or 3 week period
until power is restored?
Mr. Suizu: It would have to be refilled.
Mr. Chun: It could just somebody has to go there and put the fuel back in just.like a
regular generator.
Mr. Blake: It's not one of these tiny ones?
Mr. Chun. No.
Chair: Anybody else, if not, I have a couple of questions. Your underground treatment
facility where you are going to construction what is the soil condition like and how deep are you
going to go underground?
Mr. Suizu: The soil condition is rocky, blue basalt rock, and the dept could be about 7
feet to get to the bottom of the tank.
Chair: So the water table is estimated where? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Suizu: We did excavations nearby about 15 feet, we did not encounter groundwater.
Chair: How are you going to do the actual digging with the basalt, with that rock?
Mr. Suizu: We won't be doing the excavating but the construction company would be a
hoe ram and back hoe excavator.
Chair: So no dynamite in there.
Mr. Suizu: No.
Chair: Just asking, it's been done before. And secondly, you mentioned landscape, do
you have a landscaping plan for that?
Mr. Suizu: We did not include a landscape plan.
Chair: Are you required to have one? I just wanted to discuss with you it you have any
detailed landscaping plans.
Mr. Chun: No we don't have a landscaping plan. We are aware that landscaping is going
to be required and so what we are doing is trying to, if the Commission decides what it would
want to see then we will develop a landscaping plan based upon what the conditions of the
permit if the Commission so requires it. But we are aware of landscaping. We have made the
representations to the Community Association that at a minimum the 2 pumps that there would
be landscaping around the 2 pumps and we haven't decided what kind of landscaping or what it
would look like. We are probably looking at making it match the existing landscaping on the
parking lot which is that adjoining property.
Chair: Any fiuther questions of the applicant?
Mr. Katayama: On the landscaping issue, as a percent of the lot's space what would be
the concrete coverage because on the photos you showed the entrance being capped with
concrete, what would that look like?
Mr. Chun: The photo of the Big Island facility, that was done on the parking lot so we
don't foresee making that kind of concrete cap over the tanks themselves it will mostly be grass
with the exception of the covers, either the square entrance covers or the round man hole covers.
What you saw on the Big Island, the Big Island project placed it actually in the parking lot that is
why you saw that concrete around it.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
15
Mr. Katayama: Is there anticipated or any kind of probability of surface flow coming
across that lot and how would that impact the operations or the system?
Mr. Suizu: The grading would be such that to minimize surface flow into the treatment
plant because that could overtax the system. So grading would be such that it would flow away,
surface runoff would flow away from the system.
Mr. Katayama: I am thinking more from the adjoining Big Save parking lot as well as
the street.
Mr. Suizu: 1 notice on the adjoining property the retaining wall has a french drain that
runs off towards the street.
Mr. Katayama: From that street though is there...because the lot is lower.
Mr. Suizu: Yes, 3 to 4 feet lower. #
Mr. Katayama: Is there any probability of it coming back into that lot because that house
is post and pier, right? The house is above ground.
Mr. Suizu: 'Yes it is.
Mr. Katayama: So that indicates sort of they did that for a reason otherwise it would be
on slab or something on grade.
Mr. Suizu: Currently the flow is going towards the front of the property.
Mr. Katayama: Isn't that where the collection tanks would be or injection tanks?
Mr. Suizu: The injection wells are towards the front.
Mr. Katayama: So how would that work, is that an issue?
Mr. Suizu: I don't see it as an issue.
Chair: Any other comments or questions? If not,thank you very much, is there anyone
from the public wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none I would like to entertain a motion
to close the public hearing.
Mr. Raco: So moved Chair.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those 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.
Chair: What is the pleasure of this body? Kaaina please read your recommendation and
conclusion.
Staff Planner read conclusion and department recommendation(on file).
Chair: Any comments on the recommendation of the Planning Department? There being
none I do have one recommendation, this is for condition No. 2 and you say that the attenuated
storage structure shall be screened and landscaped so as to prevent any impacts on the cultural
and historic visual ambiance of the surrounding community. I would just add to that with the
approval of the Planning Department instead of just keep it open ended that the department
should review the landscaping plans and therefore sign off on it. Any discussion on that
particular condition No. 2 that I just mentioned?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
16
Ms. Matsumoto: I agree with that. In a simple measure as a suggestion that a hedge be
planted, one that continues along, there is a hedge along the parking lot with the same kind of
plants and then you won't have to look at the-
Chair:Chair: I'm really sorry, instead of going with amending any of the conditions I need a
motion to approve before I go to any proposed amendment condition changes.
Mr. Raco: Move to approve.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, now we can go ahead.
Ms. Matsumoto: I agree with you about the concern for the landscaping and I suggest a
hedge.
Chair: Thank you, some kind of hedge. Anybody else have any comments on that
condition No. 2 amendment? Do you need time to write it out?
Staff Commissioner Matsumoto did you want the hedge condition in the condition as
well?
Ms. Matsumoto: Yes. The same kind of plant that they have on the parking lot side, I
think it is hibiscus.
Chair: Could you read condition No. 2 please.
Staff: Condition No. 2 would read, "The 2 compressor pumps and the emergency
generator shall be housed within a sound attenuated storage structure and they shall be screened
and landscaped so as to prevent any impacts on the culturpLI and historical visual ambiance of the
surrounding community. The landscaping plan including but not limited to a hedge to match
surrounding landscaping shall be review by the Planning Department during building permit
review."
Chair: Is there a motion?
Mr. Raco: So moved Chair.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion,all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to amend
condition No. 2, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Now we are back to the main motion, could we have a vote on the main motion,
all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve staff
report as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed at 10:48 a.m.
Meeting called back to order at 10:59 a.m.
Use Permit U-2011-12 Special Permit SP-2011-28 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2011-14 to permit the construction and operation of a solar power facility property located
adjacent to the Kaumuali`i Highway and Kekaha Road intersection, Kekaha, Kauai, further
identified as Tax Map Key 1-2-006:009, and affecting an area of approx. 20 acres =Kikiaola
Solar. jDirector's Report received 6/28/11.1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
17
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioners, before we get into the application deliberations I passed
out a copy of Senate Bill 631 conference draft 1. We are aware that Governor Abercrombie has
signed this into law as of yesterday and has become force and effect of yesterday. The
application before you sits on what is classified as B lands, B Agricultural lands, and it does fall
under 20 acres or less based on the language of the law as written. Given those determinations I
wanted to request if maybe the applicant or their agent can come forward and wanted to
determine whether or not they would still want to proceed with the Special Permit application or
withdraw the application at this time given its compliance with State law as in affect as of July
11, 2011.
Ms. Laurel Loo: Thank you Mr. Dahilig, Chairman and Commissioners, Laurel Loo,
authorized agent and attorney on behalf of the petitioners. We have been informed verbally that
the governor did sign senate bill 631 which would render the Special Permit portion of our
application mute so therefore we will be withdrawing just that portion which basically on your
application starts on page 17. And I will follow up in writing with that and so we have before
you now the Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit.
Chair: Thank you. I am just going to re-read the new public hearing, it is a Use Permit
U-2011-14 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-14.
Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read Director's report(on file).
Chair: Any questions of our planner Kaaina, no one,I would like to call on the applicant
please.
Ms. Loo: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Laurel Loo, authorized agent
and attorney on behalf of the petitioners and with me is Peter Herndon who is CEO of Kikiaola
Land Company. Also in the audience is David Ushio who is CEO of the other co-applicant
Pacific Energy Partners. I am just going to have Peter give you a quick overview of the project
and what he has done in the community the past couple of weeks.
Mr. Peter Herndon: Thank you, good morning Commissioners, Peter Herndon, CEO for
Kikiaola Land Company. The solar project is located on a 20 acre parcel makai of the Kikiaola
small boat harbor and it is set back from the highway so it is actually in the middle of what used
to be a cane field. As you probably know the fields,the cane has been out of production for the
last 20 years. The property currently serves as a buffer area for Sengenta who has a seed corn
crop that is further makai on the property. The project its self is very low impact. There is very
little traffic involved on an ongoing basis. Preliminarily the construction period, 8 to 10 months,
employing somewhere between 50 and 80 full time construction workers. And then on an
ongoing basis the maintenance plant and the landscaping will employ some additional people.
