HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 052416 MinutesKAUAI PLANNIING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 24, 2016
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair Mahoney at 9:05 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. Roy Ho
Mr. Kimo Keawe
Absent and Excused:
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert
The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie
Takasaki, Dale Cua; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Office of Boards and
Commissions — Administrator Jay Furfaro, Commission Support Clerk Darcie Agaran
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mahoney called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dahilig: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Dahilix Vice Chair Abrams?
Mr. Abrams: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Keawe?
Mr. Keawe: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Katayama? Commissioner Streufert? Chair Mahoney?
Chair Mahoney: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, you have four (4) members present.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig: You are on approval of the agenda, Mr. Chair. The Department would recommend
moving Item I.3. This is the amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit relating to the storage
building to No. 1 today on the agenda, and afterwards, move the Coco Palms Matter under L.1.;
both those items to proceed immediately after the Consent Calendar. And then take care of Item
H at—when time is available.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Is there a motion to amend the agenda?
Mr. Abrams: Move to amend the agenda.
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 meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Regular Meeting of April 26, 2016
Special Meeting of May 2, 2016
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item D. These are the minutes of the
meetings of the Planning Commission for both the Regular Meeting of April 26, 2016 and the
Special Meeting of May 2, 2016.
Mr. Abrams: Move to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 26`x' and the Special
Meeting of May 2 "d
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.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have a supplement this morning of additional
testimonies, as circulated, to be received for the record under Item E.
Chair Mahoney: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Abrams: Move to receive the additional testimony.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) The motion carries 4:0.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Continued Agency Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Hearings and Public Comment. Under Item
F.1., we have no continued agency hearings.
New Agency Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: F.2. We have no new agency hearings.
Continued Public Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: Under Item F.3., we have no continued public hearings.
New Public Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: And under Item F.4., we have no new public hearings.
All remaining_ public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
Mr. Dahilig. Under Item F.5., we do have a number of people signed up to testify; both on Items
I.2 and I.4. And as is our practice, they can elect to testify either at this time or at the agenda
item. We do have Mr. Chun under Item I.2. At the agenda item? Or now?
Jonathan Chun: (Inaudible) I.2.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, thank you. We have Carl Imparato under Item I.4. relating to the DOE
building. Mr. Imparato.
Carl Imparato: I.4.
Mr. Dahilig. Okay. Makaala Kaaumoana.
Makaala Kaaumoana: Same.
3
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Lana Shea, PTSA.
Lana Shea: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Kaaumoana: Oh! No, I don't want to wait to later. Sorry. If I didn't have help, (inaudible).
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Ms. Kaaumoana: I need to go now.
Chair Mahoney: Alright. Could you state your naive for the record, please? You have three (3)
minutes.
Ms. Kaaumoana: Good morning, Commission and Director. I am Makaala Kaaumoana. I
testify today on behalf of Hui Ho`omalu i ka `Aina. I am their Vice Chair. Hui Ho`omalu
strongly supports the reconsideration of this matter. Our organization became aware of this
application only recently and believes your consideration of this matter will greatly benefit from
a more complete discussion of possible design alternatives. We fully appreciate the concerns
and efforts of Hanalei School Administrators and Kauai DOE District Staff, and thank them for
pursuing this improvement for our students. We believe some of the potential changes will
benefit our children and promote their educational experience. The placement of the proposed
portables is key to both retaining the historical aspects of the building and, more importantly, the
access to the classrooms, and the health and safety of the children, which may be improved with
the selection of another location on the campus. Are you aware that the current proposal actually
"aims" the exhaust of two (2) air conditioning units towards the students? Are you aware that
another location may actually provide better ADA access to the classrooms? Please reconsider
this matter and allow a full discussion of potential alternatives. Me ka pono.
As an added personal comment, I have over a dozen mo`opuna who have gone through Hanalei
School. I have one (1) there now. I have one (1) coming. This is personal to me. Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony. Any other to testify on this agenda item?
Mr. Dahilig: Robyn DeBonet.
Ms. Shea: Can Lana Shea, PTSA?
Mr. Dahilig. Okay, Lana Shea.
Ms. Shea: Aloha. Thank you for hearing our testimonies here today. We do have a lot of vested
interest. PTSA has spent a lot of time and effort to make Hanalei School great, and we
appreciate that you hear our voice on how this layout is implemented, so please reconsider.
There are alternatives for having it more offset so it doesn't take up the main courtyard center
where we do hold May Day, where the kids have their gyro classes because we don't have a
gymnasium, things of that nature. They say the Pledge of Allegiance in a horseshoe shape
around that field, you know, and the flag is in the center; things that ... like that that are important
to the day in and the day out of the school. So that's why we do ask you to consider this. It's not
just a plan on a piece of paper. This is something that we live and, you know, our kids go there
for years and years. So we appreciate you reconsidering that and thank you for hearing. Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Robyn DeBonet.
Robyn DeBonet: Hi. My name is Robyn DeBonet. Currently, I have two (2) sons going to
school there and another one on her way. I strongly suggest that you guys reconsider, as well,
the placement of these portables.
I have a letter that I'd like to read from ... that was submitted for someone who could not attend.
I will not be able to attend to make the meeting today, but I wanted to share my feelings about
the portables. I do not want to have them in front of the school. One reason being that it will
change the whole front look of this beautiful school to have the back of portables on one side and
take away part of the lawn, which is where we have our May Day ceremony and P.E. classes.
Another reason is because the portables on the side, especially this side, are very hot. I realize
we have A/C's now, but unlike the rooms in the A Building, we have to close all of our jalousies
and there is no natural light. The rooms feel like a jury office, and you cannot tell whether it is
day or night outside. We use the A/C, but it is not absolutely necessary. We would like to have
the airflow and natural light. If other classrooms are going to be put in front of our windows, it
will be a distraction, take away what airflow we do not have, and there would not be any view
due to the buildings. Our gardens, that we have to make the classrooms an inviting place for the
students, will not thrive from lack of light. Thank you for sharing my concerns. Sorry I could
not attend the meeting.
So other people have taken notice of this and also wish to have this reconsidered. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Justin ... I cannot read this.
Juan Arturo Fonseca: Juan Arturo Fonseca?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Could you state your name for the record, please?
Mr. Fonseca: Juan Arturo Fonseca. Thank you for having us here this morning. We ask, please,
to reconsider this matter because I think it's for safety and emergency reasons, so please. If you
guys will reconsider, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Matt Hall. Matt Hall.
Chair Mahoney: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Matt Hall: Sure. My name is Matt Hall. Good morning, members of the Commission. My
name is Matt Hall. I'm a member of the Hanalei School Foundation, which has a few of the
community leaders, including Nick Beck who is the President of our Association. We've
submitted letters, which I believe are part of the record already. I would like you to reconsider
your decision of two (2) weeks ago with regards to the portables. What we have in the letters ... I
think there were twelve (12) of them ... state facts pretty clearly with regards to safety, the effect
on May Day, the effect on the aesthetic and architectural integrity of the school, and so we are
asking that you guys please reconsider that. On a side note, there are some people here that I'm
not sure has signed up, but would still like to present early on to this hearing. (Inaudible)
Chair Mahoney: We'll allow them time.
Mr. Hall: Right on. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Phil Jones.
Phil Jones: Hi. My name is Phil Jones. I'm going to read a letter from my wife, Ashley Jones,
who could not be here today. She is at the school.
Aloha, Planning Commissioners. As a very involved Hanalei School parent and community
member, I would like to ask you to, please, reconsider your decision from two (2) weeks ago and
put the l lanalei School portables back on your agenda. I was raised on the north shore. I
attended Hanalei School. My two (2) children have attended Hanalei School. And my father
rebuilt the Hanalei School after Hurricane Iniki. I currently serve, and for many years have
served, on the PTSA and SCC. At a public meeting held in the Hanalei School cafeteria almost a
year ago, the community expressed their concerns and offered great solutions which yet have to
be addressed. This process has been long and ineffective. I feel the community's concerns can
be addressed quickly and efficiently so that building can commence in a way that it addresses the
needs of the school, the children, the teachers, and the future expansion of Hanalei School.
Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Jamie DeBonet.
Jamie DeBonet: I'd like to testify at the time of the agenda item.
Mr. Dahili z Okay. Susan Wilson.
Susan Wilson: Hi. Good morning. My name is Susan Wilson. I live in the Hanalei District of
Princeville. I've been involved in preserving the school since 1974 when the proposal was to
remove the Hanalei Schools and Kilauea Schools, and consolidate them up in Princeville. At
that time, the communities got together. I got a call from the then principal, Harry Ho, saying if
we lose the school, we'll lose the soul of Hanalei, which is absolutely true. I have been involved
in the North Shore District Update 1984 and also the General Plan.
And I will say that I believe this school is in the Special Treatment district, but let me give you a
little bit of the history; just a slight bit. This is in the Waioli District of Hanalei, and the Waioli
District starts from the park, goes to the church, goes to the minister's house, goes to the district
meeting historic building, and then goes on to the school. And this is a historic view plain that
when you go through Hanalei, you realize that you are not only looking at history, you are
looking at the rural essence of the community. One of the things that is important is that that
school has an architectural continuity to the other schools ... to the other buildings in that district,
though it may not have been built at the same time. But there was enormous respect for the
historic and visual impact that would be effectuated by a properly planned school and the look of
that.
