HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 022316 MinutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 23, 2016
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair Mahoney at 9:14 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room
2A -2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Sean Mahoney
Vice Chair Louis Abrams
Mr. Kimo Keawe
Mr. Roy Ho
Absent and Excused:
Mr. Wayne Katayama
The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie
Takasaki, Marisa Valenciano, Jody Galinato; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi - Sayegusa,
Office of Boards and Commissions — Administrator Jay Furfaro, Commission Support Clerk
Darcie Agaran
Prior to the start of the meeting, Council Administrative Assistant Eddie Topenio gave
the Oath of Office to reappointed Commission Member Louis Abrams.
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mahoney called the meeting to order at 9:14 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dahilig_ Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Abrams?
Mr. Abrams: Here.
Mr. Dahilig. Commissioner Keawe?
Mr. Keawe: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Katayama? Chair Mahoney?
Chair Mahoney: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair, you have four (4) members present.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig: Next on the agenda is the Approval of the Agenda. Mr. Chair, we would
recommend holding the agency hearing and action first, after Receipt of Items for the Record, on
Item F.2.b., which is the Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -8, Use Permit U- 2016 -7, and
Special Permit SP- 2016 -3. This is the Anaina Hou Land Company's school proposal. If that can
be handled actually... probably... yeah, right after Receipt of Items for the Record, just to clear
that off the agenda and get the kids to school. We would also recommend handling, after
Hearings and Public Comment, Item I.1. This is my petition to modify or revoke the Coco
Palms' permits. If that can be handled immediately after the completion of the Hearings and
Public Comment period. And then if you could move Item I.3., which is the informational
presentation relating to the General Plan Update, if that can be moved to the end of the agenda
this morning. And then Item H.1., relating to Executive Session, will be called as needed in the
event that the Commission needs some guidance.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the amended agenda?
Mr. Abrams: So moved.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
MINUTES of the meetings) of the Planning Commission
Meeting of January 12, 2016
Meeting of January 26, 2016
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have two (2) meeting minutes for approval this
morning. These are the meeting minutes of January 121h and 261h of this year.
Mr. Abrams: Move to approve minutes of January 121h ... do you want to do both or one? Both?
Chair Mahoney: Both, yeah.
Mr. Abrams: Both. 121h and 261h of January.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item E, Receipt of Items for the Record.
We do have, I guess, a supplement that has been distributed related to additional Supplement No.
2 to the Director's Report, as well as a letter from new counsel for Coco Palms Hui and that has
been distributed.
I guess we would ask that the Commission receive these items for the record.
Chair Mahoney: Chair will entertain a motion to receive.
Mr. Abrams: Move to receive.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Okay, items are received for the record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
New Agency Hearing
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -8, Use Permit U- 2016 -7 and Special Permit SP -2016-
3 to operate and construct a middle/high school facility on a parcel situated along the mauka side
of Kuhi6 Highway in Kilauea, approx. 900 ft. south of the Kalihiwai Road/Kuhi6 Highway
intersection and further identified as 5 -2723 Kuhi6 Highway, Tax Map Key 5 -2- 017:028, and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 15.17 acres in size Anaina Hou Land LLC. POST
PONED 1/12/16.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.2.b., per the amended agenda. This
is Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -8, Use Permit U- 2016 -7, and Special Permit SP- 2016 -3.
This is to operate and construct a middle school/high school facility on a parcel situated along
the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Kilauea, approximately 900 feet south of the Kalihiwai
Road/Kuhi6 Highway intersection and further identified as 5 -2723 Kuhi6 Highway, Tax Map
Key 5 -2 -017 Parcel 28, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approximately 15.17 acres in
size. The applicant here is Anaina Hou Land LLC. This was postponed on 01/12/16 due to
posting issues, and there was a report that was previously received by the Commission on
02/09/16.
Mr. Chair, the Department would recommend opening the agency hearing at this time for this
application.
Chair Mahoney: Any member of the public care to testify on this agenda item?
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, we have, I believe ... one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), nine
(9)...eleven (11) individuals that have signed up to testify on this agenda item. Start with Larry
Rivera. This is on the school.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Larry Rivera: Aloha Kakahiaka. Good morning, everybody, and Aloha!
Audience: Aloha!
Mr. Rivera: I can't believe what's going on here. I worked (at) Coco Palms (for) sixty -four (64)
years...
Chair Mahoney: Mr. Rivera, just to let you know, this is going to be on the school item.
Mr. Rivera: I can't hear what you're saying. I'm a recovering war veteran and I cannot hear
you.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Rivera: I heard my name, so that's why I came up.
Chair Mahoney: Alright.
Administrator Furfaro explained the situation to Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera: Oh, okay. Then I'll have to leave because I have to do a tour at Coco Palms right
now. Several buses come there and I'm going to tell them the beauty of Coco Palms. And I
hope that you think hard about giving them a chance, please. In God's name, please bring Coco
Palms back. Amen.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Sharon Goodman, followed by Robyn Botki, followed by Parker Croft.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Sharon Goodman: Sharon Goodman. I am one (1) of the co- Directors of Pu`ukumu School.
And I just want to say that enthusiastically, with the support of our students here, present, that we
see this as a gift from Bill and Joan Porter; as really a gift to what the north shore residents had
asked for. So they have been so kind to give us this gift of building a school. I would like to say
4
that about Pu`ukumu School, we can be a wonderful ... we are a wonderful asset to the
community. We stand for character and community and academic success. Right now, we are
using teachers from the community for some of our electives, and we want to give back as a part
of our character education programs, so we plan to work in the community as service. So I think
it's a wonderful way to build community, and I know that there's a backing from the north shore.
Thank you for your consideration today. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Robyn Botki, I believe.
Robyn Botkin: Botkin.
Mr. Dahilig: Botkin, followed by Parker Croft, followed by Thomas Daubert.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Ms. Botkin: My name is Robyn Botkin, and I am the other co- Director of the Pu`ukumu School.
I just wanted to thank you all for your consideration today. I will mirror what Sharon Goodman
has shared with you in that I do feel... and I do feel a tremendous amount of support from our
community around the main objectives of the school. And that would be to create a school that
supports character, community, and academic success. It is our goal to really become an
intricate part of the community, to work with our students to teach them of the value of their
home, what is unique about being a Kauai student versus being a middle school or high school
student somewhere else, and how they can be active members in preserving their land, their
culture, and everything around them. So we humbly ask you to please consider this application
today, and mahalo for your consideration.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Parker Croft, followed by Thomas Daubert, followed by Jack Gushiken.
Parker Croft: Aloha. My name is Parker Croft, and my wife and I farm mauka of this site, up on
Kalihiwai Ridge. We have raised four (4) children, and we would have been very grateful to
have had a facility on the north shore. The whole north shore really deserves and needs a facility
like this so that they can have good education at this level and not have to travel a long distance.
From what I've observed, these ... the Porter's and the Staff of the school are doing an excellent
job. I'm grateful and honored to serve as the architect for this project, and I'll be happy to
answer any technical questions later on. But as a parent and a neighborhood member and a
resident, Kalihiwai is truly blessed to have the Porter's do all those good things that they have
done, and this is just an extreme example of their generosity and their wisdom. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Thomas Daubert, followed by Jack Gushiken, followed by Bob Smith.
Thomas Daubert: Good morning. My name is Thomas Daubert, and I'm the Executive Director
for Anaina Hou Community Park. On behalf of our organization, I'm very pleased to
support ... we are very pleased to support the Special Use Permit for the Pu`ukumu School
facility. As the landowner of the school's proposed site, we are excited to extend the lease to this
new middle and high school, and to welcome them to our campus on the north shore. The
Anaina Hou Board Directors voted unanimously at its board meeting on December 91h in favor of
the school project as our team recognized the value that this organization brings to our
community and the value that the two (2) organizations bring to be able to work together to serve
our community in a really beautiful way. So again, on behalf of Anaina Hou, I wish to fully
embrace and support the Pu`ukumu project, and appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Jack Gushiken, followed by Bob Smith, followed by Kristin Hall.
Jack Gushiken: Good morning. My name is Jack Gushiken, and I'm a lifetime resident of
Kilauea. I have sent in a written statement on January 12`h, you know, the postponed meeting. I
highly recommend that this school be in operation because I've seen it operate and it's a high -
level type of education. There is no limit to what the child can do at this type of school. Another
thing that I see that, you know, at this level, the high school level, some of our public high
schools, there's no parking already, as far as cars, yeah? Most of these kids will be driving on
the road. In Kilauea, you know, that area I think will cut down the traffic heading towards east
side and most of the traffic will be maintained in the Kilauea area. Okay, thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Bob Smith, followed by Kristin Hall, followed by Jake Lambden.
Bob Smith: Hi. My name is Bob Smith. I'm a retired Pastor and resident of the north shore.
I'm also a board member for the Pu`ukumu Schools. I've been working along with a team of
folks at Pu`ukumu to put together their vision of what this school will be and become. I'm here
to tell you that I'm really impressed with the high caliber of the leadership, the heart, the
expertise, the knowledge, and the vision that they have for bringing an exceptional resource to
the north shore, which is, as other people have already said, really needed. When you look at the
Staff and the people who are working and the kids and the caliber of the kids, it's an inspiration.
So the licensing or the pennitting process for this seems, to me, to be something that you need to
support because what will be happening is ... I invite you to consider that your approval will
enable Pu`ukumu to have a significant and positive impact, not only on these kids and Staff, but
on the whole community of the north shore because of the quality of education that they will be
receiving and their interaction with the community. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Kristin Hall, followed by Jake Lambden, followed by Mary Paterson.
rel
Kristin Hall: My name is Kristin Hall, and I have two (2) students at Pu`ukumu. First of all, I
want to thank you for moving us up in the agenda. My dad is in planning on the mainland, and I
spent many, many times at meetings like this and it taught me a lot. I appreciate you letting them
be here and also for moving them up so that we can get them back to class. I just ... I want to just
really encourage the approval of this. I'm actually a huge proponent of...an advocate for public
schools and it's nothing ... I don't think this takes away anything from public schools. I think that
all kids learn and thrive in different environments, and I think that to have options and places for
kids to thrive is a great thing. Pu`ukumu has always taught about giving back to the community
and being a part of the community, along with the education. I've always really appreciated the
fact that they really balance that out. I just ... we really have felt it's definitely a family and
`ohana feeling there, and I know that these kids are taught respect and no kids are just cast aside
that perhaps might need extra help and everything else. I mean, they really work with each
individual child and meet their need, and I think that is a benefit to the community in the long
run because it's a very positive thing to have kids learning, not just the reading, writing, and
arithmetic as we used to do, but also just a character education and the commitment and the
respect of their community. So I just appreciate the consideration, and I thank you for your time
today. Thanks.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Jake Lambden, followed by Mary Paterson, followed by Felicia Cowden.
Jake Lambden: My name is Jake Lambden. I'm a very happy student at Pu`ukumu School. I
support the building of the high school, and I look forward to going there.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony. (Applause) Okay, so we can hold the applause.
Mr. Dahilig: Mary Paterson, followed by Felicia Cowden.
Mary Paterson: Aloha and thank you, Commissioners. My name is Mary Paterson. I've been a
resident of the north shore for almost thirty (30) years. The north shore has grown considerably,
as everybody knows, and our kids are not being served in their community with either public
education or even private education. So I would really encourage ... at the middle school and
high school level I'm talking about ... I would really encourage you to support this initiative that's
before us and to allow them to build the school for the middle school and high school students.
I, myself, was a very slow learner in school, and I would have benefited tremendously from this
type of education that they are providing because the blended learning takes, not only the core
curriculum, but it allows the peer -to -peer learning, it allows the teachers and it allows internet
learning. You can learn many different varieties. And I, myself, would have benefited greatly
from that type. I also really encourage everyone to think of how much this will save and being
able to keep the kids in our community from having to drive to Kapa`a, which they currently
have to do, and it also encourages local jobs. I'm on the board of the Kauai North Shore
Community Foundation, and our whole board supports this, and we are very, very grateful to the
Porter's for their contribution and their vision. So I encourage you to pass this. Thank you so
much.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilix Felicia Cowden.
