HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 10-8-13 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 8,2013
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to
order by Chair Katayama at 9:20 a.m., at the Llhu`e Civic Center,Mo`ikeha Building,in meeting
room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Mr. Jan Kimura
Ms. Amy Mendonca
Mr. Herman Texeira
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Mr. John Isobe
Absent and Excused:
Ms. Angela Anderson
The following staff members were present: Planning Department—Michael Dahilig, Jody
Galinato,Ka`aina Hull, Leslie Takasaki; Office of Boards and Commissions—Cherisse Zaima;
Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dabilig noted that there were six Commissioners present.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig requested that Item F.2. and the accompanying new business action be taken
first on the agenda, followed by the Subdivision Committee Report prior to the rest of the public
hearings and after Receipt of Items for the record. He also suggested that Executive Session be
taken during the lunch period.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the
agenda as amended,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
C 1, 0 2013
Nov 1, 2 2013
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Regular Meeting of September 10, 2013
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to accept the
minutes of September 10,2013,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Herman Texeira to receive the
items for the record,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
New Agency Hearing
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-4 and Use Permit U-2014-4 to construct and operate
a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located alone the makai side of Kuhi`o Highway, situated
immediately across the Kauai Mini Golf facility in Kilauea, further identified as Tax Man Key
5-2-005:023, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 179,437 acres=Secret Beach
Plantation,LLC.
Mr. Dahilig noted that the Commission has received written testimony in support of the
project from Mr. Tom Huffman.
The Commission received testimony from Mark Freeman.
Mr. Freeman stated he has been farming in Kilauea since 1981, and is the owner of the
company Heart and Soul organics which processes green waste for the County. He is also the
agricultural farming partner with the applicants Bill and Denise Hay, and it is his task to plant an
additional 46 acres of organic orchards on the property; 10 acres are already completed. He is
very much in support of this project because marketing can be difficult for many farmers. It is a
large undertaking in getting the orchards established, and where they will market it. This fruit
stand will be an avenue to take their products straight from the land to the consumer.
Mr. Texeira asked for more explanation on the 10 acres that have been completed.
Mr. Freeman stated there are several hundred fruit trees already in the ground,there is a
greenhouse with tomatoes,pineapple, and vegetables; all of it planted organically using compost,
organic fertilizers, and mulch processed from County green waste.
Mr. Texeira asked when harvesting will begin to which Mr. Freeman replied they are
already harvesting vegetables and some fruits. There is a little less than an acre of vegetables as
Page 12
the focus of the project is mostly orchard crop; growing vegetables are labor-intensive, and
numerous other organic farmers are already doing that, and could potentially sell their product at
the fruit stand.
Mr. Texeira asked where they are currently marketing the vegetables they are growing
now to which Mr. Freeman stated they are just starting to harvest and have been supplying only
to family and friends; as it grows, they will be establishing their market more. Having a fruit
stand on the property that they can supply on their own is the focus.
Ms. Mendonca asked if there will be a big price difference for a consumer going to the
market as opposed to the fruit stand. Mr. Freeman replied that the intent of the fruit stand would
be to have wholesale pricing,which would be made possible by the absence of a middle-man.
Referencing the business description provided by Mr. Freeman,Ms. Mendonca asked for
clarification on what would be considered value-added products. Mr. Freeman explained that
value-added products would be a thing that they would potentially process in the future such as
dried fruits, smoothies,vegetable juices, and possibly packaging products for export in the
future.
Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify that none of this is leading up to serving sandwiches or
anything of that nature in the future to which Mr. Freeman replied no; it would be strictly limited
to what they grow and produce.
Mr. Katayama reminded the Commission that they were currently in Agency Hearing,not
Public Hearing, and the intent is to receive input. There will be an opportunity for the
Commission to address the application later in the agenda, and questions should be saved for that
time.
The Commission received testimony from Ben Wellborn.
Mr. Wellborn expressed his support for the proposed fruit and produce stand, which he
feels is an integral component of the goals of both the County and the greater Kauai community
for the island to become a sustainable,locally-grown food supply. More than 90% of Kaua`i's
food is shipped from off-island,primarily the mainland,which exposes our communities to
continued dependence on foreign oils, as well as the eventual possibility of food scarcity in the
event of an unexpected worldwide event such as during times of war. Mr. Wellborn stated he
has heard that the island,in pre-contact times; once sustained more than 40,000 people with no
imported food, and would like to strive to regain that self-sufficiency. Mr.Wellborn knows the
applicants, Bill and Denise Hay, both personally and professionally, and is currently working
with them and the County government to create a multi-use path through a portion of their
property in Kilauea, which will help make the North Shore more walkable and bike friendly. In
his experience,he has found the Hay's to be honest,hard-working,forward-thinking, and
concerned with the welfare of the community. The proposed fruit stand will help maintain the
rural, farming character of the North Shore, and will support local farmers, and will provide ,
Page 13
visitors and residents with farm-fresh,healthy food. He noted that the value-added component of
the proposal will promote local jobs with greater income-potential.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to close agency
hearing,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS (For action)
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-4 and Use Permit U-2014-4 to construct and operate
a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located along the makai side of KW]i'6 Highway situated
immediately across the Kauai Mini Golf facility in Kilauea, further identified as Tax Map Key
5-2-005:023, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 179,437 acres=Secret Beach
Plantation,LLC.
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read the Director's report into the record. (On file)
Mr. Texeira commented that he thinks the fruit stand is a great idea to help the island be
more self-sufficient,but his concern is that permitting this may start fruit stands opening up all
over the island, which may not be a bad idea;however,he feels it needs to be further discussed.
Mr. Blake asked for clarification on whether items to be sold at the fruit stand are limited
to what is produced to which Mr. Hull replied the application states the bulk of it will be grown
on site with a few other farms on Kauai. The department finds that it should be limited to those
products either grown or produced through ag products grown on the subject property or on
Kauai. Mr. Hull noted that Hawaii Revised Statutes allows for agricultural stands on State
Land Use cultural districts for products grown on the property,the island, and the State of
Hawaii; however,because the applicant's representations that it will only be either on the
property or on Kauai,the Department feels it is important to limit it as such.
Mr. Texeira asked what the Planning Department's philosophy is on road-side fruit
stands on the island and how it applies to the entire island.
Mr.Hull replied that the Department currently does not have an established policy,but
they are following the General Plan and the overall uses of agriculture as well as guidance from
the Hawaii Revised Statutes. There is currently no established policy for helping promote
agricultural use throughout the island,but the Department recognizes there is a need for these
types of stands, and venues to get these products to market. It is up to the Commission to
determine what to allow.
Mr.Dahilig added that the issue with road-side fruit stands is a policy that has been
adopted State-wide, and has been viewed as more permissible from a State zoning standpoint.
However,the County has the discretion of maintaining a high degree of scrutiny in the form of
the use permitting process that is currently being implemented by the Planning Department, and
is what is before the Commission.
Page 14
Mr. Texeira stated that if he had a small agricultural parcel right down the road, and it
borders a State highway or County roadway,he could apply for a special use permit; in other
words, anybody can. He questioned what would be the justification, and how would it be
regulated. Mr. Dahilig stated that he feels that this is the reason this is a use permit scenario
where these types of impacts can be weighed in contrast to an outright permitted use under
County Code in which this matter would not come before the Commission. Because this is not
an outright permitted use,the Commission as the regulatory body can look at and discuss
cumulative impacts through the permitting process, and make a discretionary decision.
Mr. Texeira stated that it still means that anybody can submit an application for this type
of special use permit, and that if they approve this permit, they are setting a standard;how do
they say no to the next person? What are the guidelines? He feels they should begin to look into
that. Mr. Dahilig stated that it is something they can bring up to the Legislative body as to how
to treat these things, as well as other things like food trucks,which are becoming increasingly
popular. Mr. Texeira commented that what he envisions as a fruit stand is a 10' x 20' structure;
this is a2,880 square foot fruit stand. He does not consider that a fruit stand, it's a building, and
feels the term fruit stand is misleading.
Mr. Katayama stated that he feels Mr.Texeira's concerns are on-point regarding both the
cumulative impacts as well as the criteria used in the permitting process. He asked whether the
permitting process will address key issues such as access, sanitation, environmental issues; etc.
Mr. Dahilig stated that in order to give the Commission as much information as possible on
cumulative impacts, 360 degree reviews are done with other agencies that have expertise in areas
such as traffic, wastewater, solid waste, etc. These agencies provide,in writing, some guidance
and baseline knowledge on these impacts.
Mr. Katayama stated that it seems that there is a framework for the permit application
itself,however, addressing the cumulative impacts becomes an issue.
Mr. Blake agreed with Mr. Texeira's concern about the misleading term of fruit stand,
commenting that this structure is more like a produce store. He sees it as spot-zoning because
it's a major undertaking, and may lead others to want to construct similar structures. He feels it
is important for the Commission or the Department to determine how far one can go to bring it
from farm to table. Mr. Blake is not suggesting having more regulations if they are not
necessary,but there should be certain standards and guidelines at the outset.
Mr. Isobe stated he agreed with Mr. Texeira and asked how they would begin to
implement a review of Mr. Texeira's concerns. He realizes it is not a discussion relevant to this
application,but he does not want to lose the ability to have that discussion,and have the
Department begin to setup a framework or guidelines. He would like some assurance that
something will be implemented,and asked how they would do that. Mr.Dahilig stated that the
Department would be willing to have the conversation on setting parameters for this emerging
area of agricultural use. Certain interpretive rules have already been implemented for things like
kitchens, and upcoming things relating to TVRs; it is possible for the Commission to set up some
type of Administrative Rules for these types of activities. The Department can draft up
something from either a Legislative change or Rule change standpoint and present it to the
Page 15
Commission. Mr. Isobe finther suggested that they initially try the Rule change avenue prior to
the Legislative approach as that may become overly complicated.
Ms. Mendonca referenced Mr. Texeira's concern of seeing numerous fruit stands, and
wanting to set guidelines,noting that the land-to-table concept seems to be overriding their
concerns. Referencing the current application and concerns about its size, and keeping it
tropical, she asked should the applicant move this particular plan off the main road,would that
not have a different concept. Mr. Dahilig stated that setbacks and placement of a structure on a
parcel in a Class IV zoning and use permit context is within the authority of the Commission,
and can be addressed during the portion of the proceedings where the Department recommends
its conditions.
Bill Hay and Denise Hay, applicants,were present along with Andy Friend.
Mr. Hay stated that they came to the island a few years ago,and are doing this because
they believe in the idea of self-sustainability, and much less importation and dependence on
foreign foodstuffs; too many things come in from off-island. They currently have 60 acres
designed for growing fruits and vegetables, and another 20 acres for livestock,which already
contains goats and cattle. 400 trees have been put in on about 10 acres so far, and those trees are
designed to be eclectic for the fruit stand in an effort to be open year-round; they plan to be open
7 days a week,year-round. Due to the frequent rains on the North Shore,much of the fruit stand
is overhang so the people and produce don't get wet; only 800 square feet make up the interior.
Another reason for the large roof is to install solar panels for energy efficiency; the roof is big,
but the structure is small. Whether it is called a fruit stand or a market, it will consist of fruit and
vegetables grown on the island of Kauai,which they firmly believe in. Even though the State
statutes allow the sale of produce from anywhere in Hawaii,they want to be selling their
produce to the outer-islands, not importing it from other islands and the mainland. He described
the work they put into clearing the land and planting the 400 plus fruit trees, stating that it is a
big operation that they try to do first-class. Their goal is not to have the least expensive fruit
stand,but to make one that would be the most attractive, and that would cover their needs to
address the weather they face as well as wanting to be open year-round. Mr. Hay noted that the
location is set back off the highway;however,they do want people to be able to see it from the
highway.
Mr. Friend noted that their application listed there would be 2,000 individuals trees
planted,but since the writing of the application,that has increased to over 6,000 trees.
Mr. Hay added that they have a well that runs 280 gallons/minute, and the backbone
irrigation for the entire 60 acres is already installed.
Ms. Hay commented that this is the Garden Island, and they wanted to come to Kauai to
plant the orchard. She stated that it is difficult, as a farmer, to get fruits and vegetables
distributed here,and feels this makes the most logical sense. They have many friends that are
farmers that want to support the fruit stand, and bring their produce to sell.
Page 16
Mr. Texeira stated it seems to him that part of the fruit stand operation is geared to the
visitor market,noting that wanting something of that size to be visible from the highway seems
to be a way to attract visitors driving by. Ms. Hay replied that it will be locally supported,but
they would want visitors as well. It is a high traffic area for visitors in that area,but Kilauea also
has a lot of residents that live in that area.
Mr. Texeira asked if they have done a marketing study to determine what percentage of
their sales are geared toward the visitor market,noting that he is concerned about the size of the
operation,which seems to be geared more toward the visitor market as opposed to the local
community. Mr.Hay explained that the ultimate size of the operation of 6,000 fruit trees is not
going to be solely for the fruit stand;the fruit stand will be a small percentage. They are more
interested in mainstream distribution, and possibly export. The fruit stand is a good branding
idea,but they will not be able to support the overhead of the operation on a fruit stand alone. He
noted that the local marketplace has been sporadic in its production, which prompts many
restaurants to buy from Costco; they cannot always get it from the local farmer because of
limited production. He feels that needs to change, and though Kauai will not be able to become
a self-sustainable island without distribution their plan is to market local, Kauai grown produce
both on and off the island; they cannot sell the product of 6,000 fruit trees at one fruit stand.
Mr. Texeira asked if they plan to wholesale distribute their fruits,why do they need such
a large fruit stand. Mr.Hay explained that there needs to be a lot of roof to be open year-round,
and they want solar panels on the roof; they want people to get acquainted with their produce,
and then perhaps get the produce elsewhere from another retailer. They have 140 acres of
property, and Mr. Hay feels that the size of the fruit stand is relative to the size of their property.
Mr. Texeira asked if they plan to do their packaging in the fruit stand area. Mr. Hay
replied,no,it is not a big enough area. They have other ag buildings that they could utilize to do
things such as drying, freezing, and processing. This is part of a bigger plan for Kauai to be
able to find more markets for their agricultural products.
Mr. Texeira asked if the applicant would be offering affordable produce at the fruit stand.
County Attorney Jung advised the Commission that they were getting involved in too many
details relating to marketing and pricing, and suggested they redirect their questions to the land
use impact.
Mr. Texeira explained that some of his decision-making would be based on the questions
he has asked as he feels it is important to provide produce to the community at affordable rates,
and that would be a factor in whether or not he would want to allow this use. Mr. Jung noted
that we are part of a free-market enterprise where markets direct cost prices. In this case pricing
of products is outside the parameters of land use entitlement. He offered to go into executive
session should the Commission have further questions on that subject.