Now, what I see here ... what I also feel is important is that the State and the DOT are very
important stakeholders in preserving the historic look and community essence of Hanalei. And
I'm not so sure that there has been much respect for that in the past decades. We certainly were
successful in getting a comprehensive historic design school after Hurricane Iniki and the
cafeteria, but after that, I think that this idea of temporary classrooms, especially this particular
situation where it's plopped right in the middle of a grand lawn of this marvelous historic
looking school, is inappropriate. I don't know if there have been plans effectuated by the DOT
that call for any kind of architectural design.
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Mahoney: Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Wilson: Oh, I'm sorry. Is this it?
Chair Mahoney: Yes.
Ms. Wilson: Well, there you have it. There is a long history of preserving the historical look.
Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Barbara Robeson.
Barbara Robeson: Barbara Robseon for the record. Thank you. Testimony in favor of the
request to reconsider the decision on the Hanalei Elementary School. Based on what Susan
Wilson has just said, I'm kind of a newcomer to the preservation of the Hanalei School. She's
7
been involved for many more years than my 35 -40 years of being involved in the particular
issue.
Over the many years, there have been numerous land use planning documents and efforts to
preserve the historical places in the big picture of Hanalei. And as a historian, Barnes
Resnick ... if you folks remember Barnes who's still around... documented in the 1980's. He
said, "The past is a resource, and history, like individual memory, can be forgotten unless it is
nurtured. Historical preservation is part of cultural memory, and physically preserved historical
places tell us something about ourselves." Hanalei School is one of these many historical places
that should be preserved in the Hanalei to Hd'ena area.
Now, Susan ... I don't know if she showed you this document. This was the document that was
passed out for the centennial celebration in 1981 of the Hanalei School. And included in that,
the historical overview, one of the pages says, Hanalei School is the last of several schools that
once served the Halelea District of Kauai. It is actually more than 100 years old, dating back to
1835, when a missionary station and school were started at Waioli. The government subsidized
common schools in the district and partially supported the Hanalei English School. In 1881, the
Hanalei English School was finally adopted as a government school. In 1884, only two (2)
schools remained in Halelea; the English School at Hanalei and the common school at Wainiha.
The Wainiha School was relocated in Hd'ena in 1896. By that time, schools were no longer
taught in Hawaiian or differentiated as common or English, but were classified as public schools.
And then the Wena School was destroyed on March 9, 1957 by a tidal wave, which you
probably know about that.
Just to show you some of...a minimtnn of the kind of documents that talk about the big picture
of the Hanalei history. There were these newsletters, Hanalei yesterday, of course the North
Shore Development Plan of 1972 has some recollection of that, the current North Shore Plan has
recollection of the Hanalei School, recognizes the historic information, a couple of other
brochures. The prospect from this (inaudible), which was the Hanalei Cultural Landscape
Survey in 1987.
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Robeson: (Inaudible)
Chair Mahoney: Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Ms. Robeson: Okay. And the last one I'm going to show you is this Comprehensive Chronicle
of Land Use, Hanalei, through 1940, and that also recognizes the Hanalei School. So, based on
that, I hope you will reconsider and take a look at the history, the larger history of the area.
Thank you very much.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, those are the only ... the last individuals I have signed up on any agenda
item. The Department would recommend making a final call for any additional testimony
(inaudible).
Chair Mahoney: Is there any other member of the public that would like to testify on this agenda
item at this time? Seeing none.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2012 -9 and Variance Permit V- 2012 -6 to
allow construction of a storage building and ADA improvements at the Kapa`a New Town Park
(KTNP), further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 4 -5- 015:032, Kapa`a, Kauai = County ofKaua `i.
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Per the amended.agenda, N1r. Chair, we are on Item I.3. This is amendment
to Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2012 -9 and Variance Permit V- 2012 -6 to allow construction of
a storage building and ADA improvements at the Kapa`a New Town Park, further identified as
Tax Map Key (4) 4 -5 -015 Parcel 32 in Kapa`a, Kauai. This is via a request from the County of
Kauai, Department of Parks and Recreation.
I'm the Planner on this matter, Mr. Chair, and we have ... I have circulated a Director's Report
based off of the April 29, 2016 communication from the Parks and Recreation Department. As
you read through the report, you'll see that some of the history behind this proposal is actually
part of this year's Leadership Kauai Class to look at a community project and propose a solution
to a problem, and so we've reviewed the amendment to the permit. We believe it is in order and
are prepared to make a recommendation to the Commission given our analysis. If there are any
questions for the Department, we can take it at this time. If not, you can turn it over to Deputy
Director Costa for his review.
Chair Mahoney: Any questions? We'll turn it over to Deputy Director Costa.
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Ian Costa: Aloha. Good morning. Our department is
asking to amend a Variance Permit we got, I think it was approved in 2011 for the Kapa`a New
Town Park, to allow Kauai Pop Warner partnering with Leadership Kauai to build a Pop
Warner equipment storage room and replace, essentially, a storage trailer that we have there that
serves that purpose. Because the Park is zoned Open, lot coverage is 10 °'0. We've already
exceeded that with basketball courts, bleachers, skating rink, restrooms. And everything we
build there now we have to add walkways or accessible routes for ADA compliance, and the
same goes with this storage room. We need to provide an ADA accessible route to it.
In the original Variance, I had actually requested ... we had requested, the Department, to ... for
the Commission to consider allowing up to 20Q0' lot coverage. I think that might be a bit much,
but even if we could be allowed up to 15° o because we constantly have to add walkways to
continue to comply with ADA accessible routes to every aspect of the park.
And that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Simple building. Similar to what we have in Isenberg
Park, which allows three (3) different bays for different sports organizations to store their
equipment. That park serves Little League, Pony League, senior softball, skating rink, outdoor
hockey, basketball. It's quite a busy park. As well as the football complex that serves the high
school football, as well as Pop Warner football. And then I have Mr. Teddy Arroyo here from
Kauai Pop Warner. If you want to say anything.
Teddy rroyo: Morning. Teddy Arroyo, Kauai Pop Warner President. I just want to share a
little history. Kauai Pop Warner has been around this island for 54 years. I have five (5)
associations starting from Kekaha, Koloa, Hanapepe, Uhu`e, and Kapa`a. Kapa`a is the only
association without an equipment facility, and we'd be very blessed and appreciative if we could
get acceptance on building this. If you do remember, about 10 years ago, the building burnt
down and Kapa`a lost all of their equipment. They put a temporary building up there, but over
the past years, it has been broken into, been graffitied, and, you know, it has been a struggle out
there. With the blessing of you guys and the County and ... you know, we can get this facility up
for the community of Kapa`a. But thank you very much for your guys' time.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Costa: As an additional note, we are ... in this upcoming budget that just went before the
County Council, we are budgeting for $150,000 to grant a Park Improvement Grant to the Kauai
Pop Warner and Leadership Kauai to undertake this project, and the labor ... they will be
providing as in -kind snatch.
Chair Mahoney: Any questions for the applicant?
Mr. Keawe: Yes, I have. Is this... facility will be available to other community groups for
storage? Or strictly Pop Warner?
Mr. Costa: Our intent to provide it ... like I said, it has three (3) bays, so our intent is to make it
available to other...
Mr. Keawe: To other community groups?
Mr. Costa: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: So how do you determine who gets the ... use it?
Mr. Costa: Well, as you can imagine, it's a constant demand. (Laughter in background) I guess
probably the most organizations that use the facilities the most.
Mr. Keawe: So basically use; who uses the facility more, the actual total park facility.
Mr. Costa: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: Okay.
E
Chair Mahoney: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Ian, is this going to have a shower? Water? Electrical?
Mr. Costa: Electrical. Minimal electrical; lights and I believe one (1) or two (2) outlets within
each space, as well as an exterior hose bibb or spigot. No showers or anything like that.
Mr. Dahilig: And just to clarify, Commissioner Ho, this attaches to a previous permit to request
construction for a locker room facility, so that will be taken care of, in terms of when they have
the available funds to construct the locker room.
Mr. Costa: And the locker room was completed in 2012. That provides two (2) different teams
locker rooms with showers and locker facilities.
Chair Mahoney: Any other questions? Hearing none.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Mr. Chair, the Department recommends approving the request to amend
Variance Permit V- 2012 -6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2012 -9. You'll notice in the report
that three (3) conditions are being proposed for either amendment or addition. Specifically,
Condition No. 1 adds the "ball storage building" to the language concerning the locker room, as
well as asks that the proposed storage building and associated ADA improvements described in
the amendment request be constructed as represented. Under Condition No. 7, we did a
rewording to allow for, again, a design review as previously stated under Condition No. 7, but
just to specify conformance with the Kapa`a- Wailua Development Plan. And then lastly, just
to—in conformance with Chapter 6E, there's a historic preservation condition that is being
attached on to the list of conditions. Other than that, the Department stands on its
recommendation for approval.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. I guess...
Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: And just to clarify, you folks have the updated
EA exemption list and will be doing the analysis under the 2012 list.
Mr. Costa: Yes. Thank you for the...
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Mr. Costa: It does ... I guess we are claiming the ... still Class No. 3 Exemption.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Mr. Costa: But rather than Item 18, it's Item M.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Mr. Costa: Which provides for storage... storage room, storage sheds, or equipment... athletic
equipment storage.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay. I think the HAR 11- 200 -8(a) also requires that you folks consult
with outside agencies to make sure compliance... or as to the propriety of the exemption, and so
those things will be taken care of by your agency.
Mr. Costa: Okay.