Felicia Cowden: I'm Felicia Cowden, and I'm going to speak directly to land use. We've heard
many people say, you know, a lot of good things about this school. I was the co -Chair of the
Youth Council, I was the Chair of the School Community Council for Kapa`a High, and for... I
remember we had a ... our kids needed a school program almost thirty (30) years ago. This has
been something that has been sought for a long time, and this particular plot of land was
commercial use. It was permitted as commercial use for a long time, and the Porter's, they
downgraded it, but really, in the General Plan and the Community Plan, this was seen as an area
that would be high -use. In all the school opportunities that we've looked at for both a public
high school and any kind of place where we could put a school, this general area, normally it's
across the street that's been looked at as a space because it had been commercial on the mauka
side, but this is a great spot because of its proximity to the town. We probably have the highest
density of young people right there in Kilauea, so it can be bike rides, it can be walks. The way
that the future road is coming or is intended to come, it brings it right to that spot. Another really
excellent thing is its proximity to the public bus. That stops the road traffic because these kids
can easily get a bus pass. I have had my own program that was designed for Kapa`a High called
"Akamai Learning" that I ended up doing as an alternative middle school. I have encouraged my
students to ride the bus and they typically do. It teaches very good habits in terms of how our
public transportation system works. I am very excited to be helping Pu`ukumu with the structure
of how they are educating kids because I think it is really appropriate for many of our children
who really don't like to sit still all day long, honestly; that's actually a lot of kids.
And then I want to speak to the possible outcome of like well, what if the school doesn't
continue to hold on? Because we see that all the time; we have Kahili Mountain Park, we have
Kula School. Kula School is where they are right now. There are many other small schools that
are trying to open up somewhere, so it has potential well beyond its time. I know that Kahili
Mountain Park ... there are schools that are trying to go into there. This is a windfall and a
blessing from the Porter's, and this is something that's been wanted for decades in the location
that it's been wanted for, and it's appropriate. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. My guess is
this is going to be a pass, but thank you to the Porter's. Thank you to Pu`ukumu. Thank you to
this Commission. Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair that is all I have signed up to testify this morning. We do have written
testimony that has been submitted, that I would like to state for the record, from Margaret Gil in
support, Chris and Tricia Rine in support, Alison Chuang in support, Evans McGowan in
support, Sky Asher in support, Kayti Lathrop in support, Jessi Wright in support, and Chancellor
of Kauai Community College Helen Cox in support. Mr. Chair, the Department would
recommend making a final call for any further oral testimony at this time.
Chair Mahoney: Is there any other member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda
item? Seeing none.
Mr. Dahilig: Seeing none, Mr. Chair, the Department would recommend closing the agency
hearing at this time.
Mr. Abrams: Move to close the hearing.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded to close the hearing. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Bearing closed.
Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -8, Use Permit U- 2016 -7 and Special Permit SP -2016-
3 to operate and construct a middle/high school facility on a parcel situated along the mauka side
of Kuhi6 IJighway in Kilauea, approx. 900 ft. south of the Kalihiwai Road /Kuhi6 Highway
intersection and further identified as 5 -2723 Kuhi6 Highway, Tax Map Key 5 -2- 017:028, and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 15.17 acres in size = Anaina Hou Land LLC. POST
PONED 1/1216.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as stated per the amended agenda, let's move to Item
M.1. to conclude action on this particular item. Dale is the Planner for this permit, and he'll be
making the presentation on behalf of the Department.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. At this time, I
would like to just summarize the Director's Report. What you have before you is to
consider... it's a consideration of Class IV Zoning Permit, Use Permit, and Special Permit to
allow the applicant to operate and construct a middle/high school facility. Project Description
and Use. As represented, the extent of the improvements will include construction of a two -story
structure, approximately 21,500 square feet in size, and off - street parking. The structure will be
constructed of steel - framing with galvanized metal roofing at a maximum height of twenty -five
(25) feet. Applicant has indicated that the school is designed to accommodate approximately
180 students and up to fifteen (15) faculty members. Additionally, they will provide a total of
seventy -five (75) off - street parking stalls for the school facility and it will be integrated into the
Anaina Hou Community Park. The agency comments have been attached to the Director's
Report. At this time, that concludes the Director's Report.
Chair Mahoney: Are there any questions for the Planner by members of the Commission? Is
there a representative for the applicant present? Could you state your name for the record,
please?
Jennifer Luck: Yes. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Luck, and I'm the representative for
Pu`ukumu School and for Anaina Hou, as well as the Porter Trust, who is the funder of the
school.
Mr. Keawe: Hi. Good morning.
Ms. Luck: Good morning.
Mr. Keawe: Jennifer, can you tell me a little bit about your admissions policies and how you
screen students? I read through the material that was submitted and it was based on a character -
based education, so how do you go about selecting students for your school?
Ms. Luck: I might actually defer to Robyn Botkin, who's the co- Director, who can speak
probably a little bit better than I do, but they do have a standard admissions process that they
adhere to. Robyn, if you want to come up and...? Excellent. Come on up.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Ms. Goodman: Sharon Goodman, and I'm co- Director of Pu`ukumu. I'm in charge of
admissions, so to answer the question, how do you go about selection? Is that the question? We
see each student with their parents and we really are looking if it's a good fit. We want to make
sure that we are the right school for them, as well as are they able to do what we are hoping to
do, which is abide by our character education piece, they honor the culture that we are
representing, and also we look at their past grades and we do an assessment to see if we truly can
meet their needs because we may not be able to meet every child's needs and we would want to
know that. We have a wonderful blended learning program and differentiated learning, which
really ... our teachers are wonderful to try to teach where a student is at, but if it's too far in the
direction of too low, then we will have to identify that and know that we are not a good fit
because we can't teach in that range. So we also conclude with a personal interview with the
student, and they fill out their own interview; kind of a "who I am" statement of their character
and what they love and what they would like to do and we see if they are willing to be a part of
this community. They have a school visit, and after the assessment we send out a letter of
acceptance when it's true; when we are able to do that.
Mr. Keawe: One (1) more... another question. Do you offer any kind of scholarship assistance
to students who may not be able to afford the tuition?
Ms. Goodman: Yes, and we hope that we will have more in the future. We have a very giving
community, and we hope to increase that, but right now we have ... we do have one (1)
scholarship fund that is being used and will continue. Also, on top of that, the important thing to
know is that the Porter's are really, in a sense, subsidizing our tuition big time because they are
probably paying... Robyn, you'd say a third?
Ms. Botkin: 50 0/'0.
Ms. Goodman: 50 %. So they are paying 50 ... the parents are paying 50% less for tuition there.
Anything you wanted to add?
Ms. Botkin: No. I'm Robyn Botkin. I'm the other co- Director. I'm sorry about that, but I just
wanted to note that we are a reduced - tuition school and will attempt, always, to maintain that
10
through scholarship and development programs. We do obviously charge a tuition, but it is less
than a third of any other private school on the island, and it is less than 50% of what it actually
costs us to educate each student.
Ms. Luck: Tuition is $350 a month, so it's...
Mr. Keawe: $350 a month?
Ms. Luck: $350 a month, which is less than a lot of daycares, or preschools even, in the area.
Mr. Keawe: So from the standpoint of the organization itself, Jennifer, that school will continue
in perpetuity?
Ms. Luck: Yes. Yes, absolutely. The Porter's founded the school in 2013 and are the
predominant funders of the school, currently, but the school is building out a Board of Directors
and a development program and will supplement tuition with grants, but the idea is, and even the
structure of the school through the blended learning model is so that tuition can remain at an
affordable level because you know, certainly there's the public school option, and then there's
Island School, but Island School is unaffordable for most families here on this island, so ... it's a
fantastic school, but does cost quite a bit, so the model of Pu`ukumu is very much ... and the
Board and the Staff are very much, as well as the Porter's, committed to keeping tuition as low
as possible.
Mr. Keawe: Good. I think the concern would be, you know, we don't want to see another Kula
School where it was great for a few years and kids get all excited, and they close the school.
Ms. Luck: Right. And we are trying to learn from both the successes and the challenges of that
model, and how we can do things differently to ensure that the school is around for the long-
term. So you know, we are working very hard to ensure that that's the reality.
Mr. Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Luck: Also, I wanted to make sure and mention, too, the reason that we are seeking a
Special Use Permit and to build a new campus on the Anaina Hou Land is that Kula School only
granted Pu`ukumu a lease for two (2) years. There were attempts to purchase that property
because that would have been probably a bit easier just to purchase and renovate Kula School.
There were multiple attempts with the landowner to purchase that and they were all turned down,
so at this point, there does need to be a permanent home for the school.
Mr. Keawe: Good. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr. Ho: Dale, what is the surrounding property to this ... is it Ag zoned? Ag/Open zoned?
Mr. Cua: Yes. The area mauka of the highway is predominantly Agriculture zoned property.
There is urban development further south. It's a residential subdivision, but it's a relatively
small one, but the areas, in this area, primarily is Agriculture zoned.
Mr. Ho: Their immediate neighbor would be Ag zoned?
Mr. Cua: Yes.
Mr. Ho: Ag/Open? Is there any restriction on noise when you ... if the landowner decides to
work his land, Ag portion of it? Any noise restrictions that ... hours of operation that he has to
conform to?
Mr. Cua: I'm not aware of any at this time. I can tell you through the Use Permit, you know, the
applicant did designate their hours of operation, and through the Use Permit process, for this
application, you could restrict operation times in order to minimize noise impacts to the
surrounding properties.
Mr. Ho: Is it Ms. Luck? Jennifer?
Ms. Luck: Yes.
Mr. Ho: The question was ... you are bordered by Ag land property and if the owner decides to
work the property, there might be some noise for you, some dust. Are you going to handle that?
Ms. Luck: Yes, I don't think that will be a problem at all. In fact, the school is really intent on
partnering with both Anaina Hou and you know, Waikoa, and creating some programs with both
of those where they get the kids out on the land and teaching them about farming and agricultural
work and all of that, so I don't think that any of the noise would be an issue.
Mr. Ho: Just an off question, I believe there's a ... the Water Department is going to impose on
you a pretty heavy facility charge to bring a waterline to you for your water service; something
like you have to put in a 12 -inch line, 4,000 feet. Is that a financial thing for you?
Ms. Luck: No, that should not be an issue.
Mr. Ho: You can handle that?
Ms. Luck: Well, depending on the ... I mean, yes, we would have to. If that's what we have to
do, then that's what we would have to do.
Chair Mahoney: Could we hear the recommendations from the Planner, please?
Mr. Cua: Sure.
Ms. Luck: Audience members wanted me to make sure and mention that the community are the
neighbors here, and so they have come out, you know, greatly in support of this project. We
12
received support from Kilauea Neighborhood Association, from the community members that
are sitting behind me, of course, and then Waikoa, the land that's contiguous with this property is
owned by the Porter Trust who are, of course, the founders and the funders of the school.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Could we have the report from the Planner, please?
Mr. Cua: Sure.
Chair Mahoney: The recommendations.
Mr. Cua: Before we move on to the conclusion and recommendation of the report, I just
wanted ... the Department wanted to state that this application is for the consideration of the
school and that there have been possible representations that the property may be further
developed, and if...in the event that the property is further development that consideration
should be made, such that a master plan will be prepared for the subject property. So now
moving on to the conclusion.
Mr. Cua read the Preliminary Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendation sections of
the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Mr. Cua: And that concludes the Department's recommendation.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planner on the conditions? Does
the applicant understand the conditions as read?
Ms. Luck: Yes.
Chair Mahoney: Any questions? You willing to comply with all conditions?
Ms. Luck: No questions.
Chair Mahoney: If I could ask the Planner, when you opened up your statement about a master
plan, could you review that part again, please?
Mr. Cua: Sure. It has just been represented that because it is such a large parcel, the parcel may
be further developed, and if it is further developed, and possibly urbanized, that a master plan
should be prepared for the entire property. And it is an opportunity for reviewing agencies to
evaluate the proposal.
Chair Mahoney: Could that be incorporated as a condition? Or not necessarily?
Mr. Cua: Not necessarily. It is more of a disclosure.
Mr. Dahilig: I think we have ongoing discussions with the landowner because, you know, the
Porter Trust has been very generous in providing... it's a flex space, essentially, across the street
for a lot of innovative things, and so mainly we have a permit for a theater on the site already,
13
and a gathering place. We have a permit for a mini golf course for the community. This is
another thing that's coming on there, so you know, as Felicia mentioned, you know, this area
was looked at as a secondary gathering space for the Kilauea Community and the Porter's have
generously allowed that space to be used as such. I think just from a permitting and usage
standpoint, we need to ensure that we start aligning what our laws and codes are beyond these
Special Permits for, you know, once they start looking at other things beyond this. I think we've
had those conversations with some of their, I guess, representatives, and so I'm sure we will be
having those conversations, as well as ... as the General Plan Update continues, we'll be having
that outreach.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Ho: Mr. Dahilig?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Ho: If they wish to expand the school, it would be just a matter of permitting?