Mr. Texeira commented that he is not asking for specific prices,but just a generalization
which he does not see a problem with.
Page 17
Mr. Hay responded that the more fruit stands there are, the lower the prices due to
competition.
Mr. Kimura asked what makes this fruit stand different from Banana Joe's across the
street, or the farmer's markets held once a week to which Mr. Hay replied that the difference is
they will be open every day of the week, and will likely have a wider range of produce.
Mr. Kimura asked for clarification on whether or not they would be selling sandwiches to
which Mr.Hay replied no, the purpose of the facility is to sell, market, and promote fruits and
vegetables.
Mr. Kimura asked when the traffic impact report was done,did they take into
consideration future projects of Aina Ho that have already been approved by the Commission.
Mr.Friend stated he believes the consultant did take that into consideration to which Mr.Kimura
replied that it is not currently included in the traffic report, and he would like to see it.
Mr. Katayama asked for that information to be confirmed in the traffic flow analysis
report.
Mr. Kimura expressed concerns about safety, and asked if there were future plans to
install a left-hand turn lane and accelerating lane to which Mr. Friend replied the conclusions of
the traffic report recommended some striping which will create a left-turn lane.
Mr. Kimura stated that when Aina He developed that property,the Department of
Transportation requested a left-hand turn and accelerating lane of a certain size. He asked if
restriping it would bring the size down. Mr. Friend replied he was unsure,but that he would
think there was a minimum width that DOT would require; he would need to follow up with
DOT to confirm that. Mr. Kimura stated that as he remembers,DOT requested they be a certain
size,noting that restriping would take away what DOT requested of that property,which he feels
is a safety concern.
Mr. Dahilig referenced the Traffic Impact Report prepared by SSFM International,noting
future conditions have been accounted for;the Aina Ho project is already being factored into
their traffic analysis count for future conditions.
Mr. Kimura pointed out that the application states a traffic report was done on January
24, 2013, and noted that they only did it for one day. He asked if that one day of traffic analysis
provides an accurate report on that particular intersection, commenting that construction on the
Kalihiwai bridge was taking place that day which,he feels, would not give an accurate reading
on the volume of cars. Mr.Friend stated he would have to have the consultant follow up with
the Commission on the activity on the roadway that day,noting that the consultants have certain
criteria they try to achieve.
In response to Ms. Mendonca's question on the dimensions of the usable building space
as opposed to the dimensions of the roof, Mr. Hay explained that inside the four walls of the
building is less than 1,000 square feet. Most of it is roof overhang outside a small building.
Page 18
Ms. Mendonca referenced the diagram of the building that was provided, commenting
that she sees the area where all the produce will be laid out is at 12 feet by 80 feet to which Mr.
Hay replied it is under the roof,but outside the actual building. Ms. Mendonca further stated that
there is also 12 feet inside the building, which totals 24 feet by 80 feet, and that is more than 800
square feet of usable space. Mr.Hay reiterated that the inside of the building is less than 1,000
feet, stating that generally the square footage of a building is what is inside the building. There
is about 960 square feet of inside space with a roof overhang to protect from the weather. Ms.
Mendonca stated there is 960 square feet inside,but what she is trying to get across is that there
is an additional 12 feet by 80 feet outside under a roof to which Mr. Hay replied yes,which is to
help protect the produce as well as the cash registers and other equipment from the weather.
Mr.Katayama asked if there's an overall agriculture plan available for the parcel that will
help provide better understanding of the post-harvest processing,retail outlets, or marketing
venues that will be on-property.,He feels that will help them understand how everything fits into
their project as there seems to be lack of understanding of the vision of the whole project. A
master plan for the whole parcel would help address some of the concerns on its cumulative
impact. Mr. Hay stated there is another agriculture building on the property which they plan to
use for processing,but they may add more as they go along; it is a work in progress. 60 acres are
dedicated to fruit and vegetable production, 50 acres or so are part of a joint venture with Heart
and Soul Organics, and 10 is what has already been started. Mr. Hay does not have a master plan
that he is prepared to present or stick to because it is a growing business. There are currently 400
trees in the ground with many more coming;however,those future trees will not be related to the
fruit stand as they will be single cash crops to be sold on another marketing channel. Mr. Hay
does not feel it is possible in the timeframe given to tell the Commission what their ultimate
plans are because it is dependent upon how other things turn out. It will be somewhat
experimental at first to determine what,fruit and vegetables will or will not grow well, and to
work on problem areas.
Ms. Hay added they are also planting organic, which is a challenge in itself. She stated
that this is the Garden Island, and feels that a fruit stand will represent that 24/7 to both residents
and visitors. She personally feels Kauai does not have enough fruit stands.
Mr. Blake stated that he doesn't think the Commission objects to a fruit stand,but there is
a substantial amount of acreage, and he is sure a lot of thought has been put into what the
priorities are. He, also,would like to see an agriculture plan as he feels it will help him see what
the applicant plans to do. He understands that demands,marketing,weather,etc. fluctuate,but
he would like to see what they plan to do, even if they may end up not doing it in to justify
why they want to implement this fruit stand,and what they can potentially expect on this
property. Mr. Hay explained that there are 60 acres, 10 of which have been planted and are the
primary acres for the fruit stand. The remaining 50 acres are part of a joint venture with Mark
Freemen of Heart and Soul Organics, and Mr. Hay cannot control what he decides to grow,and
does not know exactly what he's going to do; Mr. Freeman gets to make that decision. If the
Commission is seeking a simple planning diagram of the 10-acre area,what species of fruits they
are growing, and where their greenhouse structures are located,that is already included in the
application; the additional 50 acres is primarily under the control of Mr. Freeman.
Page 19
Mr. Blake stated that the intent is not to limit Mr. Hay,but to see what they plan to do
which helps the Commission make its decision. Ms. Hay mentioned that they are also inviting
other local fanners to bring their produce to sell at the fruit stand.
(The meeting recessed at 10:38 due to technical issues)
(The meeting reconvened at 10:48)
Mr. Kimura stated that, as his fellow Commissioners previously mentioned, he would
like to see an agriculture plan for the whole property,not just for Lot 3 to which Mr. Hay replied
what happens on the rest of the property is not relevant to the fruit stand as the only fruit and
vegetables being sold will predominantly be from the 10 acres.
Mr. Kimura asked how the fruit stand will co-exist with the plans for the rest of the
property. Mr. Hay explained that they plan to divide the property into a number of pieces, one of
which will be donated to the County for the bike path. Some parts of the property will be used
for long-term agriculture,which includes the fruit stand, another part fora nursery, and another
section closer to town,which is part of the Kilauea Town Plan for development subsequent to the
bypass road.
Mr. Kimura stated that there will be a bike path running through the property, and asked
how that would co-exist with the fruit stand. He also mentioned that a temporary construction
road is being put in, and asked how the on-going construction would affect the business to which
Mr. Hay replied he doesn't think it will affect it at all.
Mr. Kimura commented that his concern is not the fruit stand itself,but the location and
the safety issues it presents with the entry-way. He would like to see the comments from the
Department of Transportation.
Mr. Dahilig noted the numerous questions on the floor regarding the long-term vision of
the property, and the concerns about the size of the building as well as the traffic. However, at
this time,he feels it would not be prudent for the Department to go forward with its
recommendations as outlined in the report, and suggested they first address the Commission's
concerns through an amended Director's report and amended conditions. He suggested a
deferral to the next meeting to give the Department an opportunity to work with the applicant to
obtain the requested information for evaluation. He further suggested that the applicant bring
their traffic engineer to the next meeting to help explain the Traffic Impact Report.
Mr. Hay replied only the 10 planted acres in Lot E are relevant to what will be sold at the
fruit stand, and reiterated that they do not know what the plans for the property will be; and they
will not know that for the next 10 years or so;the 10 acres that have been dedicated and planted
will be supplying the fruit stand.
Mr. Dahilig suggested the applicant itemize in writing what he has been describing for
the proposed farm and fruit stand, which will help the Department provide a better analysis to the
Page 1 10
Commission as they are very concerned about what and where will be yielding the products sold
at the fruit stand.
Mr. Hull noted that given the future scheduling of Commission meetings,this is the first
and only meeting allotted to the time and requirements of Section 8-3.1,therefore,in order to
defer, the applicant must be willing to waive the timeline requirements. Mr. Hay agreed to
waive the timeline.
Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that the fruit stand will primarily service Lot E to which Mr.
Hay explained that all the produce sold at the fruit stand will come from Lot E, and from other
farmers in the area,but not from the rest of the property.
Mr. Isobe stated in order to address concerns about the cumulative impacts of potential
future fruit stands in K-Ilauea,he would like to understand how the other farmers will get
involved. He asked if other farmers will be able to bring their produce to the fruit stand to sell,
and if so,what will be the process;will there be an agreement of some sort?
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to defer the
item to the November 12,2013 meeting,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Subdivision Committee Chair Jan Kimura read the Subdivision Report into the record.
The following subdivision extension requests were approved 3-0:
5-2008-01=Stanley B.Narramore Proposed Mot subdivision
S-2012-04=Comerstne Hawaii Holdings LLC Proposed 3-lot subdivision
S-2012-16=The Saiki family revocable trust Proposed 6-lot subdivision
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to accept the
Subdivision Committee report,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports
There were no status reports.
Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 11/12/13
There were no Director's reports.
Page 1 11
Shoreline Setback Activity Determination
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-10 and Shoreline Setback
Determination SSD-2014-21 for a shoreline activity determination,Tax Mao
Key 2-6-006: 021, K610a,Kauai;for acceptance by the Commission= Tom
Stirling.
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-11 and Shoreline Setback
Determination SSD-2014-23 for a shoreline activity determination,Tax Map
Key 2-6-003: 008, K610a,Kauai, for acceptance by the Conll l lission= Wai Wai
Properties,LLC.
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-08 and Shoreline Setback
Determination SSD-2014-18 for a shoreline activity determination. Tax Man
Key 2-6-005: 024,K610a,Kaua'i, for acceptance by the Commission=Rick
Bryson.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the
consent calendar,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-1 and Use Permit U-2014-1 to operate a commercial
kitchen within a portion of a residence on a parcel located along Olohena Road in Wailua
Homesteads, approx. 650 ft. east of its intersection with Kamalu Road, further identified as Tax
Map Key 4-4-005: 001, and affecting a portion of a parcel containing 4.76 acres =Katie Ranke
(dba Lotus Fudge). [Director's Report received 8/13/13, Supplemental No. 1 Director's Report
received,hearing closed, action deferred 9/10/13.]
Mr. Dahilig noted that at the request of the Commission at the last meeting, the
Department has submitted a proposed Decision and Order as opposed to a Director's Report
approval with conditions in order to memorialize the facts of the situation to distinguish this as a
unique circumstance with a temporary use timeline.
Staff Planner Jody Galinato noted the following additional conditions:
• No retail activity
• A two year time limit for review
Mr. Kimura asked if, as requested at the last meeting, some kind of guidelines for all
applications have been discussed or implemented. Mr-Dahilig replied there was a broader
policy question as to how to address cottage industry activities, and given the nature of the
discussion, the Department can propose rules or Legislative changes,but there is no policy as of
yet.
Page 112
Mr. Kimura asked if there is any way possible in situations where it is a leased property
that the permit gets cancelled,revoked,or voluntarily forfeited upon vacating the property. His
concern is that if and when they move out,the owner of the property will use it for other than its
intended purpose. Mr. Jung stated he believes that the reason the two-year limitation was
imposed was so it could come back to the Commission for review. If the lease ends within the
year, the use permit may potentially run for the remainder of the year if the business vacates the
property. They could request that if the applicant vacates the property,they notify the
Department,which will allow the Department to keep that on file for additional fact-finding
purposes for when the two-year renewal comes up.
.Mr. Kimura stated that if that happens, and the owners of the property come in with
another proposal,but it's not what the permit is intended for and is then denied,would it not be
the basis for a lawsuit? Mr. Jung replied not necessarily,but the proposed use is as represented
by the applicant, and if that use is changed in any form,they would need to come back to modify
the permit or apply for a separate permit;there are protocols in place.
Mr. Kimura noted that an applicant has recently come before the Commission where the
permit was sold with the property,and what the new owners did with the property was not the
original intent of the permit. The Commission and the Department did not have any say because
they already had the permit;they only came in for a change to the operating hours. Mr. Kimura
reiterated his concern that the permit will be used for something other than what the Commission
intended it be used for. Mr. Jung replied that they could look into building in a notification
requirement that will notify the Department of a change in ownership.
Mr, Kimura clarified ownership of the business and the use,not ownership of the
property because once a permit is granted, a property owner could easily evict the tenants and
take over the permit;how can they protect that permit? Mr. Jung noted that is an element of
business risk, especially when dealing with a lessee/lessor situation.
Mr. Katayama commented that once they memorialize certain conditions in granting the
permit, if those conditions are not met, it is considered a violation which would prompt a
revocation process. Those things are in place,but noted that there is no mechanism in place for
involuntary forfeiture of a permit other than the revocation process.
Mr. Jung stated the procedures are set forth in Chapter 12 of the Rules regarding
revocation of a permit,but there must be a violation in order to do so.
Mr. Kimura stated for clarification that he does not mean to revoke it,but to voluntarily
forfeit it. He suggested that one of the conditions ask if the applicant is willing to voluntarily
forfeit their permit if and when they will no longer do business on that property. Mr. Jung stated
that has happened before to which Mr. Kimura asked if that can be included as a condition. Mr.
Jung replied that it can be;however, it is already allowed under the Rules. Mr. Kimura stated he
understood, but would like to ensure that they get the applicant's word that they will do so just to
have more control of the permit rather than hoping the new owner will abide by the same intent
of the permit.
Page 113
Mr. Katayarna noted that the challenge of granting these permits is if they allow it,
regardless of who, as long as the conditions are met as set forth in the permit, it should be
transferrable. Mr. Kimura replied that if the new owners decide to change the product,the type
of facility,or the service the permit is intended for,is it allowable to have the new owner come
back to the Commission to amend any change in the permit. Mr. Jung stated it depends on how
the permit is structured,but in most cases if the owner is going to modify the use,they will have
to come back before the Commission to garner recognition of the change of that use. A
provision for modification of entitlements is built into Chapter 12 of the Rules,which allows an
application to make a motion for amendment to the existing permit.