The benefit is obviously green energy, low impact, the avoidance of bringing fossil fuel
in to Kauai and we hope that this is the first of ongoing projects perhaps phase I of continuing
phases on the West Side. The project is much needed in Waimea for the economy and also for
the good of the energy and Kikiaola is really behind this project. We did have an informational
community about 2 weeks ago. We did advertize it in the newspaper and invited the community
in for a presentation. We had about 60 people that came and I must say that the comments were
very supportive and very positive and I believe that you will see that we have garnered
significant support specifically from the West Side for this project. So we are convinced that this
is a good project and we are further encouraged in that the developer Pacific Energy Partners is
highly motivated to start this project and get it underway substantially before the end of the year.
So it is not talking about it, it is doing it, thank you.
Chair: Any questions of the applicant's representative?
Mr. Kimura: Is this property part of the subdivision that Kikiaola was planning?
Mr. Herndon: Yes it is part of an agricultural subdivision. We have not asked for a
renewal on that subdivision gpproval because we are not ready to move forward on it. So we
have done an agricultural condominium on the land that has already been filed and recorded.
Mr. Katayama: Has PMRF been contacted if there are any flight issues?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
18
Mr. Herndon: I believe PMRF in general is aware of the project and my understanding
from talking with various officials they are very,very supportive of the project.
Ms. Loo: If I may, I will have David Ushio come up from PEP, he is the one who has
had the director conversations with PMRF.
Mr. David Ushio: Thank you, my name is David Ushio. I am the CEPO of Pacific
Energy Partners who is the owner/developer of this project. To answer your specific question we
have had numerous meetings with the base commander at PMRF, the U.S. Navy, and other
officials at the missile defense agency about this particular project because they were very
supportive, the idea of going green especially in terms of utilizing the KIUC efforts to increase
the local economy. The flight patterns,there is no problems at all. That was a concern if we
were to build it closer to the base but we are quite a ways away from it so there is no impact on
that issue.
Chair: Anybody else? My question is directed to Mr. Herndon. Kikiaola Master Plan
for development in That area, how does that impact the overall plan for Kikiaola development?
Mr. Herndon: Kikiaola is quite frankly rethinking their master plan,the one that was
submitted and approved in the General Plan update some years ago was done during a different
economy and I think the plans were very viable at that time but in today's economy we are
questioning whether high end subdivisions and golf courses are really an appropriate long term
use. Our philosophy has changed a little bit in that rather than trying to build out this huge
master plan project we are doing little pieces at a time, I call them base hits and we consider this
a very solid base hit in keeping with the long term plans. Eventually the plant life may be up to
40 years but the land can be returned back to the original state if there is a better use at that time.
Chair: Anybody else, Hartwell.
Mr. Blake: How does this project compare in size to the Kapa`a project and the one
coming up in Po`ipu?
Mr. Herndon: My understanding of the Kapa`a project was just completed; it is about a
1.2 mega watt. The proposed project on this 20 acre parcel is a 3.5 mega watt so it is about
double the size. The other thing that we will have in this we have put in battery storage at a 3 to
I ratio at the request of KIUC because it makes it much easier to smooth out, when the sun goes
down for example does it have an impact on the grid or when a cloud comes over. So we think
we have thought through a lot of the issues in terms of the sizing of it so that it gives maximum
output with the minimal amount of adverse impact in terms of a solar project because solar isn't
the absolute answer to everything but it is a good start.
Chair: Anybody else have any questions? If not I do, how does this project differentiate
from the photovoltaic project in Kapa`a and proposed in Koloa as far as the type of panels, the
hardware?
Mr. Herndon: I am not really that familiar with the Kapa`a project per say but I think that
one differentiation is the system that we are proposing actually has trackers on it so it tracks the
sun so it moves with the sun during the course of the day which actually brings the ability to
produce more energy for the same amount of sunshine. Beyond that the battery storage is
something that we feel very strongly is an asset but to be honest with you I don't know the actual
intricacies of that Kapa`a project to speak for them. I know that our project is pretty well
engineered pretty well engineered.
Chair: Anybody else? If not thank you very much. I will be calling on the public now if
there is anybody wishing to testify on this item,please come forward.
Mr. Richard Jose: Good morning Commissioners and Chair, my name is Richard Jose, I
represent the electrical workers on the island. I support this project. I think it is a great project
especially for the West Side because I live in Kekaha. I think it can bring some work to the
struggling economy over here. I have a lot of people out of work. But my concerns are the
workforce used to build the project. I have been going through the different types of solar
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
19
projects over here and I have noticed some local workers and a lot of out of State workers on the
projects. That is just my concern that we have some local workers on the workforce. That is the
end of my testimony but I am behind this project because it is the way of the fixture, it is going to
be solar and hydro and thermal is going to be next.
Chair: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Mr. David Walker: Good morning Commissioners, my name is David Walker. I am the
President of West Kauai Business. First of all I would like to congratulate Peter and David
putting a very wonderful project together and I would like to eco too, I went to the meeting they
had and everybody was in great response and very positive response that evening but I would
just like to read you our letter from West Kauai Business. "The Board of Directors of West
Kauai Business and Professional Association voted unanimously at our board meeting held on
June 30, 2011 to support the above referenced Kikiaola Land Company permit application. The
sunny West Side as 1 said earlier is the best location on Kauai for such a project and wi.11
provide both short and long term economic benefit for our businesses and our main street
program. Kikiaola Land Company has always been a prime benefactor for the west Kauai area
and most notably donates for our use the venue site for the Waimea Town Celebration. The
Town celebration gives the nonprofits and youth sports teams a chance to raise funds to continue
the community and activities and we thank them for that. We urge your approval of the permit
to allow the good neighbor Kikiaola Land Company to proceed with this exciting project."
Thank you very much, any questions?
Chair: Any questions, if not thank you very much. If you can submit that testimony,
there being no other testimony from the public what are the wishes of this body? I will ask for
closure of the public hearing.
Mr. Raco: So moved.
Mr. Matsumoto: So moved.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to close the
public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Raco: Chair if I may have the planner read...should I motion to approve first before
making amendments?
Chair: You can go ahead and read the recommendations.
Staff Planner read department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Any discussion on those items, if not call for the motion.
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-14 and Use Permit U-
2011-14.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion?
Mr. Raco: With that, Chair, I would like to have the planner read added condition No. 7.
Staff. I believe Commissioner Raco is referring to a standard condition that is imposed
on some permits concerning workforce labor as was spoken to, to the previous public testimony.
So condition No. 7 would read"To the extent possible within the,confines of Union requirements
and applicable legal prohibitions against discrimination and employment the applicant shall seek
to hire Kauai contractors as long as they are qualified and reasonably competitive with other
contractors and shall seek to employ residents of Kaua`i in temporary construction and
permanent jobs. It is recognized that the applicant may have to employ non-Kauai residents for
particular skilled jobs where no qualified Kauai residents possess such skills. For the purposes
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
20
of this condition the Commission shall relieve the applicant of this requirement if the applicant is
subject to anticompetitive restraints on trade or other monopolistic practices."
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve as the planner read.
Chair: Is there a second?
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Is there discussion on that item No. 7?
Mr. Jung: I just want to clarify just so the Commission is aware that this is a non-
mandatory condition but encourages them to hire local contractors.
Chair: Would the applicant please come forward? I am calling you forward because I
want you to comment on the proposed conditions.
Mr. Herndon: In terms of the employment of local residents?
Chair: All the conditions that proposed.
Mr. Herndon: We are in agreement with them.
Chair: And No. 7 is just a recommendation.
Mr. Herndon: Right and for the record though it has been our contention all along that
economic development is a very key part of this whole project and �o in terms of the stake holder
interviews we have had one of the things that came out is that to the maximum extent possible
we will hire local residents to;do this job.
