Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2-24PlanningCommissionMinutesWEBKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 24, 2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Anderson at 9:03 a.m., at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, in Meeting Room 2A /2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Angela Anderson Vice Chair Sean Mahoney Mr. Louie Abrams Mr. Jan Kimura Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake Mr. Wayne Katayama Ms. Amy Mendonca The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie Takasaki, Duke Nakamatsu; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung, CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Dahilig noted there was quorum. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dahilig stated that given the heavy load of the Commission's agenda, the Department suggested handling the agency hearing for Island Self - Storage first, then the agency hearing for Waimea Baptist Church, the public hearing for the SMA fees proposal, the public hearing for the homestay ordinance proposal, receipt of all other public testimony pursuant to chapter 92, consent calendar, subdivision, action on SMA fees, action on Rosenberger extension, action on the Island Helicopters extension, status report for Somers, Unkrich contested case hearing, Steelgrass permit, the Guyer reconsideration request, the continued public hearing on Coco Palms, continued discussion on Coco Palms, and the six year CIP proposal, also including the executive session regarding the evaluation of the director during the lunch period. 1 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of January 13, 2015 On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the minutes of January 13, 2015, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Regular Meeting of January 27, 2015 On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the minutes of January 27, 2015, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Dahilig noted there was a supplemental agenda with materials as testimony submitted from the public. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to receive the items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT New Agency Hearing Class W Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -12 and Use Permit U- 2015 -11 to overate a self- storage facility and resource recovery facility for construction materials within the Nawiliwili Bulk Sugar Building in Nawiliwili, situated along the makai side of Niumalu Road and approx. 350 ft. south of its intersection with Nawiliwili Road, further identified as 2670 Niumalu Road, Tax Map Key (4) 3 -2- 005:009, and affecting a parcel approx. 3.454 acres in size = Island Self Storage, LLC. There was no public testimony. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Jan Kimura to close the agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Class IV Zoning Permit Z- IV- 2015 -11 and Use Permit U- 2015 -10 to operate a nications facilitv within the existin! Waimea Baptist Church located in Waimea T 4 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning\Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Drive, further identified as 9611 -A Kaumualii Highway, Tax M 1 in size = 4) 1 -6 -009: 001, and The Commission received testimony from Lena Tanaka, property owner abutting the church and trustee of the KLM Trust. She stated that she owns the abutting property east of the church. She has Kauai Granola Shop on the premise and two residential apartments occupied by tenants. She has been the church's neighbor since the 1940s and has accepted the noise and parking traffic from the congregation and expanded facilities of the preschool building, but she raises objection to a broadcasting station and putting up a one hundred watt antennae, forty five feet above ground. Her tenants on the abutting property will be exposed 24/7 to radiation that is not monitored by EPA for lack of funds. The radio station should be better suited at the West Kauai Tech Center and further located away from residential abutting properties. It is claimed in applicant's statement that there are no physical RF radiation hazards to operators, church goers, or anyone in the immediate area of the church, however her tenants are not like the transient operators, church goers, walkers, and drivers going by the area who do not have constant exposure to the radiation. There was no survey to show why the west side needed another radio station. There are fourteen on the island; five in the Poipu to Kekaha area. Announcements and programming can be shared with the existing radio stations, and other media means can be used such as fliers posted in highly visited locations, and the Garden Island and Midweek newspapers. She stated that radio frequency heats body tissues and may cause possible DNA alteration, mutation, especially if the immune system of an individual is not strong. RF signals could also interfere with implanted electronic pacemakers and other medical devices which could malfunction. Typical heights for cell based station towers on structures are 50 -200 feet. She prays the approval be denied. There is no need for the Baptist church praise the Lord and pass the pollution on to thy neighbors. They can still praise the Lord and use other available means to get the word out to the community about their goings on and other radio stations as a cooperative joint venture. There was no further public testimony. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Jan Kimura to close the agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearing (None) New Public Hearing To consider, pursuant to Section 91 -3, and Chapter 205A Hawaii Revised Statutes, amendments to the Special Management Area Rules of the County of Kauai regarding the adjustment of administrative fees for Use permits and the addition of administrative fees for minor permits = County of Kauai, Department of Planning There was no public testimony. K V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to close the public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Zoning Amendment ZA- 2015 -4: A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, to establish a process to permit Homestays in the Commercial Districts, Resort Zoning Districts and Residential Zoning Districts = County ofKauai, Department of Planning There was no public testimony. Mr. Dahilig requested that the Commission defer action and the presentation by the Department on this item until the first meeting in April. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer action and defer the public presentation on this matter until the first meeting in April, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. All remaining public testimony_ pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law) The Commission received testimony from Bob Jasper. He has been giving tours of Coco Palms since the hurricane and has had a great relationship with the owners. To take over a project like Coco Palms takes a special desire. Two years ago Chad Waters showed up with Ron Agor and Tyler Green and he took them around the property. From the outset they saw a diamond in the ruff. Since then they have been nothing but willing to jump through every hoop that they were asked to jump through. Every concern the public has had from historical to traffic, they have been more than willing to go above and beyond the call. His impression of Chad and Tyler is that they will get it done and the way the public wants to see it done. He hopes that the Commission will consider what he said when they take their vote. There are thousands of people around the world watching on the internet. They have hundreds of thousands of people who are huge Coco Palms fans. When it is rebuilt, it is going to be a success or they would not be spending all that money. The Commission received testimony from James Alalem, Kahu for all the heiau in Wailua. He stated he was not ordained by man, but by the spirit many years ago. He was born and raised in Waipouli. There are still bones on the grounds that everyone is walking on. Coco Palms is one of the sacred areas, and what these people are doing is totally illegal because they do not have the titles for the lands. He has three visions told of the Great Spirit. The first was to let them rest, but the people kept on digging and touching. The second was that the spirit has awoken and he carries the eye. The third vision is coming if they touch the lands again. Coco Palms is kingdom land and is sacred. He found a dog tooth when they were digging the cesspool for the leech fields. He told the person not to touch the iwi because it is sacred. The kupuna laughed at him and mocked him. The person he told not to touch the iwi died. When there is dog teeth with the iwi, the ground is sacred. It is already passed the warning. He was supposed to be called by Coco Palms to talk about all the burials because they are still finding burials. The E V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes aina is kapu. He said that anybody who digs it or touches the bones shall be cursed and their families will suffer. There was no further public testimony. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports 2014 Annual Status Report for S ect Development Use Permit PDU Area Use Permit SMA 006 -7 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2 - 2006 -5 10. Tax Map Key 4 -3 -007: 027, Waipouli, Kauai — Coconut Plantation Owners, LLC (formerly Coconut Plantation Holdings, ). 2014 Annual Status ort for Project PDU- 2013 -15, Class IV Permit Z -IV- 2013 -7, Use Permit U- 2013 -14, Special Permit SP- 2013 -5 001, Kilauea, Kauai — The Resonance Project Foundation. Tax Map Kev 5 -2 -013: Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 2/24/15. Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -12 and Use Permit U- 2015 -11 to operate a self - and resource recovery facility for construction materials within the Nawiliwili lding in Nawiliwili. situated along the makai side of Niumalu Road and appro Tax Map Key Storage, LLC. 4) 3 -2 -005: 009. and a parcel approx. 3.454 acres in size = Island Sep Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -11 and Use Permit U- 2015 -10 to operate a communications facility within the existing Waimea Baptist Church located in Waimea T situated along the mauka side of Kaumualii Highway and its intersection with Waimea Can Drive. further identified as 9611 -A Kaumualii Hiahway. Tax Man Kev (4) 1 -6 -009: 001. an Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 3/10/15. (NONE) Mr. Dahilig noted were two status reports for acceptance by the Commission as well as notices on the two agency hearings that were administratively accepted pursuant to the authority delegated to the clerk of the Commission in situations where no quorum is attained. There were no agency hearings or director's reports scheduled for March 10, 2015. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the consent calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Kimura requested to pull an item from the consent calendar. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura to reconsider the consent calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 VA2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura motioned to pull the status report under item G. Lb., Resonance Project Foundation, and defer it to the next meeting to which Mr. Abrams seconded. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the consent calendar excluding the Resonance Project Foundation item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Subdivision Chair Jan Kimura presented the subdivision committee report for the February 24, 2015 meeting. The following Final Subdivision Action was approved, 3 -0: 5- 2006 -27, Grove Farm Properties, Inc., Proposed 30 -lot Subdivision On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Louis Abrams to approve the February 24, 2015 subdivision committee report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Subdivision committee Vice Chair Sean Mahoney presented the subdivision committee report from the February 10, 2015 meeting. The following communication was received for the record, 2 -0: 5- 2015 -07, Property Development Centers, LLC, Proposed 11 -lot Subdivision The following Tentative Subdivision Action was approved, 2 -0: 5- 2015 -07, Property Development Centers, LLC., Proposed 11 -lot Subdivision On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Louis Abrams to approve the February 10, 2015 subdivision committee report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS To consider, pursuant to Section 91 -3, and Chapter 205A Hawaii Revised Statutes, amendments to the Special Management Area Rules of the County of Kauai regarding the adjustment of administrative fees for Use permits and the addition of administrative fees for minor permits = County of Kauai, Department of Planning_ m V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Dahilig stated this proposal was brought forth to make adjustments to the fee structure related to processing of the SMA permits. The County does not currently charge for SMA minor permits. A $100 administrative fee is charged for the use permit. Other counties charge for SMA permits at the minor and use level. The proposal is commensurate to the type of work that is currently conducted for the CZO use permits which is a fee of $300. Given the recognition that a minor permit is proportionally less work, they are proposing $150 which is also in line with the other counties. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded Sean Mahoney by to adopt the entirety of the proposed fee structure, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Time Extension Request regarding Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)- 2014 -4 to complete the project, Tax Map Key 2 -8 -018: 033, Poipu, Kauai = Nadine M. Rosenberger Trust Staff planner Dale Cua read the director's report into the record. (On file). The Department is recommending approval of the extension of time to allow the applicant to complete the construction of the project and condition nine would be amended to read: The applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit and commence construction within eighteen months from the date of approval of this permit and complete construction by February 11, 2017, Jonathan Chun, representing the applicant, stated that the report by the Department is fairly accurate. Chair Anderson asked if there was anything he would want to note regarding the report. Mr. Chun replied no, and that he believed the revised deadlines by the Department can be met. The building permit is in the process of being routed within the agencies. An eighteen month deadline would give them until August of 2015 to obtain the approval of the building permit and start construction. If there is a problem, they plan on approaching the Department later. Since the plans are in the process they hope to have the plans out within the next couple of months. In that case the construction start time of July would be acceptable. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Louis Abrams to approve the extension request with the amended language, all were in favor by unanimous voice vote. for extension of Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2008 -5, Use Permit U- 2008 -3 A SP- 2008 -2, Tax Map Key 1 -8- 001:001, for an additional two (2) years to lnnrlincTe nt A4nnnxx7n1nnnnn Rnllc T-45itnnnana Vnllav Knrnni = Telrrvirl Helicopters. Staff planner Kaaina Hull summarized the director's report into the record (On file). The Department did a site visit with the applicant in which no irregularities were found. Within the 7 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes last two years, the Department has not received a single complaint about the helicopter's operation and they have completed an additional botanical survey and wildlife study which found no additional impacts to the wildlife in and around the area. The Department recommends a two year extension to the permits. Walton Hong representing the applicant stated they were in agreement with the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Kimura questioned if there have been any complaints to the applicant from the public to which Mr. Hong replied there were no complaints. Mr. Hull stated that there were no complaints in the last two years. He noted there was a complaint from another tour company several years ago after they received their permits. The complaint stated that a structure had been put in, but it was actually a historical structure that has been there over a hundred years. Mr. Kimura questioned if the Department has checked for any conditions that were broken by the applicant to which Mr. Hull replied the Department has initiated visits; the last completed within the past month, with no irregularities or violations found. Chair Anderson asked for clarification that the applicant agreed with all eighteen conditions as set forth in the director's report to which Mr. Hong replied yes. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Louis Abrams to approve the conditions and recommendations as set forth in the director's report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS November 12, 2002 and West Sunset 32 Phase 1, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. Staff planner, Jody Galinato provided a director's supplement (On file). Since the past meeting they have received a letter from the Engineering Division, a letter from Mr. Graham to the National Wildlife Refuge, and had a meeting to clarify expectations with the applicant and Public Works. Kilauea Wildlife Refuge has a draft EIA out for comments, Chair Anderson asked for clarification that there is an EA for additional access to the area. Ms. Galinato stated that the Wildlife Refuge is working on their master plan and she thinks a lot of those issues will be resolved. Chair Anderson questioned if the Department has been out there since the last Commission meeting to which Ms. Galinato replied they have not. N V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura questioned if they are applying for a different access to the property to which Ms. Galinato replied that the Federal Government is coming in with some improvements to the area and one of the issues is how much access they will allow off of Kahili Quarry Road. Mr. Kimura questioned if the public would be monitored to which Ms. Galinato replied that they are looking at whether they are going to gate it off and whether they will do any improvements beyond the gate. Mr. Kimura asked if that's fair to the community to have it gated off to which Ms. Galinato replied that she thinks it would be up to the community to provide their comments. Mr. Kimura questioned if the road going down is just for Somers to which Ms. Galinato replied that the road up to the property line is for Somers. Mr. Kimura questioned if they are still maintaining the road as requested to which Ms. Galinato replied that the road is not well maintained. Mr. Kimura noted that they are still coming in for additional requests to which Ms. Galinato clarified it is a request to amend the condition. Mr. Dahilig stated that in terms of trigger points for maintenance and reconstruction of the road, from an obligation standpoint of the enforcement of the permit, they are not considered at a deadline yet. There are a number of issues that the public is talking about but the elements that have been proposed as part of the original permits for the property have not been completed yet and the permit is still considered open. Fish and Wildlife's not being clear as to what Mr. Somers needs to do has thrown a loop, but the conditions talk about going all the way down through Fish and Wildlife property not just to the property boundary. Mr. Kimura questioned the maintenance of the road up until the boundary line to which Mr. Dahilig noted that they have been made aware that simply re- grading is not going to be a long term solution. Mr. Somers has talked about the idea of reengineering the road. Mr. Kimura questioned if the road could be maintained until then to which Mr. Dahilig stated that providing the reengineered road, in the long run, would not provide the need for the persistent maintenance that is required. If they keep re- grading the road, there is a number of erosional and scouring points where the current graded area is drained. What they need to do is re -grade it a certain way so water is actually being pulled away from the road rather than scouring the road. Mr. Kimura asked if the applicant shouldn't be patching the road until then as an obligation to the community to which Mr. Dahilig stated the maintenance and construction of the road is encompassed in the completion of the development. It was the conditions approved by the decisions and order back in 2008. Mr. Kimura questioned if the permit conditions can be amended to which Mr. Dahilig replied there is an amendment before the Commission that is stayed pending resolution of the 9 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes exaction that requires working with the Land Trust to convey preservation easements over the mauka lands. They have not brought that back to the Commission because that agreement has not been resolved at this juncture. Mr. Kimura stated that because of his past actions on the access to the falls which is by the applicant's discretion, he does not think it's asking too much to maintain the road. Max Graham representing the applicant informed the Commission that he was available to answer questions. Mr. Kimura stated that he presented a question to the applicant regarding access to the falls, to which Mr. Graham replied that the applicant asked that if people want access to the river for fishing purposes, he would consider it on a case by case basis. Mr. Graham stated that Kahili Quarry Road is accessible, usable and drivable all the way to the Somers house. That's the complete length of the road. It is not in great condition, but he and the people doing the construction have been able to use it. Beyond the house is the Fish and Wildlife property and that road is in terrible shape. They had a meeting with Public Works and Mr. Dahilig to determine what exactly needs to be done in terms of permits for the work on the road. The problem is that additional grading is not going to help because they have reached the point where they are hitting the large boulders that are the base of the road so the road has to be reengineered and improved. They have retained Esaki surveying to do the work. The condition states that the improvements would be crush coral not to include asphalt. They are working on that and related drainage improvements to go along with that. The improvements need to be completed within five years from the issuance of the building permits so they have until March of 2016. They are working toward it and only if they go past the deadline are they out of compliance. Mr. Kimura questioned what else has to be done to comply to which Mr. Graham replied that landscaping needs to be completed and it is over half complete. Ms. Galinato stated they would like to see the amendment to condition number one resolved and the equipment storage building to be added to the amendment or removed. Mr. Graham stated that the equipment shed will be added to the pending amendment. If approved, it will be subject to conditions that will also require compliance. He noted the last heavy work in terms of grading was done around July 2014. There were some questions about the easement that goes from the road across the boundary between the Fish and Wildlife property and the Somers property to the river. He had discussions with Mr. Dill in Public Works, and it's really up to the County to improve and maintain that pedestrian easement. The Fish and Wildlife has issued a 900 page comprehensive conservation plan for the entire refuge concentrating primarily on the use of the lighthouse portion of their property and the public's access to the lighthouse. There is some reference to the access down Kahili Quarry Road to the west side of the refuge. They note that the road is not improved and they have no plans for major improvements. They want to put signage at the boundary between the Somers property and the Fish and Wildlife portion which will warn people that the road is not suitable for use by bus, 10 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes recreational vehicles, and conventional passenger vehicles. They seem to want to keep the road in somewhat rough shape to discourage use. This is a draft plan out for public comment. They're also suggesting putting a gate there with hours from 6am to 5pm for use by the public although they apparently also have a proposal to allow fishing 24/7. He is not sure how people will access for fishing. The refuge manager Shannon Smith left and the acting refuge manager Mike Mitchell left a message that they would like to meet to discuss what the plan might be in allowing at least minimal improvements on the Fish and Wildlife property to make the road passable. Mr. Kimura agreed that they wouldn't want to fix the road to where it would be included on the 101 things to do on Kauai. There is no lifeguard and the current has been nasty. They don't want total public access. Currently, you need to have a four wheel drive vehicle, and that's acceptable to him. The least amount of people down there is better than commercial tours because there would be loss of lives there. He agrees with the DLNR to a certain extent, but to have a permit to go down there, he did not think is right. He questioned how long the applicant will take to comply with everything and if they can get it done within the year to which Mr. Graham replied yes. Mr. Kimura questioned if staff thinks they will comply with everything to which Ms. Galinato replied yes, and noted the time limit expires February 15, 2016. Mr. Graham stated he would be happy to come back to be sure that they are on schedule to which Chair Anderson agreed it would be a good idea to come back in six months with a status update. Chair Anderson questioned if anything further has been addressed since the last staff report to which Mr. Graham replied that wrote to Fish and Wildlife on behalf of Mr. Somers who offered to do some grading on the Fish and Wildlife property to make the road more usable. He will meet with them to see if they are open to that suggestion. Attorney Jung stated that one of the issues is the P 1 County easement and the Department of Public Works is looking into it. Chair Anderson stated that the Commission can either accept the status report with the additional condition to come back in six months, or they can defer the status report acceptance until the first meeting in August. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura to defer to the first meeting in August, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The Commission recessed at 10:08 a.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:22 a.m. COMMUNICATION (For Action) 11 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Letter 1/21/15) from Daniel G. Hempey and Gregory H. Meyers, Attorney Appellant- Plaintiff Lee Unkrich & Laura Century Trust, requesting to set a Contested Case Hearing in the matter of Stipulation for Remand to the Planning Commission for Hearing and Order re TVNC #4311, Tax Map Key 5 -2- 004:064 (1), Kilauea, Kauai. Mr. Dahilig noted that this matter was sent to the Circuit Court upon which time Judge Watanabe approved the stipulated order remanding the matter back to the Commission. The proper action would be to order the contested case hearing and refer the matter to the hearings officer for disposition and recommendation of a proposed decisions and order, findings of facts, and conclusions of law for the Commission to entertain. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to set for agency hearing and refer the matter to the hearings officer for a proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order for Commission entertainment, all were in favor by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Dahilig stated that given the movement of the agenda items, he requested the Commission handle the Guyer consideration next, followed by the Steelgrass permit, followed by the church application, and then the Coco Palms matter. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to amend the agenda as requested, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (Continued) Class IV Area Use Permit SMAi Permit Z -IV- 2015 -9, Use Permit U- 2015 -8 and Special 1- 2015 -7 to allow conversion of an existing residence into a bed and B. Guyer /Milton Searles. [Petition to Intervene by Petitioners Caren Diamond and Robeson (1/17/15) and Planning Department's Memorandum in No Opposition to Diamond and Barbara Robeson's Petition to Intervene (1/7/15), rec'd 1/13/15; Let Jonathan Chun, Esq., requesting Commission's Reconsideration of its decision to petition to intervene by Petitioners Caren Diamond and Barbara Robeson and Upd s Officer deferred 1/27/15. It. = Is arbara of Michael A. Dahilig, Director Department of Planning, County of Kauai, Statement of Mr. Dahilig stated that the contested case hearing was ordered as well as a petition to intervene was granted by the Commission, however, Mr. Chun has filed a request that the Commission reconsider its decision to approve the petition to intervene. 