Ms. Galinato read Condition 1 of the proposed stipulated Decision and Order into the
record. (On file)
Mr.Kimura expressed concern that the current rules would place the decision to
determine whether or not conditions have been violated on the Director alone. He would like
that determination to be made by the Commission.
Mr. Dahilig explained that it is the Department's job to enforce the conditions that are
approved by the Commission, and if those conditions are being violated, it is at the judgment of
the Director to review it, and forward it to the Commission should there be cause to do so. He
acknowledged Mr. Kimura's concern, stating that is the reason the two-year time limit was
imposed as a condition. Condition 1 reinforces that anything being done on the property outside
of the conditions of the permit must be evaluated and brought to the Commission for consent and
approval of the change. He further stated that the only authority allowed to grant an extension on
these permits is the Planning Commission;that is made very clear.
Mr. Kimura stated that he trusts Mr. Dahilig's judgment,but he is concerned about what
will happen in the long-tern based on things that have happened in the past. Mr. Dahilig stated
the Department believes that this particular perni t is very limited in scope,very limited in time,
the record is memorialized as requested by the Commission, and it provides enough controls to
enforce the use. Mr. Kimura replied that it is not so much what the permit is;but more of an
attempt to give it more teeth to enable both the Commission and the Department should
something change in the use permit. He is concerned that the current procedures allow for
loopholes. Mr. Dahilig reiterated that this particular application and its conditions provide
enough teeth to mitigate"wiggle room"under a very limited scope application; a commercial
kitchen of small square footage with a two-year time limit.
Mr. Blake stated that if they continue to adhere to the conditions of the permit, the use
could potentially continue for the next 25 years to which Mr.Dahilig reminded the Commission
they specifically stated they would approve the permit because of the unsuccessful effort made
by the applicant to find a more suitable facility,with the two-year time limit imposed to give
them time to find a more suitable commercial space. He clarified that the applicants cannot
continue beyond the two-year time limit without approval from the Commission.
Ms. Mendonca stated that because they agreed to be lenient with allowing this to happen
in a residential area, and giving them time to find a more suitable location,it was suggested that
Page 1 14
condition be included in the proposed Decision and Order. She feels it should also include a
condition stating that the permit would definitely expire within the two-year period if not sooner
should they vacate the property; once the applicants move to another location,this permit should
expire.
Addressing the applicant, Katie Ranke, Mr. Dahilig referenced Ms. Mendonca's
proposal, and noted that the Department signed a stipulation regarding the conditions and the
facts. He asked Ms. Ranke if she would be willing to agree to include language to state the
following:
• This permit will expire two years from the day of approval by the Commission and
may be extended upon farther review by Commission.
• Applicant agrees that this two year time period is for the siting of a more suitable
location for the business.
Ms. Ranke agreed to have the language included in the Decision and Order.
Mr. Katayama commented that what seemed like a straightforward application for
establishing a cottage business has prompted a lot of dialogue. One of the things the
Commission holds sacred is protecting residential use in such areas. They try to strike a balance
between encouraging entrepreneurial business development,yet keep the residential areas as
such. That is the reason they had very healthy, very productive discussion.
The Commission received testimony from Bonnie Bator.
Ms. Bator expressed her gratitude to Commissioner Kimura for his due diligence.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the
amended,proposed stipulated Findings of fact,conclusions of law and decision and order
for Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-1 and Use Permit U-2014-1,the motion carried by
unanimous roll call vote:
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
New Agency Hearing:
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U1-2013-9; Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2013-19 and Proiect Development Use PermitPDU-2013-17 to construct a retail store facility
approximately 23,200 sq, ft. and 97 off-street parking stalls and Variance Permit V-2013-5 to
deviate from the land coverage requirement within the Open(0)zoning district,located on
Property along the makai side of KGhi`o Highway in Waipouli, directly south of its intersection
with Aleka Loop, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-3-007: 029 &030,and containing g total
area of 3.571 acres=Niu Pia Land Company,Ltd (Deferred 8/13/13 for republication,
Director's Report& Supplemental No. 1 Director's Report received 9/10/13.1
Page 115
Mr. Dahilig reported that the Commission received written testimony that was included
in the Director's report to be received for the record as well as two additional testimonies from
the following:
Lisa Miyano,Unit G-2 owner,Plantation Hale—opposed
Carla Haninger—opposed
Mr. Dahilig noted that there was a withdrawal from proposed intervention submitted at
the last meeting.
The Commission received testimony from Eric Napoleon, General Manager at Plantation
Hale.
Mr.Napoleon noted that the owners of Plantation Hale oppose the proposed project for
the following reasons:
• The proposed site is located in a zoning destination that is not compatible with the
use.
• There is insufficient research and documentation to address how the proposed
project will impact the natural resources in the area
• The proposed development as submitted does not address a host of issues such as
traffic,operational impacts, and water resource management and flooding
Mr.Napoleon commented that traffic through Kapa`a is already extremely bad,even with
the bypass road; flooding has always been an issue in that area, and goes all the way into Aleka
Loop which is a private drive. He questioned where the water would go should a structure be put
in that area. Digging a 3 foot ditch around the project may cause water to overflow onto Kiihi`o
Highway and cause more problems. He also feels that approving this proposed development
would set a precedent, and allow similar, larger uses within the area. He does not feel that
Long's is so specialized that it has to be a necessity in this area that would warrant this
development. The proposed project does not meet the objective,goals, and policies of the
General Plan. The shopping center where Long's is currently located meets their needs as well
as the needs of visitors and local residents. Mr.Napoleon stated that the addition of a Long's
Drug store would be welcomed in the community in its proper location. He hopes CVS/Long's
will see this and remain at their current location.
Member of the public,Rayne Regush, interrupted public testimony to state that she
thought the applicant has the first opportunity to present the project in order to provide sufficient
information,followed by public input. She commented that it seems the other way around today.
Mr.Jung asked Ms. Regush if she has consulted the new process and the Rules,which set
out the full Agency Hearing first in order to allow the public the opportunity right at the outset of
the meeting to give testimony. Following public input, standard protocol commences where
Page 116
questions are asked of the planner, and then the applicant by the Commission followed by
additional time for public input.
Ms. Regush asked to clarify that the public will be allowed to present twice to which Mr.
Dahilig explained that this has been in the Rules for about two years now. He referenced the
CZO(Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance)which requires an Agency Hearing to determine
whether there are interests that are separate and apart from that between the government and the
applicant at which time an intervention may be possible;that is what this portion of the agency
hearing is meant to do. What has been the protocol for the past two years is the Agency Hearing
is held first, disposition of Agency Hearing is decided at which time the proposal is taken up, and
the public has the opportunity to speak on the proposal. Agency Hearing is a separate action that
needs to be taken by the Commission based on the CZO. Ms. Regush then asked if the sign up
list is used for either presenting now or later to which Mr.Dahilig stated yes,there will be an
option to decide whether you'd like to testify before or after.
The Commission received testimony from Bonnie Bator.
Ms. Bator stated the 17'"Annual Kauai Coconut Festival has just finished,with over
7,000 people in attendance to celebrate the Royal Coconut Coast. Numerous people and
businesses profited from this event. More importantly,visitors learned about the coconut from
many ethnicities. There have been numerous letters to the editor in the Garden Island
(newspaper)regarding negative changes to Kauai. Ms.Bator stated the Commission has a
major responsibility to Waipouli Coconut Grove to do what is "Pone". She requests that permits
requested by Niu Pia Land Company and CVS/Long's be denied, or at the very least deferred
until more information is presented. She is extremely pained by the unbridled development
allowed by previous County Administration that she feels has fractured the local community.
Ms. Bator stated that Long's is no longer what it used to be, and all that remains is the name.
She feels that CVS has"mainland mentality",which is apparent in the applicant's lack of
providing a cultural impact assessment, and omissions on the application to the significance of
the coconut grove. She noted that Molokai has coconut groves that are 150 years old, and asked
why the Commission would grant a death sentence to Waipouli coconut grove to accommodate
CVS. She commented that it is interesting that CVS Caremark holds the prescription contract for
State employees. She feels that supplementary information is needed on this proposal, and asked
that the Commission deny the permits, or defer action until a cultural impact assessment is
achieved.
(The meeting recessed at 11:45 a.m. for a caption break)
s`
(The meeting reconvened at 12:00 p.m.)
The Commission received testimony from Loea Keanaama.
Ms. Keanaama urged the Commission not to cut down the coconut trees.
Page 1 17
The Commission received testimony from Michael Reed.
Mr.Reed stated he is a past President and current Secretary of the Board of Plantation
Hale, as well as an owner of a unit there since 2000;he has been a Board member since 2003.
He is against the project, and will focus on the use of the property being detrimental to the
adjoining property of Plantation Hale. He stated that the pretty pictures do not show idling diesel
trucks at the loading zone,which will be there both day and night. He noted that the application
states it will be a 24/7 operation,which will cause tremendous grief to the owners,residents, and
guests of Plantation Hale. The property has been there for 42 years, and he feels this particular
project would cause significant problems such as reduction in property values, and reduction in
guest traffic as this is not what visitors want to see. He pointed out that there is a marketplace at
the south end of the coconut plantation in which half of the property is vacant with plenty of
available area for development. He questioned why that area is not being considered.
The Commission received testimony from Margaret Chan Palazzolo.
Ms. Palazzolo stated she is an owner of a unit in Plantation Hale, and this is the second
meeting she is attending as she is very passionate about what is happening. She shared her
sadness at what has been done with the overdevelopment of California,where she recently
vacationed, noting the areas she visited were once beautiful,but are now overbuilt. When she
returned to Kauai, she took note of the lush green trees, and stated that this is what we will lose.
The beauty and heritage must be preserved, and we must learn from places like California that
have lost their natural beauty.
The Commission received testimony from John Nash.
Mr.Nash stated that he awns a unit at Plantation Hale, and is amazed at the pictures of
the proposed development,but he feels the area really needs to be looked at in regard to the
traffic and flood plain. He is concerned about the flooding that will take place once the ground
that used to absorb the water is covered in concrete. The application states the possibility of the
project being a 24/7 operation,which he feels would increase the possibility of crime, and the
disruption of residents on the neighboring property. Noting the challenging economic conditions
we face here, Mr. Nash stated there are numerous, empty, retail spaces he has seen, and feels
they need to consider the possibility of creating another retail space. He noted on his recent
visits to Long's he did not experience any lines, and the parking lot was not full of cars;he feels
these shortfalls need to be looked at when considering this future project.
The Commission received testimony from Kate Stadler.
Ms. Stadler stated that she is a visitor here,but many generations of her family are from
Hawaii island,the Big Island. She noted that the sprawl there in the last 20 years has caused the
loss of many beautiful places they used to have. She considers the coconut grove very beautiful,
Page 118
and we must remember what makes Kauai so special that people want to come here; it's not for
shopping, it's for the beauty.
The Commission received testimony from Frank Marone.
Mr. Marone thanked the Commission for the open and comprehensive process. He
quoted a section of the General Plan relating to the aspects of Kauai that people value. He
stated that the area of the suggested site is in a fairly bucolic area,mostly green space. Though
the Marriott is there,it's set back all the way to the ocean, and the entire length of Plantation
Hale is shielded by bushes,making it nearly impossible to see. To put a commercial property
among that seems like a foot in the door for other commercial properties as this is not the only
parcel in the area covered with coconut trees. There are several others,one across Aleka Loop
and large areas of open land across the street;he hopes it will remain open. He questioned what
kind of marketing study Long's has done to verify their move will be successful. They are
asking to construct a permanent building that is out of character in the proposed location, and it
is unknown what will happen to this building in the future as there is no guarantee that Long's
will remain there. Mr. Marone mentioned the traffic impact, and stated he is unsure if the traffic
study included the consideration that another tenant will take over the building Long's is
planning to vacate,therefore, there will be additional traffic. He quoted another section of the
General Plan,and stated he hopes the area will"remain free of development involving buildings,
paving, and other construction."
The Commission received testimony from Stacy Larry.
Ms.Larry stated she was born and raised on Kauai, currently residing in California. She
is in favor of the project,and has experienced the conveniences of having a drive-through such
as is being included in this proposal. She noted that the developers are trying to save the trees;
their plan shows they will be planting about 100 trees averaging 15—20 feet tall, all of which
will be covered under the Exceptional Tree ordinance. She feels they have done a good job of
trying to maintain the look and feel of a grove-like atmosphere. Ms. Larry mentioned the safety
issues at the current location such as the dangerous loading zone area fronting the store. She
highlighted the convenience the drive-through pharmacy will provide, and feels the developers
are trying to do good things.
The Commission received testimony from Joann Chechak.
Ms. Chechak owns a unit at Plantation Hale, and has been coming to Kauai three or four
months every year for 20 years. She loves Plantation Hale which provides a very homey
atmosphere. She would hate to see that destroyed.
Page 19
The Commission received testimony from Bara Sargent.
Ms. Sargent stated that she bought a unit a Plantation Hale about two years ago, and
recently moved to Kauai two years ago. Every morning she walks past the area where the
proposed Long's project will be,goes down to Safeway and Foodland for groceries. She does
not oppose Long's moving to the proposed location, but she pointed out that she goes to Coconut
Marketplace,which is empty as many of the stores are gone. She sees that as a great location for
Long's to move into instead of to an area where trees will be displaced,right next to a residential
structure. She is concerned that if Long's is let in, other businesses such as Walmart may be
allowed to move in across from them. She feels if it is a resort area, it should stay resort;
commercial businesses should not be allowed there, especially since the Coconut Marketplace is
already a commercial area and could be utilized. It is difficult for her to envision walking by and
seeing big trucks moving in and out every day near her residence.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), and Kauai County
Charter Section 3.07(E),the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with
the Commission to provide a briefing and discuss legal issues concerning the application and
enforcement of Kauai County Code Chapter 8, Article 17, specifically the sections enacted
under Ordinances 864, 876 and 904. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of
the powers, duties,privileges,immunities and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as
they relate to this agenda item.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendouca to enter into
executive session,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
(The meeting moved into executive session at 12:25 p.m.)
(The meeting resumed in open session at 1:50 p.m.)
Page 120
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT (Cont.)
New Agency Hearing:
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2013-9, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2013-19 and Proiect Development Use Permit PDU-2013-17 to construct a retail store facility
approximately 23.200 sq. ft. and 97 off-street parking stalls and Variance Permit V-2013-5 to
deviate from the land coverage requirement within the Open(0)zoning district,located on
Property along the makai side of Kuhi`o Highway in Waipouli,directly south of its intersection
with Aleka Loop, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-3-007: 029 &030, and containin ag total
area of 3.571 acres=Niu Pia Land Company,Ltd (Deferred 8/13/13 for republication,
Director's Report& Supplemental No. 1 Director's Report received 9/10/13.1
The Commission received testimony from Rick Ball
Mr. Ball stated that he is the Vice President of OLS Resorts,which is the managing agent
for Plantation Hale for the last 29 years, and representing over 160 owners and their investments.