Cligir: Thank you. We discussed 7 conditions; I just wanted to bring up the visual
impact. I don't see it discussed in any of the conditions. Is there a need for visual, to mitigate
the visual impact of this solar farm?
Staff: Given the application in which there were two primary issues that the applicant
brought up, excuse me, strategies in which they are minimizing visual impacts, one,that the
panels themselves follow the lay of the land. Essentially they roll with the lay of the land which
one, mitigates the visual impact but also too there is some landscaping to be proposed during the
building permit review which will be reviewed by the department. That is kind of covered in
that catch-all condition of shall be constructed and operated as represented however if you want
a particular condition to be drafted out for that and imposed that is at your prerogative.
Chair: I would like to entertain that thought with the Commissioners. Anybody have any
thoughts on that? So what you are saying is that in-house you will be reviewing the
landscaping?
Staff: The application proposes landscaping around the facility its self and that will be
reviewed in-house during building permit review.
Chair: So subject to the review of the Planning Department then.
Staff. Correct.
Chair: Does anybody have a problem with that? If not we are back to the main motion,
is there any discussion on the main motion? If not, all those in favor say aye, those opposed,
motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve
staff recommendation, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Special Permit SP-2011-27 to permit the use of an existing single family residence for
Transient Vacation Rental purposes as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No. 904, in the
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2411
21
Wailapa Agricultural Subdivision, Kauai, approx.. 2,700 ft. north of the Kuhi`6 Highway and
Wailapa intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-1-5.15 (5) and containing an area of
1.445 acres of the overall 2210 acre site=Bruce & Cynthia,Fehrirg
Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta: I would like to locate the property for the Commissioners
utilizing a thousand scale zoning map for the North Shore. Kuhi`o Highway is in this hatched
area. Kuhi`o Highway's intersection with Wailapa is here, this is the makai side, mauka side,
Kilauea Bay is below, the subject property is located with this red pin. It is one of 5 CPR lots in
a overall 22.1 acre lot. The template of the staff report is familiar; this is number 2 out of the 65
or 70 that you will be seeing. This is the same template that we will be utilizing, the only parts
that are different, tax map key, zoning, General Plan:, actions are the same, project description is
the same. Staff read report into the record (on file).
Chair: Anybody have any questions of Mike?
Mr. Kimura: I have a question for Mike. Most of these TVR permits are limited to I
year, why is this one 2 years?
Staff. The Special Permit is 2 years,renew every 2 years. The TVR permit which is not
part of this, which is the first part of this application has to be renewed annually so in actuality
any TVR application that receives a Special Permit approval will have to be renewing something
every year. So it will be the first year a TVR will have to be renewed, the second year the
Special Permit will be renewed and the TVR will be renewed again. So when this Special Permit
comes back the condition the way it is worded is the Planning Director or his designee would do
the renewal and if there are any issues it will come back to the Planning Commission.
Chair. Anybody else?
Mr. Katayama: Mike, on the TVR renewal what is the conditions for renewal or the
process?
Staff: For the Special Permit?
Mr. Kata ama: No, for the TVR, the annual renewal that is outside of this process
because we are acting on the Special Use Permit which is 2 years. And you mentioned there is a
1 year renewal for the TVR activity.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner they have to show continued use during the period as well as
they need to pay an application fee. What also falls into play is their compliance with any other
requirement under the CZO. So for example if there is a violation on the property I, under law,
can withhold renewal of TVR certificate until that violation is resolved.
Mr. Katayama: And the TVR activity is conducted in unit E? Who owns unit D?
And the farm activity is in unit C?
Staff. In both.
Mr. Katayama: C and D.
Staff. C and E. There is some growing of produce on E but that is steeply sloping but he
still has some activity on that one but his full fledged farming activity is on C.
Mr. Katayama: But it is not contiguous.
Staff: No. Well it is part of the same CPR parcel but it is not contiguous to each other.
Mr. Katayama: But it is different lots of record though, E is not connected legally to C.
There is a condominium for C and a condominium D and a condominium for E as well as A and
B I guess, is that right?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
22
Mr. Dahilia: It is one of these unique situations where we have interplay with the
condominium law. When we look at an applicant we look at everybody in the same canoe so we
only look at the boundaries of the parcel. We at the department do not recognize limited common
element lines and the reason why we don't do that is because it is a policy matter but also a legal
matter because we prefer that people if they want to chop up their land go through the
subdivision process rather than jumping over to the CPR route. That being said when an
applicant comes in for adjustments to the property it is as if those CPR lot lines don't exist. And
we need 75%of the owners on record to consent or concur to any application to make any
adjustments use wise to that property. So functionality they may not be next to each other but
we don't look at it as being separate we look at what the use is on the total parcel are recognized
under the State tax map keys. It is a weird technical issue with the condominium law.
Mr. Katayama: So the conditions on the Special Use Permit apply to all the units within
the CPR?
Mr. Dahilig: That is correct.
Mr_ , Jung: The permit will go with the lot rather than a specific CPIs.unit so in each
instance the lot will reflect the Special Permit but it is delegated to the specific structure in this
case because it is for a single family home it is delegated to that specific structure within that
unit. Because this is ag. land there is a certain limited number of density that is available for that
lot and the way they cut out using the CPR process is to allocate each unit to one density for the
lot, one each for creating each of those CPR units. So it gets complicated when you mix the
CPR requirements with'the Planning Department requirements in looking at it as a lot but CPR's
are only, it is a disclosure document for ownership purposes only. They still all collectively
share and own that specific lot. So you are holding an equitable interest in the lot.
Mr. Katayama: So everypne is exposed?
Mr. Jung: Yes.
Mr.Dahilig: Not putting words into the framers of the statute, sorry,the element of the
code that requires 75%of the owners on title to consent to an application,I think that is why that
provision is in there to specifically to address CPR owners and whether the owners that they
share lot ownership with do consent to the application. So exposure, yes, is shared by everybody
in the canoe.
Mr. Raco: I have sdale reservations on what you just said Mike. The Planning
Department does not look a#the CPR, division of the CPR lots because of ownership but on the
same note this applicant because he owns unit E and C and he makes his crop on C he could
easily sell E because it has a higher value and sale value because of this TVR. That doesn't
really jive with me right now just because he is all on the same CPR he is}rsing his ag. and from
what the planner has said is supportive on another unit. This applicant(inaudible)his right to
once he gets this approval he could easily sell E, easily and make a good record to what the
values of D, Q.A,and B.
Mr. Dahilija: And the value is something that can be parceled out whether we approve
this or not. If let's say if the TVR permit is not there and it is a single family house they could
sell that separately and so realize the value of it. Why we have the 2 year provisions in these
applications is that when you take a look at what is going on, on the lot as a whole, let's say unit ,
C stops agricultural use then it becomes an opportunity for us after 2 years to come in and tell E
where is your ag. use. And at that point we can say we are not going to renew the Special Permit
because there is no inore ag. use going anymore. So there is a check and balance there where we
can say as a collective you are supposed to be having agricultural use on your property. Yes you
can sell off,by State law,unit E to somebody else but if unit C doesn't do agriculture anymore
and you are reliant on that use on C then either you have to start farming E or you are going to
lose your Special Permit.
Mr. Raco: But that raises the question that well if you have ag. on C,but if he sells E, I
mean that entitlement goes with the land,right?
Mr. Dahilig: It goes with the full parcel.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
23
Mr. Raco: It goes with the full parcel.
Mr. Dahilig But it is for 1 unit.
Mr. Raco: But the entitlement is still with the land.
Mr. Dahilig: The entitlement is still there.
Mr. Raco: So why can't we just focus on that unit, unit E in the ag. and not have him be
able to trade off because it is a CPR on another unit?