Mr. Dahilig: It depends on the scale. So you know, we are looking at this because of the size
and the complexity of the proposal, we believe it's unique enough that we can say okay, it meets
that threshold of using the State Special Permit and our Use Permits. If they started ... wanted to
put together a 200 -acre campus with a football field and a gymnasium and these types of things,
then we are going to have to start talking about that, but for now, they are a fledging school that
is just starting off with their facilities, so we believe it falls within the parameters of that unique
evaluation that ... and is warranted for approval.
Chair Mahoney: Any further questions? Chair will entertain.
Mr. Keawe: I move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -8, Use Permit U- 2016 -7, and
Special Permit SP- 2016 -3 to operate and construct a middle and high school facility.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
Ms. Luck: Thank you so much. We really appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.
(Applause)
Chair Mahoney: We are going to take a short caption break.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 9:54 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
Chair Mahoney: Call the meeting back to order.
14
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued)
New Agency Hearing (Continued)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -2 to construct a single - family
residence on a parcel situated at the terminus of Nalo Road in Po`ipu, situated approx. 600 ft.
mauka of its intersection with Hoone Road, further identified as 2289 -A Nalo Road, Tax Map
Key 2 -8- 027:023, and containing a total land area of 20,000 sq. ft. = POP Acquisition LLC.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item F.2. This is the new agency hearing for
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -2. This is to construct a single - family
residence on a parcel situated at the terminus of Nalo Road in Po`ipu, situated approximately 600
feet mauka of its intersection with Hoone Road, further identified as 2289 -A at Nalo Road, Tax
Map Key 2 -8 -027 Parcel 23, and containing a total land area of 20,000 square feet. The
applicant is POP Acquisition LLC. There is a Director's Report that has been received for this
particular application, Mr. Chair, and the Department would recommend opening the agency
hearing at this time.
Mr. Chair, we do not have anybody signed up to testify on this particular agenda item. The
Department would recommend making a final call for any testimony for agency hearing at this
time.
Chair Mahoney: Is any member of the public here to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, given the lack of testimony, the Department would recommend closing
the agency hearing.
Mr. Keawe: Move to close the hearing.
Mr. Abrams: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded to close the agency hearing. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 4:0.
Continued Public Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.3. This is Continued Public
Hearing. We have none for this morning.
New Public Hearing
Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -3: A bill for an ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Kauai
County Code 1987, as amended, relating to Definitions — County ofKaua `i. Planning
Department.
15
Mr. Dahilig: Item F.4., New Public Hearing. This is Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -3. A bill for
a zoning amendment amending Chapter 8, Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, relating to
Definitions. The applicant is this Department and there is a Director's Report for this matter.
Mr. Chair, the Department would recommend opening the public hearing at this time.
Chair Mahoney: Is any member of the public here to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, seeing the absence of any public testimony during this public hearing,
the Department would recommend closing the public hearing.
Mr. Abrams: Move to close the public hearing.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.S. This is all remaining testimony
pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92 or the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Chair, I do have individuals... individuals wanting to testify on Item I.1. This is the Coco
Palms Hui matter. I have four (4) individuals that have signed up to testify.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: William Fernandez, followed by Jon Pang, followed by Michael Lam. William
Fernandez.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
William Fernandez: Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission, my name is William J.
Fernandez, keiki o ka `aina o Kauai. In November of 2015, I attended the dedication
ceremonies for Coco Palms and I heard the Mayor say that he had a dream that was being
fulfilled; that the wonderful place that he knew when he was younger was going to be revived
and rebuilt. This is a dream that I've had for years. But now I see what I consider to be a
breaking of this dream. It is a travesty to believe that you may pull out the rug from under this
development of Coco Palms and prevent that facility from coming back to life. It's also a
travesty to realize that Forbes Magazine's claim that this is one of the most difficult jurisdictions
to do business in may be true because of the road blocks that are being placed before this
development. It's also a travesty that you have found two (2) foolish developers who are willing
to face the hydra of difficulties that are involved with the replacement of Coco Palms. As Ross
Kagawa said today, it could cost a billion dollars to do this job, and yet you have these two (2)
men—by the way, according to Ross, this is the second ... third group of developers that have
come forward—who are willing to take off your hands, this burden that has been in existence for
E
twenty -three (23) years, at no cost to the County of Kauai, but as a plus to the County of Kauai
because you will be receiving land, you will be receiving additional tax dollars. No, it's a further
travesty that if you were to revoke this permit, you would place this whole Coco Palms project
into a quagmire of future troubles, litigation, maybe another twenty -three (23) years before there
is some resolution, and at what cost? Who will pay for this?
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Pang and Mr. Lam, you are on this list though I understand you'd like to testify
when the agenda item is called.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ken Taylor.
Ken Tam Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, Ken Taylor. I'd like to
remind each and every one of you, and I don't think any of you were here a couple years ago
when this process started, but these folks came in and said they understood the conditions that
needed to be addressed. They were willing to take it on. They made a lot of promises to the
community, to the Council. And here we are today, lagging behind, like always, then crying the
blues that well, you gotta just give me more time, you gotta give me more time. I'm sorry. I
have to agree with the recommendations from the Planning Director to revoke the applicant's,
Coco Palms Hui LLC, permits and issue an order to show cause. It's not easy to come to this
position, but you know, when developers come forth and they make promises and they don't
keep them, it's time to say, you know, that's it. Unfortunately, over the years we've seen too
many times where the developers come in and cry about this and that and things are tough. The
only reason things are tough is because we want the best for Kauai. I think that the Planning
Staff has done a tremendous job in doing exactly that and I think that it's just time to start being
a little tougher on the developers and say hey, you make the promise, you keep it. If you don't
keep it, we pull the rug. And I don't think that's being harsh. I think it's being... bringing reality
to the table and that's where it should be. So I hope and recommend that you approve the
recommendations from the Planning Director. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Administrator Furfaro left the meeting at 10:18 a.m.
Mr. Dahilig: That's all I have signed up to testify. I'd recommend making a call for any final
testimony.
Chair Mahoney: Is there any other member of the public that wishes to testify on this agenda
item at this time? Please come forward and state your name for the record.
17
Mehana Vaughan: `Ano`ai me ke aloha. My name is Mehana Blaich Vaughan. I'm a Kilauea
community member. I'm a professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Natural Resource
Management, testifying today as a private individual. I'd also like to support the motion here
today for two (2) reasons. The first is just the cultural significance of the area. Coco Palms (is)
located at the mouth of Wailua Nui Aho Ano, which is some of the highest density of heiau in all
of Hawaii, as well as on our island of Kauai, and seat of some very important rulers of our
island where they chose to rule from and to have their homes, including Deborah Kapule. The
fish ponds there ... it's just a very, very important culturally and ecologically significant site, and
it's not being honored in its current state as we all know, which is a concern.
But the second reason also is the land use process. This permit has come before this body so
many times, and I think that we talked about the quagmire of the planning process and I think-
that comes when conditions aren't honored and when things are not ... do not happen in the way
that they are supposed to. And I think that this Commission has spent enough time deliberating
on this matter with much consideration, and I think it is a bit of a mockery of the process for the
developer not to have met the conditions. So I think that this is a very proper, well - thought -out
motion by the Planning Department. I'd like to support it and I think it also opens the door for
other opportunities on that property for public uses, for cultural uses as a cultural park, as a
community facility, as a learning facility, a training center, things that cannot happen under the
current conditions. That doesn't mean that it's incompatible at all with use as visitor
accommodations in some form, that's been a big part of the history of the property as well and
for many of our community members, but I think the movement by the current developer and the
current state are unforgiveable and do not justify continuing under the present circumstances.
Thank you so much for your time and all the time you give for every issue that you consider, and
just for serving our public and our community and our island of Kauai. Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? Seeing none.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Planning Director Michael A. Dahilig's Petition to Modify or Revoke Applicant Coco
Palms Hui, LLC's Permits and Issue an Order to Show Cause and Set Hearing; Memorandum in
Support of Petition; Declaration of Michael A. Dahilig; Notice of Meeting; Certificate of Service
for Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2015 -8, Project Development Use Permit PDU- 2015 -7,
Variance Permit V- 2015 -1 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2015 -6 = Coco
Palms Hui, LLC.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, Mr. Chair, let me go ahead and call the item. Item I.1. This is Planning
Director Michael A. Dahilig's petition to modify or revoke applicant Coco Palms Hui, LLC's
permits and issue an order to show cause and set hearing, including memorandum in support of
petition, declaration of Director, notice of meetings, Certificate of Service for Class IV Zoning
Permit Z -IV- 2015 -8, Project Development Use Permit PDU- 2015 -7, Variance Permit V- 2015 -1
and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2015 -6.
18
Mr. Chair, this is my petition that I'm setting forth before the Planning Commission. It's very
simple. In terms of procedure, this is required for us to take a look at starting the process. This
is the first action that is needed to start the process for any type of modification or revocation of
the permits that are currently held by the applicant on the property. We are not looking at setting
forth, at this juncture, any remedy or any recommendation on what we should do. Rather, what
we do know, based on the testimony from the previous status report, is that they will not meet
their timelines for the permit for demolition. They have said that on the record, and we believe
that warrants a discussion. Now, whether that warrants a discussion to the degree of full
revocation versus can this be remedied at some point, I believe is up to a further set of
discussions and deliberations before this body.
Administrator Furfaro returned to the meeting at 10:22 a.m.
Mr. Dahilig: So I'm not making any recommendation at this point before the Commission to
actually ask for relief on this particular anticipated violation. I would say that given my initial
petition, I would like to orally amend my request by stating that I would ask the hearing, if an
order to show cause were to be set, that a hearing actually be set for April 26, 2016, rather than
April 12, 2016. I believe that that's a more appropriate date for the hearing. And again, the facts
are pretty simple, again, that we believe there is enough evidence out there to warrant the
Commission holding a Contested Case Hearing and issue an order to show cause to the
applicants why they can or cannot meet that condition of approval, and in the event that they
cannot meet the condition of approval or have not met the condition of approval, what should be
the appropriate remedy as imposed by this Commission. Given that, Mr. Chair, that's all I wish
to state at this time, and would reserve the right to respond to any further comments by the
applicant if they are called up.
Mr. Ho: Could you tell me the date again, please, Mike?
Mr. Dahilig: April 261h
Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa: Okay, just to sort of frame the discussion that
we'll get into now, I think that there are several questions that the Commission needs to decide.
The first question will kind of be sort of like a threshold question before any of the other
questions get resolved, and that's whether to issue and serve the order to show cause as to why
the permit should not be revoked or modified. And the standard under the rules, under 1 -12.5, is
that there... whether there is reasonable cause to believe that there is currently a failure to
perform, according to the conditions, and so if you folks have found that there is currently a
failure, then you can set it ... issue and serve that order to show cause. And again, it'd be whether
to revoke or modify the permit. The other questions, if that question is reached, will be when to
set it. Again, the Planning Director has clarified that the preference would be to set it the second
meeting in April. I think ... and then also the other question is whether to keep it before the
Planning Commission. If you folks do choose to go and set the order to show cause or whether
you want to have the Hearing's Officer vet and hear the ... go through the Contested Case and at
least the evidentiary portion of it, and then what to do with the petition to intervene, which
is ... we did receive by the representative from Prudential.
z
Mr. Ho: Jodi, we would ... at the 26th meeting, we would make a decision?
Ms. Iiiguchi- Sayegusa: Yes. So the question is whether to set an order to cause, and that would
be to set a hearing to go through and whether or not a violation exists.
Mr. Keawe: Jodi, you mentioned the failure, and the failure will not occur until the April 13th
deadline. Is that true?
Ms. Hi cgu hi- Sayegusa: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: Alright, so maybe for discussion purposes, if members of the Commission have
any comment.
Mr. Abrams: I have one (1) question.
Ms. Higuchi - Sayegusa: Sure.
Mr. Abrams: So do you want us to decide whether or not we want to do an order to show cause
before we take the intervention up?
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So ... yeah, would we have the opportunity, then, to hear from the applicant
in regards to the Director's motion?
Chair Mahoney: Could we have a representative for the applicant? Could you state your name
for the record, please?