They are also the on-site rental agent for the rental income properties. They are opposed to the
Long's project,noting the negative impacts to the quiet enjoyment of their guests as well as the
increased impacts to the already highly problematic traffic situation. He expressed concerns that
the Planning report is flawed, specifically in the table of uses in the CZO 8.2.4 F.12., and
questioned why is the commercial lot coverage application that Long's is proposing at 72%
when resort owners are restricted to 50 %. They would like the Commission to deny the permit
based on the non-conforming use in a resort district.
The Commission received testimony from John DuPonce.
Mr. DuPonce stated he works for OLS Resorts, is the former General Manager of
Plantation Hale, and currently President of the Royal Coconut Coast Association. He noted that
he had about 111 letters in opposition of which about 100 did not make it into the Planning
Commission packet;he is unsure why. He passed out a map showing the property in the tsunami
zone, stating that it shows the project is in conflict with the General Plan. He asked to address
the following items in the Planning Report:
• Under A. in reference to changes in the proposal,it states the applicant met with
representatives from Plantation Hale;however,they have never had a meeting
with them.
• From the previous application, the number of employees went from 10 to 18.
• Under Public Concerns and Testimonies, it states there were only three
testimonies in opposition;however,there were six or seven people that spoke at
the last meeting.
Mr. DuPonce stated the following flaws they found in the General Plan:
• It is not compatible or complementary to the general permitted uses in public
health, safety, and welfare(Section 8-10.3 Uses and Structures)
• This project does not conform to the General Plan (Section 8-10.4)
Page 121
Mr. DuPonce stated they are not against development, and they in fact encourage it,but
they feel this development is misguided noting that a one day traffic study done in April does not
work during the slowest occupancy month for hotels. He asked the Commission to deny or delay
this project until an economic impact study, and a sensible traffic study are done.
The Commission received testimony from Elizabeth Kendall
Ms. Kendall stated she is a resident of Plantation Hale, and works at Kapa`a Middle,
School. She shared her experience with flooding issues in the past that prevented her from
getting home because the water was so deep and filled the lot that Long's is proposing to build
on. She noted the large square footage of the project will displace all the water that normally
collects there, and questioned where that water will go. She is concerned that it will go to
Plantation Hale because during that flooding,the drainage basin overflowed and flooded some of
the downstairs units. The drainage issue also contributes to mosquito problems. Ms. Kendall is
also concerned that the proposed project will create bigger traffic problems than they already
have, and may get to the point of becoming unsafe.
The Commission received testimony from Carolyn Soares.
Ms. Soares stated she owns a unit at Plantation Hale. She personally likes Long's,noting
that it took her only 14 minutes to walk there this morning. As an owner at Plantation Hale, she
belongs to an association that pays dues to maintain the road, security, etc., and mentioned that
Aleka Loop is a private drive,not a public road. As such, County funds do not pay for its
maintenance, and they do not have police patrolling that road. The CC&Rs are very strict, and
the intent of the Coconut Association is that they are resort zoned, and the commercial retail area
for the resort zone is in the Coconut Marketplace. She does not see where having Long's outside
of the designated commercial area makes sense when there is plenty of open space within the
current commercial area. Ms. Soares pointed out that the applicant's submittal stated that many
drivers will turn into Aleka Loop drive through the resort area, and exit back onto Kuhi`o
Highway; their traffic directly impacts Aleka Loop. A number of people already use that road,
which is a private road, as a pass-through to get around the traffic on Kahi`o Highway. Will the
County be changing the zoning and intent of the Coconut Association's CC&Rs,and start
maintaining the road, and providing police presence?
The Commission received testimony from Richard and Elaine Henriksen.
Mr. Henriksen stated he has been coming to the island for 31 years, and the first place he
stayed was at Plantation Hale,which is a very quiet place. He commented that the traffic on
Aleka Loop is becoming increasingly worse as more people are using it as a bypass. He cannot
imagine anything worse than having another 100 cars every few hours going to Long's; they are
already receiving complaints about the noise level on that side of the building. He does not think
Page 122
this project fits with the resort character, it is not compatible, and brings about safety issues
being that there are no crosswalks or sidewalks along Aleka Loop.
Ms. Henriksen stated she heard about Kaua`i's Coconut Coast numerous times as a child,
and has been a frequent visitor to the island. She is passionate about the coconuts,how beautiful
this coast is, and shared her pride in owning apiece of it. She urged the Commission to preserve
the coconut grove.
The Commission received testimony from Darlene Fujita.
Ms. Fujita stated she is the store manager for Long's Kapa`a,and has worked there for 29
years, noting that along the way she has been given numerous opportunities to learn,grow, and
be considered for promotion. Long's has been in the`Kapa`a area for 18 years,but they have
now outgrown their current location'. She feels that this new site will offer state-of-the-art
equipment, and allow them to provide enhanced services to deliver better care to their customers.
The Commission received testimony from Sean Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he is the field representative for Hawaii Regional Council of
Carpenters, informally known as the Carpenters Union. He noted that Long's has been a
longtime community partner having addressed many of the public concerns as noted in their
proposal,which include increasing the pahn trees,improving drainage, and lowering the density
of what might be allowed in a commercial area. This project would help employ some of their
members and other trades people who have been affected by the recession. He further stated that
Long's is committed to using local contractors who adhere to area standard wages, and they
maintain a concerted effort to work with the community and the Commission, as well as
providing jobs, and services to the people of Kauai. He asked for the Commission's
consideration to grant the request.
The Commission received testimony from Neill Sams.
Mr. Sams stated he is representing the Kapa`a Business Association, and read a copy of
the CZO, and made the following comments:
• The resort area is where they try to make their guests as comfortable as possible.
He feels Long's does have a purpose in their area, but noted that serving tourists
are not its primary function.
• In this situation, not only will Long's move out of their current space,but another
business of equivalent size will move in,creating that much more traffic; Long's
being retail will cause more in and out traffic than that of a resort district.
Mr. Sams stated that they would prefer a resort to go into the resort district because of
traffic impacts as well as what he feels is proper planning. There are commercially zoned areas
throughout Kapa`a, and feels Long's should be placed in such an area.
Page 123
The Commission received testimony from Connie Weaver.
Ms. Weaver stated she has been coming to Plantation Hale for 28 years, and one of her
condos is in the building right next to where Long's is proposing to be. She enjoys Long's,but
is sure there are other places such as on the other side of the marketplace that would be more
suitable.
The Commission received testimony from Sheri Macaya.
Ms. Macaya stated she and her husband own a house across the street from the proposed
site. She feels the open space where the trees are located is very important, and that we need to
preserve the coconut trees and the Coconut Coast, or everything will be cement and buildings.
Currently,it is very quiet at night, and the lighting is low. She is concerned about what a big
project like this would do as far as the light,the noise, and the trucks of a possible 24/7
operation. She noted the variance that the applicants have requested to increase the building
size, and stated that in addition to wanting to build in an area that isn't commercial, they also
want to overbuild, and feels that needs to be addressed. Ms. Macaya stated that Long's is
already located in a shopping center, commenting that commercial buildings belong in
commercial areas,not residential resort areas. She asked the Commission to value the beauty of
the trees, and the open space.
The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush.
Ms. Regush stated that she is Chairperson for the Wailua Kapa`a Neighborhood
Association. She noted that she spoke at the August meeting, and provided a brief recap of her
testimony. Ms. Regush stated she had some questions on the Supplemental Report, and noted
the following:
• On page 3 regarding the coconut grove,there are claims that the grove has
reached the end of its life cycle,but this is questionable knowing on Molokai,
there is the famous 150 year old Kapuaiwa grove in Kaunakakai; this was planted
in the 1860's by King Kamehameha V.
• On page 4 regarding the two earlier permits that were approved for the property,
one in 1981 for a restaurant, and one in 1992 for a shopping center,these old
examples do not hold much relevance. She stated the Long's store should fall
within the CZO, section 8-2.4(f) (13) Retail Shops and Stores;that is not an
allowed use or permitted use.
• On page 4 regarding the Public Access Open Space Natural Resource
Commission,the attorney filling in for Ian Jung that day was unsure of whether
the rules allowed the Commission to submit comments on this application to the
Planning Department. Ms. Regush noted that according to the minutes,this lack
of clarity should not interpreted in any other way; she was present at that
meeting.
Page 124
• On page 4 regarding the recommendations from the Arborist Advisory
Committee,which she was also present at,the Committee was told they were
seeing apreliminary plan;the Committee asked for an opportunity to review a
more current plan from Long's. She noted that is on page 6 of the June 6;2013
minutes, and asked if staff would correct the spelling of her name,which occurs
multiple times in those minutes.
Mr. Dahilig noted that the Arborist Advisory Committee does not fall under the Planning
Department,but he will inform the Office of Boards and Commissions.
• On page 4 regarding compatibility,regarding the statement that retail food and
drug shops are an explicitly allowed use within the RR20 zone, she asked that
they look at a"shop"versus a"store"noting that Long's is not a retail food store,
and is not just a drug shop;they are proposing 14,000 square feet of retail area
that makes it a retail store, which are critical details in selecting the type of
allowable use as listed in the CZO.
The Commission received additional testimony from John DuPonce.
Mr.DuPonce pointed out that the County recently funded the Royal Coconut Coast
Association with$80,000 to market that area as a resort destination. In addition,the resorts in
that area matched those dollars; they do market the Royal Coconut Coast as a resort destination,
and it should remain so.
The Commission received additional testimony from Elizabeth Kendall.
Ms. Kendall noted that in the Planning Director's report,page 6, she feels the four items
listed under Use Permit identifies what the public has been speaking to regarding the
inconsistency of the criteria set forth. She asked the Commission to follow the existing criteria,
commenting that she does not want to live next door to Long's, which is a commercial facility.
The Commission received additional testimony from Neil Sams.
Mr. Sams read a letter dated October 4, 2013,which was also presented at the previous
meeting,into the record.(On file)
(Mr. Kimura re-entered the meeting)
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to close agency
hearing,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Page 125
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Linda Sutherland Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-5078 (TMK No. 5-3-06:018)
Mr. Dahilig read the Stipulated Decision and Order into the record. (On file)
Lorna Nishimitsu, representing the applicant, stated that she has signed the stipulated
decision and order.
Mr. Texeira asked why the Department chose a fine in the amount$1,000 to which Mr.
Dahilig explained under newly changed County fee laws anything considered an after-the-fact
permit is either a$500 additional charge, or twice the permitting fee. In this particular
circumstance, they felt that doubling the renewal fee was appropriate considering the lateness of
the application.
Mr.Blake asked why Paragraph 13 is included in the stipulation, and what relevance does
it have to any of these cases to which Ms.Nishimitsu explained that in most cases they are not
dealing with sophisticated developers, and many NCUC (Non-Conforming Use Certificate)
holders were waiting for some kind of tax license-type document; they did not realize that the
letters were the actual certificates. Mr. Dahilig added that Paragraph 13 was included
specifically because the Department does not send out renewal notices annually; it did not add or
subtract anything to the Department's position in this case.
Ms. Mendonca referenced Item 30 of the stipulation, and asked how that is differentiated
to which Mr. Dahilig explained the changes to after-the-fact permitting, and how the Department
determines what each fine will be,based on individual circumstances. Ms. Mendonca asked if
the fine would go up for any recurring infractions to which Mr. Dahilig replied the application
would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is a pattern of habitual
late renewals.
Mr.Katayama asked for clarification on when this particular license expired to which Mr.
Dahilig replied July 31, 2012. Mr. Katayama then asked what the renewal period is now that we
are in October 2013. Mr.Dahilig explained the renewal period will cover August 1,2013 to July
31, 2014,noting that part of the payment they must make also covers the previous renewal
period that they missed. Mr. Katayama further clarified that the stipulated payment amount will
bridge a 24-month period to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes,but the payment for the July 31,2012
deadline had already been taken care of,therefore, it is not part of this stipulated judgment.
Mr. Kimura asked if the applicant has continued running their business while the permit
was expired to which Mr. Katayama pointed out that the stipulated order states the applicant has
satisfactorily maintained their conditions.
In response to Mr. Kimura's question on whether a cease and desist letter had been sent,
and if the applicant was still allowed to operate upon receiving such a letter,Mr. Dahilig
explained the circumstances of this particular case and the related file auditing that contributed to
Page 126
the Department's recommendation. He fir they explained that the applicant could continue
operating though a cease and desist letter had been sent,but because it was appealed,it is not
considered final.
There was extensive discussion between Mr. Kimura and Mr. Jung on whether an
applicant can continue to operate during the time between receiving a cease and desist letter and
filing an appeal. Referencing the Morgan seawall case, Mr. Jung explained current case law and
the process by which legality of continued operation is determined,pointing out that the courts
have the power to force someone to stop operation; the Planning Department can request a cease
and desist and use its civil fine authority to begin compounding fines. The applicant can appeal
and take the risk of the court upholding the issuance of the fines;what has been collected during
operation can be the consequence of the fine as well.
Mr. Kimura noted that because they received a cease and desist notice, an applicant
would not have to record the transactions, and would not have to pay taxes on monies they
collected during that period. Mr. Jung replied that income tax and GE tax requirements are
separate issues from receipt of income from proposed illegal use,but if they did file income
taxes;they could face consequences from the State or IRS.
Mr. Katayama asked how this particular certificate holder has demonstrated to the
Department's satisfaction that they have operated the subject property in compliance with the
ordinance. Mr. Dahilig replied that the certificate holder has submitted the necessary
requirements based on Ordinance 904,which has satisfactorily provided proof of continued use
based on what is outlined in the law. Mr.Katayama asked if any additional documentation has
been provided to which Mr. Dabilig stated any additional documentation would be helpful,but is
not required given the law at this point in time.
Mr. Blake asked for clarification on Paragraph 13; stating that while it may a nice
gesture,the Department does not have a duty to provide notice of renewal. Ms.Nishimitsu
replied it was not the intent to show the Department had a duty;it was just inserted as a factual
statement from the point of the appellant. She commented that many people did expect to
receive a notice of renewal, noting that there may have been confusion due to the change in
renewal deadline. In this case, the certificate holder paid her renewal fee for 2012, and did not
hear from the Department until a year later,at which time she was informed that she has forfeited
her certificate due to late renewal. She then submits her 2013 renewal which gets processed, and
in the meantime they are appealing her 2012 forfeiture determination.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-5078(TMK No.5-3-06:018),the motion carried by
roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonea,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1,Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of file Planning Director by Susan Bouchard Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-4235 (TMK No.5-8-08:045)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Page 127
Lorna Nishimitsu, representing the estate of Ms. Bouchard, was present.