Mr. Dahilig: The reason is, again, it goes back to the history of why the CPR law is in
effect. Historically the CPR law was enacted to allow people to subvert, and I am editorializing
here, subvert what were the County subdivision processes. The minute that we started
recognizing CPR lines as lots of record versus percentage of ownerships then we get into a whole
host of issues concerning how we do applications, how people apply, and how we hold people
accountable. For example if somebody on a neighboring parcel has a violation, I'm sorry a
neighboring unit has a violation and let's say that is unit A, if unit B comes in for an application
for a zoning permit we tell them we are not going to proceed until you get the unit on A, the
issue on A resolved. So there is no such thing as splitting the canoe, when you are in the canoe
everybody has to deal with each other's pilikia as well as everything that is good. The minute
that we start parceling people out and saying okay you are only responsible for what is on your
property, on E,then we lose a lot of the regulatory control that we have over forcing the other
unit owner,to say hey, clean up your crap and get in line because we cannot move forward and
process the rest of your application.
Mr. Raco: So I guess when the applicant comes up he is going to have to justify how unit
E is not allowed to do ag. or he has to show evidence of that.
Mr. Dahilig: He has to show evidence of that.
Mr. Raco: And that goes both ways now. If we are saying we are looking at the whole
entire parcel, if we are just looking at unit E and we are not looking at (inaudible) we are looking
at the whole entire parcel he can ag. somewhere else so what is the...
Mr. Dahilig: That is true.
Mr. Raco: But is that legit because now you are saying now I need to look at the whole
lot.
Mr. Dahilig: It is and what we understand from looking at how C is being farmed and
again this is a value judgment for the Commission, all we do at this point is provide a
recommendation whether there are intensive agricultural uses on the property which we think
that the uses that are on C do meet that obligation. If that is not enough then that is not our
finding it is only our recommendation that we think what is on C meets the requirements. If you
feel otherwise Commissioner then that is certainly your prerogative as a Commissioner.
Mr. Kimura: So this CPR,you can have 1 TVR for the whole CPR unit, A, B, C, D, and
E?
Mr. Dahilig: If this permit does pass that is all that would be allowed.
Mr. Kimura: So any CPR'd subdivision. I am not talking just about this one but any
CPR subdivision you can have just 1 TVR if we allow it.
Mr. Dahilig: Any CPR within the property boundaries. If somebody else applies before
August 16, 2011 for another one on this CPR project then that application would be vetted
accordingly. But if August 161h passes and this is the only permit then there is only 1 allowed on
within the parcel.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
24
Mr. Kimura: But didn't you just say that only 1 is allowed per...let's say Kalihiwai
Ridge, that place is all CPRs, right and 2 adjoining properties are part of the same CPR and both
apply for Special Use Permits. Where does that go?
Mr. Dahilig: They could be eligible. There is no limitation other than a density
requirement because again we are dealing with it in the context of grandfathering. When we
look at grandfathering, let's say a CPR'd parcel is allowed 5 units for single family construction.
All 5 of those units could have had TVR use so there is no limitation to how many people can
apply to grandfathering other than the 5 single family density that was there previous to their
filing with the Real Estate Commission. So at this point you have one of the units saying okay, I
want my particular unit to be a TVR because I had the use prior to March 7, 2008. It doesn't
preclude the other 4, let's say there are 5 on this CPR, it doesn't preclude the other 4 before
August 16,2011 and saying I had mine in use before also and I am going to come in for a permit
as well because under the law 5 single family units were allowed on the parcel.
Mr. Kimura: So in other words some can and some cannot.
Mr. Dahilig: Some can and some cannot but in this particular case as Mike read earlier
this is the only one that has come in for a TVR application within the Wailapa Subdivision.
Mr. Jung: Council chose to regulate TVRs for the first time outside the VDA so it wasn't
looking at any specific district whether it is Ag., Open, Resort, or Residential or whatnot, they
focused on overlay of the visitor destination area to keep them...any new ones can be allowed
only in that area. Any of the ones that were in use in the past had to come in for a
nonconforming use certificate. But because of this ag. issue that spurred up when the distinction
was made between short term and long term rentals we required two ordinances that thE?y have to
come in and apply for this Special Permit. So you have the County regulation which says no
new ones outside the VDA, if you are an old one you have to establish prior use and then with
the State Special Permit regulation it is saying that you have to come in for a Special Permit for
the commercial use. So you are looking at County and State overlays on this.
Mr. Kimura: What I was talking about was just the CPRs. You have some that are
acceptable and you can after its CPR'd and this particular subdivision is one of them, am I
correct?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr Jung: I think I can answer your question that when you do subdivision standards for
ag. lands it often creates larger lots and based on that lot size you can get up to a certain amount
of density so that it creates say if you have a 20 ag. lot you can get up to 5 units, it is capped at 5.
So developers would then do is capitalize on that 5 densities and split them up through the CPR
process. So the density is allocated within that lot they just further split them up for ownership
purposes through the CPR process. So there can be 5 single family homes it's just split up so
they can be sold legitimately through the State regime.
Mr. Kimura: But the County looks at it as one lot.
Mr. Jung: With 5, say if it is a 20 acre parcel, with 5 single family residents, 5 single
family homes that if they were built after June 4, 1976 they have to be farm dwellings.
Chair: Anybody have comments?
Mr. Kata ama: I really have sort of a question. Now if we follow that logic the building
standards within this CPR are all ag. standards then?
Mr. Jung: The building or building code standards?
Mr. Katayama: Everything,the rules that you follow for any improvements then become
ag. standards?
Mr. Jung: No it is actually the ag. standards resort to Residential standards.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
25
Mr. Katayama: With the roads, road surfaces.
Mr. Dahilig: It is an interesting question Commissioner and actually it has been debated
a lot.
Mr. Katayama: And then the next follow on is with the ag. worker housing regulation
how does that impact CPRs?
Mr. Dahilia: A lot of our conditions when we go through the subdivision process for the
permitting process are incumbent on recommendations from the Water Department or the
Department of Public Works. So we don't necessarily have a matrix or a template for what
exactly is appropriate infrastructure for lesser density agricultural subdivisions versus residential
subdivisions. And it has been a big deal of debate between our subdivision guise as well as the
Water Department, for example if you have a 2,000 acre lot with 4 units on it we could get a
condition from the Department of Public Works saying you need to build road 'infrastructure up
to County standards which would make sense in a residential regime but from an ag. standpoint
may not make sense. But it is the kind of conditions that we do get and under the code we are
required to incorporate them. So that is where this notion of slaving a bifurcated set of
subdivision or zoning conditions for agricultural types of activities versus residential activitie, is
appropriate but we just don't have that type of separation and everything is based on a judgment
call from Water and Public Works.
Chair: Mike, do you have any input?
Staff: Yes, let me clarify for Caven first that the application for his lot E qualifies based
on size and it qualifies based on topography however he also does agriculture on that lot
wherever he can. The reference to lot C is that he is a full time farmer so I just wanted to clarify
that.
Chair: Anybody else, if not I would like to call on the applicant to come forward please.
Mr. Bruce Fehrinir: Commissioners, Chair, my name is Bruce Fehring. My wife and I
have resided on Wailapa Road in the Wailapa Road condominium there since 1987. 1 apologize
for her absence at this hearing she is currently on the mainland negotiating the transportation of
the first two purebred dairy cows that we will be re-emerging on Kaua`i since the absence of a
real dairy here. And we hope that those cows will actually become the mothers of the new herds
to be grown here on Kauai and we are going to re-establish a dairy industry, not necessarily only
on our property but if any of you guys are interested in milking some cows in the next few years
hopefully we will have some for you to purchase.
We own two condominium units there on that road and we do ag. throughout. Our most
intensive agriculture is on the 7.6 acres that we live on. The reason for that is it is a much flatter
piece of property and given the scale of the size of the property and the topography it is much
more conducive to do real ag. there. We do what we call sustainable small family farming there.
It is not mono-cropping. We don't do just cane. We don't do just sorghum. We do it all. We
do Kalo, we do hardwoods, we do chickens, we do eggs, we do pigs, we do white organic
sugarloaf pineapple, we do greens of every sort, we do purple sweet potatoes, it goes on and on
and on the amount of ag. we do on the 7.6 acres. On the 1.45 acres on which the house that we
are making the application for we do coconuts, we do bananas,we do heliconia,bird of paradise
and other flowers, we do star fruit and we do mango. The things that we sell from that property
are the bananas, the coconuts, for the most part the others, the star fruit,the mango and the
flowers are used for the benefit of the guests that we have at the TVR.