Jon Pang: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jon Pang, and I'm here with my partner,
Mike Lam, representing Coco Palms Hui, and Tyler Greene is here for the applicant. We have
been asked to help this project or this client on this project. Me in particular because I'm a Real
Estate Development Attorney, and ... that does real estate development and finance. At this point
in time, the applicant has ... is poised to close this transaction to acquire the property and to fund
the necessary demolition work, as well as to complete the construction plans. So we believe that,
right now, the project is poised to go forward, and we think that it's ... it would be unfortunate for
this Commission to take action that will cause the lender to be concerned about whether the
project can proceed. The applicant has taken ... has done all that they can to satisfy as many of
the conditions that they are able to do at this time. You know, they have paid the County
$110,000, in addition to putting $3 million of equity, plus their sweat equity into this project.
They have fulfilled the SHPD requirements that was a prerequisite to the demolition pen-nit that
we've ... that is before us, and has recently signed the workforce housing agreement with the
County. Then it created the ... a non - profit corporation that is dedicated to the historical and
cultural preservation of the area. They engaged an accounting firm to obtain 501(c)(3) status for
that corporation so it can provide the cultural and historical and community activities on
20
property. They will be donating a 5 -acre parcel for that corporation to hold its activities, and will
implement mechanisms for that non - profit to be funded so it can continue. So, the demolition
permits they have...that were issued in October of last year ... they have engaged the Kauai firm
of Pacific Concrete Cutting and Coring to do the demolition, but unfortunately, the loan process
has taken longer than anticipated. In representing developers, as well as lenders and borrowers
for over thirty (30) years, this is not abnormal. I've closed over a billion dollars of transactions
in the last two (2) years. My specialty is complex transactions and financing, so I wanted to just
give you an idea of the challenges that a lender, on this kind of property, can present to a
developer. You are familiar, I'm sure, with getting a loan for your home and the type of things
that the lender will ask you for, the things that you think may not be necessary or to educate, but
if you multiply that by a thousand times, that's what you have as a lender here. These developers
have been working diligently to educate a lender in New York to understand this property; the
value of it and the attractiveness of it. It's a lot of work and it's a delicate situation. Which you
can imagine, the lenders have requests for their money all over the nation and they choose
projects that they think will work. They will also vet the projects that ... so that they work on
loans that they think will close, so that is why the process takes longer. So, when you finance
your house, it's already built, it's been ... there's value there, there's a history to it, but in a
project like this, it's very complex. It's a redevelopment of an existing site, it's a project that has
had a couple of developers not able to do it, so the lenders are careful, so that's why it takes a
little bit ... that's why it takes longer. It's a longer process and no one really can predict or
control the lender. The lender will go at their pace, they will go through their procedures, and
they will ask for the information that they ask for. So in this case, the developers here have been
successful. They were able to convince this lender of the merits of the project, including the
widespread support of the island of Kauai from this Planning Commission in issuing permits to
Mayor Carvalho to Planning Director Dahilig and the community in general, such as you heard
from Judge Fernandez.
One of the significance this Commission should understand is the commitment of Hyatt
Corporation to operate this project and to publicly permit its name to be associated with a project
that is not yet built; that's not typical of Hyatt or any brand. So you have in front of you a letter
from Hyatt that was written by the Regional Vice President who is in charge of development for
the whole West Coast. I've worked with him on other projects and he is the person that makes
the decision in Hawaii.
So right now, you have in front of you a letter from Omega, which confirms that the lender has
completed its underwriting process and has moved toward the closing phase of this loan. We
were anticipating a letter from the Fund Manager, but unfortunately, yesterday, he was admitted
to emergency for a heart condition. So we were not able to get something from him, but we were
able to confirm that the underwriting is completed and moving to the closing phase once they are
able to address or accommodate, with his health, to proceed to close this loan. The loan will
include funds to acquire the property, will include funds to complete the demolition, will also
include funds to complete the construction plans so that the developer can obtained the building
permits.
So at this point, we think it's very important, as I tried to explain, is that where we are with the
developers is very delicate. The developer ... I mean, I'm sorry, with the lender is very delicate.
21
We would urge this Commission to continue to support this project and to, I guess, try
to—within its rules, try to avoid having the lender... raising any concerns from this lender that
this loan will not close or that the ... well that the project will not go forward. Because if the
lender feels that the project will not go forward, it will not fund the loan. And action taken by
this Commission, which is important to them ... they know what's going on, they are aware of the
articles, and it will make it more difficult for this ... the applicant to close this loan if this
Commission takes steps toward revoking the permit. So that's why we request, and perhaps it
should maybe be laid more formally later, but we would like this Commission to consider
modifying that condition to allow the applicant to close this loan and to complete the demolition
in a timely manner. Any questions?
Chair Mahoney: Questions for the applicant?
Mr. Abrams: I do. Mr. Pang, what would be your opinion in regards to now that the
underwriters are done and they are proceeding to closing would be a timeframe for funding?
Mr. Pang: Well, we are hoping... Now, I've been involved in lots of loans beginning from my
first deal was redeveloping the Kauai Surf into the ... now the Marriott. I represented Security
Pacific National Bank, and that took us a year to close. Now, this is not going to take a year to
close. This is ... what this loan is and what they have ... the lenders ... with the applicant's support
and the lender's support, they have changed the loan to an acquisition loan instead of a full
construction loan, which is much easier to do. So we could close the acquisition and they'll just
provide funds for the demolition. We have the contract with PCCC, and they are working with
internationally renowned architectural firm to finish the construction plan. So we are
pushing ... we are going to be pushing to close in March. From our standpoint, we have, you
know, our office has the horses to do it. The question will be the lender's motivation. Until we
speak to that person, we won't know for sure, but we are pushing... and they understand. We've
made them aware of this ... the permit and this process. So they understand the need to expedite,
so we are pushing for March.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So with March, which would be prior to the demolition deadline of six (6)
months, right? That then would not be a problem for the lender because you are in compliance
with all of the conditions at that point.
Mr. Pang: Right.
Mr. Abrams: So, I'm wondering whether or not ... because I'm not quite sure—and I have
questions for our Director in regards to here we may very well be, okay, we will be past a 6-
month period that the demolition was to be complete, okay? So we would have to... Is that the
process that we take, which is an order to modify? Or would that simply come up because there
would be a mutual agreement? I don't know. How would that process go? Or how would you
envision it going?
Mr. Pang: I would ... we would prefer to have an agreement to modify. I'm not sure. I would
defer to the County Attorney as to whether the Director has that authority. But that would ... if
we were able to get an agreement to modify, then that would send a great message to the lender,
22
and the lender would be very motivated to close because there is nothing else that prevents this
project from going forward once we do that.
Mr. Abrams: And if we went ahead and decided to schedule this for the April 20h hearing,
would it be possible then to withdraw all of that and not have that hearing if, in fact, you are
making process? Because I think that's basically what we are looking for, right?
Mr. Dahilig I think regardless, the conditions, as approved by the Planning Commission, state
the demolition has to be completed within six (6) months of pulling the demolition permits. So
even if we start the demolition process, it will not be completed, and so that still would warrant a
modification of the permit. So, you know, I'm going off of the timelines as presented by the
applicant in January where there was the contractor stating the amount of time that they would
need to complete demolition, and even going so far as to talk about whether or not they
purchased supplies for the demolition up to this point, which I believe, based on her testimony,
they have not purchased supplies yet. Given her statement that they had not even ramped up for
this, as well as the admission by the applicant that they would not meet this timeline, that's
where, already, we know that that April 13th deadline will not see the completion of demolition.
So even if they start the demolition and they close on the loan in March and they purchase the
supplies, which have to be shipped from the mainland, and then they start the demolition, it still
would not complete it by March [sic] 13th, and that's why I think it's appropriate for us to
schedule the hearing. And if there is progress that has been made, then let's talk a settlement
here, let's talk withdrawal, but I think it's, as stated in the initial permit approvals, there has
always been the County's health and safety concern that these structures be taken down
immediately, and hence the timelines are written as such. Remember, Commissioners, this thing
has caught on fire twice. It has caught on fire twice and it places our first responders in danger,
in health and safety danger, by putting them in a situation where you have an abandoned building
that continues to catch fire. So this, for us, was a priority, it was stated at the initial permit
hearing, and hence that's why this was a very first requirement, along with the signs, to be taken
care of in order to maintain the health and safety and welfare of that area; especially for our first
responders. I would not be averse, Mr. Vice Chair, to having that discussion with the applicant
on a mutual agreement on amendments to the permit conditions if it so warrants, but at this
juncture, I would not feel comfortable agreeing to such permit modifications at this juncture
without any physical movement on the property at this point, and I believe that the hearing is
warranted.
Mr. Pang: We would be happy to work with the Planning Department and the Director to reach
a mutual agreement. One of the things we need to be careful of is starting any work, including
the demolition on the property, and the reason is the lender because once, as you probably know,
once it starts, the mechanics lien period starts. If that starts before the loan closes, the lender will
not close because it puts them in a second position behind mechanics liens. So that is why they
have not been ... they have been putting off ordering materials. Ordering materials is not
necessarily going to trigger the mechanics lien, but if they the bring materials to the site, then it
starts, so the lender prefers that nothing is done so it's clear that the lien period hasn't started,
and that is one of the reasons why they haven't authorized to do anything. But we'd be happy to
work with the Department to modify. I would just like... whatever action this Commission takes
today, it would (be) unfortunate if it creates controversy that gets back to New York, and that is
23
really our concern. We're not ... I understand the Planning Director's concerns; I do. We just
need to try to ... we are in the middle of trying to balance this situation with the lender. And I
would just like to say that I think, generally, there is support for this project and there's an
opportunity for an historical icon ... an internationally historic icon to be rejuvenated and to
alleviate the current situation at the site, but it depends on, really on that lender. If this lender
decides to get cold feet, we have to start again, or another developer would have to start again, so
we are hoping that that doesn't happen.
Mr. Dahilig: If I may, Mr. Chair, and if this ... you know, our position on this, in terms of where
the Department is, is that it still maintains its support for this project. We want to see this project
completed. And so I cannot be any more crystal clear that we are not in a position where we are
saying we don't like this project. We want the project to proceed, but obligations have not been
met concerning how to develop this project and it would not be responsible for us to give these
conditions a pass, from a departmental standpoint, and not raise the enforcement issues before
the Commission just because we like a project. So this is not coming from a situation where we
are saying we no longer want the project on the property; that could be further from the truth.
We believe, you know, given this loan issue that has been raised at the last status hearing and
then if you look at the February 5 1 edition of Pacific Business News, they had stated the loan
was supposed to close yesterday. It's in Pacific Business News on the February 5`h edition. So
now we are hearing that the loan is going to close in March. I need to articulate to the applicant
and the Commission, at least from a departmental standpoint, the sense of urgency that we
see...that we have with respect to getting these buildings demolished. There is a sense of
urgency and we need to articulate that very clearly that we need this to be a priority in terms of
how development proceeds, and needs to be taken seriously. So, you know, if there seems to be
progress, physical progress on the site in the interim between now and should the Commission
set a hearing for April 2011, let's have that discussion about how we can accommodate things
now that we see things are moving. But at this juncture, we don't see anything. We don't see
anything. We see article after article of representation after representation that a loan is going to
close, so that should be the message to the lender. If the lender also wants to have business with
these guys, because it's a two -way street, that they should move very quickly, too. They should
move very quickly, too, and understand that hey, you have the potential to make a lot of money,
from a lender's standpoint, on this project, but you have a responsibility to also ensure that you
take care of your obligations timely, too, to the applicant. So I want to state that, again for the
record, this is not coming from a standpoint where we are saying we do not want the project
anymore, but we want the obligations met.
Mr. Keawe: Mr. Pang, I have a question. You mentioned in your letter that sufficient funds for
the applicant to acquire the parcels and complete demolition... Does that include the
construction? Or is that a separate piece?
Mr. Pang: The actual construction is a separate piece. We took it out because it makes the loan
quicker to close.
Mr. Keawe: So are we going to go through this again? With the next piece on the construction
portion of it and having to wait for that to close?
24
Mr. Pang: Yes, you do. However, a lender who lends on acquiring property ... this is a short-
term loan and the lender, when it's underwriting it, why the underwriting took a while, is that
they also look toward getting paid off. And so they will be ... and we are looking at this same
lender to do the construction ... just that construction loans, as you can imagine, there's a lot more
that needs to be put in place for construction loans.
Mr. Keawe: Obviously you got to complete the plans in order to even start that.
Mr. Pang: Right. You need to have contracts. They take everything as security, and you need to
put those all in place. So what ... I guess what I'm trying to convey is that yes, (it) is going to be
necessary to close another loan to take this loan out, but it's almost like the lender is committed
because the lender has put in their money and they want it back.