12 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Jung stated that the motion to reconsider was made and the Commission ordered the parties to brief the issue. The parties submitted their briefs; Mr. Bronstein on behalf of the interveners on February 13, 2015 and Mr. Chun on February 19, 2015. The Department filed a position of no position. Mr. Kimura questioned if it would be just for the reconsideration to which Mr. Jung replied that the reconsideration was already made and the matter is afresh. Now it's a question of whether or not they qualified from a timeliness standpoint of filing the intervention or, if they didn't meet the timeliness, whether or not they have good cause under chapter four of the rules. Chair Anderson stated that the Commission has reviewed the briefs and requested that anything further be limited to five minutes per side. Mr. Chun representing the applicants stated that rules are clear that you don't include the first day, you include the last day. The Commission's decision was based on an opinion by their advisor that they were timely but based upon the rules, the applicant did not make the seven days. Mr. Bronstein's response is that they were told by someone in the Planning Department that they met the time period. He informed the Commission that on numerous times members of the public have come before this Commission and said they didn't do this or didn't make this deadline or was late in something because they were told by somebody in the Department that this was the proper date. Numerous times the Commission and the Department has told members of the public they can't rely on what they say and they're still in violation. If the Commission is now going to turn around and make it public and make a statement that you can now rely as good cause what is said on the counter or on the phone, then the Commission should make it clear that it is acceptable. In the past, especially with TVR registration, there was a lot of confusion by the public on when the renewals had to be done. They were relying on comments made by phone or in front of the desk. When they got letters saying they were late the Commission and Department has consistently said they have to rely on what the Ordinance says and fined them for being late. The Department has a policy of telling the public not to rely on comments made by the Department staff. Mr. Bronstein representing the interveners stated that he did not believe a motion for reconsideration was already made. There was a request for reconsideration from the applicant. A motion needed to be made by someone in the Commission either on the same day or at the next meeting and that clearly wasn't done. Rules 1 -2 -19 state that when a motion has been once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, and it is his understanding on January 13th the motion to intervene was granted, only a member who voted with the prevailing side may move at the same meeting or at the next meeting to reconsider it and such motion shall take precedence over all other questions except the motion to adjourn. His understanding is that on either the 131h or the 27th, the motion had to be made and it was not. The issue is moot, procedurally. As to the computation of time, Rule 1 -2 -23 says what it says. The application was filed on January 7th, the meeting was on January 13th, and the Commission voted for intervention. Mr. Chun says that Ms. Diamond and Ms. Robeson are sophisticated people who should know the rules better and cites three Supreme Court cases in which they were successful. He noted that he represented them on all three cases, he handled all the pleadings and all issues of timeliness, and all the briefings. They do excellent work as lay people, but they are lay people and do not understand the rules or significance of looking in other places. Chapter four on the petition for intervention says to file it seven days before and that's what they thought they did. More importantly, this Commission has already found good cause. They found that they will aid the issues being raised by the applicants, that their history, knowledge, and work they have done in this area is important in deciding this application. They are talking about untimeliness of one day against after the fact permits that the applicant is seeking where he hasn't filed for a permit in years. It is his understanding that a house was built in 2003, and has pretty much since then acted as a B &B or TVR. He thinks it weighs heavily on the Commission's decision not to take action today, that they are after the fact permits, and these two ladies know immensely about the area and the issue 13 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes involved. The Commission's decision of January 131h is a good decision and should not be disturbed. Attorney Adam Roversi, representing the Planning Department, stated that the Department takes no position on the question for the Commission. Chair Anderson stated that the Commission has the opportunity to consult with counsel should they choose to go into executive session. Deputy County attorney Jung announced that the Commission may go into executive session on and agenda item permitted purposes listed in Section 92 -5(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes ( "H.R.S. "), without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not anticipated in advance. The executive session may only be held, however, upon an affirmative vote of two - thirds of the members present, which must also be the majority of the members to which the board is entitled. The reason for holding the executive session shall be publically announced. He stated that he assumed that the Commission has procedural questions on Chapter four and Chapter two of the Planning Commission rules. On the motion by Louis Abrams to move into executive session, all were in favor by unanimous roll call vote. Chair Anderson stated that the executive session will be no more than half an hour. The Commission moved into executive session at 10:40 a.m. The Commission reconvened at 11:06 a.m. Chair Anderson stated that during executive session, counsel was able to lay out procedural matters. Attorney Jung stated that the situation that appears from the briefs is that they can look at it in three steps. First, Mr. Bronstein is questioning the reconsideration procedures and whether or not a formal motion for reconsideration was made. Mr. Bronstein seems to suggest that one was not despite Mr. Chun timely filing his request for reconsideration. Some discussion was had on whether or not a consideration should be made and the communication was received. There is a question on whether or not the motion to receive was the actual motion to reconsider or not. More time was given to the parties to brief it so they could take it up at the 2nd meeting in February. Second, the question of timeliness is how to calculate the time. Mr. Bronstein has his arguments and Mr. Chun has his. The third issue is, even if they find that there was an untimely petition for intervention, does it meet the standard for good cause. The standard for good cause is not defined in the rules so it's up to the Commission as to their feeling on whether or not somebody would be participating in the contested case that would bring something to the table as outlined in their petition. Mr. Abrams stated that he is of the opinion that while they received briefs in regards to the timing and the new issue of reconsideration, he is prepared to move ahead with the interveners hearing due to good cause. He is leaning that way and would in effect make a motion to that effect. He still believes there was timeliness, although he sees some questions that are still there, which leads him to the next part which is good cause. He stated that they haven't technically reconsidered so he questioned how to accomplish the motion he is suggesting. Mr. Kimura questioned if a motion was needed to which Attorney Jung noted it is a problem in and of itself. He noted that Mr. Bronstein is saying that there was no motion to reconsider although there was significant discussion and the parties at the time agreed to brief the issue. 14 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura asked for clarification that if they don't take a motion, then the original motion stands to which Attorney Jung replied that the Commission could consider that because Ms. Diamond and Ms. Robeson agreed to brief it, they essentially waived the opportunity to waive whether or not an actual motion of reconsideration was made. Mr. Kimura asked if another motion needed to be made or not to which Attorney Jung suggested that it they are going with good cause then they could make a subsequent motion to that effect. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura that notwithstanding the timeliness the Commission finds that there is good cause to grant the intervention, all were in favor by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Chun requested that when the Department issues a decision, that they make it clear what the good cause is because the only thing on record in writing is good cause saying somebody told me. If they want to have that stand on record that the Department and the Commission thinks it is good cause, then that's the Commission's decision. Chair Anderson stated that her understanding was that the initial motion to allow the intervention found that there was good cause for the intervention. Mr. Chun stated that he believed the decision of the Commission at the first meeting was that they found it was timely, period. He asserted that the Commission should make it clear whether it happened in the first meeting or this meeting. Attorney Jung stated that they can attach the minutes from the January 27th meeting where some issues of good cause were discussed amongst the Commission. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -10, Use Permit U- 2015 -9 and Special Permit SP- 2015-2 to conduct agricultural educational programs and tours within a parcel located along the mauka side of Olohena Road in Kaaaa Homesteads, situated approx. t/2 mile mauka of its intersection with Waipouli Road, further identified as 5730 Olohena Road, Tax Map Key 4 -4 -03: 045, and affecting approx, 8.654 acres of a larger parcel = Steelgrass Farm, LLC. Staff planner Kaaina Hull read the supplement to the director's report into the record (On file). In addition to the evaluation points established in the original director's report, the following should be considered: The commercial tour operations will occur on land that is currently used for agriculture and the purpose of the tour is specifically to educate participants about the agricultural activities occurring on the property. The sale of products generated on the subject property's farm would be ancillary to and supportive of the agricultural activities occurring on the subject property and will conform to those agriculture preservation policies established under the General Plan. The tour operations should not inhibit the current or future ability to pursue agricultural activities on the parcel. While the commercial application may serve to increase agricultural awareness and provide ancillary resources to the existing operations excessive use of the site could negatively impact the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons in the surrounding area. In order to mitigate impacts, agricultural tours should be limited to no more than three days per week with no more than twenty five paying participants per tour. Finally, the applicant shall also be required to provide at least twelve designated, off street, off driveway parking stalls for tour participants. 15 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Anderson asked if there were further discussions with the Fire Department regarding the requirements for road widening to which Mr. Hull replied that after discussions with Fire and the County Attorney's office the Department did not feel there was nexus enough to impose that via Commission action. However, should Fire feel the need to still exact it, they can do it through secondary building reviews that the applicant may or may not undertake. Chair Anderson asked for clarification that there are no additional structures being proposed to which Mr. Hull replied not at this time. Mr. Hull stated that the recommendations stand as previously recommended with the exception of the first three recommendations. Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recommended that class IV zoning permit Z -IV- 2015 -10, use permit U- 2015 -9 and special permit SP- 2015 -2 be approved based on the following conditions of approval: 1) Any changes to the tour operations and ancillary facilities shall be reviewed by the Department to determine whether Planning Commission review and approval is required. 2) The agriculture commercial tours shall be limited to no more than three days per week with no more than twenty five paying participants per tour and 3) at least twelve designated, off street, off driveway parking stalls shall be provided for tour participants. The other conditions stand as is from the original director's report. Walton Hong representing the applicant stated that the conditions as read are acceptable to the applicant. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Sean Mahoney to amend condition two to include paid participants and approve the recommendation, all were in favor by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -11 and Use Permit U- 2015 -10 to operate a communications facility within the existing Waimea Baptist Church Kaumualii Hiahway. located in Waimea T situated along the mauka side of Kaumualii Highway and its intersection with Waimea Can Drive. further identified as 9611 -A Kaumualii Hiahway. Tax Man Kev (4) 1 -6 -009: 001. an Mr. Hull read a summarized version of the director's report into the record (On file). The proposed project consists of constructing and operating a radio communications facility within the existing church structure on the subject property. All the improvements will be interior improvements including the associated antennae equipment which would be mounted within the existing church steeple. Concerning the evaluative points the following should be considered: The proposed improvements and operations are all to be located within the existing structure therefore any potential aesthetic or view plane concerns will be mitigated. The proposed radio communication facility is an intensification of use of the property however should not generate any additional impact to those living, working or frequenting the area particularly given the general commercial zoning of the property and the surrounding area and given the church use of the property. The proposed operation was looking at two or three or four individuals accessing the radio station which can be accommodated within the parking facilities and existing structure. The one issue of the Department was with the aesthetics on what is a historical structure, so the applicant was able to locate the antennae within the steeple thereby mitigating the issues. The Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission agreed with those improvements. Ultimately the Department is recommending approval. There was testimony regarding radio frequency 16 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes emissions, and while the Department sympathizes with those individuals, much in the same fashion as the Commission was educated regarding the requirements of the telecommunications act of 1996, that act applies to this particular proposal. The act clearly states that those uses that require an FCC license are strictly regulated by the FCC. State and local municipalities are strictly prohibited from regulating these types of applications for RF emissions. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on the zoning for this property to which Mr. Hull replied general commercial. Chair Anderson questioned if the neighboring lots were general commercial as well to which Mr. Hull replied yes. He noted there are some residential zonings north of the parcel within the residential R6 and R10. He noted that the west Kauai Technology Center is actually referred to as a project development which is a unique zoning, but it does allow for commercial operations as long as it is proposed via the Commission. Pastor James Merritt from Waimea Baptist Church stated that it has been his pleasure being able to serve the people on Kauai being a minister to the community in Waimea. After he arrived in 1989 Kauai was hit with Hurricane Iniki and they activated their southern Baptist disaster relief program which along with the Salvation Army assisted the island through one of the most devastating disasters we've ever had and they served thousands of people. They can continue to keep that mission of serving the community through the preschool program. The preschool functioned for many years with no financial help to the church; all money that was brought in was put back into the program. The wrestling and jiu jitsu clubs that meet there are helping the children to keep out of drugs that is so prevalent in the area. They were able to qualify for their FCC license for a low power radio station which has been a blessing. If they operate the station, they will follow the conditions stated 100 %. He asked the Commission to please consider allowing them to have the radio station to assist the community. Ron, the station manager, stated that in 2013 they seized the opportunity to acquire a low power FM license from the FCC, a once in a decade opportunity. The license allows them to construct a tower up to one hundred feet. They soon learned that it would not be compatible with the County regulations. In their desire to conform, including the fact that they have a historic building, they found that they could have a small antennae inside the steeple, and still have their signal be picked up through almost all of Kekaha and Waimea. They are dealing with one hundred watts of power, the power of a one hundred watt light bulb. Their license engineer states that there are absolutely no safety problems to the general public. As far as any extra congestion or use of the church, they are talking one to four people at a time, in the basement of a church, talking into a microphone. The church has the capacity of one hundred fifty people on Sundays. The project itself is low impact. Most people won't even know it's there. Community radio can really bring a community together. They will give access to local people and give them the chance to be on the radio; individuals, organizations, young musicians, youth looking for career direction. They were talking about having teen radio. They have a key alliance with Nana's House and Child and Family Services who will be providing testimony and outreach. Chair Anderson questioned if there are any requirements for monitoring radio frequency from the FCC in regards to any safety concerns to which Mr. Ron replied that there needs to be a 17 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes licensed engineer monitor and report to the FCC. They guarantee what is being broadcast and they file the report. George Talbot is a licensed engineer of thirty five years and is in charge of the station. Chair Anderson questioned if the reports are public information to which Mr. Ron replied yes. The FCC doesn't tell them what to broadcast, but they have to show they are dealing with community. Half of the people on the board of directors for the station have to live within ten miles of the station. No one who is a director of the station can have an interest in any major media. It is totally non - commercial, non - profit, and the reports are available to the public and need to be made on a periodic basis to the FCC. Mr. Hull stated that the recommendations stand as originally transmitted to the Planning Commission, recommending approval with approximately seven conditions of approval. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve, all were in favor by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Dahilig suggested that it may be prudent to handle the continued public hearing on Coco Palms before lunch, then move into the executive session during lunch, and come back with discussion on the Coco Palms matter after lunch. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued) Continued Agency Hearing Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -8 Variance Permit V- 2015 -1 and Snecial ect Development Use Permit PDU- 2015 -7. Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2015 -6 to I 'hapel in the Palms, 2 of 4 Bridge Crossings; the construction of a new Utility & Maintenance wilding and a new Queen Lagoon Building into a spa and gym facility on the site of the reviously demolished structure. The project is situated in Wailua and located at 04 -241 Kuhi< lighway, further identified as Tax Map Keys 4 -1 -003: 004 (por.), 005, 007, 011, and 017 and , -005: 014 and 017, and containing a total area of anbrox. 28.523 acres = Coco Palms Hui. LLi Mr. Dahilig noted there were two individuals signed up to testify. The two members signed up to testify were not present when called, and there was no further public testimony. Mr. Dahilig suggested the Commission decide on whether or not to close the agency hearing after more discussion after the lunch hour. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) lu V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -12 and Use Permit U- 2015 -11 to operate a self - storage facility and resource recovery facility for construction materials within the Nawiliwili Bulk Sugar Building in Nawiliwili, situated along the makai side of Niumalu Road and approx. 350 ft. south of its intersection with Nawiliwili Road, further identified as 2670 Niumalu Road. Tax Map Key (4) 3 -2- 005:009, and affecting _a parcel approx. 3.454 acres in size = Island Sel- Storage, LLC. Staff planner Dale Cua summarized the director's report into the record (On file). The applicant is proposing a conversion of the existing Nawiliwili bulk sugar building to operate a self - storage facility and resource recovery facility for construction material, developed in three phases. Phase one involves the external alterations to the existing bulk sugar building including removal of some of the exterior buttresses and side panels. They will not be removing the weigh station. Phase one also includes interior renovations to the northern end of the building involving three levels of storage units and manager loft space. There will also be a designated area for the material resource recovery operations. Phase two will be constructing the middle third of the building for storage units. Phase three will be constructing the remaining building. The applicant has met notification requirements. Self - storage facility will operate every day between 5am and l Opm, the materials resource recovery operations will operate every day between 6am and 5pm. The Department has only received comments from the Health and Water Departments. Lorna Nishimitsu representing the applicant stated that she was accompanied by Thomas Lambert, managing member, and Curtis Law, developer. She noted that the property is zoned general industrial and has been in use since the early 1950s to store bulk sugar for eventual transport to the mainland from the plantations. The last load was shipped in approximately 2009 and since then the building has remained unused but the weigh station continues to be in use. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the building by converting it in three phases into storage units. It would have a resident manager on site to help ensure someone is readily available to deal with any issues. The applicant is requesting authority to allow part of the ground floor before the final build out to Eli Brainerd from Pacific Concrete Cutting and Coring. He has a materials resource facility at Isenberg. They would just do separation at Nawiliwili, not grinding. The concrete and asphalt rubble would go to Isenberg to be ground and reintegrated into other projects around the island. It would be a temporary use because the first phase would take about one year, phase two approximately six to nine month period following phase one, and the phase three development would be dependent on whether phase one or two is leased out or rented out. Part of the materials attached to the building has asbestos components so the disposal will have to meet health requirements. The Kauai Historic Preservation Commission was supportive of the project provided the applicant did minimal modifications to the buttresses which won't have a utility, but they create a certain look to the building. Part of the way to retain the vision can be by the redesign so at a distance you would see what appear to be the same buttresses but prettied up. The recommendation is also for the color scheme, although not in the Lihue Town Core Development Plan, to follow those color guidelines. The applicant is prepared to work with the Planning Department to get the color palate. Mr. Kimura questioned where the resident manager would be staying to which Mr. Lambert replied on the second level above the office. 19 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Anderson questioned if there is an agreement regarding cleanup of materials relating to the materials recovery that may be left on the site or neighboring properties to which Mr. Law replied that it would be for demolition of current structures. At the time of pickup, if there is an element that shouldn't be brought to the facility it wouldn't be part of that. Eli would have to work with the vendors to make it clear and create certain protocols. The onus will be on him to fulfil with the Department of Health. Ms. Nishimitsu stated that Eli is in the process of applying for an NPDES permit that regulates discharge and is regulated by the Department of Health because the materials would be on the concrete slab at ground level, inside the building. It won't be outside and exposed to the elements. Mr. Kimura questioned the plans for the weigh station to which Mr. Lambert replied that they will continue to have it operated as a weigh station and Pacific Concrete and Coring will also be using it. Anything brought to their facility will be weighed first. Mr. Kimura questioned if they thought about having it used to weigh unregistered trailers to which Mr. Lambert stated it is doing that now. Mr. Abrams questioned the demolition of some of the support that used to be there to which Mr. Lambert replied that it was lateral before, and all of their structure support is going down into the foundation. They are actually building a building within the building, engineered six inches off the sides. The entire exterior will be renovated; all the panels replaced, and the roof redone. It will look much better. Mr. Cua stated that the Department has transmitted the director's report to the Commission with fourteen conditions with the approval. Ms. Nishimitsu stated that the applicant was allowed a copy of the report two weeks ago when there was no quorum and they are okay with the recommended conditions. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Kimura recommended that all future applicants provide glossy photos like the ones provided so they can see it better. Chair Anderson commended the applicant on their application and stated that it was very thorough. EXECUTIVE SESSION V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes privacy will be involved. Further, to consult with legal counsel regarding _ _powers, duties, privileges and/or liabilities of the PlanninLy Commission as it relates to the evaluation of t On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Louis Abrams to move into executive session, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The Commission recessed for lunch and moved into executive session at 12:03 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 1:14 p.m. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) %,ra3�5 1 v c vuur i Vrrlrrl Z� -1 v- Variance Permit V- 2015 -1 and Special Area Use 1- 2015 -6 to repair and reconstruction of the former Coco Palms Resort including but not limited to: 350 hotel units, Lotus Restaurant and Flame Room Bar, the Lobby Building, the Commercial Building, three hree swimming pools, Queen's Audience Hall, the Palms Lanai, Sea Shell Restaurant, Chapel in the Palms, 2 of 4 Bridge Crossings; the construction of a new Utility & Maintenance Building and a new Queen Lagoon Building into a spa and gym facility on the site of the previously demolished structure. The proiect is situated in Wailua and located at 04 -241 Kuhio Hi>?hway. further Chair Anderson made a final call for public testimony regarding the Coco Palms. There was no further public testimony. Mr. Dahilig noted that this permit is a very complex zoning analysis in that it handles a lot of things that were built before the comprehensive zoning ordinance was in effect, before the interim zoning ordinance was in effect, things grandfathered because of the Iniki Ordinance, and things that are just in general new construction. He circulated a matrix as guideposts on how they cobbled together the analysis on the property. In the middle there's a column on permit applicability based off of the Iniki Ordinance or if grandfathering elements of non - conforming uses are available. He circulated draft conditions that they anticipate rolling into the supplemental director's report at a subsequent meeting. He reviewed the genre of each of the conditions to give a sense of what the Department has on its radar screen as issues for the Commission. To support the historic area the first two items relate to exactions concerning mitigation of place making, provide more identity to the area and be in line with efforts going on with the County to create more of a sense of place for the island. The next condition relates to historic preservation. The Historic Preservation division has reviewed this and has gone before KHPRC and the SHPD conditions are folded into the application. Next concerns pre - management. There will be a lot of demolition involved and they want to ensure that the waste is handled according to a plan that encompasses the diversion and recyclable techniques now being used with construction demolition. The applicant is also on notice that based on the final design, the Sea Shell restaurant could trigger an EIS if the development does go into the shoreline area. They're being made aware through a condition that if the design steps into State jurisdiction, a 343 will be needed. If something happens that they decide to build in the shoreline area, they'll have to start from square one again. Chair Anderson asked for a description of what is meant by starting from square one to which Mr. Dahilig replied that anytime a discretionary permit is approved, it has to be in 21 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes accordance with Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, more commonly referred to as an EA or EIS needs to be produced. Based on what is represented on the plans, it does not appear from a departmental determination standpoint that Chapter 343 is triggered, but if the design changes as a consequence of the actual design process, these permits are considered discretionary. If something triggers the 343 the permits are going to be considered invalid and they will have to start the process over again. Chair Anderson questioned who the reviewing party would be that determines the trigger to which Mr. Dahilig replied it would be based off of information from the office of coastal and conservation lands in the DLNR. If the shoreline area is developed based on their finding, it would trigger the Department review first because the SMA is superior to a CDUA. Mr. Dahilig continued to review standard conditions concerning protection of birds, encouraging use of local labor, and energy lighting. Based off of public testimony and concerns from the Commission, there are still some outstanding issues on how to address traffic. This is probably the busiest intersection on the island. It's hard to anticipate based off of the comments from the Department of Transportation and Public Works which exactions exactly would be required at this juncture. The Department of Transportation is looking at road widening to address some of those needs. Beyond that, if there are things related to pedestrian protection or if there are better protections needed from a traffic management standpoint, those are things they want to make sure are addressed. If there is a proportional impact created as a consequence from the resort, they want those to be proportionally addressed and applicant bear the costs. They leave it up to the jurisdictional agencies to determine those actions. There are a couple of items that address transit; the bus stops and potential for some park and ride usage. There are forty spaces being proposed as public earmark spaces beyond what is demanded by the resort. The applicant is aware that they are required to meet the affordable housing ordinance and they have been in contact with the Housing Agency. There are also pro forma things regarding waste water demands. He pointed out that they want to see progress on the site. There are deadlines concerning improvements, installation of screening measures to mitigate aesthetic impacts, and consequentially timelines to the submittal of permit applications and when they want to see construction done. The biggest issues from the public testimony and Commission discussions have been historic preservation and traffic. Michael Belles representing the applicant stated that when they last left the issue on February I 01 the Commission was lacking a quorum. Based on the guidance of the legal counsel they were limited to questions and answers and they largely focused on traffic issues. Due to time constraints of the traffic consultant, he requested Mr. Packard respond to any questions first. Chair Anderson stated that there were several mitigation factors brought up to alleviate some of the impacts of traffic including airport shuttles and perhaps shuttles to other parts of the island. She questioned if those mitigation concerns have been analyzed in the traffic study to which Mike Packard, Traffic Engineer from SSFM replied that with regard to those types of packages, no, only on behalf of taking the worst case scenario in that such types of treatments and packages would not be included. Chair Anderson requested the specific number of trips replied that the analysis was for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. in ninety four trips to the resort and thirty six trips leaving the seventy four trips to the resort, and ninety eight trips leaving t shuttle impacts were rather negligible with five to ten trips, anticipated to which Mr. Packard The total trips in the a.m. resulted resort. In the p.m. it would be he resort. The restaurant and Chair Anderson asked for clarification that they were based off of National standard numbers to which Mr. Packard replied yes, it's based off of the ITE trip generation manual which is a national publication taking averages from around the country, past studies to the 70s, 22 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes studying specific land uses. This particular use was best described as a resort hotel being that a lot of amenities exist on site, different type of clientele, to qualify as best as they could. Mr. Abrams stated that the DOT said there is a Kuhio short term improvement project design team. He questioned if Coco Palms is involved to which Mr. Packard replied he was unaware of a short term design team. The road widening project is proposed for an additional Lihue bound lane as well as a right turn, south bound lane at Kuamoo and the signalization of Lam Kai. Tyler Green from Coco Palms Hui, LLC stated that there was a group that was put together for the Kapaa area and they have some proposed items that they would like looked at. The group assembled were local business owners and community members to communicate with the Department of Transportation on which ones they think would be top of the list. Re- signalizing lights throughout the corridor they think would disperse traffic better. Mr. Packard stated his understanding is that it is part of the Kapaa sub area study which is currently in draft form and is proceeding with the State DOT. That information is not made public outside of his client's participation in the group. The letter from the district engineer they passed out was an official project of which the widening is prosed to occur. Mr. Belles noted that based on the current understanding the fifth lane would be completed by the end of 2017. That was the principle reason for disseminating the correspondence to the Commission. Chair Anderson questioned the traffic engineer's opinion on what could be done by developer and what could be done by the State to address the traffic as it is now at the intersection of Coco Palms and Kuamoo Road to which Mr. Packard replied that currently the intersection has a north bound left turn dedicated lane which in the morning is not as heavily used, but in the afternoon it is more so as people head home. In the morning, the makai bound traffic from the residential units up mauka flood down there and creates an extremely long right turn backup. With the State project, the impacts on that intersection is that they will be adding a right turn lane for the south bound traffic to make a right turn. That's not the heavy movement but it actually alleviates some of the traffic signal split time. If you were approaching an intersection and get stopped right as the light turns red, the signal needs to go through all the other various phases before it comes back around to you. The longer you wait the longer the additional vehicles are backing up behind you. By adding the right turn lane for the south bound traffic it lessens the demand on the south bound movement which would free up additional time for the makai bound traffic. In his opinion, with the constraints they have, that really is the best option for alleviating the traffic at that intersection outside of a bypass that connects the residential uphill traffic further to an area north or south. The continued monitoring of a signal timing is the best way to mitigate that. It needs to be understood that that traffic will continue to be a problem because they are not lessening the volume of vehicles coming downhill. The volume far exceeds the number that intersection can handle, but this project is not impacting that and there is no conflicting movement from the project with that traffic. Chair Anderson stated that part of the job of the Commission is to come up with appropriate conditions that will not further tax the infrastructure. There is primarily one major airport on Kauai where the timing of flights may influence the timing of guest arrivals. She stated that she was curious as an analysis of if clientele is primarily coming international or mainland, what time those flights are and how best to address their coming and going rather than depending on the national standards that may or may not be reflective of the reality on the island. Mr. Packard replied that as a traffic engineer it is a little beyond what he would study. It strikes him more as a market study as to the intended users. Regarding the trips to the hotel, typical hotels don't allow check -in until 3pm so they could be coming from any direction if that's their first trip there because they can't check in until later anyway. The way the numbers are 23 V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes generated go beyond the first trip to the hotel. It's also the person who is residing there for a week doing their activities over the course of a day. He noted that although it is situated in a difficult spot with regards to existing congestion, it is located across the street from a beautiful beach of which they will get to by shuttle or walking, and it is located on a shared use bike path that has been touted as one of the more impressive bike paths and put out in tourist information as something to do. To the degree that Kauai has limited transit options through bus and other measures, the opportunity for the users of Coco Palms to walk to where they want to go, the infrastructure is there to support a different type of user. They have the opportunity for a more sustainable type of visit while still being in a resort type community. Mr. Abrams questioned the time on the signal at Kuamoo Road. He realizes it would be nice to have more time, but at the same time you would be compromising the fact that two solid lanes coming out of Kapaa would be held up at the intersection to which Mr. Packard replied the impacts to through bound traffic on Kuhio Highway is really a detriment to the operation of the intersection as a whole. While they think of trying to relieve the traffic coming down Kuamoo there is probably twice the amount of traffic on Kuhio Highway and they need to weigh the cost benefit of if they want to alleviate those people at the detriment of everyone else that is traveling through the intersection. He noted that northbound left and makai bound right could happen concurrently called an overlap which would be the best use of that intersection; having the two largest movements go concurrently. Mr. Abrams questioned the distance from Kuamoo to the bridge. Even if they had more lanes, they would need considerable distance to be able to ramp up to which Mr. Packard noted the northbound left turn lane was constrained by the existence of the bridge. They widened and lengthened as much as they could. His understanding is that the additional lanes that DOT is talking about would be extending the lane coming down Kuamoo to provide additional storage, so those vehicles don't conflict with the left turning movements. Mr. Kimura asked if they had discussions with DLNR regarding changing the lease to move the driveways. His understanding is any time you change anything within the lease, they need to have approval to which Mr. Green replied that the driveway is moving mauka off of Kuhio but it is not in the DLNR section. It is just makai of the boundary. Mr. Kimura stated that he thought he read there was an ingress or egress from the back part of the property. He questioned if that was part of the DLNR lease to which Mr. Green replied that there is the fee simple piece, then the coconut grove which is the leasehold, and then an additional parcel mauka of that that is fee simple. Ron Agor, architect, noted that the parking lot is leased from the state. Mr. Kimura questioned if the ingress or egress will be altered in any way to which Mr. Agor stated that they will be moving the driveway back and he presented the whole plan to DLNR. They are waiting to go to the Land Board to get the approval after they get Planning Commission approval. Mr. Kimura questioned what would happen if the Land Board shut them down to which Mr. Agor replied then they would have a problem, but he has already spoken to people and had assurances. Mr. Kimura questioned if there would be ingress and egress toward the back of the property to which Mr. Agor replied for the cultural center. The access is County roadway that he has had discussions regarding the minimum requirements of widening the road and making it more accessible and creating a better line of sight. WE V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura stated that they have had past problems with applicants not doing their homework regarding lease lands on DLNR property. Mr. Agor noted that he has the submittal prepared and he has already had preliminary discussions. Mr. Kimura stated that he is trying to prevent any hiccups from coming up in the future. It has been way too long that the buildings have been sitting idle. He thinks it is a great idea and hopes that they can work together to get it up and going as soon as possible to which Mr. Belles acknowledged they would not have gotten as far as they have without full cooperation of the County, the State, and all the applicable agencies. They have gotten all the confirmations and reports much earlier than they typically would have for a project of this size and magnitude he thinks based on the same sentiment that many people share of this being the last known relic of Hurricane Iniki. Mr. Kimura stated that if they could somehow work out the best scenario for the traffic, he thinks it's a great idea to which Mr. Belles stated that considering they are working with two jurisdictions, they have gotten incredible support and cooperation. Chair Anderson thanked the applicant for the additional submittal from the Department of Transportation dated February 17, 2015. The original comments from DOT stated that no major improvements were being recommended for Kuhio Highway at this time. She questioned if it was the applicant's understanding that the widening is a major improvement, and that they are signaling that they are planning that widening to which Mr. Belles stated that is their understanding. The purpose to submitting the letter was to demonstrate the commitment and understanding of the nature and extent and timing of the improvements. Chair Anderson noted that they mentioned proceeding with the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act. She questioned the time frame of their permitting to which Mr. Belles replied all they know is the bottom line is that they expect by the end of 2017 for the highway to be operational which is almost consistent with the timeline for the opening of the hotel. Chair Anderson questioned plans for addressing the pedestrian access to the beach, to which Mr. Green replied that they have discussed the idea of a shuttle that would run from the resort and drop people off at the beach. During construction it is hard to say how many people would be going to the property and beach parking wouldn't exist yet. Currently it is just the use of the crosswalk there. Chair Anderson clarified that they will be using a shuttle once the resort is up and going to transport pedestrians and they will use the pedestrian crosswalk as well to which Mr. Green replied in the affirmative. Chair Anderson questioned the specific location of the pickup and drop off sites to which Mr. Green replied they envision it running the entire length of the property so that hotel guests as well as people using the public parking could also utilize that shuttle. The shuttle would stop at the parking lots and run throughout the length of the resort and come out on Kuamoo, make the left onto Kuhio, and drop off in front of the Sea Shell restaurant. Mr. Kimura questioned if the parking lot next to the Sea Shell restaurant will be eliminated to the locals to which Mr. Green replied it is not part of the project. That parking lot will stay as is today. Mr. Kimura questioned if there will be enough room for the shuttle and the local fishermen to have parking there to which Mr. Green noted there is a strip on the Lihue side of the Sea Shell restaurant. They envision a ten to fifteen passenger van type shuttle. 