But we do benefit financially also from sale of products from that parcel and we are
going to walking those cows when we have exhausted the pastures because in rotational
pasturing the idea in order to keep your cows healthy and keep your grass healthy and to mitigate
the possibility in the cows we move them rotationally. And we are not going to put up fixed
fences we are going to use electrical fences to keep them moving around the entire property. For
instance right now during the summertime when the rains start to become less prevalent and the
grasses start to dry we need a little bit more ground to keep them happy and to keep them fed.
So as they move they will be moving around all the places on the property which don't currently
have crops and then we will walk them down the street and actually pasture them on the acre and
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
26
a half as well so that is going to come into use as pasture land on a temporary basis. When the
grass is ready then we will move them back to the other 7.6 acre parcel.
Chair: Excuse me Bruce, I don't want to be rude it's just that we are scheduled for lunch
at 12 o'clock because we have another meeting to do so we may have to cut this thing short at 12
o'clock and then have you reconvene after lunch if that is okay with you.
Mr. Fehring: That's fine.
Chair: I think it is unlikely that we will finish but we can just go ahead and proceed until
12 o'clock. Anything else, any other comments you wanted to make?
Mr. Fehring: I think I have said most of what I need to say right now. If you have
questions obviously I will be happy to answer them.
Chair: Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Fehring?
Mr. Blake: What kind of cows?
Mr. Fehring: They are Jersey's, mini Jersey's. I don't know if you know about mini
Jersey's, they are about half the since of a normal Jersey cow which makes the transportation
here much more reasonable. But they are bred for milk production but on a small scale so they
don't require quite the amount of fencing, quite the amount of feed, so on and so forth. But if
you have a hundred of them you will be doing plenty of work. Right now we are getting two
females; they are young ones, that also enables us to ship them in quite well. When they are
about 6 months of age they will be artificially inseminated in order to get them impregnated and
then we start milk production and of course we have calves at that point as well.
Mr. Blake: Are you going to get into butter production?
Mr. Fehrins?: Butter, yogurt, cheese, milk, all the dairy products are possible. It is a very
rich butter fat content from Jersey's.
Mr. Kimura: No disrespect to you or your family in any way but is there anymore yurts
on the property? I know they got washed away during the Koloko flood.
Mr. Fehring: Yes and your question was?
Mr. Kimura: Are there any more yurts existing on the property?
Mr. Fehring: Yurts? Yes there are two permitted yurts on the property.
Mr. Dahilig: We did conduct a inspection and we did include inspector Myles report in
here and the inspections are coming out clean with respect to permitting as well as any other
types of uses on the property.
Mr. Kimura: So those yurts are a part of...
Mr. Dahilig: They were permitted.
Mr. Kimura: Do doest that consist as a dwelling unit?
Mr. Dahilig: I don't know.
Mr. Fehring: Can I answer that question? After the Koloko breech and we lost our home
we rebuilt, Eddie Bittner built is a home on the property, we have numerous agricultural
buildings on the property, a barn, we have a work shed and so on and so forth. But we also have
the two yurts and one of them is permitted as a yoga studio and the other one is an art
studio/playroom. It gives us a little extra room to spread out.
Mr. Kimura: That answered my question.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12.2011
27
Chair: Anybody else?
Mr. Raco: In the application you talk about the jobs. Can you say more about how this
TVR will give more jobs?
Mr. Fehring: Sure. Like most TVRs they need to be maintained,the cost of maintaining
any property as you probably know, I call it P.I.T.I.M.M and U, that is principal, interest, taxes,
insurance, maintenance, management, and utilities, those are all involved in the ongoing cost of
any property. In this case our maintenance has to be top notch because we like to keep the home
in a condition that people expect to find it in. If you were to go on a vacation you would want to
kept in a nice condition. In addition to that,we have maintenance people who are...I take part in
that as well but we occasionally have to hire people who actually can things that I am not capable
or don't have the time to do in terms of long term maintenance. And the every time a new guest
comes the house has got to be cleaned so we employ cleaners to do that. And then there is the
management aspect where I actually have a helper who helps me to take inquiries and manage
the calendars and do the websites and so on and so forth that enable us to keep it up and running.
It is all on Kauai. I am a big believer in keeping income here on Kauai if it is at all possible so
I don't hire outside help from the mainland for doing websites or whatever. It is all done right
here.
Chair: At this point I would like to suspend this hearing and then come back at a little
after 1 o'clock.
Commission recessed for lunch at 12:00 p.m.
Executive Session: Pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92-4 and 92-5(a)(2
and 4), the purpose of this executive session is to consult with legal counsel regarding powers,
duties,privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to
options available for the selection of the Director of Planning pursuant to Charter of the County
of Kauai Section 14.4.
Commission went into executive session at 12:05 p.m.
Commission adjourned the executive session at 1:00 p.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 1:30 p.m.
Chair: Prior to lunch we were in discussion with Bruce concerning his operation. Does
anybody have any other questions for Mr. Fehring?
Mr. Raco: I was continuing. Can you elaborate more on"This proposed TVR will not
significantly increase the value of the property"?
Mr. Fehring: That wording was not mine. That was put together by the Planning
Department. Whether it would or would not potentially increase the value of the property I have
no idea. It seems to me like everything is down in the dumps right now that way. Like I say I
have owned these two units since 1987...
Mr. Raco: I am reading it from your application.
Mr. Fehring: Reading it from an application...I mean I didn't write the application. Are
you reading something that I wrote?
Mr. Raco: Yes.
Mr. Fehring: Are you sure?
Mr. Raco: Yes I am sure. It has your name on it.
Chair: What page?
Mr. Raco: 8.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
28
Chair: Page 8, did you want to see it?
Mr. Raco: Did you write this application?
Mr. Fehring: I have cooperated with the Planning Department with everything they have
asked me to do and...
Mr. Raco: But did you write this application?
Mr. Fehring: Can I see the application?
Staff. The department assisted Mr. Fehring in writing these applications and these
applications are generally or basically templates so when you assist and make recommendations
on wording and stuff certain sections have to be refined to meet your certain situation. So in the
sense that if...I do remember helping and assisting with these applications and m4ny people have
had had the same assistance.
Mr. Raco: What assistance is this if he doesn't know that he didn't write that this would
significantly impact his project? How much did the department help him? I thought applications
were written by eitlier their attorneys or themselves.
Staff. They are but we assist them if they need the help and we make references to other
applications and wordings and groupings of text so in the sense that if you go through every
single section there are custom sections in here that he wrote.
Mr. Dahilig; The department did not prepare this but for completion purposes to assist
with information to get them to a point where they can make a complete application we do point
out certain samples and certain other past applications that are public record that they can use as
a reference to compile whatever they submit. And so this is what ultimately he is representing
and whether the language is in there based on another application or he put it in on his own he is
responsible for whatever is in here.
Mr. Raco: So you are responsible for saying that statement.
Mr. Fehriniz: And to be frank I would agree with that statement because I don't believe it
would significantly impact the difference in the valuation of the property. Certainly as we all
know the real estate market is do-vvn right now and this is not a high end vacation rental that is
being rented for huge amounts of money where it could be justified that the value is
extraordinarily increased by it. It does enable us to continue to farm. That is basically what it is
about. We have owned the property since 1987. We have used it all that time to help us get by
and increasingly we are relying on it to get by as we increase our agricultural pursuits. I don't
have a finger on the pulse nor do I really, I am no expert about what is going to happen in the
future or what the difference in the values might be but I don't think it would be significant.
Mr. Raco: I am just saying that you are saying you are not a high value, this is not a high
value property but on your internet page you elude to a lot of options that are luxury.
Mr. Fehring: That is what we would call puffery. You want to sell what you have. If I
go to sell a coconut I don't say it's sour.