Ms. Hi cug_ hi Sayeg sa: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: So would that be rolled into a condition?
Mr. Dahilig: I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's necessary. The obligation for the
triggering agency under 343 ... the 343 triggers because this is use of State or County lands and
funds, the responsibility lays with the discretionary agency that's initiating the project.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Alright, well, the Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Keawe: Move to amend Class IV Zoning Pen-nit Z -IV- 2012 -9 and Variance Pen-nit V -2012-
6 to allow construction of a storage building and ADA improvements to the Kapa`a New Town
Ballpark as recommended by Staff with the recommended changes.
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.
Mr. Costa: Mahalo.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Arrow Thank you.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
Planning Director Michael A. Dahilig's Petition to Modify or Revoke Applicant Coco
Palms Hui, LLC's Permits and Issue and 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. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll jump to Item L. This is Unfinished Business. This is
the petition to modify or revoke applicant Coco Palms Hui's permits and issue an order to show
12
cause and set hearing relating to 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. This is the Coco Palms Hui.
Mr. Chair, just as a matter of course, the applicant has circulated a copy of the recorded Special
Warranty Deed and Quitclaim deed that was recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances and the
Land Court as part of supporting documentation given the last discussion by the Commission
concerning this matter. I'll leave it up to the applicant to provide further discussion on this item,
but I will say that the Department is currently engaging in negotiations to settle the Contested
Case hearing that would have been triggered by this order to show cause. We have not
completed those negotiations, but we are still actively in discussions, so I just want to confirm
that to the Commission. I'll turn it over to Mr. Pang if that's okay, Mr. Chair.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Could you state your name for the record, please?
Jon Pang: Hi. Jon Pang, Case Lombardi & Petit, for the applicant.
Tyler Greene: Tyler Greene with Coco Palms Hui.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Pang: Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning. As you can see, we've provided you
with the deed by which the Coco Palms Hui has acquired the Coco Palms property. And we first
want to express our appreciation to the Commission and the Department for all of your patience
and your assistance in getting us here. As we had mentioned before, the ... our ability to acquire
the property was as a result of closing a loan, an acquisition loan, that also funded the
demolition. Well, it funded the mobilization of the demolition with the remaining amount
that ... under the contract with the lender, for the lender to disburse, as well as to fund the
finalization of the construction plans in order to get the building permits. So at this point, we are
moving forward with the demolition, and we are trying to get everything ready, as Director
Dahilig mentioned, for getting a construction loan and to ... in the context of that, trying to work
with the Department, the Department has been helpful, in trying to make the conditions... update
it to the context where we are now; where we have acquired the property and we move forward
with construction. So, I want to turn it over to Mr. Greene and he can provided you with a little
more detail on the progress of the project.
Mr. Greene: Yeah, I'd just like to echo what Mr. Pang has said. We really do appreciate your
support in this project and your belief in us to move this forward and to stay the course. We
were successful in, as Mr. Pang had said, sending over the mobilization payment to PCCC, the
demolition contractor here on Kauai. So we've done everything on our end to get them going
and moving. There was a 10 -day letter submitted to the Department of Health; that was done a
week ago Friday. That is ten (10) business days, and so if we count that out, we are able to start
the physical demolition on the 31St, which is Tuesday. Our ten (10) days essentially is up ... we
could start Monday, but that's Memorial Day, and so we've selected the 3l' as the official start
date for demolition. So everything now, at this point, on the demolition side, is in their hands.
We've essentially got a signed contract with them. They are working on their bond to move
13
things forward. They've got their mobilization payment. It's just the function of getting through
that 10 -day notice and then they can start on the 31 ". So we are excited and encouraged, and we
all know this has taken a lot longer than all of us ever wanted or expected, but we are excited and
remain positive, and ready to start this journey.
Chair Mahoney: Questions?
Mr. Keawe: One (1) real quick. Tyler, what's ... can you give us a real quick scope of work on
the demo?
Mr. Greene: Sure. So we actually call it "selective demo "; not all the buildings are going to be
torn down there. There are some steel and concrete structures that are in the front. Those house
about 800' of the 350 rooms for the property. Those do get extensively cleaned up. So all of the
mechanical, electrical, all of the old drywall, everything that's in there now does get torn out, and
so we picture it, you know, much like a parking garage, if you will. Once it's fully cleaned up
and the demo is completed, it'll look much like a parking structure. And then when the
reconstruction starts, we'll come back, and all the columns will be there and we'll rebuild from
there. There are some wooden structures on the property that have lived their life cycle, and in
fact, a few of them, the roofs have already start to cave in. Those do get razed to the ground.
Keep in mind, though, that all of it just goes to the foundation, so there's no digging that will be
done there. It's just taking it down to the initial foundations; even on those wooden structures.
There are a few buildings, like the bungalow buildings, that because of current FEMA standards,
we are required to elevate those 8 feet above sea - level. And so those bungalows do come down
and get taken out, and then they get rebuilt on, basically, a post and pier type construction. So
you'll see them about 8 feet above the ground, and then the bungalows will come back in their
current form, just elevated up 8 feet.
Mr. Keawe: What about the Coconut Palace?
Mr. Greene: I'm sorry?
Mr. Keawe: The Coconut Palace. Queen's Audience Hall.
Mr. Greene: The Queen's Audience Hall. So just the interior of that ... the structure of that stays,
but the interior of that gets completely cleaned up. So same thing there where all the old
mechanical and electrical will come out, all the interior walls will come out, but the surrounding
structure of the Queen's Audience Hall will stay.
Chair Mahoney: Any other questions?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess there is one (1) matter of business, Mr. Chair, that the Commission ... the
Department would recommend the Commission does take on this, and that's related to Item
L. Ld. As stated in the previous meeting a month ago, if the sale was to close that Prudential,
who at the time was requesting intervention status, was wanting to withdraw their intervenor
petition. Since the closing has happened, there is written confirmation from Jennifer Lim
representing PR II Coco Palms LLC, or Prudential, stating and confirming that they wish to
14
withdraw their application for intervenor status. So I guess we do need a formal motion to
receive that communication.
Chair Mahoney: Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Keawe: Move to receive the letter from Jennifer Lim representing the petitioner with regard
to written confirmation of Prudential's withdrawal.
Mr. Abrams: Second.
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we would also request, you know, given previous
discussion, both from myself and Mr. Pang, that we are in negotiations to settle the Contested
Case hearing that we request deferral of this matter to June 28`n for status.
Mr. Keawe: What date, Mike?
Mr. Dahilig: June 28`'. Tuesday.
Chair Mahoney: June 28`'.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Move to defer Contested Case hearing to June 281n
Chair Mahoney: Is there 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.
Mr. Dahili . Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item I...
Mr. Pang: Thank you.
Mr. Greene: Thank you very much.
Mr. Abrams: Thank you very much.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (Continued)
15
Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendation of Contested Case Hearing (including
proposed Decision and Order, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law); Certificate of Service
relating to CC- 2015 -6, TVRNCU #1356, Tax Map Key (4) 1 -3- 001:083 = Ian Cronshaw and
Anna Cronshaw and CC- 2015 -7, TVRNCU #1357, Tax Map Key (4) 1 -3- 001:094 = Ian
Cronshaw and Anna Cronshaw.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item I.4. This is request for reconsideration
of the decision relating to SMA Pen-nit SMA(U)- 2016- 3 ... oh, sorry. My apologies. We actually
should go back to Item I.1. This is the Hearings Officer's report and recommendation of
Contested Case Hearing, including proposed Decision and Order, Findings of Facts, and
Conclusions of Law, and Certificate of Service relating to CC- 2015 -6, TVRNCU #1356, Tax
Map Key (4) 1 -3 -001 Parcel 083. This is Ian Cronshaw and Anna Cronshaw. And Contested
Case Hearing No. CC- 2015 -7, TVRNCU #1357, Tax Map Key (4) 1 -3 -001 Parcel 094. And
again, Ian Cronshaw and Anna Cronshaw.
This matter has been transmitted to the Commission from the Commission's Hearings Officer.
I'll turn it over to the County Attorney for, I guess, a disclosure concerning the posting of this
item, and how the Commission wishes to proceed on this matter.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: So in the abundance of caution, we've been posting notice for this
portion of the hearing. Of course, it's required under 91 for the Contested Case itself, but after
it's been transmitted back to the Commission for its consideration and decision - making on the
Hearings Officer's report, we've been... historically been posting additional notice because under
1 -6 -16 of our Commission's rules, motions may be made at least fourteen (14) days prior to the
date set for final argument on the matter, and so to allow either party to, one, the notice of when
the final argument or final decision - making will be set. We've been posting notice to allow them
at least fourteen (14) days ... afford them to make any motion should they want to.
Unfortunately, we did not do so for this particular matter. My recommendation would be to,
perhaps, question whether the ... either party wanted to make ... wanted to be afforded an
opportunity to make any motions. If so, I would recommend that we defer the matter. If no
motions are intended to be made and they're comfortable with decision - snaking today, we can go
forward today.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Is there a representative for the applicant present? Is there...?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess, Mr. Chair, given the fact that there is no opposing party here on this
matter, I guess I would recommend deferring the item and going through the 14 -day reposting,
just out of an abundance of caution, and set deferral, again, to June 28 "', Tuesday.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Abrams: Motion to defer to June 28`h the Hearing Officer's report and recommendation of
Contested Case Hearing.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
n
Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendation of Contested Case Hearing (including
proposed Decision and Order, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law); Certificate of Service
relating to CC- 2014 -5, TVRNCU #14263 -P, Tax Map Key (4) 5 -2- 004:098 = Rene O. Campos.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item 1.2. This is the Hearings Officer's
report and recommendation of Contested Case Hearing, including proposed Decision and Order,
Findings of Facts, and Conclusions of Law, and the Certificate of Service related to Contested
Case Hearing No. CC- 2014 -5 for TVRNCU # 14263 -P, Tax Map Key (4) 5 -2 -004 Parcel 098.