25 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura questioned if the parking lot will be improved in any way to which Mr. Green stated they believe it is a State parking lot and they have not had any discussions on improving the State side. Their side splits just before the parking lot, on the north side. Chair Anderson stated that there was not a condition regarding the use of shuttles. In the presentation they explained potential green packages and providing shuttles for the guests. She questioned if the applicant would be opposed to having it as a condition within the recommendations to which Mr. Green stated they are open to having discussions on that. He has been going to Royal Coconut Coast Association meetings. Their hope is that a shuttle would not only service Coco Palms but all of the resorts. They wanted to borrow the idea of Waikiki where somebody can get on at one end of Waikiki and stop and get off at any point in time, whether to a restaurant or wherever. The verdict is still out with the Princeville shuttle and how effective it has been. His feeling is that the RCCA is still exploring how intensive the shuttle would be. He would be very open to spearheading those efforts and beginning the conversations and communications with the different hotels. The idea is that it shouldn't be exclusive to Coco Palms because it is alleviating traffic all the way through so it should be connected shuttle with all the resorts. They can commit to the green packages. They have plans for a bike rental shop. The reason they picked this particular operator is because they were very open to their ideas and what they wanted to establish at Coco Palms. They see the customer as the customer of the past, but also the new customer who is somebody more active and that would choose a bike over a car. It's their responsibility on the marketing side to present that in a way that is palatable to people. Without looking at any data, it is his guess that it would be 60 % -70% that is maybe a two or three day stay, and another 30 % -40% coming from the mainland directly. They can educate the people that they can be picked up at the airport, there would be a bike waiting for them, and in the course of two or three days they can see everything they need to see and experience Coco Palms in that corridor without having to rent a car. That is the direction they want to go and those are things they can commit to on the conditions. Chair Anderson stated that it has been brought up in public testimony regarding a pedestrian walkway overpass. She questioned discussions with DOT and what the possibilities are to which Mr. Green stated that the more he communicates with Ray McCormick and Don Smith, the more he realizes how busy they are and how it doesn't seem to be at the top of the list. He did not think the time exists no now for them to do a proper study as to why and how an overpass would be there. There was a comment that the speed limit in that corridor is 25 miles per hour. The underlying issue isn't necessarily the overpass needing to be there and how they safely get people across the crosswalk, the underlying issue is speed control. It is his opinion there are other intersections that are worse than that intersection because he has sat in traffic and has been a pedestrian trying to cross the street in Kapaa. On Oahu, he lives in Kakaako and he crosses Ala Moana which is six lanes of traffic in probably 35 or 40 miles per hour, which means cars are going 50, and he sees all day long kids in strollers, skateboarders, bikes, and people going back and forth in more traffic than where they are at on Kuhio and it seems to work just fine. They looked at the idea of trying to go under the bridge but they don't know what would be required in terms of agencies and permits or if it is even possible from an engineering standpoint. They have looked at many different ways on how to safely get people across the street but in his opinion, speed control would be the safest thing to do. Mr. Belles added that from a legal standpoint there would be, in all likelihood, the necessity of having an environmental impact statement pursuant to chapter 343 and that would delay the project far beyond the one year that is remaining on the Iniki Ordinance and would make the project impractical. Chair Anderson asked for clarification that the creation of an overpass, because it is involving the air space above state land, would require state approval and cooperation to which Mr. Belles stated that they have had these discussions in their quarterly reports with the Kauai County Council and have made it clear that it is under the jurisdiction and authority of the State we V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Department of Transportation. He has had discussions with Mr. McCormick and staff and they informed him that it is not a simple matter of installing an overpass. It is a very significant engineering feat when considering the water table on the makai portion of Kuhio Highway then traversing over Kuhio Highway. They would end up with counter flow traffic and the very problems they are trying to alleviate. The road would have to be narrowed to accommodate the construction of very substantial footings and bases on both sides of the highway to support that overpass. Knowing the amount of money that is likely to be involved, anywhere from a half million to five million, and knowing all the other obligations and responsibilities of DOT, the County of Kauai, and the region as a whole, it's not something that would be high on the list with all the other things that need to be dealt with in a bandage form and still remain within the budget. Mr. Kimura questioned if they think it would be fair to the local community to have to stop and go whenever someone wants to cross the road to which Mr. Belles stated it is the tradeoff you have today. Mr. Kimura stated that now versus when the hotel is there will be increased 200 %. He questioned if they think it's fair to the community that the traffic will be slowed down even more to which Mr. Belles stated that every effort is being made to mitigate the impacts created by the hotel; the green package, the shuttles, and the redesign of the ingress and egress to the property. This is the best solution with the alternative being doing nothing with the property. Mr. Kimura stated that it's obviously not the best solution. He would rather see people not use the crosswalk at all and just use the shuttle 24/7. He wants to support the project but have the traffic situation taken care of It may not be fair to guests, but it would be fair to the community to not slow traffic. He would love to see the hotel up and running but they need to figure something out. Stopping traffic will just create more traffic. Controlling speed doesn't really matter because you still have to stop traffic whenever families want to cross the highway. Adding lanes doesn't really matter. That's one place you don't really want to stop traffic. Chair Anderson stated that she echoed the concerns of Mr. Kimura that there are major concerns from decisions made in the past that lead to the current status quo and looking forward to how can they avoid potential problems that they can see. From the Commission's understanding of just plain common sense, when there is a situation when you have a hotel across from a highway and there is a beach that customers will want to go to, there will be an impact. Trying to foresee the things they can help shape to lessen the impact as much as possible, what is before them is an applicable condition number 21. It states the applicant shall work with the State Department of Transportation and Department of Public Works to resolve pedestrian crossing and vehicular traffic demands created by the development and bear the implementation costs proportional to the impacts that arise. She felt it was a good starting point, but they need to have a clear idea what impacts arise. Right now they have an assurance that they will have a widened road by 2017. Unless there are boots on the ground now, it's hard to see that happening by that time. They need a plan from the applicant's end on things they can provide that will allow things to work within a short time frame of two years. She thinks the shuttle is a beginning point. As has been alluded to that shuttle is going to increase traffic, every ten minutes. She would like to hear additional work that can be done. If there is potential for some kind of improvements for pedestrian walkways, and having the Commission understand what those potentials are would be a starting point to formulate conditions that will make sense for the community. Mr. Kimura questioned if the Planning Department can be added to condition 21 to which Mr. Dahilig stated he would not feel comfortable with that. They are not a traffic engineering department. They understand the concerns, but to require, based off of the Department's judgment, some type of traffic mitigation measure that is more based on feel and sight versus the 27 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes science behind it, he would feel hesitant to bear that burden of justification because he doesn't have the requisite credentials to justify that on the Department. Mr. Kimura stated that if the Commission puts their stamp on it, the people won't say that it's DOT's fault or engineering's fault, they're going to look at the Planning Commission and the Planning Department and say it's your fault to which Mr. Dahilig replied they can't do anything within their bounds of authority when they make recommendations that puts the whole burden of mitigating traffic for everybody that crosses that intersection on that one resort. That is the concern they are carefully playing with in imposing condition 21 in that there are impacts they know that can be quantified. Some are anecdotal and maybe needs to be further addressed through further study in the TIAR because it's apparent based on the Chair's questions that some scenarios were not studied by the TIAR that the Commission would like studied. At the same time, to have the solution be born solely by this resort alone is very candidly unconstitutional. They have to be weary of what they see as the solution because it's not going to be a panacea for the whole island. Mr. Green stated that there are simple things that can be done to alleviate traffic. He was told the traffic lights at the intersection at Waipouli are at a 180 second interval. For three minutes the light is green. He did not believe it was specific to that intersection because he has gone up and down that corridor. He watched as people have tried to merge in; one car in, one car out, that's what backs up the traffic. What happens is for three minutes there is a red light so all the cars from downtown Kapaa sit at this light for three minutes. He was told by Don Smith that's the longest time from a nation's standpoint that a light exists. It was re- signalized to 120 seconds. Cars come in batches, the light turns green, and they can disperse in smaller convoys instead of backing up. Once it starts backing up, it's harder for them to disperse as the lights turn green. They believe these simple short term things that they do actually affects everything down to that intersection because now people have time to merge and cars can disperse better. Mr. Kimura stated that for every pedestrian that wants to cross the highway, it's going to be that much longer to which Mr. Green stated that it is his belief that because they're signalized at 180 seconds, it won't stop at 30 seconds. Even if on hundred people are standing at the corner from Safeway, they still have to wait that 180 seconds. It doesn't cause for more cars to have to stop. It's all up to the signalization. That is why he has taken an interest in the Kapaa meetings because they are all saying the same things. Traffic is a problem. He has sat in those intersections understanding that these things should have happened ten or fifteen years ago in terms of widening the highway. He has seen patterns in the contra flow where traffic doesn't seem to have a problem. When there's no contra flow and on the weekends, you may hit a bad run of cars and get stuck. Mr. Kimura clarified that he is in support of the project as an individual and a commissioner, but he still needs to think about his peers where traffic is a concern to which Mr. Green replied that they understand completely and want to do their best to help as much as they can. Mr. Kimura stated that not everyone will be happy, but at least they are trying to do the best they can to alleviate any kind of traffic scenario that will arise when the hotel is built. He doesn't want to sit in traffic to which Mr. Belles replied that we all have something to gain by improving traffic circulation whether for the motorist or pedestrian. He stated that it's not something that once they get the permits they stop looking at the issues. If their customers have a bad experience there or if there is an accident it will reflect badly on the hotel and inhibit customers coming to the hotel. It is going to be a continuing effort by the State, the County and the land owners like Coco Palms to all contribute by coming up with shuttles and other means to mitigate traffic and help get people safely across the highway. N: V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura questioned what guarantee the public will have as it will be to the discretion of the developer to which Mr. Belles replied that it's not just the developer; they can only do what the State or County allows them to do. As Mr. Green observed it's a matter of getting a State or County engineer out there to figure out the proper timing on intersection lights and do whatever else is necessary. Mr. Kimura noted that he is also taking into consideration the development in Waipouli that was passed with another 300 units. With their development and Coco Palms, that's another 800 cars on the road to which Mr. Dahilig replied that his previous statement was based on that