Mr. Keawe: Sothis is ... the same lender will do both pieces?
Mr. Pang: That is the plan.
Mr. Keawe: And the second piece will be sufficient to complete the project?
Mr. Pang: Yes, yes. But we are also ... be an opportunity to motivate the lender by, you know,
seeing if anyone else is interested because that will make it better for the project as a whole. But
yeah, so...
Mr. Keawe: Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Mr. Ho.
Mr. Ho: Mr. Pang, you are speaking on behalf of the lender. Where's the deed at this time?
Mr. Pang: Oh, I'm actually speaking on behalf of the applicant; the borrower.
Mr. Ho: The borrower?
Mr. Pang: Right. But I just have ... I've represented lenders before and I've closed a number of
loans, so I understand the mentality of the lenders. But to answer your question, the deed will
come when we close the loan; simultaneously with the closing of the loan. Because right now,
it's owned by Prudential, and once we pay them, that's ... the bulk of the loan is to pay Prudential
to acquire the property. But we have a purchase contract, a binding contract, with them that if
we pay them, they will give us the deed. They are obligated to do so simultaneously. So that
would be in March, at the same time as the loan.
Chair Mahoney: Any further questions? Any discussion?
Mr. Keawe: I guess maybe, Jodi, you can help us with, or Mike, the options at this point. We
have an item on the agenda. I need to know what the options are with regard to acting on this
particular issue.
25
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Okay. So again, I guess the standard in the rules is a finding of whether
there is a reasonable cause to believe that there is currently a failure to perform according to the
conditions imposed. If you folks find that there is currently a failure to perform under the
conditions, then the Commission shall issue and serve, on the applicant, an order to show cause;
why the permit should not be revoked or modified. So I think that's the... again, that was the
threshold question of what needs to be decided first before we get into the mechanics of when,
before who, and what about any petition to intervene and what to do with that.
Chair Mahoney: So for discussion purposes, if members of the Commission have comments
about...
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: I mean, and as far as options, you know, I guess you folks could decide
to continue a decision on a petition until after the deadline has phased, has passed. You could set
it for the order to show cause, you know, after the deadline, you know, anticipating one way or
the other whether an actual violation may have occurred or not, and then go through the
Contested Case process on whether a violation has, in fact, occurred. And then what to do;
amend, modify, or revoke.
Mr. Keawe: Would the Commission be subject to any kind of liability if we decided to act now
when, technically, the failure is ... that we know will happen ... is in the future?
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Well, you know, the conditions... you know, the applicant did receive
and understand the conditions that were imposed as part of the permit, and so, again, that was ... a
requirement of the permit is to comply with the conditions. I mean, that's as best as I can say at
this point.
Mr. Abrams: So it would be reasonable for me to have the opinion now that because of the fact
that Condition No. 17 of the permit calls for complete demolition within six (6) months of
October 15`h, and that I just, from a layman's standpoint, realize that they probably can't
complete it by that date, that that would be grounds for me to then ask, under 1 -12.5, for the
Director to go ahead and review this and report back as it calls for within sixty (60) days from
the date of acceptance of the petition.
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: It's a ... under the rules, a petition to revoke or modify can be brought by
several parties. In this case, it is the Planning Department Director making that petition, and so
he is part of the petition. You know, he did kind of lay out the reasons, but again, you know, the
deadline has not phased at this point, so whether you folks want to allow the leeway to...
Mr. Abrams: Sort of ride itself out until ... maybe this would be premature or not.
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Yes. Or to set it for the OSC, or...
Mr. Abrams: Okay.
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Or to continue decision to set it for the order to show cause, I would say
are the options at this juncture.
26
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Well I think we would be dealing in good faith, I guess at that point, based
on ... and I guess I will reserve all that for our discussion depending on whether there's a motion,
SO.
Chair Mahoney: Does the applicant have any opinion on the options that were offered?
Mr. Pang: We understand the Director needing to start this process. We will be seeking to
modify the condition. I think from a lender's standpoint perspective, I would think it would be
beneficial if the Commission could defer its decision on whether to ... order to show cause. So
possibly the ... when this arises, the motion before the petition would be more of a petition to
modify then to revoke. That would be our preference at this point.
Chair Mahoney: Could the Department respond?
Mr. Dahilig: I think we are available to all those options as well. I do want to state that the
standard of whether they are currently not in compliance with the permits as a failure to perform,
you know, we are taking the testimony from the applicant at the January meeting as admission
that they cannot perform by that deadline. So you know, we believe that threshold has been met
based on that admission from the applicant during the status report. So we do not believe that
you have to wait until April 13th; however, to make things sure, absolutely sure ... again, the
standard here is there is reason, right? It's not a reasonable doubt. We are not at a criminal
proceeding here. And we believe that the admission by the applicant at that meeting is evidence
enough to show that they will not meet that deadline. So we do not believe the Commission has
to wait until April 13th to lapse to necessarily move forward with more discussion and more due
process on this. We do not think that that delay is necessary, but we are asking for the hearing
after that deadline does lapse, so that it's absolute. And when you are dealing with due process,
you want absolutes because you are dealing with property rights here. But the threshold right
now is not absolutes. That is not the threshold that the Department believes need to be met in
order to issue the order to show cause. We believe, based on the admission at the January
meeting, there is enough evidence to believe that they currently are not going to meet these
deadlines; hence we do not believe we have to wait until April 13th to actually have another
decision whether or not to issue the order to show cause.
Mr. Abrams: Chair?
Chair Mahoney: Any comment?
Mr. Abrams: Well, I would like to make a motion, so at some point if we're done with the...
I'm satisfied with the discussion now to make a motion.
Chair Mahoney: Is everybody satisfied?
Mr. Keawe: I just had one (1) more question for Mr. Pang. Mr. Pang, you had mentioned you
had been doing this for quite a while. Are you fairly confident, or have you had any
conversations with the lender that this process that you are very familiar with will allow you to
assist the applicant in closing that loan sometime in March?
27
Mr. Pang: Well, because the loan process has just gotten out of underwriting and is into the
closing phase and the person that's involved is now in the ICU, I guess, (I) haven't had a chance
to talk to them about what the requirements of closing are. But based upon my experience, this
is essentially an acquisition loan. The applicant has kept this property pretty clean, as well as the
seller, as far as raising issues for the lender from an acquisition standpoint. So if the conditions
that the lender has for closing are not unusual, shall we say, I mean, I'm expecting some things
because of the nature of this project, I don't see why we couldn't, but I have ... to answer your
question directly, I have not had any discussions, but we've done it before. We've done it
before.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah, but my question is would it be something that you would want to do on
behalf of your client?
Mr. Pang: Yes. This is why they've hired us. So we've done this before. We've done it.
Mr. Keawe: Thank you.
Mr. Pang: I've done it for thirty (30) years.
Mr. Ho: Mr. Chair, is there someone here that ... in the audience that could represent the title
side? The deed side of this discussion.
Mr. Keawe: The landowner. The current landowner.
Mr. Ho: The current landowner or somebody?
Chair Mahoney: No, I think right now we have the applicant. This is the order of business. Not
the...
Mr. Pang: I could answer your deed questions if you...
Chair Mahoney: Direct your question to the applicant.
Mr. If o: I would like to...
Chair Mahoney: Excuse me, let's take a caption break right now.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:04 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 11:14 a.m.
Chair Mahoney: Call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, the counsel for the applicant and I had met during the break. Given the
discussion that has happened thus far, I think the Department is willing to ... in terms of
disposition of the application of petition, we would recommend that the Commission entertain
approving the petition and issuing the order to show cause without a hearing date set, with a
28
condition that a status hearing be set on April 26th upon which time if the Commission is or is not
satisfied with what transpires at that status hearing that the hearing, the full Contested Case
Hearing, can be set soon thereafter. This does give us some latitude that if there is action on the
property, that we can work out a mutual agreement concerning amendments to the permits and
not have to go through the full Contested Case Hearing, and we can present that at the April 26th
meeting. So that way it appears that it gives them enough of that latitude to try to meet those
obligations, and we can try to cure the permits if there is some action. Now, obviously, if
nothing happens on the property and we get to April 26th, I will ask the Commission to actually
set the order to show cause for an actual hearing. So I would turn it over to the ... if, Mr. Chair, to
the applicant.
Chair Mahoney: Could the applicant respond?
Mr. Pang: We agree with ... that's a reasonable position and we support the Planning Director's
recommendation.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Pang: I also would like to address, I guess, Commissioner Ho's question on the deed if
you...
Mr. Ho: My question is, concerning the deed, you have the assurances that it's all in place and
once the financing comes through, the loan comes through, it's a done deal?
Mr. Pang: Right. Once we get the money, they have to give us the deed. The deed is ... as
complicated as this project is, the deed is no different from the deed to your house, so it's not
something that takes very long. It's literally a 3 -page document with the description of the
property. So we could draft it up, (inaudible) could draft it up within an hour. We could do it
and finalize it. But they are contractually obligated to deliver the deed, record it, at the same
time we give them their money.
Mr. Ho: There's no escrow in this involved?
Mr. Pang: Oh they'll be in escrow. So what happens is they put their money in escrow, we put
our deed in escrow...
Mr. Ho: Bingo.
Mr. Pang: Bingo. That's right.
Chair Mahoney: Any other questions? Hearing none. Chair will entertain.
Mr. Abrams: Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the Planning Director's petition to order to
show cause with no specific ... do you want them all... Should we take this in parts?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess with no hearing date set.
FZ
Mr. Abrams: With no hearing date. Right.
Mr. Dahilig: But with a required status conference on...
Mr. Abrams: April 261h
Mr. Dahilig: Before the Commission.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So my motion would be to approve the order to show cause as to whether
or not we need to modify or revoke the applicant Coco Palms' permits, and we will not set a date
for that hearing; however, we will have a status report at our April 261h meeting so that we can
hear how the progress has gone between the applicant and the Planning Department so that we,
at that point, can decide whether or not we will continue on with an order to show cause or not.
Mr. Keawe: I second the motion.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? We'll do a roll
call vote.
Mr. Abrams: Hang on. I got some discussion.
Chair Mahoney: Discussion, okay.
Mr. Abrams: I'm reluctantly doing that simply because I understand the rationale, at this point
right now, of why this is so urgent, okay? I didn't really in the beghming, but it is. It's a public
situation there that is dangerous and can be, and I realize that it's been going on for a long, long
time, but that doesn't mean that it may not accelerate and that was the reason why we were
trying to get through this. This is important. So I think that the Director's rationale had good
grounds to go ahead and ask us to consider it, and I think that should they not be at that point, we
should... and it doesn't work out that we should move ahead and let the Contested Case Hearing
start. So that's the reason why I felt to go ahead and stick with it on April 26`h simply because of
the fact that that was an extra month past March, and so now, hopefully, that will satisfy your
lenders in regards to moving ahead and that indication and also point out to them that, you know,
it is important to us to make sure that this moves along in a timely manner.
Mr. Pang: We understand and we appreciate your...
Chair Mahoney: Any other discussion?
Mr. Keawe: No, I agree with Commissioner Abrams. I think it's time to perform and I think this
is somewhat of a compromise. You got an extra two (2) months and hopefully we can see
something happening. I think ... it's not just us, it's the entire public. You know, everybody that
drives past that hotel every single day asks the same question, when are you guys going to do
something? And it's our responsibility to make that happen. And I think the applicants realize
that, but it's time to perform.
30
Chair Mahoney: Okay, I think we all realize it, you know, a lot of people in the community are
concerned about this, and there are important deadlines that should be met, and I think we've had
a good discussion. I think the Commission is on a fair track, and so the motion has been made
and seconded. We'll call for the vote by roll call, please.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Mr. Chair, the motion on the floor is to approve the Planning Director's
petition to modify or revoke Coco Palms Hui's permits without a hearing date set with a required
status conference on the second meeting in April.
Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Abrams?
Mr. Abrams: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe?
Mr. Keawe: Aye.
Mr. Dahilix Chair Mahoney?
Chair Mahoney: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Four (4) ayes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Mahoney: Motion carries.
Mr. Pang: Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, I don't know. That was a question I was going to have.
Ms. Higuchi -Sayeg sa I'm sorry, what was that?
Mr. Abrams: We have an intervenor. I mean, we actually have that. I don't know whether or
not we want to decide whether they come in or go after that. It would seem to me that we've
already decided we will have it if that doesn't happen, so...
Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: Right.
Mr. Abrams: Do we deal with the intervenor now?