The petitioner was Rene O. Campos. I believe Mr. Chun has elected to speak on this matter.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Chun: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Thank you for allowing
me to speak on this matter. You have before you the Hearings Officer's recommendation and
report. I'm here to indicate to you our concerns regarding the recommendation and the report,
and the reason why I'm bringing these to you directly, as opposed to the Hearings Officer, is that
I believe the Commission is better versed and closer to the actual rules and regulations of the
Planning Commission itself, which, I believe, the Hearings Officer has not really paid attention
to or has given any credence. But let me start off with my comments on this.
I mean, we all have to remember that these TVNC's are made and intended to recognize existing
non- confonming use. In other words, a non - conforming use is a constitutional right given to the
owner of the property by State and Federal law. There is no intent by the Council in adopting
these regulations, 864 and its prodigy, to stop or prevent non - conforming uses. The intent very
clearly was to allow non - conforming uses to continue because they are non - conforming uses, but
to have them register. With that in mind, I believe the Hearings Officer did not pay attention to
that constitutional fact, and I want to bring that forth. But going on beyond that, my client
believes it's very ironic in this particular matter that the Department in its decision - making
process decided not to process ... and that's what we had. They decided not to process the
TVNC, after it reached the provisional, on the basis that the applicant, Mr. Campos, gave false
information. And I thought that was ironic because here we are at a Hearings Officer, and the
Hearings Officer is relying on false information to prevent the application.
So let's go down the matter with it. As far as the allegation from the Planning Department that
Mr. Campos provided false information, the Hearings Officer very clearly stated in his
recommended report saying no, Mr. Campos did not give false information. So let's put that
aside; that's taken ... we are not appealing that, so we agree with that. But what we take umbrage
with the Hearings Officer is the Hearings Officer's findings that the guest house that he had ... or
actually was a single - family house because there was a kitchen in there and there's no hiding the
fact (inaudible), we didn't contest there was a kitchen in there, but the structure in there was not
a single- family dwelling. Okay? That's where the pedal meets the metal on that one. The
Department's point of view was well, because it was not a single - family dwelling, even though
there was a kitchen there and they never denied it, we are not going to give you your TVNC.
17
The Hearings Officer relied on false, misleading information to basically uphold the
Department's position. First of all, the first false and misleading information that the Hearings
Officer relied on was, one, the Department said we contended the ... my client, Mr. Campos, was
not given an opportunity to make the small change needed to bring ... to make that house a "legal
single - family dwelling ", and the reason why ... the structure itself, guest house, was properly
permitted; nobody contested that. The only thing was there was a small kitchen in there, and we
didn't contest that, we didn't lie, and my client was very upfront in the beginning. He said yeah,
there's a kitchen in there. He filed the application; there's a kitchen in there. There's no intent.
After the Department came back and said hey, you have a kitchen in there, my client,
uncontested, there's no doubt that he did, went down to the Planning Department and said hey, I
got to get a Class I Zoning Permit for this to just add the kitchen in. The structure is not going to
be changed. It's a Class I Zoning Pen-nit. We can do it. The Department, in its testimony, said
yeah, we have allowed other people to make corrections. And in fact, I have a sworn statement
from the Planning Department that was part of the record saying yes, under 904, which this was
under 904 because it's an Ag parcel, we allow people to make corrections to zoning violations,
and once they are corrected, we would issue the pen-nit; very clear. My client did that. My client
went in there and the Planning Department said no, we are not going to let you do it. Period.
Why? Because. And that's where there's so much confusion. The Department gave three (3)
different reasons why it didn't; none of them hold water. And the bottom line is the Hearings
Officer ignored all that, or relied on information basically saying we didn't do it ... they didn't do
it. Why? No explanation whatsoever as to why.
Well, let me be fair to the Department. The Department, at one point, said SMA was needed,
and then it, later on, in their testimony said no, S MA is not needed. At another point in their
testimony they said oh, a Use Permit was required because it's in the Open district at the north
shore, and we are not contesting that. But at the same time, subsequent testimony from the
Department said oh, yeah, there was a policy ... early on when this guest house was first done and
when other houses were built, Use Permits were not required. And so when we asked them well,
when did that change? I don't know. When did that change because of my client? I don't know.
Well, what was the reason for the change? I don't know. It's just I know it changed from the
time it was built to now. It changed. Okay? Why did it change? Nobody knows. When did it
change? Nobody knows. Who changed it? Nobody knows. So is my client supposed to be held
responsible for that change? We said no. So that was very clear. He tried to make corrections
as testimony from the Department said they allowed people to do it, and then he was denied. So
that's misinfonnation that they relied on that no, we didn't allow people, basically, to do it, but
they did, and the uncontested information and testimony said we did do it.
Second point of misinformation is the Planning Department and the Hearings Officer relied on
the fact that yes, there was a kitchen in there, but we don't have it in our records. We don't have
it in our records. The testimony and the records given to the Hearings Officer show that the
Building Department allowed that. Testimony from other prior former employees said yeah, that
happens because a lot of times back then kitchens were added because the Department of Health
would not allow a habitable structure without a kitchen. Building code also specifically has the
fact that an efficiency house, which meets, basically, the definition of a guest house, has to
have ... not maybe, not could have ... but has to have a kitchen in there. So the Building
Department... and the Building Department's own website had it as a lodging unit. And then the
18
floor plans and elevation filed with the State of Hawaii shows it as a dwelling unit, and has a
kitchen in there, in public record. And also, the architect who filed that specifically stated in his
affidavit and his certification to the State that this is the actual and accurate copies of the plans
that are on file with the County of Kauai, Building Department. The County recognized it.
Planning Department's point is well, I don't have it so I don't recognize it. But, two (2) things of
misdirection on that from the County side, and the Hearings Officer ignored that misdirection, is,
one, under State law, it is condominium, nobody disagrees with that. Under State law ... and
Commissioner Abrams knows it very well. Under State law, condominiums cannot, cannot be
approved by the State unless the State is in receipt of a letter from the County Planning
Department indicating that the structure is in full compliance with all zoning and building. I
requested that information in this hearing. I requested all the information regarding this permit.
I didn't get it. But obviously, the State of Hawaii has it. Obviously, the State of Hawaii
approved the condominium. And obviously, because the State of Hawaii, there is some
document floating around in the County of Kauai, somewhere here, which hasn't been disclosed
to anyone that there is a letter from the County Planning Department saying that this structure, as
built as a CPR, is in full compliance with the zoning. Yet, in this hearing, the Planning
Department said I don't have it, I didn't see it, I don't know about it, so it doesn't exist.
Misdirection.
Third misdirection on this issue is under your rules and regulations, very clearly, and under State
law and under County ordinance, the Planning Department is charged with being the central
coordinating agency for the entire County of Kauai; not just the Planning Department, not just
for Building, not for ... you know, it's for every ... the entire County of Kauai. It's in your rules.
It's in the ordinance. It's in State law. One, the State law says that the County has to designate
an agency to be a central coordinating agency. Statute ... I mean, the ordinance then turns around
and designates the Planning Department to be the central coordinating agency. Your own
rules ... if you look at your own rules, basically... expressly states, the Planning Department is the
central coordinating agency. What is a central coordinating agency? The job of a central
coordinating agency is to collect and be the repository for all plans and permits of the County of
Kauai, so that the public can have a central area to look at that. But what we have here is the
Planning Department basically saying I don't have it, never seen it, I don't care. And I can show
you in the record where basically that kind of attitude was in there very clearly. We don't look at
what the Building Department has. They do what they do. Planning (inaudible). But that goes
straight against the grain of what State law, the County ordinance, and what your own rules
provide that you have to do. And the beneficiary of that is supposed to be the public, my client,
so he can rely on the fact that hey, a permit from one (1) place is a permit from the County; not
guess that oh, I got to jump around from agency to agency and make sure that they are working
together. That's why you have a central coordinating agency. That's the other misdirection.
Finally, the other misdirection on this is the ... very clearly, is the fact that this is a guest house.
And like I said, we never ... nobody contested the fact. We didn't fight the fact. So I showed the
Planning Department and I showed the Hearings Officer situations in which an applicant for a
TVR came in, he had a guest house, just like we had, and the Planning Department said no, we
deny it, you can't; you have a guest house, you can't do it. I pulled that permit. I had the permit
in my hand, put it in the record to the Planning ... to the Hearings Officer and said here, here's the
situation, guest house was approved. This Commission approved it. Staff from the Planning
19
Department looked at it and said I don't know, we have hundreds of these applications, I don't
know. But then finally, at the end of the day, he went, well, I think this one was an ADU and
that's why we approved it. Hearings Officer, based upon that testimony... not a part of any of the
records because the records show something different... based upon this testimony from the Staff
member who before testified I don't remember every letter I write, I don't remember every
permit I issue, then all of a sudden, at the end of the day, says well, I think ... I think this was an
ADU, maybe—takes that infonnation, or misinformation, and says well, based upon the
infonnation from the Department, they never did that and so yeah, there's no right for Mr.