Mr. Texeira asked to clarify that nothing is different between this case and the one
previous to which Mr. Dahilig replied facts are similar in that it was a late renewal, and a fine
amount as well as certain recognitions of actions were agreed upon, similar to the previous case.
Mr. Kimura stated for clarification that the original applicant has passed away to which
Ms.Nishimitsu explained the property was owned by amarried couple with different last names;
Mr. Evans and Mrs. Bouchard. Mr. Evan applied for the TVR certificate, and his wife continued
the operation after his passing. Within a year of Mr. Evan's passing,Mrs. Bouchard passed
away. Mr. Kimura asked if her passing would affect the renewal of the permit to which Ms.
Nishimitsu stated her estate is now responsible for operating the TVR.
The Commission received testimony from Caren Diamond.
Ms. Diamond stated she had distributed what PONO (Protect Our Neighborhood `Ohana)
had put together for Hale Hoku, which shows a timeline of the property from the time it was
built until the present time. She would like to testify on behalf of Maxine Hannen who was her
neighbor that built the house and lived there from 1980 to 2007 when she passed away. She was
a resident and member of PONO who believed that vacation rentals were destructive to the
neighborhood. Ms. Diamond noted that where she lives in Wainiha has the highest concentration
of vacation rentals in the County, and in this particular case,the house was a residence not meant
to be a vacation rental. When it was sold to Exchange Accommodators in 2007, a business
exchange service, it immediately started being advertised as a vacation rental utilizing both the
top and bottom floors. Ms.Diamond stated the Planning Department did not approve it when
inspectors visited the property and saw the kitchen and bedroom downstairs in the flood zone. It
appears that the TVR application did not get approved until April 2011, and the applicant states
in the affidavit that it was being used as a vacation rental starting in September 2007;however
Jane Abramo's representations state that it started as a vacation rental in 2004. Ms. Diamond
stated that Ms. Hannen did not operate it as a vacation rental,further noting that the TAT
application provided states 2004 TAT license, and a 1998 GE license. She does not believe that
those documents provided were for this particular TVR property. This, like many other
applications in her neighborhood did not provide information to establish the original non-
conforming use to begin with,which she feels is the problem they are facing; an entire
neighborhood of vacation rentals that did not establish prior use. When there is conflicting
information, and lack of adequate documentation in the original,the Department should not be
granting what is essentially a lifetime extension for this type of use,which she feels is driven by
high property value stemming from a TVR permit, Ms. Diamond stated that the zoning in
Wainiha was not resort, and this adds to accumulated impacts that have never been mitigated by
this Commission. She does not understand why a fine of a few thousand dollars should allow
this TVR use to continue forever, and asked the Commission to find out if the proper documents
to establish prior non-conforming use were not originally submitted, and whether the structure '
itself violates Federal flood laws. If so, she feels it should not be a vacation rental, and urged the
Commission not to accept the settlement.
Page 128
Ms.Nishimitsu addressed some of the concerns presented by Ms. Diamond, noting the
following:
• Mr. Evans did have a GE tax number,but it was not solely for this property. The
GE and TAT licenses were established prior to acquiring this property in
September 2007,therefore,the tax license information is correct.
• This particular property did not become a vacation rental until it was acquired by
Mr. Evans, and the inspections done by the Planning Department occurred when
the applications were originally submitted in 2008. She is unsure why the
approval did not take place until three years later. She explained that if people
own several rental properties and pay their taxes under one tax license,there is
nothing that requires them to obtain a different tax license for each property that is
being operated as a TVR;it is not as sinister as it may appear.
Mr. Kimura asked if the Department was notified of the new ownership after the passing
of Mr. Evans and Mrs. Bouchard to which Mr. Dahilig replied that he did not have files with him
to adequately address that. Ms.Nishimitsu replied that the property is still in her name until
probate determines the decedent's assets. Probate takes months, sometimes years, and in this
case hasn't closed yet;the property will still show as being owned by Susan Bouchard. Mr.
Kimura then asked if the trustees notified the Department that Mrs. Bouchard has passed; and
they would be taking over to which Ms.Nishimitsu replied not to her knowledge, and didn't
think it occurred to them that notice was required since the title is still held by one of the original
owners. Mr. Kimura stated he understands that,but asked if there was communication after she
passed,just to open communication with the Department to inform them as a common courtesy.
Ms.Nishimitsu replied that the Department most likely first learned about it when the trustees
filed an appeal. Mr.Kimura stated for clarification that the trustees did not communicate with
the Department that Mrs. Bouchard had passed away,and questioned if they felt it was not
necessary to which Ms.Nishimitsu stated she did not think the trustees were aware that notice
had to be given.
Mr. Katayama asked if a GE tax license can represent multiple sources of income,how
do they prove that there was income derived from a particular TVR rental if it is co-mingled.
Ms.Nishimitsu explained there are rental registers that are kept for each rental property. When
asked by Mr. Katayama if those registers had been submitted,Ms.Nishimitsu stated that she was
not representing the applicants until the death of Mrs. Bouchard, and would have to consult with
the attorney for the estate. 'Mr.Katayama pointed out that in the stipulated decision and order, it
is mentioned that the requirements have been satisfied to which Ms.Nishimitsu stated the
payment for the 2013 renewal would not have been processed unless the information had been
part of the packet.
In response to Mr. Katayama's question,Mr. Dahilig stated the applicants have met the
minimum requirements for a renewal. Mr. Katayama then asked if the Department had
ascertained that the GE tax filed was relevant to the TVR activity. Mr. Dahilig stated that
highlights one of the weaknesses in the law as far as what is required for renewal, and will be
discussed with the Commission later in the agenda.
Page 129
There was extensive discussion between Ms. Mendonca,Mr. Kimura, and Mr. Jung on
who is responsible for the continuation of the TVR if the estate is in probate, and how the
Department will know who will ultimately be responsible for the TVR rental, and the
requirements to maintain the use. Mr. Jung explained the probate process, and where the
responsibilities lie. No matter how much they speculate, at the end of the day,the Ordinance
requires renewal, and whoever inherits the property through probate or purchase should do their
due diligence to continue the use should they choose to do so.
Mr. Kimura stated that there has to be a name for them to approve a renewal to which Mr.
Jung stated it is the certificate that gets renewed. Ms.Nishimitsu stated that as soon as she gets a
court order appointing the co-personal representatives, she will submit it to the Planning
Department. Mr.Kimura noted that having the renewal is one thing,but he would like to have a
name documented with the permit for legal issues that may occur in the future. He suggested
they put this on hold until they get a name, and asked if the Department can legally work with
what Ms.Nishimitsu is saying.
Mr. Dahilig stated that in situations involving probates, which can take from weeks to
years to resolve,there are a number of factors outside of the Department's control. If a condition
to monitor name changes,because of probate issues, should be imposed he suggested it be
approved over the objection of the Planning Department because it proposes a very unusual
requirement for implementation as probate is a self-actuating circumstance. He clarified that he
would like to raise an objection if such a condition is proposed.
Mr. Kimura asked if the Department can work with a no-name applicant to which Mr.
Dahilig replied that they work with the last known address and name on record,which is what is
done in every circumstance that involves successor parties. He reiterated that Ms.Nishimitsu
would contact the Department once the court determines the appropriate agent,but in the interim
the point of contact is the trustees of the estate, which is sufficient under the CZO. Mr.Kimura
stated his concern is for the protection of the County in the event that something should happen,
but he does not have a problem with it if the Department feels they can work with it.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC4235(FMK No. 5-8-08:045),the motion carried by
roll call vote:
5 Ayes(lsobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
(The meeting recessed at 3:32 p.m.)
(The meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m.)
Page 130
`Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by David Andrighetto
Concerning Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-5062(TMK No. 4-8-7:
004) (Contested Case No. CC-2013-15)
Mr.Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the appellant,was present.
Mr. Texeira requested since all of the following items are similar in nature that the
Director inform the Commission of any differences of note to which Mr. Katayama replied that
because the Commission is adjudicating between the two parties, it is incumbent upon them to do
their due diligence in hearing the decision and order for each case.
Mr. Chun added that items 1 through 12 are strictly based on the time period, and late
payment,noting that most of these applicants received their letters in the mail after the July 31,
2013 deadline.
In response to Mr. Katayama;Mr. Dahilig stated the Department agrees that the applicant
has evidenced compliance based on Ordinance 904, and the TVR has met the standards of law
for being eligible for renewal.
There was discussion between Ms.Mendonca, Mr.Kimura, and Mr. Dahilig on how to
address the timelines for renewals in the future;there will be discussion on prospective rules to
that effect.
Mr. Chun added the applicants felt that rather than fighting the procedural issues;it's
better to work on an agreement with the Department right now, get that taken care of, and then
let the Department work on its rules to prevent this from happening again in the future.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by John Isobe to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-5062 (TMK No. 4-8-7: 004) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-15),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake, Texeira, Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Sally Reed Concerning Non-
renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-I021 (TMK:No. 5-510: 035) (Contested
Case No. CC-2013-18)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant,was present.
In response to Mr. Katayama's question on the renewal being a two year lapse,Mr. Chun
explained that the applicant submitted renewal applications and payments in 2010, and 2011,but
Page 131
did not hear from the Department;he worked with them for two years to determine the status of
the renewals, and what was holding them up. He was told by the Department that it had to do
with the designation of one of the rooms as a store room on the plans,which was actually being
used as a bedroom. The room itself was properly constructed with a building permit, but had an
incorrect designation. Mr. Chun stated they were working with the Planning Department to
determine what needed to be done. In 2012, Ms. Reed again approached the Planning
Department to inquire what needed to be done, and she was told to just submit the application
without payment because the Department had her previously submitted checks, and once she
passes inspection, they will ask her for the payment. This is what she did, and then received a
letter that she paid her renewal application late. They have discussed this with the Department
and feels they have gotten things figured out; the applicant would like to clean things up, and be
recognized as a proper TVR.
Mr. Katayama asked what the status is of the 2010 and 2011 issue to which Mr. Dahilig
stated 2010 has been renewed, and they have been able to clarify the 2011 and 2012 issue as
stated in the stipulated decision and order.
Mr. Isobe asked if Mr. Chun's summary is accurate in terms of what the Department has
done. Mr. Dahilig replied that based on his understanding of the situation,there was
miscommunication on what needed to be presented to the Department,which he thinks is the
reason that checks were not cashed. This is protocol that has changed in that they either
immediately return the check,or cash it and issue a reimbursement later; In-house fiscal
management changes have taken place.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-1021 (TMK: No. 5-510: 035) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-18),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Anneal the Decision of the Planning Director by Charles Weimar Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-I093 (TMK No. 5-5-10: 089)
(Contested Case No. CC-2013-19)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant,was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-I093 (TMK No. 5-5-10: 089) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-19),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Page 132
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Namhee Han Gilhuly
Concerning Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-4237 (TMK No. 5-5-2:
112) (Contested Case No. CC-2013-20)
Mr.Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun,on behalf of the applicant,was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-4237(TMK No.5-5-2: 112) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-20),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Gene Barldn Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-4228 (TMK No. 1-6-6:006)
(Contested Case No.CC-2013-21)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant,was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-4228 (TMK No. 1-6-6: 006) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-21),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira;Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Ilona Coffey Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-5029 (ex-2385)(TMK No. 2-6-6:
033) (Contested Case No. CC-2013-22)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun,on behalf of the applicant,was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-5029 (ex-2385) (TMK No.2-6-6: 033) (Contested
Case No.CC-2013-22),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Page 133
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Lori Narshun Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-5065 (TMK No. 4'-8-13: 002)
(Contested Case No. CC-2013-24)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant,was present.
Mr. Katayama asked who Dean Ishii is to which Mr. Chun replied Mr. Ishii is a previous
owner who originally filed the renewal prior to selling the property.
Mr. Katayama asked for clarification that this is for an untimely filing of the 2012
renewal to which Mr. Chun replied yes,under the previous owner;however the 2013 renewal
was timely filed by the new owner.
Mr. Dahilig added given the new cash management protocols, checks are cashed to
secure the funds on behalf of the County,but receipts are stamped with the disclaimer that
cashing of any check is not evidence of the Department assenting to a renewal application.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-5065 (TMK No.4-8-13: 002) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-24),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent(Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Mark&Diane Daniells
Concerning Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-1109 (TMK No. 5-5-4:
023) (Contested Case No. CC-2013-26)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant, was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-U09 (TMK No.5-54: 023) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-26),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent (Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Charlotte Joyce Phoenix
Concerning Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-1253 (TMK No. 2-3-
15: 107)(Contested Case No. CC-2013-31)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant,was present.
Page 134
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-1253 (TMK No.2-345: 107) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-31),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent (Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Joy&James Phoenix
Concerning Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-1252 (TMK No. 2-3-
15: 107) (Contested Case No, CC-2013-32)
Mr.Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant, was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-1252 (TMK No. 2-3-15: 107) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-32),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes(Isobe,Mendonca;Blake,Texeira,Katayama); I Silent (Kimura)
Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Pamela Bittner Concerning
Non-renewal of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC-4216 (TMK No. 1-3-4: 083)
(Contested Case No. CC-2013-38)
Mr. Dahilig read the stipulated decision and order into the record. (On,file)
Jonathan Chun, on behalf of the applicant, was present.
On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
stipulated decision and order for TVNC-4216 (TMK No. 1-3-4: 083) (Contested Case No.
CC-2013-38),the motion carried by roll call vote:
5 Ayes (Isobe,Mendonca,Blake, Texeira,Katayama); 1 Silent (Kimura)
(The meeting recessed at 4:25 p.m.)
(The meeting reconvened at 4:30 p.m.)
Page 135
NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2013-9, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2013-19 and Project Development Use Permit PDU-2013- 17 to construct a retail store facility
approximately 23.200 sq. ft. and 97 off-street marking stalls and Variance Permit V-2013-5 to
deviate from the land coverage requirement within the Omen(0) zoning district,located on
property along the makai side of Kuhi`6 Hig away in Waipouli, directly south of its intersection
with Aleka Loop, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-3-007: 029 & 030, and containing a total
area of 3.571 acres=Niu Pia Land Company,Ltd [Deferred 8113/13 for publication,
Director's Report& Supplemental No, 1 Director's Report received 9/10/13.1
Staff Planner Dale Cua read the Supplemental No. 2 Director's Report into the record.