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: I mean, it's up to you folks whether you want to discuss that now or
maybe cross that bridge should the hearing be set, the date be set.
31
Mr. Abrams: So we could do that on the 26th also, then at that point and still not have a problem
with that process?
Ms. Hi cgu hi- Sayegusa: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Is that alright?
Jennifer Lim: This is Jennifer Lim from PR II Coco Palms, LLC. Actually, we are happy to
request that the Commission defer action on our petition for intervention in light of the motion
that the Commission just passed.
Mr. Abrams: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Ms. Lim: To defer action until the status meeting on the 261H
Mr. Abrams: Mr. Chair, could I make a motion to defer action on the intervenor's status of this
by PR II Coco Palms, LLC, Prudential?
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Is there a second? We need a second.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Commissioners. We are now on... In light of efficiency, Mr. Chair,
why don't we take up the Committee Reports, under Item K?
Chair Mahoney: Okay, Committee Reports. Subdivision Committee.
Mr. Abrams: Subdivision Committee met this morning to review three (3) items. First was
tentative subdivision approval for Clise Property Trust, TMK: 2 -6- 014:018 that was approved
3:0. And then we had two (2) extension requests. Jean Nadatani, No. S- 2012 -12, we approved
that 3:0. And also Princeville Prince Golf Course, LLC, No. S- 2013 -8, approved 3:0. That
concludes my report.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to approve or receive?
Mr. Keawe: Motion to approve the Subdivision action.
32
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries
4:0. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS (Continued)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -2 to construct a single- family
residence on a parcel situated at the terminus of Nalo Road in Po`ipu, situated approx. 600 ft.
mauka of its intersection with Hoone Road, further identified as 2289 -A Nalo Road, Tax Map
Key 2 -8- 027:023, and containing a total land area of 20,000 sq. ft. — POP Acquisition LLC.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's go back to the action on Item F.2.a. This is Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -2 at Tax Map Key 2- 8- 027:023. This is POP
Acquisition and Jody Galinato is our Planner on this. She is nursing a bit of a cold, so try to give
her a little bit of a break on the talking.
Staff Planner Jody Galinato: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission.
Chair Mahoney: Good morning.
Ms. Galinato: Just request your permission and forgiveness to provide a very brief summary on
this. It's consideration to construct a third residence on the lot of record. A brief project
description is the applicant is proposing to construct a third single - family residential unit. The
proposed 1,815- square foot residence will be two (2) stories and contain four (4) bedrooms and
three (3) baths. The first two (2) residential units were originally permitted in 1974 and '76, and
our considered to be grandfathered in. There have been Class I Permits for interior renovations
and as represented, the four (4) existing cesspools on the property will be upgraded with two (2)
individual wastewater systems. In regards to my additional findings, the property is surrounded
by residential, resort, vacation rental units, and commercial properties. It is adjacent to the
former Casa Di Amici Restaurant, which was recently approved by the Planning Commission to
be converted into a real estate office. It's not in a flood zone. There were previous violations on
this property. We have been on -site and verified that the violations have been resolved. In
regards to development standards, the project is compliant with the setbacks, the height, the lot
coverage, and the parking. In regards to the density, the property qualifies for four (4) units; this
is the third unit. The preliminary evaluation, regarding the SMA rules and regulations, we
reviewed it for public access and coastal recreation, cultural and historical resources, coastal
hazards, coastal ecosystems, scenic and open space resources, and found it to be in compliance
with the SMA rules and regulations. Regarding the General Plan, the property is designated as
resort, and lands designated resort may also be used for residential purposes, so the construction
of the single - family residence complies with the General Plan policies. Regarding the South
Kauai Community Plan, it complies with the intent and especially appreciative of the
elimination of the cesspools and installation of the native plants into the landscaping plan. I'll
hold off for my preliminary conclusion and recommendations. If you have any questions, let me
know.
33
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Ms. Galinato: Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Could we ... is there a representative for the applicant present?
Lorna Nishimitsu: For the record, Lorna Nishimitsu on behalf of POP Acquisition. I'm
accompanied by Frank Supon who's one of the principals with POP Acquisition, and his Planner
Justin Thain. Rather than go to my pre- written spiel, which I'm sure you'll appreciate, what I'd
like to show you is a photo ... POP Acquisition got this property in July of 2014, and it essentially
looked like this. The buildings were, you know, as Jody noted, they existed, but there were a
number of zoning violations and a number of tenants. A few months after acquisition, the
demolition, pursuant to permits, began so the lot got cleared out and what now exists is ... with a
renovation permit for the first dwelling, which they are near completing, Building No. 1 now
looks like this. So essentially what they've done is cleared up outstanding violations that
preexisted their acquisition, and they simply want permission, because the SMA rules now
require it, to build a third dwelling where four (4) previously existed. If there are any questions,
we'd be happy to answer them.
Chair Mahoney: Are there any questions for the applicant?
Mr. Abrams: Yes. Lorna, Parcel 43, that's not owned by POP Acquisition?
Ms. Nishimitsu: Is Parcel 43 the property fronting it on Nalo Road?
Mr. Abrams: Yes. 42, excuse me. 43 is...
Ms. Nishimitsu: Yeah, that is not POP Acquisition's property. What happened was, the
property POP owns is technically... it was landlocked, but it does have an easement. We
acquired an additional easement over that property that fronts Nalo Road for access purposes. So
one (1) existed, but we obtained an addition to it to make it wider to accommodate traffic
because we have to provide on -site parking for six (6) vehicles.
Mr. Abrams: So I was looking at your warranty deed, or the warranty deed. And looked at No.
2 on Page 3 where it said "Grantor ", which I'm assuming was the Yates family, right? Yeah, the
Yates Trust. As owner of the adjacent property described as Lot 5 -A agrees that upon the
request of Grantee and at Grantee's sole cost, they shall execute and deliver an amendment or
modification of the existing Grant of Easement dated 2001. So you just went ahead and
expanded that, and now have one that replaces this Grant of Easement?
Ms. Nishimitsu: It expands the Grant of Easement. It made it...
Mr. Abrams: Wider.
Ms. Nishimitsu: The access the wider.
34
Mr. Abrams: Okay.
Ms. Nishimitsu: So we did do that after closing because I had to prepare that Grant of Easement.
Mr. Abrams: Okay, and so it sort of was an anticipation of the fact. But widening if necessary,
the access which provides for access and utility from Nalo Road in favor of the property
described herein, to the extent imposed by the County of Kauai as a condition to any permit or
other requirement for Grantee's development of the subject property. So I was ... because it's a
landlocked, would you not think that that should have frontage on Nalo Road? I never had a
property that I am aware of that doesn't have frontage on a public road.
Ms. Nishimitsu: These lots preceded... were apparently created before there was a Subdivision
Ordinance, so the parcel is landlocked. But an easement existed over the Yates property in front,
and what we did was ... knowing that the easement was rather narrow, we expanded on that so
that there wouldn't be any concerns about fire access, etc. because Mr. Supon, POP Acquisition,
knew that they were going to demolish, renovate, and redevelop. So all of that was done with his
forethought in anticipation of what might be required in the future.
Mr. Abrams: Okay, so I guess that parcel that sort of intrudes itself into the Manualoha Condo
Project, I guess, was ... I forget. Leadership Homes, I guess, way back when and that was in the
60's or so when this was acquired by the original landowner. I believe it was the Zalopany's.
Frank Supon: Correct.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah? And there wasn't ... I don't know whether there was a subdivision along or
not at that point, but it was acquired, I guess at that point, with the intention of adding onto the
property that they owned, I guess, right? Up until...
Ms. Nishimitsu: Well, I'm not really sure under what circumstances the Yates acquired the
property they sold to POP Acquisition or the front property. Are you?
Mr. Supon: Frank Supon for... representing POP Acquisition. So it's my understanding that the
Zalopany family owned three (3) lots; the one that we now have a 30 -foot easement on for
access, the back lot that we bought, and the restaurant site, which was subject to...
Mr. Abrams: Yes. So...
Mr. Supon: And the Yates family purchased that from the Zalopany family; those three (3)
parcels.
Mr. Abrams: Right. And so they had that one big one, right? Behind there. Access was over
their property.
Mr. Dahilig left the meeting at 11:35 a.m.
35
Mr. Abrams: So now that they have ... and I guess, wouldn't you normally end up consolidating
that lot with the front property at that time if they owned everything? I don't ... I mean...
Ms. Nishimitsu: Well, that could have been a development plan that was never—that never
came to fruition.
Mr. Abrams: It just never happen, then, at that point.
Ms. Nishimitsu: Yeah, because the deed to POP Acquisition describes the back lot containing
20,000 square feet together with an easement over the front lot. And the language in the deed
contemplated needing to get additional land from Yates over the front lot for a wider easement to
the back lot, so that's what transpired.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. And so actually, I guess at this point, this site plan, which is Exhibit D,
shows that driveway. Is that the thirty (30) feet it mentions as being the driveway that touches
up with Nalo Road? That's the easement?
Mr. Supon: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: And so to the left of it, to the property line, is that ... who's?
Ms. Nishimitsu: On Lot 4 -A?
Mr. Abrams: Oh I see. I see. It ... well, let's see. I guess it's the ... it's Lot 5 -A's property, then,
right?
Ms. Nishimitsu: The easement is on Lot 5 -A. The map showing...
Mr. Dahilig returned to the meeting at 11:37 a.m.
Ms. Nishimitsu: Exhibit D shows the existing easement width, but it doesn't show the additional
easement area that was acquired.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So that corner of Nalo Road that goes all the way up to this parcel, 2 -13, is, I
guess ... I don't know, let's see, how wide that is. It doesn't show it, but it does show the
driveway, I guess, showing thirty (30) feet and that's what you have now?
Mr. Supon: It started out as...
Mr. Abrams: But that's really on your property.
Mr. Supon: Yes. It started out as ten (10) feet, then it went to fifteen (15) feet, and now its thirty
(30) feet.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. And is that the location of the driveway, then, coming out of your property
onto Lot 5 -A there?
36
Mr. Supon: Correct. Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. And that would be the total easement that you now have?
Mr. Supon: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Thank you, Lorna.
Chair Mahoney: Any further questions? Can we hear from the Planner, please? If she can
speak.
Ms. Galinato: Okay.
Ms. Galinato read the Preliminary Conclusion section of the Director's Report for the
record (on file with the Planning Department).
Ms. Galinato: Based on the foregoing conclusion, it is recommended that SMA Use Permit
SMA(U)- 2016 -2 be approved with ten (10) attached standard conditions. If I can be excused
from reading all those?
Chair Mahoney: Yes.
Ms. Galinato: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: And if you would like them read, I will read them for Jody.
Ms. Galinato: Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Does the applicant understand and agree with all the conditions?
Mr. Supon: Yes.
Chair Mahoney: Have the Commissioners read the conditions? Any comments? Okay. Chair
will entertain a motion.
Mr. Abrams: Chair, I move to approve SMA Permit (U)- 2016 -2, POP Acquisition LLC.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you, Jody.
37
Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -3: A bill for an ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Kauai
County Code 1987, as amended, relating to Definitions = County ofKaua `i, Planning
Department.
Mr. Dahilig: Maybe if you want to try to squeeze in the last action item before lunch.
Chair Mahoney: Might as well.
Mr. Dahilig: Alright. It will just leave discussion items after lunch. Item F.4. This is Zoning
Amendment ZA- 2016 -3. This is a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Kauai County
Code 1987, as amended, relating to Definitions. Our Planner presenting on behalf of the
Department is Marisa.
Chair Mahoney: Good morning.
Staff Planner Marisa Valenciano: Good morning, Chair and members of the Commission.
Chair, may I have permission to summarize my report?
Chair Mahoney: Yes.
Ms. Valenciano: Okay, thank you. So what you have before you is a proposed bill for an
ordinance that is being initiated by the County of Kauai and is hereby submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation. The proposed draft bill amends Chapter 8 of the
Kauai County Code to modify the current definition of "applicant ". Some of the changes to the
definition of "applicant" include a modification of the controlling interest from "75° 0" to
"100 %" of the equitable and legal title, and a modification from "lot" to "duly subdivided parcel
of record ". I just want to note that my report goes into more detail about the justification and
reasoning of the proposed draft bill and includes a table showing some of the findings of other
jurisdictions that have also included "applicant" as part of their County Codes.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Any questions for the Planner? Excuse me, I'm just getting this
lined up. Any questions?
Mr. Abrams: Yes. So, I understand it. I mean, you are going from 75( %) to 100( %), and so
would that, in effect ... how does that work for a condominium project that has lots of things that
they may ... has lots of units on it? Would you need 100% of those units?