Campos to have that either.
Three (3) misdirections in this one (1) hearing. One, the County does not (inaudible) that you're
the central coordinating agency and does not recognize the fact that there should be a central
coordinating agency where all these pen-nits are supposed to be held, and there is supposed to be
that one. Two, misdirection in terms of they obviously approved it or sent a letter to the State to
approve this as a CPR with a kitchen in there because that's what the CPR plan showed. And
three, ignoring the fact that they issued a permit for a guest ... for a TVR; yet, denied that in front
of the Hearings Officer. So I mean, that's the reason why we're here; to point out those
misdirections. And ironically, the misdirection that they charged my client with, the Hearing
Officer said no, that's (inaudible) because he was honest, upfront. He always told you guys
upfront there was a kitchen there. We never contested it, and that's why the Hearings Officer
said there is no misdirection by my client.
Finally, and I'm going to end with this, my client is opposed to the fines. And as the
Commission very well knows, the Commission has adopted its own rules, which stated
that ... and the rules were in front of the Hearings Officer, there's no doubt about it, it was on the
exhibits, the Planning Commission's own rules, adopted by this Commission, say we are only
going to fine if there is a 2 -step process; one, zoning compliance notice, two, notice of violation.
In this case, none. None. So I ask this Commission, why? Why is a Hearings Officer entitled to
ignore the rules of the Planning Commission? Penalize my client for the County not fulfilling its
job? And three, why is this being treated different from other applications when he tried to
correct it and he was never given the opportunity to do so?
There are other legal arguments in there and I'll leave that because my client, just like I said,
wanted to give the opportunity for the Commission to hear these reasons why, but my client is
more than willing and able to bring this matter in front of the Circuit Court. And at the same
tune, you know, and I want to be very clear, I was given my pennission by the client to say that
in the Circuit Court, if it needs to go there, he will bring up civil rights violation because it is a
constitutional violation. And he will either bring that up in the appeal, or file a separate civil
rights violation because it is a constitutional right or property right that has been deprived, and
there were violations of the Department in its processing of this permit of not following its own
rules and regulations, which is another civil rights violation.
So I would say I'm generally open to any questions, but I will not want to ask a lot of questions
because if I need to do ... if there's (inaudible) questions, I think the Commission really should
open the hearing again and ask factual questions at that point in time because I don't want to be
unfair to the Department and answer questions that might have factual things and then the
20
Department, you know, would want to respond. And if we do that, we might as well just open
the hearings up again. But if there are no factual questions, I will be open to those.
Chair Mahoney: At this time, is there any response from the Department?
Mr. Dahilig: We'd like to take an opportunity, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chun's statements... he is doing
what he needs to do. We are at the point of the process where the Planning Commission
appointed a Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer took in evidence, weighed that evidence, and
that evidence includes testimonies from many individuals, loads of paper, as you've seen the
Commission packets this week are over a thousand pages long. So the record has been well
established that there has been testimony and evidence put on the record for the Hearings Officer
to weigh. I do not believe that there has been any lack, as you've heard from Mr. Chun, of any
evidence of not being put into the record. He may have disagreed with some of this evidence,
but the evidence was there and the Hearings Officer made a ruling. We believe that the Hearings
Officer's ruling... recommended ruling to the Commission is correct that the permit should be
revoked, and that we support his recommendation to the Commission that an additional fine be
imposed.
It was very clear to the Hearings Officer in his recommended Decision and Order that there was
many years of...many, many years of ignoring the Department's Cease and Desist Orders;
blatantly ignored. That should be punished. And I believe that the Hearings Officer did not take
lightly that particular recommendation and, in fact, imposed more than what the Planning
Department was asking for. That in and of itself should give a signal to the ... how the Hearings
Officer was weighing the veracity of each witness and whether or not the evidence was pointing
one way or the other. He actually increased the fines, so that in and of itself should give an
indication as to how egregious of a situation this has been.
Again, the record clearly shows there have been 4 years of purposeful ignorance to Cease and
Desist Orders by our department, and that there was due process that was provided. Now, Mr.
Chun can, you know, make veiled suggestions to the Commission that this may be a civil rights
claim, or there may be a violation of property rights, but this is the process by which we
determine whether or not a property right is afforded or not afforded. It's due process. And
that's what this is.
So, you know, again, I ... Mr. Chun is doing what he needs to do to challenge the findings of the
Hearings Officer based on the evidence. He believes the Hearings Officer should have weighed
certain evidence in his favor, but he didn't; the Hearings Officer did not. And so we are, again,
pleased with his recommendation, and would implore the Planning Commission to give due
consideration and weight to his findings based on the evidence, and rule in favor of the
Department based on his recommended Decision and Order.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegt sa: And just to, kind of, give a little bit of direction at this point. We are
under ... at this point, under the rules, 1 -6 -19, the Post Agency Hearing Procedures for Hearings
Conducted by Hearing Officer, 1- 6- 19(e), in particular, Commission Action. In the event no
statement of exceptions is filed, the Commission may proceed to reverse, modify, or adopt the
recommendations of the Hearings Officer. Alternatively, if you folks feel that additional
21
evidence is required, you could send it back to the Hearings Officer, under 1 -6 -17, for the
production of further evidence. I think that's the options that you folks have at this point. But
again, since no statements of exceptions have been filed, at this point, you folks could reverse,
modify, or adopt the Hearings Officer's recommendation.
Mr. Chun: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Could I have, like, ten (10) seconds? I'm not going
to argue with what the Planning Director said. I just wanted to bring up one (1) small
matter ... well, not a small matter, but a matter of which I feel that the Hearings Officer didn't
consider.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Chun: Just for the hearing ... I mean, you might not think it's important, but... The Hearings
Officer cited, in support of his findings, that the guest house could not be done because it wasn't
in compliance with zoning laws. He cited an old law, 864, which by the time the application was
filed, was amended and changed to delete that provision. So at the time the application was
filed, the provision that he cited to support his position that we were wrong was no longer in the
County ordinance. And so, I mean, it's going to be obvious (inaudible). I just wanted to raise
that he cited to a law that was amended by the County Council by the time the applicant filed his
application.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Thank you. So at this juncture, we have some options to explore. Any
member of the Commission have any ... for discussion? Or a direction of...consensus on how to
proceed with our next action here?
Mr. Abrams: I...you know, we did just receive this entire packet less than a week ago, and I can
tell you the ... my efforts to try and get through it were, you know, far short of what I would like.
I did ... maybe not all of the Committee reports and things that were there that discuss some of the
areas that I might want to look into a little bit more with the different ordinances that were there,
and I am, at this point right now, looking for some more time to, kind of, look at this and,
perhaps, be ... I don't know whether it's briefed? I'm not quite sure how ... since, you're advising
the Planning Commission where it's a Planning Department versus that, that you are our counsel
to get some feedback as to the questions that I have whether going into executive session would
be something that might be good at this point to understand what we have. I am concerned to a
certain extent about what I read, and I have struggled to try and look at it from both sides at this
point right now, and still have more questions.
With that, I don't know whether or not I would feel comfortable right now in making a decision
one way or the other, and would look towards whatever direction we would have to get that
clarification or those factual information or whatever questions we might have from that. So
that's just how I'm feeling right now, and I'm more inclined to take a step back, take a breath,
and kind of figure that out. I am not inclined, at this point right now, to sign off on the, you
know, Hearings Officer's report; not so much that it may or may not. It's just that I, now, at that
point after reading it, wanted to go back and validate where I would find those things and
double -check as we go through that because it was very complex. There were a lot of different
22
issues that came up there for the basis that they had and I'm looking, at that point, to provide,
sort of, closure on that side.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Ho: You are asking for an executive session?
Mr. Abrams: Well, I ... we were asked to share our thoughts as to where we are right now, and
then if, in fact...
Chair Mahoney: Why don't we go to each Commissioner and...
Mr. Keawe: So your concern is that issues have been raised and we need to go back to the
record and take a look to see if those issues can be reconciled in our own mind with regard to
some of the issues that were brought up by Mr. Chun, which would leave us to today's action;
either we adopt or modify or postpone to move it to another date. Is that correct, Jodi?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes, that ... I mean, if there are particular questions that you have, maybe
you could forward them to me. If there is a necessity for executive session, we can schedule it in
a future meeting. But, you know, if...
Mr. Keawe: In light of some of the comments that Mr. Chun shared with us today, it might be
prudent for us to discuss some of those in executive session moving forward.
NIs. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: I'm willing to step back and do this again; to have some discussion on what was
brought up by Mr. Chun.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay.
Chair Mahoney: Does the Department have any...? So, well, if the consensus is that more
information is needed, it's either going to be ... the route, either you go in executive
session... maybe to schedule executive session and postpone.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Okay. And then deferral of the matter.
Chair Mahoney: Deferral of this matter.
Mr. Keawe: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Yes.
23
Chair Mahoney: Is that...realize the consensus of the Commission. If so, do we need a motion
on...?
Mr. Abrams: I move to defer decision - making on this Hearings Officer's report to ... I don't
know when. You know, I know all of sudden we've had all of June...
Mr. Dahilig: If I could suggest. If there is a desire to go into an executive session, potentially to
post that for the June 14`h meeting.