Mr. Raco: I am just looking at right now, I am trying to have you justify when you say
word by word that this will not significantly increase the value of the subject property. It my
eyes it would increase the subject property because the property value would go up, if you ask
any realtor if a potential buyer either wants to buy property that is not TVR or a property that has
a TVR; I guarantee you 110% that the realtor is going to say well that is sell the property that has
a TVR because that would generate income. So I don't understand when you say in your
statement that it would not significantly increase the value of the subject property. But on the
same note you also say it's not high value but it comes with a fully equipped entertainment
center, a private and sunken hot tub and all the things you are saying on your website. That is
what my question is, I don't know how you can justify that this property will not significantly
increase the property value.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
29
Mr. Fehriniz: Well I haven't had the property appraised or assessed expect obviously
from the County's standpoint and I don't know what an appraiser or assessor might say about
that but I know this, we occupy the house approximately 60% of the time and the income that we
receive basically offsets the amount it costs to run the property,put some money into our pockets
to support our farming endeavor and it is what it is. I am not sure, I mean certainly there are
people who buy properties, most of the people who buy properties for the dollars that I hear
about,the big dollars I hear about, they are not buying them because they are vacation rentals
they are buying them because they are a movie star and they want a place to come on Kauai
when they come. It's not that kind of property.
Mr. Raco: It is that kind of property that I think in my opinion that does increase the
value of your property, your rates for 2010 range from, easy, 1,100.00 up to 1,400.00 dollars a
week. So if you had to say this TVR if it wasn't a TVR and you had to rent it on a monthly
basis, I mean you could possibly say that you could rent that unit for 1,400.00 a month.
Mr. Fehring: On a long term basis?
Mr. Fehring: On a long term basis?
Mr. Raco: Yes.
Mr. Fehring: I suppose.
Mr. Raco: So that would increase the property of the value, right?
Mr. Fehring: It would except that our costs are so much higher.
Mr. Raco: What costs?
Mr. Fehring: The cost of supplying toilet paper, paper towels,the cost of electricity
which is included, the cost of all your utilities which are cost included,the cost of maintenance,
the cost of management. There are a huge amount of costs and time involved in running a
transient vacation rental.
Mr. Raco: So the cost of trying to keep this as a TVR, I mean does it balance out to be
profitable for you to have this TVR?
Mr. Fehrnna: It balances out and it gives us the opportunity to use the house ourselves
when it is not being occupied by guests.
Mr. Raco: Okay because I thought you said that you wanted to use this to offset the
balance to take care of the cost of...
Mr. Fehring: It does to some degree.
Mr. Raco: To some degree.
Chair: Any other Commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
Mr. Kimura: I just heard Mr. Fehring say that there are two units on the property, right,
one on E and one on C.
Mr. Fehritig: Well C is where we live; E is the property that is the subject property in
question.
Mr. Kimura_ When Caven was just questioning you, you just said that when it is not in
use you would like to use the House yourself meaning you are already staying in a house...
Mr. Fehring: I have 4 surviving children, three of whom don't live here and we have
friends elsewhere who would like to come to visit. That is what I meant.
Mr. Kimura: Not by yourself personally.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
30
Mr. Fehring: No.
Mr. Raco: One last question. When did you start this TVR?
Mr. Fehring: Around 1995 or 1996.
Mr. Raco: Is there any reason why you didn't get rezoned or went through the proper
channels of getting it zoned?
Mr. Fehring: My understanding was it was a legal use.
Mr. Raco: So when you bought the property you knew that it was for agriculture and not
for transient vacation rentals.
Mr. Fehring: No, what I am saying is when I bought the property I know it was zoned
agricultural and that was in 1987 or 88 but when we actually changed the use from living in it
ourselves and moved down to unit C and used it as...
Mr. Raco: Well you didn't change the use because it was still agriculture.
Mr. Fehrina: The use of the property is still agriculture, yes.
Mr. Raco: Right. So you knew when you bought the property it was set for agriculture,
correct?
Mr. Fehring: Yes.
Mr. Raco: So what makes it different now that you want to apply a transient vacation
rental use on an ag. parcel?
Mr. Fehring: It's not a difference. It has been a transient vacation rental for 15 years.
We have used it as an existing transient vacation rental for 15 years. We believed all the time
that that was a legal use and I still stand by that belief that it is a legal use. There was a decision
made, a legal decision about the use for transient vacation rentals and it seemed to me that that
was the reason this whole thing came about, about a new law and then an amendment and yet
another new law by the Council to mitigate that law and so on and so forth. So here we are
asking for a Special Use Permit for something that we feel we have been perfectly legal for 15
years.
Mr. Raco: But you knew it was zoned ag.
Mr. Fehrinkz: Zoned ag., yes.
Chair: I want to minimize the confrontation. I would like to ask any other
Commissioners if they have any other questions they want to ask of the applicant, if not I would
like to open this up to the public,thank you Mr. Fehring.
Mr. Fehring: Thank you.
Chair: Anyone from the public wishing to testify on this application please come
forward.
Ms. Barbara Robeson: Barbara Robeson for the record. I am here today representing
Protect Our Neighborhood `Ghana. The testimony that was just passed out actually it is kind of
covering the big picture of item F.2.c, e. and f so if you take that under consideration. I know the
other two are postponed. The testimony is being submitted on behalf of Protect Our
Neighborhood `Ghana as we believe the cumulative and secondary impacts of the nonstop
expansion of transient vacation rental commercial resort uses outside the visitor destination area
into residential neighborhoods and now on to agricultural lands within the North Shore planning
area will continue to increase the negative impacts in our residential neighborhoods and
undermine good planning. Attached is our paper entitled Evaluating Applications TVRs on Ag.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
31
Lands and our testimony today is not specific to any of the above referenced applications but
makes suggestions about evaluating these and future applications. The paper provides material
about the standards and criteria we believe the Planning Commission needs to consider prior to
making a decision on each of the above and any fixture applications for commercial uses on ag.
lands.
And I just would like to summarize a few of the points that we have made in our paper.
We cover State law, County plans and laws and some relevant court decisions. Now the State
laws, we looked at Chapter 205 which is the Land Use Commission and one of the things that we
looked at was section 205-2 which is districting and classification and that includes and we have
discussed it in our paper bona-fled uses on ag. lands, the discussion of farm dwellings, and
agricultural tourism. Section 205-4.1 which is permissible uses within the agricultural districts,
that defines farm dwellings and buildings and uses that are accessory to agricultural uses. Just to
bring up also we;wondered whether the County had received from the Land Use Commission an
interpretation of this 205 regarding accessory uses and if not does this raise any fixture legal
issues for the County. We cover section 205-5 which is zoning and that discusses bona-fled
farming operations, 205-6 discusses Special Permits and the criteria for the Special Permit which
is to meet unusual and reasonable uses within the agricultural district.
Going on to Chapter 226 HRS which is the Hawaii State Planning Act we go to section
226-7 which is the objectives. We bring up also the Department of Business and Economic
Development and Tourism which is chapter 15-15, Hawaii Administrative Rules and that again
covers accessory uses,these are definitions, subordinate uses, and incidental uses which all
should be considered when you are evaluating these applications. There is also an extensive
Attorney General opinion dated August 19. 2009, again it goes into the farm dwellings, the
cumulative impacts and the unusual and reasonable uses. Moving on the County documents,the
General Plan of course talks about the policy of agricultural lands, farm dwelling agreements,
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the County's infrastructure requirements. And then
finally one of the many relevant court decisions, of course I am not an attorney, I am sure that
you folks will know better, the Neighborhood Board which number 24,Waianae Coast vs. the
Land Use Commission, and that goes into dept in discussing this unusual and reasonable use
definition in Ag. districts. So finally we ask that you review the comment section in our attached
paper because those are the questions and the things that we highlighted in reading those above
referenced chapters. And possibly expand your undbrstanding of the requirements that would
need to be met for these and the future applications for commercial transient vacation rentals on
Ag. lands, thanks for the extra time.
Chair: Can you hold on, I want to know if anybody has any questions for Barbara, if not
thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on this matter, if not I would like to have
a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Katayama: So moved.
Mr. Raco: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Caven Raco, to close the
public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Mike, do you have all the agency comments?