Mr. Dahilig: We would interpret Power of Attorney as set forth in the CPR documents as
evidencing 100% of the landowners saying yes, you can apply for these permits.
Mr. Abrams: Okay, so sort of like, I guess at this point, with a condominium that has a
declaration that authorizes a Board of Directors that would be sufficient for them to then apply
for a permit?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
MI
Mr. Abrams: Without getting all of the other individual unit owners' okay?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes. That's how we are currently interpreting it as we speak right now.
Mr. Abrams: And so how does that work on the types of condominiums that you guys don't like
which are the CPRs on Ag land? Would you require all of them that have single - family homes?
Or ... I'm not quite sure, so I just need to ask that question as to how you would go about doing
that because if you are relying on a Board of Directors, now, to make those decisions and
sometimes you have a 5- or a 3 -unit condo, and most of them, the only common element is a
driveway, right, and everybody makes their own decisions, but they are still required, if there are
any building permits, because you treat that parcel as one (1)...I mean, one (1) parcel. It's not a
subdivided lot, so that all of them would have to now, then, do that?
Ms. Valenciano: My understanding is that they would have to. Is that correct, Mike?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes. So currently, if they have a CPR and they are attempting to apply for the
building permit, if they do not have authorization to actually come in via the codes and
covenants that are recorded with the property to actually apply, they would need to evidence
concurrence with all the CPR owners or the AOAO to apply for the permit.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So these would be the AOAO applying for the permit or, in effect, an
individual condominium unit applying for a permit with every owner signing on in order to
complete the 1000 o ownership.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: So the existing ... if I get this right, the existing documents would still take
precedence? Those that were registered when the property was CPR'd.
Mr. Dahilig: Not necessarily. If those documents were recorded and do not give the Power of
Attorney to apply for the building permits or the zoning permits...
Mr. Keawe: So the key issue is the Power of Attorney given to the Board?
Mr. Dahilig: Or to...
Mr. Keawe: Or to an individual.
Mr. Dahilig: To each individual owner. They would have to amend their codes and covenants to
allow for that flexibility.
Mr. Keawe: If they didn't have a Power of Attorney clause in their docs.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
39
Mr. Keawe: Oh. Okay. And the purpose is to ... of this change ... is to make it easier to make
changes? Or just to get consensus that everybody agrees?
Mr. Dahilig: The purpose of this is provide a threshold that is rational in determining whether or
not somebody is authorized to act as an applicant or not.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah, I would say (it's), you know, a little difficult in, like Louis said, some of the
smaller properties, you know, you got six (6) or eight (8) guys, and you know, three (3) of them
say absolutely not.
Mr. Abrams: Well ... and I recognize the dilemma that the Department has, even at 75 %, okay?
That it's really not their problem, and that, in effect, they can't be held responsible for making
sure that they, you know, they allow something that goes beyond that. But my experience has
been that when you try to ask for 100% of anything, you are never going to get it, okay? So that,
then, could end up being a big problem for the County of not being able to do some of the things
that might be what these owners want to do. I mean, this is probably going to have more
discussion up at the Council, and that, and I don't think ... maybe some of the people who are
(on) the Realtors Board, I mean, those type of people to get a look at it from that standpoint.
But let me double check on these with you, so the Big Island, they basically say that "owner"
means one who has complete dominion over particular property and the one whom legal or
equitable title rests. So they ... I don't know whether an Ag CPR he has complete dominion over
what he owns, okay?
Administrator Furfaro left the meeting at 11:48 a.m.
Mr. Abrams: And so ... oh, but it says or equitable title, so he has equitable title. So that person
could do that on their own? They wouldn't need anybody else? I mean, for a CPR that's ... I'm
just really... that's the bugaboo that I'm just trying to figure out how this would work for you and
for the applicants who would be coming in, as opposed to ... I mean, I get the other ones where
it's a condo because the single - family lots that are subdivided ... I come in for a permit, that's
pretty straight forward, 100% is not a problem. Okay, so they can do either way. Maui says
owner who holds a recorded lease, unexpired term less than five (5) years. That's the same
thing. You just have to have 100° o...do we still have that clause in there for ours?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes. There's still a lease.
Mr. Abrams: Okay, so a lessee who has a 5 -year lease or more can come in for a permit if they
are authorized to do that.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. And ... City and County ... I'm not quite sure what this means. Any person
with written authorization from the owner who intends to improve or construct... oh, they just
simply refer back to the recorded owner of the land, so that's where you'd be checking that's
basically 1000 o, 1 guess at that point.
40
Mr. Dahilix Yes.
Mr. Keawe: Whoever has the fee simple interest, right?
Mr. Abrams: Yeah. Alright. It's gonna be ... you are going to get yelled at a lot in the very
beginning (inaudible).
Mr. Dahilig: Oh yeah. We suspect (inaudible).
Mr. Abrams: I'm sure you're used to that.
Mr. Dahilig: There's ... and if you'll notice, there is an executive session here, and there's
another reason for this that we can't discuss on the record concerning this, which we can in
executive session if that's ... if the Commission would like to have that discussion with the
attorney, but we do have ... we would like to, I guess, in effect, tighten the language concerning
this moving forward so that when we do have applications that are not in compliance with the
owner condition, that we have a very clear standard moving forward.
Chair Mahoney: Do we need any action on this?
Mr. Dahilig: If the Commission would like us to discuss this more, again, this is not a pressing
item where we need to have it sent up immediately, but it is something that we would like to take
care of in a timely manner, so we are not looking for action today. It would be nice, but it's
not ... we don't want to push the Commission if they're not ready for discussion of this yet.
Chair Mahoney: What is the Commission...?
Mr. Abrams: I guess I would feel more comfortable having a little bit more time thinking about
this. I really had ... was reading some of the other ones and really didn't think about this, other
than there, but I see the logic now of what you are trying to do and just sort of have a chance,
maybe, if you want to just defer this to our next meeting. Would that be alright?
Mr. Dahilig: That's fine.
Mr. Keawe: When is our next meeting? Is it...
Mr. Dahilix March 8`n
Mr. Keawe: The 8`n.
Chair Mahoney: March 8`n
Mr. Keawe: March 81n
41
Mr. Abrams: I mean, outside of that it's... between... and I would like to have a chance to talk to
the attorney, I guess at that point, where we could schedule up that, or maybe even put it on the
agenda for discussion on the 81h, yeah?
Mr. Dahilig: Well, it's on now, so you could...
Mr. Keawe: It's on here now.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, it's on there now, we could (inaudible).
Mr. Keawe: You want to move that to the 8th. Or you want to do it now?
Mr. Abrams: Let's move it to the 8th, yeah? We can move it all, at that point, where we can
have it more fresh in our mind.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah, makes sense.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, so do we need a motion or anything?
Mr. Dahilig: To defer.
Chair Mahoney: Just a motion to defer.
Mr. Abrams: I make a motion to defer Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -3, County of Kauai,
Plaiming Department.
Chair Mahoney: To our next meeting?
Mr. Abrams: To our next meeting.
Chair Mahoney: March 8th meeting?
Mr. Abrams: March 8th.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: Is there a second?
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor of deferral (to) March 8th? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: We have two (2) items left for discussion today. That is the Salary Commission
findings, as well as the Six -Year CIP Report. Would you like to take up either of them before
lunch? Or would you like to head to lunch already?
42
Chair Mahoney: Up to you guys. You want to ... let's do it or what? Let's go to lunch?
Mr. Keawe: Salary Commission and the other one is the General Plan Update?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: He wants lunch.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Well, why don't we break for lunch?
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 92 -4, 92- 5(a)(4), the purpose of this
executive session for the Planning Commission is to consult with the County's legal counsel on
questions relating to Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -3 Definition of Applicant. This consultation
involves consideration of the Commission's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and /or
liabilities with regard to this agenda item.
Chair Mahoney: So we would be deferring the executive session, and a motion would be in
order to defer that, also.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Move to defer H.1., which is Executive Session, for ZA- 2016 -3.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor to defer? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
At this time, we can break for lunch and return (at) 1 o'clock.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:54 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 1:13 p.m.
Chair Mahoney: Call the meeting back to order.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (Continued)
Informational Presentation on the Status of the General Plan Update and Six -Year Capital
Improvement Program Report.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item I.3. This is the informational
presentation on the status of the General Plan Update and the Six -Year CIP Report.
43
As you are aware, the Commission does have a charge from the charter relating to six -year CIP
planning, and we've actually folded that discussion, today, into what we have broadly been
doing with the General Plan Update. At this time, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I'd like to
turn over the presentation to our Long Range Planning Program Manager Marie Williams, and
she will take the lead, along with her team here, on what's been going on with the General Plan.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Marie Williams: Thank you, Mike. Thank you and good afternoon, all. We are here to provide
a briefing on a very important project, the General Plan Update. We actually did provide our
first update in September of last year, but we are here before you again to keep you apprised of
the process and our work, and also because there are some new faces as well, and we wanted to
have you be acquainted with us in this project because in a few short months, we probably will
have a draft General Plan Land Use Map and the actual General Plan Update before you, and you
will have to review the plan and recommend approval or not; hopefully approval of the plan.
And we didn't want it to be a surprise because the plan is quite complex. First of all, I'll just
mention...
Mr. Keawe: Could you introduce yourself?
Ms. Williams: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Marie Williams with the Long Range Planning
Division, and perhaps we can all go down the line and introduce the entire team.
Lee Steinmetz: Good afternoon. I'm Lee Steinmetz. I'm the Transportation Planner with the
Long Range Division.
Ruby Pam I'm Ruby Pap, and I'm with the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program,
and also work for the Planning Department on the General Plan.
Lea Kaiaokamalie: Good afternoon. I'm Lea Kaiaokamalie. I'm a Long Range Planner with the
Planning Department.
Ms. Valenciano: And I'm Marisa Valenciano, and I'm a Long Range and Regulatory Planner.
Ms. Williams: Thank you.
Ms. Williams, Mr. Steinmetz, Ms. Pap, Ms. Kaiaokamalie, and Ms. Valenciano presented
a PowerPoint presentation regarding the General Plan Update for the record (on file with the
Planning Department).
Mr. Dahilig left the meeting at 1:21 p.m.
Mr. Dahilig returned to the meeting at 1:37 p.m.
Ms. Williams: Okay. Thank you, Marisa. Just in conclusion, we wanted to share with you
information about the plan and where you can go to participate; not just for you, but for anyone
who might be watching this program on TV. Please check out our website. It's plankauai.com.
44
It has PowerPoint presentations, information, reports, the existing General Plan, summaries from
our meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee, and most importantly, an email sign -up
where we encourage people to join so you can be apprised of future public events when we have
the draft plan and we are ready to take it out to everyone. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook,
or just email us and always, you are ... anybody is welcome to come to the Planning Department
front counter, and ask for one of us and we will speak with you, or call us as well.
Finally, I'll just bring this back to the Six -Year CIP Report, which also is a charter mandate of all
of you, as the Planning Director said. Typically what we do is we update this plan every year.
It's a recurring plan ... a rolling plan. For those of you not familiar with this report, what it is, is a
short to mid -term plan or list of proposed capital projects that we would like to see, but as you
know, we are a small county with limited resources and it's impossible to fund every single
project on this list. We ... in the past, people have been a little concerned that it's more of an
unrealistic wish list, and we've been tasked and challenged by, not only you as a Commission,
but the Mayor's office as well, to find a way to make sure this is more of a strategic document to
help us prioritize projects; how do we compare a Parks project with a certain road resurfacing
project, for example. And for us, the key to doing that really is the General Plan. If we can get a
community vision and somehow tie that to goals and objectives, we can have a framework for
ranking projects. It's not just community goals. There are other things to consider, such as
health and safety, for example, or availability of funds. We will be looking at developing this
framework through the General Plan process and so next year, or this year, I'm sorry, when we
come before you with the updated Six -Year CIP Report, it probably will look very different from
this version, which is last year's report that this Commission approved and we sent to Council.
That concludes our presentation. If you have any questions, we are all here to answer.
Chair Mahoney: Well, thank you very much for the report. That was ... we are lucky to have
such a great team on Kauai, I think. Does any of the Commissioners have any questions you
would like to ask (inaudible)?
Mr. Keawe: Are all of the plans available online? The ones that are in draft form.
Ms. Williams: All of the technical reports and the existing General Plan and some of the work
product, such as the materials from the November workshops that Marisa showed, are online.