Mr. Abrams: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig. And then come back for decision - making on June 28`h.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. So I move to defer this matter to the June 14 1h ...no, excuse me ... our
executive session for June 14`h and defer this matter to the June 28`h meeting.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, given that we've been going about an hour twenty, if we could take a
caption break.
Chair Mahoney: Could we take a ... we are going to take a caption break right now.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 10:17 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:24 a.m.
Chair Mahoney: Call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, revisiting Item I.2., if there's a ... I guess, given the desire of the
Commission to want to have this discussed and some of Mr. Chun's questions addressed, I have
approached opposing counsel, and he can represent on the record, but he's amenable to what we
would suggest as maybe briefing the items that he's raised in his oral arguments before the
Commission, and having those submitted ... a tentative schedule... having that submitted to the
Planning Commission on June 6`h, as a written memorialization.
Mr. Keawe: So we'll get it in writing?
Mr. Dahilig: You'll get it in writing. And then having... allowing the Department the ability to
respond with a deadline of June 91h. So that would be my recommended action to the
Commission, just for clarity sake, so that we're not ... I guess, the Commission has the ability to
address the question should they wish to and it's in writing versus orally.
Chair Mahoney: Mr. Chun, are you in agreement?
24
Mr. Chun: If I may, that is correct. I apologize for the Commission not putting it in writing, and
I'll just represent the one reason in discussing this matter with the client. You got to remember,
the client has spent a lot of money and time on this, and he was a bit hesitant to spend a little bit
more time and money. But based upon this, and I do understand these are complicated issues
and it would be very, very helpful to the Commission to get it in writing, and I can get that done
by June 6"', right?
Mr. Dahilig: Monday, June 6th.
Mr. Chun: By June 6th, and I'll have it in writing and we'll cite portions of the record in which I
was making reference to. And also, if I have, I believe I will also have... cite to the portions of
the records that the Hearings Officer cited, so you can know where he was citing and what I
was ... what I meant when I said he said this, this, and this.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Chun: So I can do that by June 6th.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, thank you. So at this time, we would need an additional motion to
receive briefs from the Department and Mr. Chun; Mr. Chun by June 6th and the Department by
June 9th. So a motion would be in order at this time.
Mr. Abrams: I move that we schedule a briefing, a written briefing, from Mr. Chun due June 6th
with June 9th also being the date for the Department's responses to that initial briefing, so that it
gets in our hands prior to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you.
Request for Reconsideration of Decision relating to Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -12, Use Permit U- 2016 -10 for the
construction of two (2) portable classroom buildings and associated improvements on the
Hanalei Elementary School campus, and Variance Permit V- 2016 -2 to deviate from the land
coverage requirements within the Open (0) zoning district, pursuant to Section 8- 9.2(a) of the
Kauai County Code (1987), further identified as 5 -5427 Kuhi6 Hi hwgy Tax Map Key 5 -5-
006:018, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 3.7 acres in size = State of Hawai `i
Department of Education.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and call the next item, but I will turn it over to the County
Attorney for explanation on, I guess, procedures relating to reconsideration. So this is Item No.
I.4., request for reconsideration of decision related to Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)- 2016 -3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -12, Use Permit U- 2016 -10 for the
construction of two (2) portable classroom buildings and associated improvements on the
Hanalei Elementary School campus, and Variance Permit V- 2016 -2 to deviate from land
25
coverage requirements within the Open (0) zoning district, pursuant to Section 8- 9.2(a) of the
Kauai County Code (1987), further identified as 5 -5427 Kuhi6 Highway, Tax Map Key 5 -5 -006
Parcel 018, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approximately 3.7 acres in size. The
applicant for the matter was the State of Hawaii, Department of Education. The Director's
Report was received on 04/26/16, and the hearing and approved on 05 10-16.
Per the supplemental, there are a number of testimonies that have been submitted... written
testimonies that have been submitted on this particular request for reconsideration. I'll turn it
over to the County Attorney.
Ms. HiQuchi Sayegusa: Under our Planning Commission rules, a motion for reconsideration
could be made at the same or the very next meeting, and the purpose of the motion for
reconsideration is to...under Robert's Rules, is to correct a hasty, ill - advised, or erroneous
action, or to take into account added infonnation or a changed situation that has developed since
the taking of the vote.
Just to give an overview of how this matter ended up on the agenda, between the vote and the
posting of the agenda for this meeting, we received letters requesting such a motion, and how
we've been handling it is ... I've been personally, kind of, polling and fielding whether there may
be a motion made by each of the Commission members. If so, then ... if there's a possible
interest, we put it on the agenda, but we don't typically put it on the agenda automatically.
And again, the motion can only be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side of the
vote.
Mr. Dahilig: And Mr. Chair, we do have two (2) individuals in the public that have requested
opportunity to testify on this agenda item at the time it is called. I would suggest that the
testimony be taken before any motions or anything be made based on this request (inaudible).
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: So with that, Carl Imparato, followed by Jamie DeBonet.
Mr. Imparato: Aloha, Commissioners. Aloha, Planning Director. Aloha, County Attorney. My
name is Carl Imparato, and I live almost directly across Kuhi6 Ilighway from Ilanalei School.
I'm here today to encourage you to approve the request for reconsideration, and also to let you
know that I support the community's proposal that the new classrooms be placed on the
southwest side of the campus.
You already have my written testimony supporting reconsideration. I sent it to you because I
think it's important that you know that there has been no real public input process related to the
siting of the classrooms. You were not informed that there was no public presentation until April
of last year. You were not informed that just before that presentation, the DOE did an end run
around the community by awarding the contract for construction just six (6) days prior to that
public meeting. So we were told at the public meeting that any changes to the location or design
of the classrooms could now not be made without incurring significant costs, change orders, and
26
time delays that could jeopardize the entire project; that really stunk. It was insulting. The DOE
had scheduled that public meeting many weeks in advance, but chose to award the contract just
before the meeting, making public input meaningless. You weren't informed that the community
was presented with (inaudible) and what certainly looks like a deliberate strategy to ramrod the
plan through without the nuisance of having to consider, and possibly accommodate, the public's
concerns. You were not informed that there was never any opportunity for meaningful,
substantive community input or for true consideration of the community's concerns. And just as
we were told by the DOE a year ago that it was too late for the public to ask for changes to the
plans, you were told two (2) weeks ago that a 2 -week delay in the Commission's decision -
making, as the Planning Department requested, would be to threaten the project; that defies
credibility. I don't believe that you should reward the applicant by rushing through project
approval for the applicants having manipulated the process in order to avoid having to consider
the community's concerns. I also have some substantive concerns about the project that were
expressed in my written testimony.
These two (2) classrooms, which will cost $1.25 million, are neither temporary nor portable.
They are permanent. They will be there long after most of us here in this room are dead and
gone. Yet, they are to be constructed with wood - siding, rather than match the permanent
buildings, and they are to be placed in a bad location. There is no reason why, for $1.25 million,
the Hanalei community and the students shouldn't have something that's designed to be
harmonious and in the proper location. Had a legitimate public input process occurred, the
current controversy regarding the classrooms might have been resolved. And had you not been
pushed to approve the project right away...
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Imparato: I'll finish up then.
Chair Mahoney: Could you wrap it up, please?
Mr. Imparato: And approve the request for short delay, we might not be here today. So I just
think it's important for you to have all that information about lack of process because I think that
that lack of process certainly justifies reconsideration, which I support the request for
reconsideration and that you give sufficient amount of time to enable the Planning Department
Staff to facilitate discussion and resolution of the issues. Thank you very much.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Jamie DeBonet, followed by Rick Cox. Jamie DeBonet.
Chair Mahoney: He's here.
Mr. DeBonet: Mr. Chair, may I stand to show you these exhibits?
Chair Mahoney: Yes.
27
Mr. DeBonet: Okay. My name is Jamie DeBonet. I'm representing the community for Hanalei
School, and my background is construction and construction management, so I've taken a lot of
time to lay this out and present it to you.
As you can see here in the two (2) photographs, this is a view of the campus, so you have a view
of the campus that shows where the portables are going to go. This is the location of the
portables looking at the classroom with the air conditioner unit directly in front of two (2)
classroom doors and all the windows, and shows the way the unit will block eight (8)
class ... after these two (2) are in place, there will be eight (8) classrooms that are blocked by the
location of these portables from walking outside and safely egressing. That's 50% of the
classrooms on the campus.
If you look at this highlighted in yellow, it shows the DOE proposed site; right at the top here.
And the community proposed site with the exact same buildings, not changing any of the
structure or the plan at all, will be right here on the northwest corner of the building. If you look
at handicapped access, the DOE proposed site is in red. Handicapped access starts here, goes up
the ramp, down a 100 -foot walkway, onto a 12 -foot ramp, over an 18 -foot walkway, turning,
making a right turn for 10 feet, and back into the building. Emergency access comes up past the
cafeteria, past the common area, all the way to the back, if they ever need to get to that point.
The community proposed site shows direct access straight back for any handicapped access.
You've got a 60 -foot distance all the way to the classroom, 25 feet, 20 feet, another 10, 15 feet
into the classroom. Emergency access doesn't disrupt any of the school; comes straight up here
if there's ever emergency access needed.
Looking at this site together, right underneath this building, right here, are existing utilities;
plumbing, electrical, and water that are necessary. That's right over here and direct access.
Main power to the property is over here. This creates an access for the kids back to their play
area, which is back here, which each classroom in this building, permanent structure, already
has.