(On file)
Avery Youn,representing the applicant, stated that many of the concerns raised by
members of the public at today's meeting will be addressed. With Mr. Youn was Pat Cowan,
CVS representative who is also with KZ Development Company;which constructed the Long's
outlet; Bill Brizee of Architects Hawaii who will present the design elements; Jerry Nishek, the
arborist who completed the review on the coconut grove, as well as the Arborist Report; Matt
Fujioka of Wilson Okamoto &Associates who will speak about drainage and traffic; Sam Pratt
of Niu Pia Land Company.,
Mr. Pratt stated Niu Pia is a 50 year old, family owned company, and he represents 30
other owners of the company as President. He gave a brief background of KZ Development, the
company proposing to build the store; they have built more than 20 Long's and CVS stores on
the mainland, and more importantly, 10 other stores in Hawaii on all three of the other counties.
Over the past several months,they have met with community groups,residents, and businesses
to understand and try to address concerns such as drainage,traffic,trees, etc. The developer's
consultant recently appeared before the Kauai County Public Access Open Space and Natural
Resources Preservation Fund Commission on September 26, 2013 meeting to present the
proposed concept, the end result of which was no action was taken by that Commission. On
June 6, 2013,they presented information to the Kauai County Arborist Advisory Committee on
the impact of the proposed development on the existing trees,which are subject to the County's
exceptional tree ordinance originally enacted in 1974. The Committee voted in favor of
recommending the plan for the trees on the property,which includes removing certain trees, and
planting a greater number of trees that currently exist. Niu Pia is in favor of having coconut trees
in the Coconut Plantation Resort area at Waipouli, and feels the plan provided by the developer
and recommended by the Arborist Advisory Committee is suitable.
Mr. Pratt shared that those trees were planted 100 years ago by his great-grandfather, and
many of them are likely at the end of their expected life; there are Arborist reports to that effect.
The property adjacent, and across Aleka Loop had a second Arborist report stating the same.
Earlier in the year,they did appear before the Arborist Advisory Committee to remove 15 dead
exceptional trees, and upon providing a report and plan,they were granted approval to cut down
those trees, and to replant saplings. Recently,they have attempted to trim and prune the existing
trees;however, their normal provider of this service has decided to opt out of trimming the trees
Page 136
due to safety concerns for his staff. They are awaiting a proposal from another agent who has
assured them he will be able to do the trimming,but also made it clear that some of the trees will
likely not be trimmed.
Mr. Pratt noted that this property,as well as all of the Coconut Plantation property,has
been designated for development since the 1960's when their development partner Blackfield
Enterprises announced the development of that area in 1968. In 1972,the property was zoned
for resort development, and the General Plan update cites this property, and the others around it
will be development properties. In former years,both a restaurant and shopping center were
approved,but did not proceed due to hurricanes or financial difficulties. Niu Pia feels this
developer's application is their most likely candidate to go through with the project if granted an
approval.
Mr. Pratt asked to address the Coconut Plantation Association that was brought up
earlier, noting that Association exists solely for the maintenance, security, landscaping, and
lighting for Aleka Loop. It does not do any marketing, and all members pay dues whether the
property is vacant or developed. The roadway is something they have maintained, and in 2003,
they repaved the road due to its poor condition.
Mr. Pratt commented that Long's is now owned by CVS Caremark, which is a large
public corporation. Most of their employees are from the island, and continue to work in the
store; they are our neighbors. The store does a good job of merchandising specific to Hawaii
tastes. Niu Pia supports approval of the permits to construct the Long's Drug store,noting the
proposed use is allowed within the zoning designation, further mentioning they feel the
developer has done what they can to address the communities' concerns to the best of their
ability.
Mr.Texeira asked if Niu Pia's original master plan envisioned a retail store,noting the
reason he is asking is because there is a marketplace concept already in place; why would they
want to put shopping activity outside of that complex. Mr. Pratt stated that Blackfield
Enterprises envisioned a subdivision there. He is unsure they could predict what the area would
be like 50 years later; at this point they feel Long's is a good amenity to the resort area,
providing a shopping area that could prove useful if someone is staying for a length of time.
Mr. Isobe asked if there is a long-term master plan for the area that could be presented to
the Commission so they can see the global impact of what is being contemplated by the
company. Mr. Pratt stated that Niu Pia hardly owns any of the land there anymore, and there is
no master plan except what is currently seen there: the ten properties, the resorts,the shopping
center, and the roadway in between.
Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that aside from the property that is being proposed for
development, the other properties that contain coconut groves are no longer owned by Niu Pia to
which Mr. Pratt replied they do not own the property north of the Courtyard;the property across
Kfdmi`o Highway is owned by Niu Pia, and is currently being licensed out to John Sanchez for
agricultural use.
Page 137
Mr. Isobe asked what Niu Pia's total holdings are in that area to which Mr. Pratt replied
the subject property being discussed today,the grove of trees across the highway, and land under
Kauai Sands and Kauai Beach Resort. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that they do not own the
existing shopping center to which Mr.Pratt replied no.
Mr. Kimura asked if there is a plan in place should they find any bones during the
excavation to which Mr.Youn replied there is an archaeological study included in the packet that
states no bones were found at this site. Mr. Kimura noted that in the past, like when they did the
marketplace, they did find bones. Mr. Youn stated they are prepared for that noting that they
need to follow State law which would require them to stop the minute they find anything,and
report to the Historic Preservation Commission and the Burial Council. They completed the first
step, which is the archaeological study, but they are very familiar with the law and the
procedures they would need to follow. Mr. Kimura shared what he learned from a conference he
attended on the Big Island in that when bones were found, they had already set procedures in
place,so they knew exactly what to do when it occurred. He suggested it be something the -
developers think about setting in place in the event bones are found. Mr.Youn stated he believes
what Mr. Kimura is referencing is a burial preservation plan,which they can look into and add to
the archaeological report.
Mr. Blake asked for clarification on whether the supply trucks would come in on Aleka
road, and if the loading docks would be on the side closer to Plantation Hale to which Mr. Youn
stated correct. Mr. Blake then asked if it were feasible to have the loading docks located on the
Aleka road side. Mr. Youn asked to be allowed to go through the entire presentation first as
many of these questions will be addressed.
Mr. Katayama asked Mr. Pratt to describe the CAM(Common Area Maintenance) fees,
noting it was mentioned by a member of the public that everyone pays for a portion of the
common area. He asked how participation is determined, what is Niu Pia's current portion, and
will that change with the new development. Mr. Pratt replied that the CAM being discussed is
what is paid to the Coconut Plantation Association of which each property is a member, and pays
dues based on the acreage of each property; it does not have anything to do with the use. Those
dues were set over ten years ago and have not changed so far. The association's purpose is to
maintain the roadway,the landscaping in that median, lighting, and security. He does not
anticipate this new development affecting any of that. He mentioned that the security line may
need to be looked at,but noted that the current security does not secure each individual property;
it only secures the common area roadway, and works in conjunction with area sites if something
significant arises. Dues are not paid directly to the association by Plantation Hale owners,but
whatever they pay toward their AOAO(Association of Apartment Owners)ultimately help pay
the Plantation Hale's Coconut Plantation Association dues.
Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that whether the property is developed or not, the fee
assessment based on acreage or square footage will remain to which Mr. Pratt replied yes, it is
part of the title.
Mr.Youn acknowledged that Mr.Isobe asked for a master plan,but noted that this is the
last remaining vacant lot. Aside from the 3 lots mentioned in the staff report that had plans
Page 138
approved, there were two other approvals not mentioned for a total of five approvals within the
coconut grove already;this is the sixth. He noted that the reason Long's wants to relocate is
because their lease will end at the end of November, and they would like to transition into a new
store at that time;however,it may be difficult to meet that with the current timetable. He noted
they had meetings with the Arborist Committee,the Kapa`a Business Association, Coconut
Coast Resort Association,the Wailua Kapa`a Improvement Advisory Committee,Open Space
Commission, as well as agency meetings with Planning,Water,Fire,Public Works, and
Transportation. The same issues regarding traffic, drainage, appropriateness of use at this
location, and preservation of the trees came up at all of these meetings. As much of the
information as possible was taken into consideration, and prompted a redesign of the project,
which is now at its 4a'generation of plan design. Mr.Youn provided an overview of the project
as outlined in the proposal. (On file)
Mr. Katayama asked if there was an overlay of the existing coconut trees to help the
Commission envision the landscape plan,noting that the tree count remains virtually the same,
yet there is a lot of open space, which means they will likely be removing and replacing trees.
Mr. Youn stated the Arborist report has one of the existing surveys, and another of the existing
footprint; however, it's not an overlay.
Mr. Texeira asked for further clarification on the number of trees,noting Mr.Youn stated
there arel03 existing trees there currently,how many trees do they plan to expand to? Mr.Youn
replied 124 coconut trees,which is noted on the landscape plan.
Mr. Kimura asked if the bathrooms shown in the plans will be open to the public,noting
they are located behind the cashier's office. Mr. Cowan explained that it is not in the cashier's
office,but is in an ADA accessible area as with all their stores.
Bill Brizee, President and CEO of Architects Hawaii stated he began working with CVS
and KZ Development about 6 years ago when CVS bought Long's. They initially wanted to
incorporate their prototypical design inHawai`i;but he was able to convince them it was not the
right thing to do; they need to be respectful to the community, and mindful that each island is
different. The design of this store was in tune with doing that. A lot of work went into the
elevation sketches in meeting with the community groups throughout the process, and based the
most recent submittal upon what they thought the community was looking at. The design was
changed several times to reflect a more resortfeel, and the design presented today is based upon
community input. They are attempting to respect some of the existing architecture within the
resort area, trying to screen the building with the coconut grove to give the impression that the
building has always been there. The loading zone initially only had a six foot high wall;
however after the last meeting,they increased the height to eight feet;the loading zone will only
be used only once a week with restricted hours, which should minimize noise. Other deliveries
would go through the front door in the early morning hours before customers get there.
Throughout the design process there were a number of different changes made to the site plan to
address concerns about the location of the loading zone, and the trash dumpsters; a lot of thought
went into the redesign.
Page 139
Mr. Katayama asked if they had designed any other Long's stores in Hawaii to which
Mr. Brizee replied yes, they have; they renovated the stores in Haleiwa and Moili`ili,constructed
one on Maui, and have a store under construction on King Street in Honolulu located in the
Thomas Square design district,which had strict design guidelines. None of the buildings are the
same.
Mr. Katayama asked how they will mitigate sound, and other industrial uses;what kind
of barriers will be used to reduce the impact to the neighbors. Mr. Brizee replied in this case it
is primarily landscaping with a hedge wrapping around the project between the two properties.
Additionally, they have added the eight foot high wall,which will deflect any noise generated
inside the loading dock up and away from the neighboring residential units. They have also
heavily landscaped the eight foot high screen wall to deflect the sound of the vehicles driving in.
Mr. Katayama asked if that has worked at other stores, such as in Mililani where there is
integrated residence. Mr. Brizee replied yes,it has, and they are doing the same on King Street.
Ms.Mendonca noted there are three different designs that have been presented and asked
for clarification on which one was the most recent proposal, and how they got from the first
design to the current design. Mr. Brizee pointed out the different design drawings for
clarification, and explained that the redesign was based on input from the community groups
they met with. Ms. Mendonca stated that many members of the public commented that no
meetings were held,and that the community was not involved. She asked if they could testify
that they did, in fact,hold meetings with the community. Mr. Brizee stated he was present at two
or three of them to which Mr.Youn added the managers of Plantation Hale were at three of the
meetings: the Coconut Coast Resort meeting,the Wailua Kapa`a Improvement Advisory
Committee meeting,which many of the public testifiers present today were at, and the Kapa`a
Business Association meeting at which more managers were in attendance. Ms. Mendonca
questioned that from those meetings they came up with the current design, stating the reason for
her inquiry being there were comments on the big box design of the store,noting the big
difference in size from the first design to the current one. Mr. Brizee clarified that it is the
outcome of the meetings and the input given during the design process, as well as staff from
CVS, and the County;meetings were held with the Planning Department as well.
Mr. Dahilig confirmed that they did meet with the architects as part of the pre-
consultation process at which time the Department raised concerns about the building looking
like a monolith along the highway,as well as concerns about the placement of the drive-through
pharmacy window being along the highway. Mr. Brizee noted the community groups had
similar concerns.
Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that the south exterior elevation is facing toward Llhu`eto
which Mr. Youn pointed out the positioning of the building. At the request of Mr. Isobe, Mr,
Youn pointed out and provided explanation on the sound barring walls,and landscaping.
Jerry Nishek of Kauai Nursery and Landscaping,and arborist for this project,provided
information on the landscape design intended to provide sound and visual barriers for the loading
dock area. A screening hedge will also be put in around the perimeter of the project to block the
view of the parking lot from the road, and planters along the walls of the buildings will help
Page 140
break up the fagade of the building and help screen the project from both the highway and
Plantation Hale. There are currently 82 coconut trees that are over 100 years old, and his
concern with the trees remaining there is at some point they will die, creating a liability issue.
There were cases on Oahu where trees fell and injured or killed people. He noted that the Aloha
Arborist Association of Hawaii recommends that trees over 65 feet in height should be replaced
with new trees. He explained that only half of the original 160 trees that were in this grove
remain, and there are many in decline. His major concern is that the tops of the trees could fall
off, causing major damage to anything beneath it,or potentially injuring or killing someone. He
is in favor of establishing a new grove, and maintaining the exceptional grove of trees,which the
owner has agreed to do.
Mr. Blake stated that some trees are over 65 feet tall, and the plan is to replace many of
those with new trees that will take a fair amount of time to grow that high;therefore,there will
be different levels of trees when looking at the coconut grove to which Mr. Nishek replied
correct. Mr. Blake asked if it would be feasible to grow Samoan coconut trees to ensure they
will remain at a certain height thereby lessening liability, and offering ease of maintenance. Mr.
Nishek replied yes, it is possible,but the lifespan of those coconut trees are only 70 years;tall
coconut trees have a lifespan of over 100 years. Mr.Nishek also noted that Samoan coconut
trees grow so slow that they do not achieve the height to provide the majestic coconut tree look
that visitors like to see.
Ms. Mendonca asked in their proposal to maintain the coconut trees,if there is an
emergency such as a hurricane, are they agreeing to replace every tree that may be damaged.