permitting experience with the other resort because the County got sued as a consequence of trying to solve the traffic problems solely on the back of that one development. Mr. Kimura stated that he understands that and he's not just thinking of Coco Palms. He questioned how they could come up with solutions that won't impact us as much as it will. Chair Anderson requested providing the Commission more information so they can have more of an idea what the proportional impact is. They alluded to the signals being 180 seconds, but more information on whether that is the case on every single signal or if the signal at Haleilio is sensitive to pedestrian walkways is information the Commission does not have that would be helpful to determine what type of impact pedestrians crossing at Kuamoo and at would be. Mr. Dahilig suggested that it may be helpful to have SSFM take some of the presumptions that are being raised anecdotally and try to translate it to inputs into the LOS model they are running at those intersections. He is sure the issues of timing the intersections properly with the assumption that somebody is pressing the button six times an hour to cross that street can be quantified and translated into whether or not it can be done simply by tweaking the existing lights or requires more of an infrastructure upgrade. From a condition standpoint that is what the Commission is interested in and hopefully can be quantified from a traffic engineering analysis versus a talk story kind of thing. Can they be quantified, can they be mitigated, and what does the model show based off of best practice. Mr. Belles stated that condition 21 kind of responds to that and codifies that it is an ongoing process to work with all of the jurisdictions to make sure it can be constantly reviewed and be fixed as best as possible. Many things they don't have the authority over and they can only make recommendations. Clearly they can make available to the State the resources of SSMF to help them in doing the necessary studies and to complement and supplement the work that is ongoing with them. If they had unlimited resources they would love nothing better than to build a bridge and underpass and whatever needs to be done to get people safely from one side of the street to the other. Realistically, can it be done and will they get approval from the State? It requires cooperation and money. He does not want to make false promises that they'll look at it and not do it. Mr. Abrams stated that he understands that in a perfect world the State DOT would have had an arterial done to the density that was called for in all of the areas and they can't put it all on the back of Coco Palms to solve all of the problems. At the same time there is a perception that noting is being done. The discussions on even the short term improvements was enlightening to hear and little things may help. It may be the major part of what gets done because he is not convinced that the major stuff will be coming in any time soon. They will be dealing with other projects down the line adding to this corridor and they have a finite thing to deal with. Having the discussion and information from the Coco Palms Hui perspective is a helpful thing. He thinks they have looked at as much as they could in light of the circumstances. He would be curious to hear all the different ones. He noted that when they were evaluating the Poipu corridor they had to push for a circulation study but they came up with a plan and had some small things that would help in the process of trying to get to what they had hoped to get to. Once it got shared, a lot of people felt more comfortable with having to deal with the situation. we V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Green stated that he can easily copy the materials he got from all the meetings he has been to and share it with the Commission to which Mr. Abrams replied that they are experts in terms of those things and can put that understanding in a lay person's way. Listening to SSFM discuss the right turn lane and left turn lane brought things that he didn't think of, so now he looks at it a little differently. He's not real happy with it, but basically they're moving along. Perhaps that can be shared with the Commission so when they come in with a decision they've vetted as much as they could as laypersons themselves. Chair Anderson stated that she hopes that has provided some clarity in terms of the information that would help them better craft condition 21. She would like to see the proportional impacts for pedestrians crossing the road and potentials of slowing traffic there. The last thing they want to see is someone getting hurt in the pedestrian walkway. She advised that even if they are going to be providing bike rentals, that there are bike safety and education in terms of the proper way to cross the street. The other main concern that was brought up was the archaeological significance of the site. A letter was generated from SHPD dated January 26, 2015 in which they requested the Department and the Commission address five different requirements. The Commission recessed for caption break at 2:42 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 3:00 p.m. David Shidler, archaeologist from Cultural Surveys Hawaii stated that the State Historic Preservation Division has required and signed off on six specific deliverables over the last decade. Less than a month ago, they asked for other deliverables that are moving forward. One was addressing the burial that was encountered in 2013 during dust fence erection. Four of the deliverables were new. One, was the scope of work. They supplied Dr. Lebo with a project narrative and she asked for additional documentation that they supplied at the end of last week. Regarding the Federal letters, Dr. Lebo has requested a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers. It has been requested from the team to clarifying whether it is a Federal undertaking and a permit is required. The team is moving forward in supplying that. Getting a letter from a Federal government is sometimes not quick, but it's moving forward. The team is confident that there is no Federal undertaking involved. Regarding the intensive level survey, Mason Architects have been retained to provide this study and that is moving forward. Regarding the burial site component of a data recovery plan, it is a common document for inadvertent finds of burials. This is moving forward. They have inspected one of the two burial re- internment facilities on the Coco Palms campus about its appropriateness. Dr. Lebo's reference to Kawanoe Hoomanawanui will be providing a SHPD determination of when the DSCDRP draft needs to be submitted. Typically those deliverables are done when the project is completed. It has been understood when the burial was found that this paperwork needs to be supplied for the review and acceptance of the SHPD, but the timing is uncertain. If they want it now, they'll get it in March. It makes sense to wait until the project is completed in case there are additional finds so they can all be addressed at one time. An archaeological monitoring plan was prepared in 2006. It was amended by the SHPD this year. He regards it as still in effect. SHPD asked for a revised archaeological monitoring plan and they're moving forward with that. A hard copy of the draft has been submitted to two of the principles of the project and they anticipate submittal of that formal review this week. Good progress has been made in addressing the five points. Chair Anderson questioned what an intensive level survey involves to which Mr. Shidler replied that he is a humble archaeologist. And intensive level survey document is an architectural document. It was clear that they wanted it prepared by an architectural historian which he is not, however Mason Architects has been retained for the project. It's an evaluation of the age and structure and nature of the architectural properties on the Coco Palms campus. Mason Architects have been supplied with the list of the building permits so they will be able to 30 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes determine which buildings are over fifty years old. Anna Boverman of the State Historic Preservation Division was present and was more concerned with the structures that are more than fifty years old, but she was also quite clear about the flood concerns. Most of Coco Palms is in a flood zone and new construction would need to go up on stilts. At this point in time, there's no clear drive for preservation of architecture structures, but that would be a point that is evaluated. The architectural study would look for character defining elements that might be included recommendations for redevelopment of the Coco Palms campus. Chair Anderson questioned what the burial treatment plan and burial site component of data recovery plan would entail to which Mr. Shidler stated that typically burials fall in two jurisdictions; previously identified burials such as are found during archaeological inventory surveys, and inadvertent finds such as are accidently found during the course of construction. In this case, when the dust fence was erected, there were two hundred holes for the posts. In one of the two hundred holes that were all monitored, a burial was encountered. As the SHPD letter begins, it begins inadvertent find, because jurisdictionally it is an important element that would typically be addressed in one of two documents; a burial site component of a data recovery plan if the burial was determined to be relocated, or a burial site component of a preservation plan if the burial was to be preserved in place. In his opinion, the State rightfully called for a burial site component of a data recovery plan. Chair Anderson asked for clarification that they have done previous archaeological inventory of the area to which Mr. Shidler replied he has been involved in six documents that have been reviewed and accepted by SHPD for the Coco Palms redevelopment project; an archaeological inventory survey, an addendum archaeological inventory survey, a data recovery plan, an archaeological monitoring plan, a preservation plan, and a national register of historic places nomination. Chair Anderson asked for clarification that in the past work they have not identified burial sites to which Mr. Shidler clarified that they technically did identify a burial site designated with the inventory of historic properties as the Mahunapuuone burial site ten years ago, largely designated on the basis of historic information. In the course of the archaeological inventory survey and addendum archaeological inventory survey, one hundred test units were excavated, between fifteen and twenty feet long. They found two probably human bones about the size of a quarter in a previously disturbed context, but those were the only two human skeletal remains found during the archaeological inventory survey. Chair Anderson questioned the issue in terms of timing of the burial treatment plan and the burial site component data recovery plan. It is her understanding that the finding be completed prior to issuance of a permit. She felt in terms of being prepared, it is important to have the plan in place prior to construction to which Mr. Shidler replied that his understanding is that the developer is prepared to have all requirements by SHPD in place prior to the beginning of construction, and prior to the issuance of a building permit. He pointed out that the last requirement will be for an archaeological monitoring report which will involve the monitoring of the construction which will continue to the last landscaping, so the last formal deliverable will not be submitted until ninety days after the end of construction. Chair Anderson questioned if the applicant had any concerns with including the five provisions set forth in the SHPD letter within the proposed conditions to which Mr. Belles stated in looking at the proposed draft of the Department, they only list four items and they have no problems complying. As Mr. Shidler indicated they are working with SHPD to satisfy all the concerns reflected in their letter. Chair Anderson stated that her question would be to include the fifth as well, and it sounds like they are already complying with that. She recommended that the Department note 31 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes for the archaeological monitoring plan that it is ongoing through construction and ninety days after construction as stated. Mr. Kimura questioned if the Department of Transportation is ever going to come before the Commission on this matter to which Mr. Dahilig stated they could always make the request. Beyond the comments, unless a commissioner asks for an agency to appear, they usually don't do that. Mr. Kimura questioned if they leave it in the developers hands to work with DOT and engineering to see what they come up with or if the Commission should push it along to which Mr. Dahilig replied that he is hearing the Commission's desire for more information. Unless they want to pursue some type of action today either by closing agency hearing and taking action on the permit, he is presuming that the Commission is not at that junction yet. Given that, his task over the next couple of weeks is to gather more information to make the Commission comfortable with some of the questions. Mr. Kimura stated for the record that it is basically DOT's recommendation that they will have to go off of to which Mr. Dahilig replied that is how they typically operate. It is their road, their traffic light. Mr. Kimura stated that he just wanted the public to know it's not something they control, it's DOT's recommendations on how to deal with the traffic. It's not something the Commission can really do something about except to accept it or not. He wants the public to know it's not the Commission's decision on how they deal with the traffic, it's what DOT recommends. He did not want the County to be blamed for things they have no control over to which Mr. Belles replied the reality is, as stated in the draft conditions, that they must ultimately satisfy DOT and the Department of Public Works over their respective jurisdictions. They can't tell them what they want to do, they have to work with them to ultimately implement those things. That's the way the conditions have been crafted, as with SHPD. They have to work with other government agencies before they can get their building permit. They all have to sign off on it. One thing he wanted to humbly request is, because the public has spoken over the course of three meetings, that the Commission close the public hearing and allow them to continue to work with the Director on the template that he has proposed with the final say from the Commission. Mr. Kimura stated that he is ready to close public hearing. He questioned if they would still be able to request information if they close public hearing to which Mr. Dahilig replied that two things would happen; any opportunity for intervention is foreclosed and a second time clock with start. In anticipation on the work that would need to be done, they tried to steer a lot of heavy items away from the first meeting in March. There is flexibility, but he wouldn't view the closure of agency hearing as anything that forecloses the Commission from continuing to work on the application. Chair Anderson questioned if the cultural advisory group has had any public meetings or discussions regarding the burial components to which Dirk Soma replied that at each of the community meetings and site visits that they facilitated, the issue was brought up. There was a lot of discussion and their job was to relay that information to the developers. The developers were aware of it and were taking mitigation and opportunities to work with the community and responsive agencies to handle iwi kupuna. Chair Anderson stated there was public testimony regarding individuals who may have ancestry to that area and questioned if the group was working with those individuals to which Mr. Soma replied that they have not worked with those individuals directly, but their meetings are open to all and they would love to engage in more dialog as they progress through the situation. 