Staff. The agencies that have been commenting, Water Department and Fire Department
we have in, everybody else is not responding because request for comments doesn't apply
because building exists. So the Water Department and Fire Department have the primary roles
so far and we have their comments.
Mr. Raco: How about public works for roads?
Mr. Dahilig: They are in the routing.
Staff. They are not commenting because the roads exist.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
32
Mr. Raco: Because the what?
Staff: The roads exist.
Mr. Raco: So if there is an existing road Public Works doesn't need to comment.
Staff. Building and Engineering.
Mr. Raco: They don't need to comment if there is an existing road.
Staff It's not they don't have to,they are choosing not to at the moment because there
are no issues.
Mr. Raco: There should be a comment though.
Mr. Dahilip,: We extend the opportunity for them to comment within a certain time
period and because we are on a deadline with respect to this particular type of permit we need to
have these responses back in a timely manner and if they are choosing not to respond, they
choose not to respond.
Staff. Pretty much the one that is responding is Engineering and they are doing
inspections also in regards to basically the flood zone, flood improvements.
Mr. Katayama: In light of their earlier comrrients regarding the treatment of CPRs in the
total with the tax map key how does this application address the other permits that are outside of
the prevue of the lot being partitioned before the committee? 1 mean the application is focusing
on a specific lot and we have been told that in a CPR situation everything within that total TMK
needs to be considered. Now how does the applicant or application provide the proper
information in that everyone in that CPR, all CPRs within that TMK are compliant?
Mr. Dahilig: We do two things as a threshold when we process the permits. Again the
first thing is verifying whether there is 75% ownership consenting to the actual application being
presented before the Commission. The second thing that we look at is when our inspectors go
out for an inspection once the application is submitted they take a look at the agricultural use as
well as other violations that are on any of the units within the parcel. Once that report is given to
us we double check and make sure there is a clean bill of health that is given by our inspector. In
this particular case there is a clean bill of health given in that everything within the CPR project
is in compliance at least with the permits that are on record and with any otlier types of uses that
were observed.
Mr. Katayama: But shouldn't the applicant make that representation with the department
validating that as opposed to it is the department's responsibility to uncover any violations or
inappropriate use?
Mr. Dahilig: You bring up a good point and that has]lot been our practice. Our practice
has really been more to go out and inspect the full CPR without having necessarily the applicant
verify that everything else on the property is in compliance and maybe that is something we can
look at and discuss further.
Mr. Katayarna: This is such a unique case here that because it impacts the entire TMK
and I guess to Commissioner Kimura's and Blake's comments is that there is value created and if
permits were issued and not in correct compliance it is only by your discovery that this would be
noted.
Chair: Anybody else? Mike you need to provide your recommendation and conclusion.
Staff. Staff has attached to the staff report a preliminary evaluation. It is basically the
same template that you saw this morning, a little bit customized to address each application but
the analysis that takes part for the provisional permit required by ordinance 904. The Special
Permit considerations under 205-6, HRS,that analysis is also provided and disregards the
unusual and reasonable use based on the following in the five point discussion. And then on
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
33
page 8 at the top because the department has fielded complaints from the public regarding
unmanaged uses of these TVRs we've had this paragraph inserted to address the concerns the
department has had to deal with. And it comes down to noise, unmanaged noise, unmanaged
parking. That is generally the brunt of the complaints where these TVRs exist that the noise goes
into the late hours and parking is all over the place. The next condition concern was that the
Commission raised was agricultural use of the property. Agricultural use of the property exists,
there is no need to request or require additional agriculture because he has submitted his
supplemental schedule E, I think,which shows he is a bonafied farmer so he is in the business.
So the recommendation was for approval and the conditions of approval are the same ones that
came from the earlier request this morning including conditions 13 dnd 14.
Mr. Dahilig: Mike, you may want to speak more about the difference in liability
coverage for this one versus the other one.
Staff. The revisions that were noted in the conditions of approval this morning, at the last
meeting staff had differentiated between the levels of insurance in condition 7. So you see
condition 7, this is one million. For the earlier project this morning it was three million,that was
because the access to the earlier site was very limited based on the width of the road and the
bridge. In this instance a County standard road exists, there is no access issue. The concern for
24/7 access by Fire Rescue and ambulance is the difference. So if you have a difficult site to
reach or you can't reach it that is three million. If it is served by a County standard road or you
can get to it by ambulance or Fire Department 24/7 it is down to one million plus we have the
hold harmless clause in condition 12 that has to be recorded. The most important now is
condition 10 which manages the use, no parking off-site and no noise or manageable noise
beyond 10 o'clock. This is where the brunt of the complaints were coming from those types of
uses. So we are requiring that these restrictions be posted in your welcoming notice and it be
added to any of your contracts and advertisements from this date forward if it is approved.
Chair: Thank you, I need a motion. I need some kind of motion folks.
Mr. Raco: It goes to the next meeting?
Mr. Jung: The option the Commission has is it looks like our 210 day deadline is for
September 1, 2011 so you can either defer the item today or if you want you can take your action
motion today to approve, deny, or modify.
Mr. Kimura: Move to defer.
Mr. Raco: Second.
Chair: Discussion on deferral.
Mr. Blake: For what purpose specifically?
Chair: Defer?
Mr. Kimura: There are some things that I need to talk to Mike and Ian about. I don't
know if it is proper to bring up at this time. We can call a recess and maybe I can talk to them
now but it is not something that I think I should bring up in public.
Chair: Do you have any problem with a deferral?
Mr. Blake: Right now, no. Are we going to get back to it today or this is until the next
meeting?
Chair: Until the next meeting I would assume.
Mr. Raco: I would like to also defer and maybe the Director can ask Public Works the
status of their comments. I know the road is an issue.
Mr. Dahilia: You are looking specifically at Public Works, Engineering.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
34
Mr. Raco: Yes.
Chair: Wayne?
Mr. Katayama: I guess my tendinancy to defer this today is at least document or
memorialize the uniqueness of this CPR. The conditions are identical to a TMK and in my mind
prior to this morning's session I viewed them the same as unique, transferable, discreet portions
of property but apparently that is not true. I think in these conditions we need to make those
issues aware and on here somewhere because this template is I think applicable for a traditional
TMK type arrangement. I think that is the only thing that sort of makes me...especially relating
to farm activity because here is somebody that does not own the farm activity but is one of the
CPR lots, can the applicant use that as a farm rationale.
Chair: So you want the template...
Mr. Katayama: I just want the department to just sort of think about how CPRs given
their uniqueness are identified in conditions related to the Special Use Permit.
Chair: Mike, you seem a little. do you have some questions on that?
Staff: Yes, in the intake process that is how we address it, especially the CPRs. Just for
your information, I am not sure i`f...I will just make this known to you, of the 65 applications we
have presently 37 of them are CPRs, in the application process, so that is more than half This is
the first one you are going to see and you are going to see a lot more. In the application process
when they apply the CPR first question is do you have Ag. or not and you need to show it on
your plot plan. If you are in a CPR and you don't have Ag, the question was always can you use
somebody else's agricultural efforts on the property to qualify for agricultural use. Up to now it
was never a mandate that you have to have Ag.,that is not required. It is known that you have to
execute a farm dwelling agreement when you build your house but there is no agency that
follows up to make sure that you are doing Ag.
So the CPR process now, you are going to deal with this every time you see an
application for a CPR. What we do in the intake is make sure that it is delineated, do you have
agriculture and at what level, is it commercial and are you declaring the income or is it home,
and there is no category for personal consumption/Ag. If you don't have Ag., and you haven't
seen these applications yet but there are a couple, they don't have Ag.,period and they are in a
CPR. We are not making judgment we are just going to bring them to you, that is going to be
your call. If they have Ag., we haven't run into any situations where you don't have Ag. but
somebody else in your CPR does. We have two instances where that may exist but the ones I am
dealing with cannot get authorization, 75% authorization from their CPR's ownership. So many
different variations that you are concerned about we are addressing in the application process,
you haven't seen them yet,they are coming.