Mr. Cowan stated he does not have a definite answer,but ensured the Commission that CVS is
insured, and have always been highly participative during disaster events to get stores open right
away, and support the communities' needs. He noted the tree ordinance will likely require them
to replace them, and he has no doubt they will do so,but he has not specifically asked what they
would do in such a storm event. Mr. Cowan also noted that CVS is very aware of the ordinance
on the trees, and are increasing the number of trees as well as agreeing to maintain them forever
as part of the ordinance. It is a big statement as to why they feel the trees are important to the
community,and CVS does not take it lightly. Ms. Mendonca asked if any trees damaged during
the construction would be replaced to which Mr.Cowan replied yes, further noting the Planning
Department would inspect the project upon completion and ensure every tree is there.
Mr.Nishek added that very few trees died as a result of the two hurricanes we had,noting
that coconut trees are wind resistant, and those that did suffer damage were eventually revived;
coconut trees are very resilient.
Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that CVS will maintain, and continue a perpetual
replacement program for the trees they will put in place,to which Mr. Cowan replied yes. Mr.
Isobe wants to make sure that is a condition of the permit approvals.
Mr. Dahilig stated the Department is charged with maintenance of trees in a grove, and
noted that should this project move forward as it is,he would consider the newly planted trees as
part of the protected status that the grove designation carries;perpetual maintenance should be
clearly addressed as part of the permit conditions. He explained that if a tree dies a natural death,
Page 141
there is nothing compulsory that requires them to replace it under County Code;however, any
man-made action that kills off a tree is a violation of the grove's protected status. He does not
interpret the new trees or new plantings as part of the protected grove.
Mr. Isobe stated there are two parts to his concern: First,he wants to ensure the newly
planted grove is still.part of the exceptional tree status,noting that it will be a new grove; second,
the current ordinance does not require the land owner to continue to perpetuate trees that die off,
but he is hearing that CVS has agreed to continue to maintain and replace the trees regardless of
the requirements of the current ordinance as a condition of approval. Mr. Dahilig noted that the
second concern will need to be outlined very clearly as a condition of approval if that is what the
Commission desires. To address the question about whether the new plantings will be
considered part of the grove,his interpretation of the term"maintain"in the ordinance would
include replacement of the trees to maintain the integrity of the grove.
Mr. Isobe wished to clarify that as part of the exceptional tree ordinance, there is a
description filed with the County Clerk's office of how many trees, and where each tree is
located. He assumes that when this application is done,the re-described grove will become part
of the exceptional tree ordinance. Mr. Dahilig clarified that if the Commission were to move
forward on this application with the proposed condition to perpetual replacement of the trees, an
administrative approval still needs to go through the Arborist Committee for review, and
presentation of required documents.
Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that based on discussions about permits running with the
land, anyone who may acquire this land in the future would be tied to these conditions to which
Mr. Jung replied yes.
Mr. Youn stated that his interpretation of perpetuity is recording it as a deed restriction,
noting that the applicant has agreed that it can be included in the application,which would take it
one step further than the exceptional tree ordinance.
Mr. Texeira asked if they anticipate having more visitors as opposed to residents coming
to the store because of the change in location to which Mr. Youn replied he doesn't think so, and
commented that if it's not a Long's,it will be a 74 unit condo, or a 148 unit hotel; those are the
other options based on existing zoning. Mr.Youn also added that the drive-through will
generate demand as there are many good reasons for having it; for the elderly,mothers with
babies, and those who may have difficulty getting out of the car.
Mr. Texeira asked if the drive-through is strictly for pharmaceutical products,or for other
items. Mr. Cowan stated the drive-through is specific to the pharmacy, and is for the drop-off
and pick-up of prescriptions.
Matthew Fujioka, licensed Civil Engineer and Project Manager at Wilson Okamoto
Corporation gave an overview of the traffic report. (On file)
In reference to the validity of doing a one day traffic count, Mr. Fujioka explained there
is much more to it than just that one day count, noting they had to choose a day that was a typical
Page 142
day void of major events, construction,or accidents. Beyond that day, their traffic engineers
have done numerous reports for this area over the last few years, and are aware of what is typical
and appropriate. To address questions on whether improvements such as a left turn lane are
warranted,he explained that there are riot enough people that would be inconvenienced to
warrant such improvements at this time. Upon completion of the project,they are required to
monitor project-generated traffic. If any improvements related to the project are required,they
will attempt to mitigate the problem. From a regional standpoint,Mr. Fujioka stated Long's is
not a store that would prompt someone from Po`ipu to go to shop,therefore, it would be mostly
local commuters accessing the store. In reference to the comment about people using Aleka
Loop as a bypass during peak traffic hours,he stated that issue cannot be addressed specific to
this project; it is something that will occur regardless of the project, and feels the same goes for
Kuhi`o Highway traffic.
Ms.Mendonca.stated her concern that turning left out of the property is very dangerous,
and will potentially cause accidents that can hold up traffic for hours,which is already a big
problem when people try and exit left out of Coconut Marketplace. Where Long's is currently
located has the benefit of a strectlight. Mr. Fujioka stated that is one of the reasons CVS has
agreed to do a follow-up traffic report once the store is established to reanalyze the traffic
patterns.
Mr. Katayama asked for clarification on the table of traffic operating conditions on page
15 of the Traffic Impact Report;how do they interpret A,B, and C? Mr. Fujioka stated it is
similar to a grading scale in school where C is satisfactory, and provided an explanation of Table
1 Mr. Katayama asked for clarification relatable to a driver on the road as they are not traffic
engineers and have difficulty interpreting the information contained in the table.
Ms. Mendonca reiterated that under normal circumstances,making a left turn is
problematic, and if there is an accident,it will jam things up. Mr.Cowan replied that the State of
Hawaii has established standards that the engineers follow that look at service level of that
intersection under normal conditions. The traffic report has determined that taking a left or right
would be acceptable because the traffic does not fall below a"C". Long's would love to have a
full signalized intersection as it would be the best thing for their customers, and ensure safety.
They have expressed to the Department of Transportation that they are willing to invest in a
share of that, or even more;however the State will not allow it at that location because the
service level according to their standards doesn't require it. The State's concern is to push cars
along the highway;and they worry that the signal light will stop cars and slow traffic even more.
Mr. Cowan noted that they will re-test it again after a year, at their own expense,because CVS
wants a signal light there. Currently, the only thing the State is requiring is a right turn lane to
pull cars out of the main flow of traffic to turn into Long's;they will not allow any other
improvements to the intersection.
Mr. Katayama asked if the projected development has been comprehended in the traffic
study to which Mr.Youn stated that this proposed project as well as the other two across the
street have been considered in this traffic study. Mr. Katayama again asked for an explanation of
what A, B, and C means in Table 3 of the traffic study.
Page 143
1
Mr. Fujioka provided an overview of the Drainage Report. (On file)
In reference to concerns raised about the flood event in March 2012 that flooded the
coconut grove, Mr. Fujioka stated that was not a normal storm event,but based on photos and
videos of the flooding,they used that elevation to ensure they would design enough storage to
handle a flood of that magnitude.
Mr. Kimura stated for clarification that they will be putting in three ponds that will hold
all of this water to which Mr. Fujioka stated yes,they used topographic surveying to determine
existing capacity.
(The meeting recessed at 6:30 p.m.)
(The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Cowan stated that the resulting design for drainage will hold significantly more water
than it does today. They have also agreed to set the finished floor at the same level,if not below,
as the adjacent floor of Plantation Hale in response to concerns by its residents. He stated there
will be no impact from their project on any of the adjacent properties with respect to worsening
drainage;it will only improve. He noted it is more than what the County would require,but they
are doing it anyway to try and mitigate the negative effects of their project to any other property
around them.
Mr. Kimura asked what the current water level is during both low and high tide to which
Mr. Fujioka stated it is about 2—2 %z feet around the site at the highest point of the water table;
they want to ensure they stay at least 6 inches to a foot above that. Mr. Kimura asked if that
measurement was taken during high tide to which Mr. Cowan stated he did not know,but the
local geologist that they worked with has expertise in that area in particular. He further
mentioned that the reason it ponds so badly there is because water does not absorb into the
ground,which is the reason they need to create these basins. Mr. Kimura asked if Engineering
has already submitted their comments on that to which Mr. Cowan explained that this application
is currently in the planning phase, and that the detailed calculations submitted to Public Works
happens during the permitting process;however,their design is based on the required
parameters. Mr.Kimura wished to clarify that the drainage plan cannot be started until Public
Works gives the okay.
Mr. Dahilig explained that Engineering still needs to review the final grading and
grubbing plans,which will likely require a permit due to the volume of dirt being removed.
There will be a secondary check as they go through the Building plans review process.
Mr. Fujioka added that they had a preliminary meeting with Public Works to address the
concerns regarding drainage.
Page 144
Mr. Blake asked if the ponds will overflow into the ocean when full to which Mr. Fujioka
replied if the basins should overfill,what would happen is what happens in the current existing
conditions where water runs across Aleka Loop toward the ocean. Mr. Blake stated for
clarification that there are no provisions for it to drain into the ocean, and it would just have to
evaporate to which Mr. Fujioka stated it would just have to evaporate or diminish through
seepage. Mr. Cowan added that it is a retention system,not a system with pipes that lead
elsewhere.
Mr, Isobe asked how deep the retention ponds are to which Mr. Fujioka replied the
deepest one is 3 —3 '/1 feet.
Ms. Mendonca asked if the ground level of where they are planning to build is at the
same level as the Coconut Marketplace to which Mr. Cowan explained they do not survey
properties that far away to determine design solutions. Ms. Mendonca asked them to take a
guess to which Mr. Cowan stated he knows there is a general flow of water from the south to the
north in that area, and the reason their property retains so much water is many of the other
properties south of them drain into their property.
In response to Ms.Mendonca's question, Mr. Cowan explained that the building will be
brought up to a location where it won't flood. Ms. Mendonca stated that an educated guess
would determine that their facility would be at a higher level than the Coconut Marketplace to
which Mr. Cowan replied he thinks it would be lower because the water flows from their site to
the proposed Long's site. Ms. Mendonca asked if they are aware that with minimal rain,the
Coconut Marketplace area floods to which Mr. Cowan stated he is unaware of that, and they
have no involvement in that project;Ms. Mendonca stated it does.
In looking at that site map,the greenbelt area along the highway as well as the parking lot
and building footprint will eventually drain to the retention ponds,and if the retention basins
overflow,Mr.Isobe asked if it will flow across the roadway towards the northern side of Aleka
Loop which would then flow into this project;Mr.Fujioka replied yes. Mr. Cowan added in a
worst case scenario,that's what would happen, which is what has currently been happening;it
would not flow onto the highway.
Mr. Isobe asked assuming the retention basins do fill up,how long would it take before
they dry out again to which Mr. Fujioka stated based on percolation tests,it will not drain fast,
but will rely on evaporation. The rate of evaporation will be dependent on the weather.
Mr. Blake asked if the parking areas will be permeable to which Mr.Fujioka replied they
are currently just paved asphalt,not permeable pavement. Mr.Cowan noted that permeable
pavement is a controversial topic in civil engineering because of findings that it only works fora
short period of time, as well as questions on how to address oils and contaminants that get into
the permeability;it is not a recommended practice.
In response to Mr.Katayama,Mr. Fujioka explained how they calculated the cubic feet
per second flow, and the capacity of the retention system. Mr. Katayama noted that major
flooding in that area seems to happen frequently, and asked if rather than making larger retention
Page 145
basins to contain the water, could there possibly be more creative solutions to address that issue
considering there are other high-density projects in the works that will likely increase the amount
of runoff. Mr. Cowan stated one solution, as is happening with their project, is for others to do
more than what is required in making their property contain their own runoff.
Mr. Katayama asked if all the retention ponds were sequential where when one fills up it.
is able to be distributed among the other ponds, or is it focused on certain key areas. Mr. Fujioka
stated the ponds are all intended to function as one big pond.
Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that the property owners next door are concerned about
their property flooding due to this development, and he wants to ensure that the drainage plan
will not push any water toward Plantation Hale, which would increase flooding in their area.
Additionally, the water along the highway will also drain toward the retention basins. If they
modeled the plan based on the 2012 flood,most if not all of that water will be able to be retained
in the basins without overflowing,and impacting surrounding properties.
Mr. Cowan asked Mr. Fujioka if the chance of Plantation Hale being flooded will be
lessened with the construction of this project. Mr. Fujioka replied yes,but cautioned that there
are many factors to consider. Mr.. Cowan added there's no guarantee that a property won't flood.
Mr. Cowan thanked the Commission and the community. He stated they listened to the
community, and made significant changes directly in response to the community's concerns;that
is the commitment the company has. This project will provide services that are not available in
many places, and will be a great amenity to this community,offering enhanced merchandise and
services such as a drive-through pharmacy, which is not possible at the existing site. He also
noted that Long's will be purchasing the property which reflects their long-term commitment.
Mr. Cowan stated an archaeological study was done on the property to look for bones and
other artifacts. The archaeologist dug 20 trenches,outlined them, and wrote a 100 page report
that has been submitted to the State for review;this occurred before the design phase even
started. They have run into archaeological issues on past projects, and know how to deal with
them.
Mr. Cowan stated he is the only person working on this project that isn't from Hawaii.
They only hire designers and contractors from Hawaii to do the work,which has been a policy
of their company from the very beginning. They have also been loyal to the unions and
organized labor. That same standard would be applied to this project, and they will not bring
companies from the mainland to do any of the work; this would be a project that requires and
encourages local hiring, and will bid local'Kaua`i companies. This has proved to be positive and
beneficial to all.
Mr. Cowan referenced an earlier comment about using a different species of tree, and
stated the Arborist Committee insisted that they use the same species to maintain the grove.
Additionally,they asked if the seedlings could be obtained from the immediate,local area,which
prompted their landscape architect and arboristto make arrangement with the Coco Palms resort
to obtain seedlings from the trees on that property. He noted that the landscape architect and
Page 146
design team for this project is the same team that built the Kukui`ula project,which he feels is a
great looking,well received project. This will probably be the nicest, most expensive Long's in
the State,having the best landscaping of any of the projects;which is something to be proud of,
and is a significant investment. Mr. Cowan stated that he feels it was very important that the
community worked with them to discuss their concerns, and expressed his appreciation for the
support they have received.
Ms. Mendonca revisited the issue on traffic, asking if the restrictions imposed by the
State Department of Transportation are available in writing for the Commission to see to which
Mr. Fujioka stated at this point they have only had meetings with them. They will still need to
submit plans to install the deceleration lane into Aleka Loop at which time there will be written
documentation being exchanged:
Mr. Texeira asked how the relocation of Long's will be affected by another company
similar to Long's moving into their former location at the shopping'center; are they prepared for
competition? Mr. Cowan stated he is not the person that researches that aspect of the project,but
he knows that Long's is very aware of the possibility of competition.