Mr. Keawe: Okay.
Ms. Williams: But yes.
Mr. Keawe: Good.
Mr. _H_ o: Lee, your bus routes, your bus routes, do all ... not all of them have those bus shelters
now. flow do you put them out?
Mr. Steinmetz: So that is a process that is ongoing. There was a round of construction that built,
I think, eight (8) ... somewhere around eight (8) bus shelters. There is another round that is out to
45
bid right now, which will ... I'm not really sure how many is in that, but the goal is within the
next couple of years to have about forty -nine (49) bus shelters at the highest ridership locations
to be installed. So we are getting there in terms of having construction of bus shelters at all of
our high ridership locations.
Mr. Ho: Are any of those bus structures on private property where you have to go to private
individuals?
Mr. Steinmetz: I don't believe so. I believe they are all on public property.
Chair Mahoney: Anyone else? No? Well, thank you very much for your report. Do you have
anything you want to add?
Mr. Dahilig: No.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you very much.
Mr. Dahilig: Actually, I do have one (1) question. Sorry. Just for a question that was raised in
the room, can you maybe describe some of the integration in the policies and plans that you are
using to address some of the civil defense and hazard issues relating to coastal inundation as
such?
Ms. Pap: Could you be a little more specific in your question? Sorry.
Mr. Dahilig: I guess, you know, part of the ... for instance, the Civil Defense Agency has
inundation zones concerning tsunamis. How are those types of spacial areas that have been
defined being integrated into the land use policy for the General Plan Update?
Ms. Pap: Yeah, okay, I understand. The Civil Defense tsunami inundation maps have been
translated and used for evacuation, tsunami evacuation areas, and that information is depicted on
a set of hazard maps, which have been developed in draft form for the General Plan. So we are
currently reviewing the hazard maps and will be, I think, juxtaposed against, perhaps, proposed
land use maps to see which communities... there are red flags for certain communities.
Obviously, many of us live within evacuation areas and we all should be aware and many
communities are already built, so I think the discussion will be with existing hazards and then
also with future exacerbation of those hazards from sea -level rise and such is how do we move
forward from here? And Kauai is not the only community that's in this boat. I mean, this is
happening world -wide, and so I think it's going to be an ongoing policy discussion. One of
those ... one of our largest recommendations that came out of the technical report was the next
step that updated hazard risk and vulnerability assessments be conducted for key communities to
really identify facilities, such as infrastructure, roads, and things that are going to be in harm's
way. We already have some of that done by Civil Defense through their multi - hazard mitigation
plan, but this would be incorporating future climate change concerns, and then that information
can be used as a basis for the community to decide then okay, what are we going to do? Are we
going to protect ourselves with walls? Are we going to implement some sort of strategic retreat
46
policy where we start to move things back? But it will help us prioritize better projects and plans
and capital improvement projects and things like that.
Mr. Kaiaokamalie: I just wanted to add that we are so fortunate to already have a wealth of data
available to us. A lot of these ... the information, such as the tsunami maps, shelters, and such are
already captured in digital format, so we can share information back and forth with the different
agencies. Also fortunate to have the work of Dr. Fletcher, of course, and NOAH, and some of
the Federal partners so we can readily utilize that data in our mapping when we are overlaying
different information and analyzing certain areas that might be vulnerable to impacts, for
example.
Mr. Keawe: Most important question, how can I get a t -shirt? (Laughter in background)
Ms. Kaiaokamlie: I can give you one.
Mr. Keawe: Good job guys. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for the presentation.
Discuss Salary Commission Findings of February 5, 2016 and any Potential
Correspondence.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, Commissioners, the last item on the agenda is one that involves the
personnel management of the Commission, but it specifically relates to the County's Salary
Commission findings that were released and actually being heard at the Council tomorrow. The
Administration has wanted each of the Commissions that directly supervise a Director, and this
is one of them, to weigh in on the Salary Commission's recommendations concerning an
increase in salaries. The Salary Commission has found that the last time executive pay was
raised in the County was in December of 2008, so it's been roughly seven and a half (7 1/2) years
since there has been an increase in salaries across the board. What the Salary Commission is
proposing is an increase equivalent to what has been the rate of inflation over the past six (6)
years, so that equates to a little under 120 , o, or 11.2 %. So in effect, if you look at the salary that
has been set by the Salary Commission in 2008, it has 88% of the ... a little over 88% of the
buying power now than it did back in 2008. The Administration is very concerned about the
effect this is having on retention of employees. We've seen a number of Directors and Deputy
Directors already leave the County as it relates to the service relative to the amount of pay that is
being gotten. Most recently, Larry Dill has left the State [sic] and he's enjoying a higher salary
based off of his transfer. So you know, it is something that, I think, in as much as the Salary
Commission is concerned about the rate of salaries, it is not related to who the person that is
actually in the seat. They've tried to make that very clear in their findings that it's not an
evaluation of whether somebody is good or bad for the job; rather what is a fair wage and
competitive wage to keep pace with the private sector in order to retain the skilled workforce
necessary to supervise and manage the County's programs. So one of the options that the
Commission could do is send individuals to testify publicly at the Council tomorrow about what
position they have concerning the Salary Commission findings and/or the Commission can also
send a letter, which I, as the Clerk, can write up and then send up on behalf of the Commission.
47
It's a very short insert with the PDF. Its Pages ... it starts on Page 457, but you'll see on Page 469
the salaries as proposed, and you'll see the majority of them are based off of the cost of living
increases that have occurred over the past six (6) years and that's what many of the salary
increases are being proposed at. I can help answer questions. Again, I'm not the guy that's been
in charge of this, but we've been tasked as Directors to share this information with the
Commissioners.
Mr. Keawe: I just had one (1) question. Mike, what were the reasons given in years past for not
granting any salary increases?
Mr. Dahilig: What has happened in the past, at least as I can characterize them, the pay raise
schedule had actually gone out to, I think, 2009, and that was around the time of the big crash.
So in times of austerity, what was the Administration's response was to say look, you know, no
raises for the Administration. We'll cut out that last year of the increase. Correspondingly, there
were collective bargaining furloughs that had occurred, some rifting that had occurred, across the
State during that time when the tax revenues had dropped significantly. Since then, what has
happened is that the tax revenues have stabilized across the State, but we still are living austere
environments. However, based on collective bargaining, many of the collective bargaining units
have already received increases in excess of 2 °'0 to 3% a year over the past few years and these
schedules are going on further. For example, HGEA has gotten a set of increases, UPW has
gotten a set of increases including step movements. So raises are being handed out by agreement
with the ... through that binding arbitration agreement between the collective bargaining units,
etc. It's not as if the environment has been now that no other employees are getting raises, but
what has happened since those collective bargaining increases have gone into effect with the
HGEA, UPW, Fire, Police, the executive salaries have not correspondingly caught up to that, and
so you are seeing ... for example, in the case of the Fire Department and the Police Department,
they no longer have Deputies because the salary for the Deputies is not competitive. So you've
seen as people elected to drop back to the collective bargaining scale because of the increases in
salary. For example, even in my Department, I have one (1) employee that is now being paid
more than the Deputy, currently. With the step increases that tend to occur, in the next round of
increases that will come as per the collective bargaining agreement, we'll have three (3)
employees that get paid more than my Deputy and one (1) that gets paid just as much as me, so it
becomes a retention issue. Also because when you look at Executives, Executives do not get
paid overtime. The Civil Service guys do get paid overtime. So it becomes an inversion issue
where there's now the separation between what the employees being supervised are getting paid
versus those that are supervising, and so you are seeing a reluctance to enter into the managerial
levels.
Chair Mahoney: So some of the options ... how about a letter from the Commission? Is that up
for discussion? Just a consensus on how the Commission feels about addressing...
Mr. Abrams: Mr. Chair, I think that the recommended increases... you know, it ran 1.7, 4.0, 2.0,
1.7, 1.8, 2010 and 2014, which average out to 11.2% total are reasonable, and I think that the
Salary Commission's efforts in looking at who was on the Salary Commission that these people
know what they are doing and in effect, I would vote and recommend to the Council in this
resolution that we support, at least as we see it from our standpoint here, the salary increase for
48
our Planning Director. And in general, the methodology that they've gone by that I think that
makes sense to me, and if they can, they should go ahead and raise the salary.
Chair Mahoney: Any further comment?
Mr. Ho: When would this letter have to be submitted to the Council? By tomorrow?
Mr. Dahilig: By tomorrow, yes.
Mr. Keawe: I agree. I think in order to remain competitive and retain talent, you know, we've
got some pretty talented folks in our County and they've got to be paid a living wage, especially
living on Kauai; it's expensive. So I think that's imperative that we get something to the
Council.
Chair Mahoney: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Is that ... Are they basing it on the cost of living or...?
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, the Honolulu CPI Increases. That's what they have.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, so for example, if you see 11.2, many of the increases are based off of...
Mr. Ho: Consumer Price Index?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, the Consumer Price Index, yeah.
Chair Mahoney: Any other comment? Well, you know, not a raise in seven and a half (7Y2)
years, and Commissioner Abrams mentioned, you know, the due diligence put in by the Salary
Committee [sic], and to retain the good people that we do have, I think ... I'd be willing to go
along with a recommendation from the Commission in letter form, if anybody's interested in
pursuing it along that line.
Mr. Abrams: Well, I make a motion that we embrace the Salary Commission's 2016
recommendations and as far as we are concerned relative to the Planning Director that we have
there, that those increases are appropriate and that we go ahead and let the Council know in their
consideration of this resolution.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Mr. Ho: So because the time is so short, should we ... each of us submit our own letter? Rather
than one (1) letter from the Commission?
Chair Mahoney: I think one (1) would be (inaudible).
Mr. Keawe: I think one (1) would be good if we could get it done in time.
49
Mr. Abrams: Well, I think we should have one come from the Commission and if there are
individual testimonies that there, then maybe we could go ahead and ... I mean, authorize, or I
guess at this point right now, you'd be speaking on your own behalf as a member of the
Commission, but I want to make sure that the Council understands that this Commission has
looked at it and that we think that it's appropriate.
Chair Mahoney: As a body that we agree on this.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah.
Mr. Abrams: Yes.
Chair Mahoney: And if it was one form drafted as a ... from the Commission to the Council
might be more effective than individual testimony.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, I agree.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah.
Mr. Ho: I agree.
Chair Mahoney: So if everybody is in agreement.
Mr. Keawe. Yeah.
Chair Mahoney: So is this in ... now, there's a motion on the floor and a second, does it need a...
Mr. Dahilig: You can vote.
Chair Mahoney: Yeah. Okay, so any ... there's been a motion and a second on the floor. Is there
any further discussion on this matter?
Mr. Ho: Who would do the letter?
Chair Mahoney: Well...
Mr. Ho: The attorney?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess one (1) option is you can authorize the Chair to sign the letter and then the
attorney can draft a letter for the Chair to sign.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, so can that be arnended into the motion? Or does it just ... part of the
discussion?
50
Mr. Abrams: Well, let's get this passed and then we'll go ahead and decide how we go about
doing that.
Chair Mahoney: Alright. Okay, so first and second, discussion is ... any further? Hearing none.
All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 4:0.
Mr. Abrams: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Second motion would be...
Mr. Abrams: Yeah.
Mr. Ho: Who's going to do it?
Mr. Abrams: Well, I guess the second motion would be that we have testimony drafted up on
behalf of the Commission by our counsel and have our Chairman go ahead and sign that and
submit it. And that if any one of us want to write a letter on behalf, then you can either get
online and do it through online that way, or submit testimony, or go in person tomorrow.
Mr. Dahilig. Yeah.
Mr. Keawe: Yeah, we can go in person, also, right?
Mr. Abrams: Yeah.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, so there's a motion for the...
Mr. Keawe: Oh, yeah, second. Sorry.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) The motion carries 4:0.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Commissioners. Sincerely thank you.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or
shortly thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A -2B, 4444
Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, March 8, 2016.
Mr. Dahilig: Last item up for business. We do have the on -deck sheets. They've been
submitted. You'll see that the number of pending applications ... many of these are in process, so
you'll see that we expect a pretty light load, but we do have some other items regarding permit
51
modifications that will be coming up before the Commission including the Coco Palms matter,
which you just acted on today. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held
in this room on March 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Mr. Dahilig, March 8th is the next one?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Ho: And is there one scheduled after that?
Mr. Dahilig: There's one scheduled on, I believe, March 22 "d
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, no further business. Meeting adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 2:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
earcie�Alggaran,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.
52