Mr. Katayama: I think the issues are pointed out by Commissioner Blake and the Chair
and also the Director is that within the conditions all of the surrounding CPR lot holders needs to
be aware that they are on the book.
Staff: They are, they know that because they are signing authorization.
Mr. Katayama: It is silent in here in our conditions and I think the other is, what you
addressed, is the Ag. nexus. In this case the applicant predominantly is on lot C and�he TVR is
on lot E and it may be okay but if you were to sell lot E, the new owner, would he still have a
nexus to lot C or his TVR permit every two years.
Staff. I clarified that...
Mr. Dahilija: Commissioner, I am hearing that your concern lies with the notion of notice
to the other CPR owners and the other one lies with the notion of Ag. being conducted
somewhere else in the CPR project and not necessarily where the TVR is and what is that policy
on the nexus.
Mr._Katayama: Right, that is how it is represented on this application.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
35
Mr. Dahilig: Let me ask this question then Commissioner, would it provide you more of
a level of comfort if we were to have either the CC&R documents or the letters of authorization
from the adjacent landowners agreeing to the application as part of the application packets before
they come in? Because a lot of times we do have pgwer of attorney given already from the get
go.
Mr. Katayama: That would work.
Mr. Dahilix We can do that and then on the Ag. nexus we can try to look at some of the
CPR documents but the problem is that the intent on how limited common elements are carved
out is difficult to delineate and discern from the actual recorded documents. And let me explain
it this way, if you have a large parcel of land and some are let's say E lands and some are C lands
and some are A lands. What you will see a lot of times are that they will carve out these E lands
which most likely are the most scenic vistas, they are on the periphery or along scarps. Those
end up being sold off as the one acre or two acre unlimited common element farm dwellings.
And it was always the intent of having the intensive farm operations happen elsewhere on the
CPR project and it may be delineated in the CPR documents but again it is hard to discern. We
can definitely try to provide more clarity to you on that level and provide these documents.
Mr. Katayama: Again I think it is the applicant's responsibility to make those disclosures
and help the department through that exercise of validating the validity of the TVR. And to that
very point where if you are carving these E lands because they have intrinsic value in view
planes or other things and not part of the agricultural activity, to me that goes counter to all of
this we are trying to. Because really the solution for that would be a rezoning of that lot to come
in compliance and then the Special Use permit is to help Ag. land or to provide additional value
for the Ag. land and Bruce is certainly doing that it's just that he happens to be the first one on
this CPR list. I wasn't quite aware of all the certain nuances of it, it makes me a bit nervous that
we tried to push it through this template that was constructed for a traditional TMK situation. I
am hoping that we won't delay it or cause him additional expense because that is not my intent
but more as a tool as other projects come up to help the department and really reduce the burden
of the department to be the guys that actually make representations to this Commission of what
the intent and use are for these different projects.
Mr. Dahilig: Understood.
Chair: Very good.
Mr. Raco: On that same note there is a difference between this application and the reason
I want to defer is I look at this application and just physically the thinness of this application
versus the next application. I see no presentation that Mr. Fehring is trying to convey to us. I is
one this to sit there and answer the questions but there is no presentation like how I read...tha-is
why I have to come up with these questions because to me the application is not valid versus
other applications which I see all the proof of taxes and what have you. To me it is I don't see
them trying to sell us why he needs this TVR or why he needs this use permit.
Chair: Anybody else wishing to comment? There is a motion to defer, it has been
seconded and we had the discussion phase it and now we can call for the vote. We want to do a
roll call please.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Caven Rico, to defer action to
7/26/11, motion carried unanimously by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Kimura, Raco, Katayama, Matsumoto, Blake, Texeira -6
Noes: None -0
Absent: Nishida -1
Not Voting: None -0
SUBDIVISION
Mr. Kimura: Subdivision Committee Report, committee members present,me,
Commissioner Matsumoto, and Commissioner Blake. General Business, Agricultural Master
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
36
Plan, Enrico Santelli Jr. Trust/Scott F. Schweiger Trust/Roger M. & Judy Peckenpaugh, approve
3-0. Communications, none, Unfinished business, none,New Business, tentative subdivision
action Halale`a Investment Company LLC/Patricia Wilcox Sheehan, TMK: 5-5-010:066, 068,
069, 081, approved 3-0. Tentative subdivision extension request, S-2008-16, Melvin
Soong/Clarence Soo2g, TMK: 4-6-015:048, approved 3-0.
Ms. Matsumoto: Move to accept subdivision report.
Chair: Is there a second?
Mr. Blake: Second.
Chair: Discussion, I have a question of the Halale`a Investment Company, what is the
justification for the consolidation?
Mr. Kimura: They want to consolidate the properties, move it up front and turn it into
commercial and leave the back portion of the property Ag.
Chair: So looking at it they want to take a portion of the 23 acres, they are consolidating
that into one parcel and they want to make part of that parcel commercial.
Mr. Kimura: Yes.
Chair: Exactly where is this parcel located?
Mr. Kimura: It is right next to the ditch after you pass the Hanalei Fish Market.
Chair: Right in the back?
Mr. Kimura: Do you know where that taro wagon and the wishing well?
Chair: Is that mauka of the...
Mr. Kimura: Makai. It is that empty lot right there.
Chair: And it is 23 acres, in the General Plan...
Mr. Kimura: Actually the whole property goes all the way to Tropical Taco, Quicksilver,
that building right there, and then it goes back.
Chair: My personal question is, I don't have a problem, my only thinking is that I would
just hate to see Hanalei Town further commercialized.
Mr. Kimura: This is just to consolidate; they still have to come before the Commission
again. This is just to consolidate the land. They still have to come back before the Commission
again.
Chair: So we will call for the question, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion
carried.
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Slake, to
approve Subdivision Committee Report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Special Permit SP-2011-26 to permit use f an existing single family residence for
Transient Vacation Rental purposes as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No. 904, in
Keapana, Kauai, on the property known as "Valley House," further identified as Tax Map Key
4-7-2:2 Cistern House). and containing an area of 81.6 acres=Falko Partners LLC.
Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Application was withdrawn.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
37
Chair: Is there anyone in the public wishing to testify on this agenda item, there being
none.
Special Permit SP-2011-16 to permit use of an existing single family residence for
Transient Vacation Rental purposes as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No 904 in
Moloa`a, Kauai, approx. 2,500 ft. northeast of the old Kuhi`6 Highway and Moloa`a road
intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-9-12.2 (A) and containing a area of 1.71 acres
of the overall 2.52 area site= Vertigo Associates,LLC. POSTPONED.
Chair: Any public testimony? I see none.
Special Permit SP-2011-24 to permit use of an existing single family residence for
Transient Vacation Rental 121gposes as permitted by Co=y of Kaud'i Ordinance No. 904 in
Kalihikai `Anini Kauai mauka of and adjacent to `Anini Road approx. 430 east of the `Anini
Beach Park, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-3-4:20 and containing an area of.25 acres=
Weatherwax Family 2000 Trust. POSTPONED.
Chair: No one in the public is coming forward to speak on this item. All of these items
have been postponed.
For Acceptance into Record—Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled for
Public Hearing on 7/26/11.
Use Permit U-201 1-16 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-16 to construct a new
health care facility and storage building parcel located along Kapule Highway in L-1hU`e,
immediately.adjacent to the Kauai Veteran's Center, affecting a parcel approx. 3.29 acres in
size, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 3-6-002:024 =Kaua`i Veterans Council
Director's Deport pertaining g_o this matter.
Use Permit U-2011-17 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-17 to improve an existing
pedestrian waYas a shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists starting from the Kuhi`o
Highway/Kawaihau Road intersection to Gore Park in Kapa`a, for a distance of approx. one-half
mile 2,570 linear feet), affecting a parcel approx. 12.831 acres in size, and further identified as
Tax Map Key (4) 4-6-014:030 (por.) = County of Kauai, Department of Public Works.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Wayne Katayama, to
accept Director's Reports in the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
,ADJOURNMENT
Commission adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
Lani Agoot
Commission Support Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12,2011
38