Mr.Katayama stated that it was mentioned that there will be only one container a week
being delivered. Mr. Cowan stated the very large 40 foot container trucks will be only once a
week; smaller deliveries will happen daily, and they have agreed to the restriction of no
deliveries on Sunday, or before 8:00 a.m. on any day of the week. Mr. Katayama asked how
trash pick-up will be handled to which Mr. Cowan stated there are four or five trash
enclosures/containers adjacent to their property;he is unsure of when trash pick-up occurs via
local trash carrier,but they would expect to be on the regular schedule. Once they are in
operation,they shouldn't be generating that much trash.
Mr. Dahilig stated that much of the testimony received focused on the determination of
the use;however, he noted that per the application,there is no use permit for review. He
explained the Department's analysis on how they directed the applicants on what permits were
necessary, and why a use permit is not necessary in this case. This particular parcel is within the
resort district, and Section 8-4 of the County Code outlines permitted uses and structures within
the resort districts, as well as what uses and structures require a use permit. Section 8-4.3 shows
a table of 22 uses that are generally permitted,one of which is Retail Food and Drug Shops (8-
4.3 (19). Using Section 8-4.4 as a starting point of the analysis,he read the list of uses requiring
a use permit. (County Code)
Mr. Dahilig stated that nowhere in the use list is the word"store"used instead of"shop",
and there have been several assertions by the public that retail"shops"was in the use table; as
noted in the Code, no such phrase is included in the list of uses that require a use permit.
Mr.Kimura asked what is considered a shopping center to which Mr. Dahilig stated it is a
structure that is used to have more than one tenant. In this circumstance, it is a single tenant
occupying a single structure. Going back to Section 8-4.3, he read the list of generally permitted
resort uses and structures. (County Code)
Page 147
The Department has identified that item(19)Retail Food and Drug Shops applies to this
project. If the applicant had been proposing a Long's Drug store along with an adjacent Baskin
and Robbins ice cream shop,it would be considered a shopping center which would require a use
pem-tit. He reiterated that this is a single tenant that is providing drugs,and is a generally
permitted use.
Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that the proposed use is a generally permitted use within
the resort district, and as a result is consistent with the proposed zoning to which Mr. Dahilig
replied yes; it is consistent with the proposed zoning to the degree that it requires no use permit.
Mr. Texeira asked for an explanation on what is considered"food"to which Mr. Dahilig
stated the Code has no actual definition on the word"food". Mr. Katayama stated he believes it
is packaged food as opposed to service food;restaurant food as opposed to canned or packaged
foods.
Mr. Texeira asked when it says "drug shop", where do toiletries,cosmetics,jewelry, etc.
come in. Mr. Dahilig stated they have those discussions in the Department daily, and have to fit
things in the 22 categories listed under Section 8-4.3;there's no formula to determine what
percentage of food and drug you provide puts you in that category. However,the Department is
confident that this project fits under Section 8-4.4(19).
Mr. Blake asked given the listed uses, can you have an operation that combines five or
six of these as long as it remains one tenant to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes.
In response to Mr. Katayama's question on lot coverage,Mr. Dahilig explained the resort
district has a number of uses that can also be found in commercial,residential, and agricultural
districts. Referencing the County Code,he explained that because this is a commercial use, there
is a higher lot coverage allowance than a residential type of use. Mr. Cua read the lot coverage
requirements noted in the Supplemental No. 2 report(Page 2, item 4). Mr. Dahilig read Section
8-4.5 (d) of the County Code, further explaining the reason for the higher allowance for lot
coverage.
Mr. Isobe asked if when this item comes backup for review, can the variance permit be
deleted to avoid confusion and additional discussion as it is no longer applicable. Mr. Dahilig
also noted that the Project Development Use Permit is also stricken as a result of the lot
coverage.
Mr. Cua read the Department's recommendations for the project.(On file)'
Mr. Texeira referenced Condition 2,noting it states replacement of the existing grove,
and the applicant spoke of having 103 trees on the property with plans to expand the tree
plantings to total 145. Mr. Cowan stated that 21 of those are seedlings,therefore they did not
want to represent those as new trees,but ultimately there will be 145 trees. Mr. Texeira asked
why the number of trees is not represented in the condition to which Mr. Dahilig stated the
landscape architectural plan represents how the facility will be constructed; however if the
Corrmiission is more comfortable having the exact number of trees included in the condition, that
Page 148
language can be added. Mr:Cowan suggested it read to the effect of when the project opens, the
total number of coconut trees will total 145. Mr. Isobe would prefer they state "not less than".
Mr. Isobe asked to add language to specify what the hours of operation will be to which
Mr. Cowan agreed to; the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. In response
to Mr. Katayama and Mr. Kimura's question on holiday hours, Ms. Fujita stated they will not
have any special holiday hours.
Mr.Kimura asked what time the employees leave as that would be the time the gate is
closed. Mr. Cowan stated employees will be on premises almost all the time, working late after
store closing, and early prior to opening for stocking,bookwork,etc. The store will be open to
the public from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week,just as it is now; they are fine with
having that as a restriction.
Mr.Dahilig stated he is in receipt of an email from Mr. Youn regarding the store's
operating hours which noted store hours as 9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. on weekends. Mr. Cowan
stated that what Mr.Youn presented was an error, noting that sometimes the pharmacy will close
earlier, which is likely where Mr.Youn took that information from. Mr. Cowan clarified that
Long's will be open from 7:00 a.m.— 10:00 p.m. seven days a week.
Mr.Kimura asked to clarify that the gates would not be locked from 7:00 a.m.—10:00
p.m. to which Mr. Cowan commented that they have no problem with locking the gate;however,
there will be employees needing to come in and out requiring them to open and close the gate,
which poses a logistical issue. He can ensure that when the last employee leaves,they will lock
the gate, and when the first employee arrives,they will open the gate; at that point there will be
employees present in the store, and the security system and cameras will be on. Mr. Kimura
asked if an hour before opening and an hour after closing would be sufficient to which Mr.
Cowan replied he feels they would need more than that. He is okay with the condition as it is
written, and has informed the operations staff of it,but it does pose a logistical problem; if there
is away to modify that condition, he would suggest it state the gate will be locked at midnight,
and not opened until 6:00 a.m.,which would give them time to stock at the end of the day, and
before they open. He feels the intent of the Plantation Hale residents was based on the concern
that no one will be in the store, and the parking lot will be left open for loiterers;however there
will be employees present when the gates are open.
Mr. Texeira asked if there are kids drinking in the parking lot until 11:00 at night,how
will that be monitored and taken care of to which Ms. Fujita replied an employee would ask them
to leave, and if they do not, the police will be called. Mr. Texeira asked who would ask them to
leave, noting it may be dangerous and perhaps security should be asked to assist. Ms. Fujita
replied the manager on duty would do so, and Mr. Cowan added that store managers deal with
those types of situations all the time, and it is part of their training. Should they be unable to
handle a particular situation, the police would be called; Ms. Fujita stated the same.
Mr. Kimura asked if Condition 3.c. could be modified to state that security patrol will
start at 10:00 p.m. to ensure while the employees are inside the store there is roving security
present. Mr. Cowan stated that they will not be having full-time security in the parking lot,
Page ( 49
noting that they do not currently have any issues at the store. Mr. Kimura noted the condition
states that roving patrols after hours of operation will be provided to which Mr. Dahilig replied
the key phrase is "roving"meaning that there will be contracted security personnel that will
move among all their contracted parcels. If there is any illicit activity going on, there are
protocols to address issues of life safety.
Mr. Isobe asked for clarification on how the security is being handled after hours. Will it
be by the manager, or the roving security? Mr. Cowan explained there is a manager on duty that
will try and deal with it;if they run into a problem,police will be called. After midnight there
will be a roving security service that will check the parking lot periodically as there will be no
manager on duty from midnight to 6:00 a.m.
Mr. Blake referenced Condition 10, and asked if it would be appropriate to add that a
second traffic study will be conducted within a certain amount of time after the store is open.
Mr. Cowan stated that they have agreed to do that as was recommended by the traffic engineer,
and is stated in the Traffic Impact Report. Mr. Dahilig suggested additional language be
included to state that as represented, a second traffic study shall be conducted within one year
after certificate of occupancy has been issued to determine if a traffic signal is warranted, and
present the report to the Department of Transportation. If and when a signal is warranted,
applicant shall be responsible for pro rata costs. Mr. Blake asked if storage lanes and turn-off
lanes are already part of the application to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes.
Mr. Cowan commented that he can represent on behalf of the applicant that they would
agree to all the conditions with one exception, which is on Condition 2.relating to the deed
restriction. As he is not the property owner,he does not have the authority to accept that;
however, he can get back to the Comrission within 48 hours with an answer. He feels they will
agree to it, but he cannot commit them,to deed restrictions on a property without running it by
their attorney. He clarified that all the other conditions can be agreed to right now. Mr. Dahilig
stated that Condition 2 is very critical to the Commission, and stated that the permit can be
approved with objection on Condition 2. If it is objected to by the applicant, it is not interpreted
as consent by the applicant,which leaves a period of time for the condition to be revisited, or
challenged; if the condition is okay, the permit condition would be enforced as is. Mr. Cowan
stated he could accept it subject to final legal approval by CVS.
W. Isobe asked for an explanation on the meaning of Condition 7 to which W. Dahilig
replied the Department is asking for annual status reports for the period between approval and
complete construction of the project, which would include how the trees will be handled,
replanting progress,and that the Department will forward that report to the Arborist Advisory
Committee. Mr. Isobe asked if they could include clarifying language to state what the annual
status report will contain to which Mr.Dahilig replied yes. Mr.Isobe stated for clarification that
the annual report is specifically about the trees, not about the project, and asked to clarify that it
is not the Arborist Advisory Committee's role to deny what is presented,and it is purely for
information. The language Mr. Dahilig has written is to state the applicant shall provide an
annual status report to the Arborist Advisory Committee on the progress of tree location,
planting,replanting, and implementation of the landscape plan. W. Isobe stated for clarification
that the requirement for annual reporting would end once it is determined the project is complete.
Page 150
i
Mr.Cowan referenced Condition 5, and asked if the project has already been reviewed
against these guidelines to which Mr. Dahilig stated it is one final design review to ensure that
what the design elements show are what is being built,and if there are changes the Department
must ensure those elements are consistent with the General Plan for the area. Mr. Cowan stated
that for him to agree to that condition,he would like to ask whether the Department feels the
design submitted so far is in compliance to the best of their knowledge. Mr.Dahilig stated yes,
at this point in time.
Mr. Katayama asked if Condition 3.e. could be more definitive or descriptive to deter
litigation to which Mr. Jung explained that the condition would be mitigated through the
Department of Public Works Engineering Division requirements for drainage improvements.
Mr.Dahilig summarized all the changes made to the conditions thus far.
Mr. Cowan stated that he looked at the tree chart again to clarify the number of trees, and
explained that there are 21 seedlings being planted next to 21 of the old trees being saved,which
would leave 124 trees after those trees die. He requested to change the number of trees in
Condition 2 to not less than 124.
Ms.Mendonca noted that the applicant has stated his support for Kauai workers, and
requested this be written into the conditions to which Mr. Kimura stated they cannot force
anyone to hire who the Commission suggests. Mr. Jung clarified that statement. Ms. Mendonca
stated she has seen language to that effect to which Mr.Jung replied there is language that has
historically been used,but is prefaced with the language stating"to the best extent possible".
There is really"no teeth''"to that as it is more an encouragement as opposed to a mandatory
requirement,but it can be added if the Commission wishes. Ms. Mendonca stated that in this
case, since the applicant has offered, it won't hurt to include it. Mr. Jung stated it can be
included as long as the prefaced language is included as well. Mr. Dahilig asked if the applicant
would be opposed to a condition that reads"to the extent possible, applicant is encouraged to
utilize Kauai based contractors and labor to construct the project"to which the applicant agreed.
Mr. Isobe stated he truly supports the intent of that condition,but he has some reservations about
it because he does not want it to become a point of contention down the road as to what was
considered the applicant's best effort.
Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department would recommend Conditions 1 - 13, and
Condition 14 can be proposed as a separate amendment to the conditions that can be voted on by
the Commission.
(The meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m.)
(The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Dahilig distributed the amended Conditions.
Page 151
Mr. Cowan stated that the applicant has received all of the conditions, and accepted all of
them with a technical objection to the second paragraph of Condition 2 relating to the deed
restriction as he does not have the authority to agree to it.
Mr. Isobe noted he appreciates the work put in by all who participated in this meeting;he
is not comfortable taking a final vote this evening for the following reasons:
• He would like additional time to review the amended conditions given the
lateness of the hour
• Given the amount of public testimony, and the size and nature of the project,he
does not want to make a decision that may be rushed
• He would like to give the applicant the opportunity to re-look at the conditions
• Given the amount of time and effort that went into crafting the conditions,he
would like the public to have an opportunity to understand that the applicant, the
Department, and the Commission have tried to mitigate their concerns to the best
of their ability
• He would like to hear more about the traffic analysis,which has not yet been
clarified
Mr. Kimura stated this is the third meeting they have had on this item where they heard
public testimony.
Mr. Texeira asked if the Commission adopts these conditions, and there is a deferral, can
the conditions be changed. Mr.Jung explained that if there is a motion to defer, that would take
priority over this motion.
Mr. Blake asked to clarify that if this does pass,the public will still have a chance to ask
that a particular item be reconsidered to which Mr. Jung stated no, the permit would be
approved. Mr. Blake asked who can ask for reconsideration to which Mr. Jung replied a
Commissioner could,but there is a specific standard noted in Robert's Rules.
Mr. Blake and Mr.Kimura offered their personal views on the project.
On the motion by Mr.Isobe and seconded by Herman Texeira to defer this item,the
motion failed by roll call vote;
2 Ayes (Isobe,Texeira); 3 Noes (Blake, Kimura,Katayama); 1 Silent(Mendonca)
On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve
Conditions 1 - 13 for SMA(U)-2013-9 and Z-IV-2013-19 as amended over objection to
Condition 2 relating to the deed restriction,the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote:
1 Aye with reservations (Isobe); 5 Ayes (Mendonca,Blake,Texeira,Kimura,
Katayama)
On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Amy Mendonca to defer items I. 14
and I. 15 to the November 12,2013 meeting,the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Page 152
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m.; or shortly
thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street,
Lihu`e,Kauai,Hawai'i 96766 on Tuesday,November 12,2013.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
)(,OOU Lll/j1a�
Cherisse Zaima
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated.
O Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.
Page 53