You know, $1.25 million for this here is $600 a square foot for building; proposed $125,000 for
a 5 -foot wide by 125 -foot long walkway made out of wood and $20,000 in landscaping. With
the new site located, I expect $20,000 like with the landscaping wouldn't even be there and the
school community would do the landscaping themselves as well. There is room for value
engineering...
Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeBonet: Pardon?
Chair Mahoney: Okay. You had three (3) minutes. Could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. DeBonet: Okay. Yes. There is room for value engineering in this to include any excess
cost for the location in the budget. You know, the elders of this community had a vision when
they created this property, and I'm asking for respect to that vision and to preserve this campus.
Thank you.
28
Chair Mahoney: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Rick Cox.
Rick Cox: Hi. My name is Rick Cox. I'm the former Chair of the school community council at
Hanalei. I was on the council for 2 years and heard various stories over the years of what was
happening and that it was ever - changing. Basically, I'm here today just to support the teachers
and the parents and the students who can't be here, and to ask you to do what you can to do two
(2) specific things in my mind and I don't know if they are both in your purview.
One is that we were threatened each time we were told that we couldn't do anything about this,
that if we tried to do something, it would delay it. That only one (1) portable had been approved
or had been requested, and they allowed a second portable to be put into the plan, and then they
had the plans. And if we objected to the location or anything else, it would have to go to the
bottom of the DOE list and rise up again, and it might take a year or two (2). It's taken that long
anyway when we didn't do that. But that was ... I don't know if you can check with the DOE,
whether that's in your purview or not to find out what it would take. My concern is that if we do
delay it that it will delay it for a long time, and the school really needs the two (2) portables, so
there is a balance there of being for or against this. I don't know anybody who's for ... parents,
teachers, or anybody else at the school community who's actually for it. It's a terrible location,
as he's demonstrated here. But the only hesitation is that will delay ... cause a long delay and the
students won't be able to have the space they need. So if you could do anything to help resolve
that before making your decision or when you do, that would be very helpful.
But one other thing I noticed in the document that it's declared as temporary, and I think the
Commission gives 15 years for them to get rid of them and come up with a new plan. If there's
anything you can do to reduce that to, maybe, 5 years to give them a sense of urgency, if you do
approve this, that would be greatly appreciated and helpful, I think. Thank you.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, that's all that we had signed up to testify on this agenda item.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. This is the last call. Is there any other member that hasn't testified?
Seeing none.
Unidentified Speaker: Chair, does the applicant ... is it appropriate for the applicant to speak at
this time?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I would suggest that ... Chair, that you would open it up for entertaining
motions at this point.
Chair Mahoney: Yeah. I think we'll move on to the motion part at this juncture. So what is
needed now is a motion from someone that was on the affirmative to introduce a motion for
reconsideration, so is there a motion on the floor?
Mr. Abrams: I'll make the motion to reconsider our decision of Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U)- 2016 -3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -12, Use Permit U- 2016 -10, and
Variance Permit V- 2016 -2.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0.
Mr. Dahili &. Mr. Chair, we are at the juncture for ... we are at, I guess, an active motion, right
now, that is on the floor, which is to approve the permits with the conditions as previously
approved, so that is the starting point that the discussion would go from.
I will say that, from a departmental standpoint, we still stand on our recommendation concerning
the relocation of the buildings to the southwest corner of the campus. We would urge that
consideration be given that part of the pen-nits ... the list of pen-nits that are being approved are
SMA Pennits, and the Special Management Area Permit, as it relates to this, is ... lends to
compatibility, and focuses on fonn and character of the coastal area as part of the consideration
for the pen-nits. I am a bit disturbed that the process has taken a route where the Commission, as
well as the public, has not been given the opportunity to weigh in on the form and character, and
given that this process for design and construction has been going on for over a year, that,
typically, you come in and get the zoning approvals first. You do not come in at the tail end and
get zoning approvals and circumvent the public process. So, you know, we are certainly
cognizant of the urgent need that the students have at the school due to overcrowding.
Nevertheless, given the purview of laws that we are responsible for, we are, again, not pleased
with the situation where the Department and Commission has been placed to approve, via
zoning, construction plans that have been already drawn out and construction is pending. That is
not how things work. Things work where you come in and get the zoning approvals first, and
then you get your building pen-nits afterwards. That is where we are, you know, (we) are not
pleased with the situation that the Commission has been placed in to be, essentially, put with a
gun to its head to have to snake a certain call versus being able to freely have a discussion about
the form and character of the campus. So we continue to stand on our recommendation,
notwithstanding the Commission's last action, to require ... not suggest ... to require in the SMA
Permit, as well as the other pennits, that the buildings be relocated to the southwest corner of the
campus. And if that is not, I guess, palatable to the Commission, that there be a frank discussion
with the Department of Education concerning mitigation of the building, should that be the only
other alternative.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I believe it's appropriate to have the applicant also be given a chance to
respond, but that is our department's recommendation, that we continue to stand on relocation as
our preferred permit option.
Chair Mahoney: Could we have a representative from the applicant come forward, please? State
your name for the record, please.
30
Charlie Schuster: My name is Charlie Schuster. I am with Sato & Associates, the DOE
consultant for the project. There has been a lot of go around here today about the choice of
siting. I think it's all loosely based on the aesthetic concepts of the ... what's been called the great
lawn. A relatively recent concept, I think; at least the term. Over the last couple of days ... I just
got back Sunday night from my daughter's graduation on the mainland, and to and behold, here
we are in Lihu`e again. I was looking up some of the old DOE plans for Hanalei School,
recognizing that the school has gone through several changes, and I found a construction plan
dated 1985 that depicts Building A, the signature structure of the campus; the one that you see
from the highway looking mauka, the one that ... along with the other buildings on the
side ... frames the great lawn, as it's now called. That building was only constructed in 1985. We
are not talking about a structure that goes back 100 years or 80 years or whatever. It's much
shorter than that. And prior to that date, prior to '85, there was another building about half,
again, as close to the highway as Building A as presently sited. So the great lawn, as referenced
as the defining aesthetic character, only came into existence in 1985. Prior to that, we had
something more like the manini lawn; something much smaller. I don't think that's been
recognized. I verified this with one of the ladies testifying here earlier who had with her the
centennial celebration pamphlet containing a photo of the school taken from the highway that
verifies that, yeah, there wasn't a great lawn prior to 1985.
I'm not sure where the community finds their information. There has been various statements
about putting the new structures in the middle of the lawn; that's completely untrue. It's
inappropriate. It's, as we've heard earlier from another case, a misdirection. As I presented to
the Commission in a previous meeting, the structures are actually sited off on the east corner,
well out of sight from the majority of vantage points; for instance, along the highway. I'm quite
certain, if anybody wants to stop and look at a photo, consider the matter that placing one (1) or
both structures on the southwest corner, on the opposite side of the courtyard or great lawn or
whatever you may call it, would make them a lot more visible from the roadway and deter,
considerably more, from the claimed aesthetic of the school, the community as a whole. I have
that graphic with me again today, but I think we've all seen it.
Although I'm the consultant and I'm tasked by DOE to get the building constructed, as I was
directed to, in their corner of their lawn, I think the department might welcome the
chance... although I can't speak directly for them ... to consider separating this into ... rather than
an all or nothing proposal, or a here or nowhere proposal... possibly taking the two (2)
classrooms apart and considering to keep the Special Education Building immediately mauka of
the Admin Building, as currently designed, and opening for discussion the location of the second
classroom, which itself is strongly needed, as is the SPED classroom, by the school.
I have two (2) other comments on the prior Director's Report, and if we are reopening this for
consideration, I would hope that the Planning Commission... or, excuse me, Department Staff
would take into consideration, a little more closely, the recommendation from SHPD as to
whether archaeological inventory or archaeological monitoring be constructed because that's a
significant element; one is prior to construction, the other is during. The actual ground
disturbance posed by these buildings is quite small. It's for some strip footings and some narrow
trenches for sewer and water disposal.
31
In closing, I find it difficult to believe or to accept that the community opposes a tax benefit
provided through the State, a benefit that accrues to the community as a whole, many members
of which attended Hanalei Elementary School, it accrues to their children who may currently
attend the school, to the grandchildren and so on down in the future. I'm reminded of the old
cartoon character Pogo from Walt Kelly's strip of that same name where he says we have met
the enemy and they are us. Amen.
Chair Mahoney: Well, thanks for your testimony, but, you know, this Commission is not only
for the applicant, it's for the community, and to mischaracterize the concerns of the community,
like you have, I think, is inappropriate. Part of this process is input from the community. Why it
was reopened is because of input from the community. I just ... I don't know if you were trying
to help things. With that kind of testimony, it's like you were insulting all of Hanalei,
like ... these people live here, their children go to school there. They take an active part in the
community. And addressing aesthetic concerns is not out of line. In fact, it's appropriate.
Mr. Schuster: Mr. Chair, if public education is part of my scope, I'll engage in that.
Chair Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Schuster: I recognize from some years of experience as an engineer and I think probably
members of the Commission, operating at the level you do, also recognize that the considerations
motivating the community are often surprisingly different than the considerations motivating the
agencies and their engineers.
Chair 'Mahoney: Understandable. They have a right to their opinion and to comment on ... it's
not only the building, it's bundled into a SMA Pennit and aesthetics of the building, and they
have an absolute right to comment on it. So having said that, moving on, any questions for the
applicant? No? Okay. So our next order would be to...