32 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Anderson questioned how they have integrated the comments into the burial plans or how they foresee making that connection to which Mr. Green stated that they have tried to look at the reoccurring themes from the comments. Specific to burials it appears that if they were to follow the guidelines set by SHPD that would in turn solve the concerns by the community. The reoccurring theme was what to do if there were inadvertent finds. Those guidelines are set up by SHPD. Chair Anderson questioned if there were any concerns that were not addressed by SHPD, differences in opinions on how bones should be treated for example, to which Mr. Green stated that the community wanted to know if they followed the proper protocol. He noted that they have to follow what SHPD puts in front of them. Mr. Soma added that what SHPD has put in front of them is extremely comprehensive. Maybe it is something they can put out to the community as well. Mr. Belles stated that he thinks the Department was sensitive when they developed the proposed draft of conditions. The only thing in bold letters was "Work on this site must immediately stop and SHPD and the Planning Department must be notified" which mirrors State law. He thinks that there is a misunderstanding of how intense both State and County laws are in terms of what developers have to do should they discover a burial. Safeguards and laws are in place with very severe penalties if they don't comply. That's why they have archaeological monitoring for all the work. Chair Anderson stated there was a request for additional information and the applicant requested that the Commission close the agency hearing. She noted that the Commission has reserved time at the next meeting for Coco Palms and they will try to address it at the beginning of the meeting. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura to close the agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Chair Anderson questioned if there were additional items, conditions, or concerns the Commission would like to see the Department address. Mr. Mahoney stated that the information on the burials was important and he is satisfied with the discussions on the traffic. Mr. Kimura questioned if there were any chance they could talk to DOT about moving the crosswalk to which Mr. Green replied that they could certainly ask. Mr. Kimura questioned if they should ask DOT to come to the meeting to which Mr. Belles replied that it's typically it's a very technical exercise. He doesn't even get involved as the lawyer. The engineers talk to each other and construction drawings reflect input from State and County jurisdictions. Mr. Abrams stated that he understands the condition and the State DOT, but he is not comfortable with that. He'd like to put more teeth into it but he did not know if it would have any by the time it gets up there. His main issue was traffic and he's interested in listening to more in regards to the quick fixes as something that they may want to put in as a condition. Mr. Dahilig stated that they are proposing something that requires design review before they get to building permits so if there are aesthetic concerns or things regarding construction of new buildings not being in character or in form related to what that new development was, they have the mechanisms to do that review ahead of building permit approvals. 33 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura questioned if there are any concerns with the flood zones with the new CZO to which Mr. Dahilig replied that the applicant is very aware that the Iniki Ordinance does not cover any kind of exemption from the County flood ordinances. That is a separate discussion and regulatory process they're going to have to go through with the Department of Public Works, engineering. Chair Anderson requested folding in the conditions set forth by SHPD into condition three. She requested placing any information regarding affordable housing be placed in item 14. In item 21 there's the question regarding the calculation of the actual impacts of pedestrians from the hotel crossing the roads to the beach. She requested more information on the proportional impacts and if there is language tying into the contributions from one and two. She would like specifics into what the contributions will be from the applicant for improvements to pedestrian crossings. Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department will come back to the Commission with a supplemental Director's report that will formally fold in the conditions along with analyzing further information and provide comments. Chair Anderson requested folding into the conditions a reference to the airport or regional shuttles to be able to quantify the actual mitigation efforts that are being proposed to effect and mitigate the traffic impacts. On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer this item to March 10, 2015, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Six -,year Capital Improvement Program port Presentation Mr. Dahilig noted that they will need the Commission's acceptance of the plan. There is one more meeting available for the Commission to review the plan because the budget is transmitted to the Council on March 16tH Staff planner Marie Williams stated that they are once again seeking approval of the six year CIP report. She noted the overview, legal mandates, and requirements of the charter are in the Director's report. She walked the Commission through the diagram that she created to illustrate the planning process. She noted that at the end of the day, it is the annual budget that determine which projects get done and what they actually see on the ground. The types of capital projects the County approves and builds impact people's lives and they hear about the impacts when they go out into the community. It can be a positive feedback loop when done correctly. She stated that CIP manager Keith Suga plays a major role in the hard work of developing the work and doing the outreach to the agencies and working with the Mayor's office. Mr. Suga reviewed some of the projects along with the flow on how they go about communicating with the departments and having conversations as to how they relate to certain plans, master plans, workshops, and how they end up getting to how they include it into the report. They are up against financial challenges. They tried to focus on projects that need to be done through regulations, or certain projects that are unavoidable such as the Kekaha Landfill expansion. In the multi -modal capacity section, Lee Steinmetz is assisting with the transportation planning. They tried to have this relate to the State STIP program. For roadways that are classified to be federally funded, they work with the DOT to submit projects and are able to leverage County funds to get 80% federal funds. They do have certain projects that are regulatory in nature such as in the wastewater category. 34 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kimura questioned if it really costs a million dollars to design a water tank to which Mr. Suga replied that as previously requested by the Commission in last year's report they included projects from the Department of Water, so this year they included their outlook of their projects within the next twelve to eighteen months. He was not 100% sure on specifics of their projects. Chair Anderson requested a color coding on the priority projects and percentages of the highest priority matters. Ms. Williams replied that the CIP isn't necessarily a tool for prioritizing projects. In some ways the report reflects priorities of the County and the departments. The first project most likely is the one that will begin in the upcoming fiscal year so it's prioritized in that regard. There are examples of other CIP programs that might have a ranking system that have a team of department heads coming together to vet projects. There might be a map where projects have to be within a growth area determined by a community plan for them to even be placed on the six year CIP list. They've always pointed to the General Plan as being the best place to take a look at how to prioritize projects across different projects and districts. Right now they don't have a strong means of ranking projects, but it will be explored through the General Plan process. What you see here in the organization of the report is more the scheduling of the projects that represent priority projects in general. Chair Anderson requested a chart to show the federal funding per the type of projects to which Ms. Williams replied that they can add that chart to the report. Chair Anderson stated that it could be added to chart number three, but note on what percentage the total cost would be to which Mr. Suga replied they could represent something in a graphical form. It is broken down in the report what portion is County funded and what portion is federal funded. Ms. Williams noted that general obligation bonds fund most of the capital projects and federal funding, mostly through the STIP program, fund a huge percentage of the new capital projects. Mr. Abrams pointed out the first line item on page eight, says Koloa School, but should be Kilauea. Mr. Kimura noted road improvements to Puhi, Poipu, Hanapepe, but questioned the roads in Kilauea and the North Shore to which Mr. Suga replied that they are trying to align the multi - modal road projects with the STIP program which has a certain amount allotted per fiscal year. Within that they have limitations to the amount of projects they can get. The projects currently in the STIP have already had preliminary work done and are ready to go to construction. There were discussions about some roadways in Kilauea and at this point, they're still in the early stages. Mr. Kimura questioned the is updated every four years for the that's where projects can be added It's not to say that within the next are looking at that. bypass road to which Mr. Suga replied that the STIP program federal fiscal years, however they have revisions every year so in. At this time, they weren't ready to propose that project. ;ix years that no road projects would happen in Kilauea. They Mr. Dahilig stated that in the Kilauea Town Plan is a bypass that has been earmarked for construction and is something that is in discussions with the land owners about getting the road right of way. Federal dollars require a 20% match. There are things called a hard match and a soft match. They are trying to structure the opportunity for a soft match to be done by that land being conveyed to the County, but it is a long and complicated process because it involves action from the Commission and things that relate to up zoning land and Land Commission decisions 35 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes that if moved too quickly on, may have more detrimental effects to the town. The Mayor's office wants the land acquisition discussions, and if we get the land, then that would be an appropriate time for the project to be placed on the STIP because the County wouldn't have to fork over its own money to match the 20% because it would be a soft match and can be levied by the Planning Commission as a proportional exaction for development. The Department did a study about a month ago and it has been distributed this month. He can circulate the final draft of the report. Chair Anderson thinks that is something they need to move towards looking at; collaborating and bringing in private funding as well. Mr. Dahilig stated it's similar to what they already see with the CFD funds that are charged or the FRC. It would have to be implemented by Ordinance. If it's something the Commission would like to talk about it would be in the context of a zoning amendment to implement. Ms. Williams noted that the Mayor's office has launched an exciting development establishing a grants management team to drastically increase the amount of grant funding both federal and private or even state grants. That is another means of looking at ways to fund capital projects. Through the process of having a six year CIP and more importantly current community plans and area plans primes us for these opportunities that may arise. Mr. Abrams stated that he agrees. He has seen an impact fee study done by the County that outlines the capital improvement expenses that would be having to be done and therefore allocated per dwelling unit or housing or roads. He thought it might be something worthy of doing because it makes it easier in the long run. Mr. Dahilig noted that because the fees are cross jurisdictional there is also a supplemental draft ordinance that would be partially under the Department of Finance as well as other agencies. At the end of the day, the implementing tool has to be an ordinance. Mr. Abrams questioned Limaola and the incredible amount of County funds that would be used in 2021 for the pathway from Lihue to Ahukini and if some of that would be with federal funds. Mr. Suga replied that with phase one of Limaola, currently they do not have funding identified although they are guestimating where the potential funding could come from. They will be needing to explore state avenues for funding or other programs. For the bike path projects they have been fortunate to get great partnership with the State to provide the 80% funding. Mr. Dahilig noted they will make the amendments and recirculate at the next meeting. On the motion by Louis Abrams and seconded by Jan Kimura to defer this matter to the March 10, 2015 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A -213, 4444 Rice Street, Lihue, HI 96766 on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. ADJOURNMENT Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 4:28 p.m. 36 V:A2015 Master Files \Commissions\Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of 37 Respectfully submitted by: Duke Nakamatsu, Commission Support Clerk meeting. V: \2015 Master Files\ Commissions \Planning \Minutes \2015 -2 -24 Planning Commission Minutes