Mr. Dahili &. As stated previously, Mr. Chair, there is a motion on the floor to approve with the
set of conditions that were previously approved by the Commission. Again, our department's
recommendation is to not approve that set of conditions. It's to approve a set of conditions that
requires the buildings to be in the southwest corner. Now, the applicant has made a proffer to
look at alternatives concerning whether or not the buildings need to be together or can be re -sited
or can be screened. I think there should be an opportunity to have that ... those alternatives,
maybe, looked at by the Department before the Commission may want to finesse and restyle
conditions given that proffer. So I would recommend that, potentially, the Commission give us
the opportunity to have those direct discussions with the applicant and try to, maybe, flush out
some type of compromise that may suit the members of the community given the testimony that
has been proposed today, and would recommend, I guess, maybe a two -week deferral to
the ... actually, a deferral to the next Planning Commission meeting on the 14"' to have that item
retaken up at that time. I do believe, you know, that given that action was taken by the
Commission previously, we are in a bit of a limbo concerning timelines, and that timelines are
not ... there are no clocks running at this point.
Mr. Keawe: Because the timelines are suspended.
32
Mr. Dahilig: They are suspended because action was taken by the Planning Commission, so it is
a bit of an unusual situation when we have an active reconsideration, but this one, we can take
the time to move forward.
Mr. Abrams: Or we could go ahead and come up with a motion that specifically directs Staff to
make sure that it is in that area.
Mr. Dahilig: That is an option, too.
Mr. Abrams: And be done with it.
Mr. Dahilig. That's another option, too. If the Commission feels that that is an option to require
that as a condition as recommended by our department, then that's an option, too.
Mr. Abrams: That's where my conflict comes in as to my wanting to move it along, and the
second one is to let that process work itself out and take a little bit more time, which, you know,
I would like to try and move it along. And if, in fact, that's what Planning is now saying where
the community is proposing it go would be acceptable to them then I'm (inaudible) letting them
run with it. That was...
Mr. Keawe: Is that your primary recommendation?
Mr. Dahilig: We still stand on our recommendation. Again, we just heard the proffer today
regarding mitigation, and so whether the Commission wants to entertain the option for mitigation
or move forward with the recommendation from our department to actually have it specifically
sited in the southwest corner, that's ... I think those are the options that are before the body.
Mr. Abrams: And that's what is proposed now you mean? Is that the southwest corner?
Mr. Dahilig: That's the ... I think the gentleman's...
Mr. Abrams: That's the southeast corner, right?
Mr. Dahilig: Southwest. I guess the more Hd'ena/mauka corner.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. I guess that would...
Mr. Abrams: But that wasn't where we voted on last time.
Mr. Keawe: No. It was the exact opposite.
Mr. Abrams: It was the exact opposite.
Mr. Dahilig: It was on the...
33
Mr. Abrams: That's why I'm concerned about going back to that approval, and, you know, if we
are going to do it, then ... if that's what the consensus is to move it over to that side and let them
concentrate on that, and then if they can't, you know, work it out, then, I guess at that point, we
have a permit that's been approved that they can come back and, you know, later on ... I don't
know. I want to try and keep the deck clear for everything else that's coming in because we now
managed to take half of our agenda and stick it into future meetings.
Chair Mahoney: To the next one. Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah. If the Commission was wanting to withdraw ... to have this motion, it would
have to be withdrawn, and I may need to check with the Commission's Secretary to see who
made those original motions and seconded it before we actually ... if that is the desire of the
Commission, potentially, to want to have that original motion withdrawn.
Ms. Higuchi Sayeg sa: So the result of the motion for reconsideration places you folks in the
exact position prior to you taking the vote; i.e. to reconsider the underlying matter altogether.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, and the underlying matter was to approve it in that one, and we added on
that, at that point, that the...
Mr. Keawe: We added on Condition No. 10.
Mr. Abrams: They use their best efforts, right?
Mr. Keawe: Yes. It says shall consider relocating both projects.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah. Right.
Mr. Keawe: It was shall consider.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah.
Mr. Keawe: It was not you could put it there.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah.
Mr. Dahilig: So another option is you could amend the motion that's on the floor, too; that's
another option.
Ms. Higuchi Sayeg sa: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: I do have Leslie checking right now to see who made the initial motion and the
second, just for...
Mr. Keawe: You want to take a short break?
34
Mr. Dahilig: Yeah, maybe that would be appropriate, Mr. Chair, (inaudible).
Chair Mahoney: Okay. We'll take a 5- minute recess.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
Chair Mahoney: Call the meeting back to order.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I suppose at this juncture we have several procedural options. The
Commission may amend the previous motion, or we could go forward with a vote on the
previous motion and depending where that goes ... I mean, if it fails, then another motion could
be brought forward again. Alternatively, my understanding is that Commissioner Abrams made
the initial underlying motion and Commissioner Keawe did the second, and both could retract
that and then we can go forward with another motion. I guess, perhaps, cleanest would either be
to retract the motions, restart it, or we try to take the vote and see where that goes, but perhaps
the retraction might be the cleanest.
Mr. Abrams: Then I'll make ... I'll retract my motion.
Mr. Keawe: And I'll retract the second.
Chair Mahoney: Do we need a vote on that? That's...
Mr. Dahilig: I guess, Mr. Chair, given our initial Director's recommendations, we do have a
proposed... given the discourse with the Commission, we do have an amended proposed
Condition No. 10 that I'd like the, I guess, if possible, the Planner to read for the Commission.
Mr. Abrams: Yes.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Okay. So based on the discussions we've had, Condition No. 10 would
be revised and amended to read as follows:
"The applicant shall relocate the proposed project adjacent to the western wing of
Building A in order to maintain the scenic and open resources of the open courtyard
area. Furthermore, the applicant shall work closely with the Planning Department and
the Hanalei community to determine the final location of these buildings before building
permits are submitted. "
Mr. Dahili . And that would be our amended recommendation to the Commission.
Mr. Ho: Mike, will this lock them into that corner to place the building now?
Mr. Dahilig: The way the condition is read right now, yes, that's ... it would be in that corner.
Mr. Abrams: Well, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve Staffs
recommendation and the amended Condition No. 10 for Special Management Area Use Permit
35
SMA(U)- 2016 -3, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -12, Use Permit U- 2016 -10, and Variance
Permit V- 2016 -2, State of Hawaii, Department of Education.
Mr. Keawe: I'll second.
Chair Mahoney: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
Mr. Ho: If...
Chair Mahoney: Go ahead.
Mr. Ho: I'm sorry. If another solution should be proposed by the community to Mr. Schuster,
would they be ... would that be entertained by us? Or...
Chair Mahoney: There's a motion on the floor now, and...
Mr. Dahilig: I guess, if you're asking how I would implement the condition...
Mr. Ho: Yes.
Mr. Dahili &. The condition reads that as the location; however, there is a consultation with the
Department and the Hanalei community, as required by the condition before building permits are
issued. Should the consultations reveal some other alternative, we would come back to the
Commission for consent on that, if it should reveal something different.
Chair Mahoney: Any further discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed?
(None) Motion carries 4:0.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Mr. Dahilig: We are now on Item K. These are Committee reports. The Committee report, I
believe, has been circulated to the members, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Abrams: Mr. Chair, the Subdivision Committee met this morning and issued Report No. 13,
which had one (1) tentative subdivision action, S- 2016 -18, Ann Murakami, TMK: (4) 4 -1- 05:017
& 018 was approved. And final subdivision map approval for S- 2014 -20, Marilyn Planas and
Frances Finau, Tax Map Key: (4) 2 -3- 03:018 & 019. That's the conclusion of my report.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve?
Mr. Keawe: Motion to approve Subdivision Committee report.
36
Chair Mahoney: Second?
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. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item M, New Business. We do not have
any items for New Business this morning.
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 -213 4444
Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, June 14, 2016.
Mr. Dahilig: For Item N.1., we have, I guess, circulated the on deck sheets for the Commission's
information concerning upcoming permits that will be coming up. And with that, I can make the
announcement of the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be in this room at 9:00
a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2016.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92- 5(a)(2 and 4), the purpose of this
executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the evaluation of the Planning Director and
the Director's compensation. This session pertains to the Planning Director's evaluation where
consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved. Further, to consult with legal
counsel regarding powers, duties, privileges and /or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it
relates to the evaluation of the Planning Director.
Mr. Dahilig: And would recommend that the Commission, if they are going to go into executive
session, to make a motion to adjourn immediately after the executive session has been adjourned.
Chair Mahoney: Thank you. Do you need a motion now?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess I would refer the ... to the County Attorney concerning the executive session
item.
37
Ms. Higuchi Sayeg isa: Okay. I'll read the posting language under H.1. Pursuant to Hawaii
Revised Statutes Sections 92- 5(a)(2 and 4), the purpose of this executive session is to discuss
matters pertaining to the evaluation of the Planning Director and the Director's compensation.
This session pertains to the Planning Director's evaluation where consideration of matters
affecting privacy will be involved. Further, to consult with legal counsel regarding powers,
duties, privileges, and /or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to the evaluation of
the Planning Director.
Mr. Abrams: So moved. Move into executive session.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: And also to...
Mr. Abrams: And also to adjourn after the completion of the executive session.
Chair Mahoney: We need a second.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. We'll move into executive session. Thank you.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:18 a.m.
The meeting resumed in executive session at 11:24 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
arcie Agar-an,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.
38