Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-1110 PC Regular Meeting Minutes Draft1 ` KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 10, 2020 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by Chair Glenda Nogami Streufert at 9:15 a.m., - Microsoft Teams Audio +1 469-848-0234, Conference ID: 344 862 418# The following Commissioners were present: Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert Ms. Donna Apisa Mr. Melvin Chiba Ms. Helen Cox Mr. Francis DeGracia Mr. Roy Ho Ms. Lori Otsuka The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaaina Hull, Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, Romeo Idica, Mike Laureta, and Planning Commission Secretary Leslie Takasaki; Office of the County Attorney – County Attorney Matthew Bracken; Office of Boards and Commissions – Administrator Ellen Ching, Support Clerk Arleen Kuwamura Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Nogami Streufert: Called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. ROLL CALL Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. The meeting is called to order. May I have a roll call, please? Planning Director Mr. Kaaina Hull: Good morning, Commissioners. Roll call, Madame Chair. Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba. Mr. Chiba: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox 2 Ms. Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia. Mr. DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho. Mr. Ho: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka. Ms. Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert. Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madame Chair. Seven present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hull: Next, Madam Chair would be approval of the Agenda. I think as the Commissioner can see, this is one of the largest tele-video meetings we have held as far as participation. Being that sometimes large participation of a particular item can create a lot of feedback throughout the Agenda, the Department will be requesting - is requesting that the New Agency Hearing for Robert D. Ferris Trust that’s Agency Item 1 - I’m sorry. 2.b, be moved to the top of the Agenda. Chair Nogami Streufert: Do I have any objection to that from the - if not, could I then (inaudible) in the Agenda? Ms. Apisa: I move to approve the Agenda as amended. Ms. Otsuka: I would like to make a motion to approve the agenda as it stands. Mr. DeGracia: Seconded. Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as amended by the Planning Department. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). All those opposed? Agenda is approved. Motion carried. 7:0. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Mr. Hull: Moving on before I continue for those that all have called in, we really appreciate your participation, as well as your patience in navigating Commission Meetings and Public Hearings via tele-video system. I am going to ask that - ask if all of you that have called as, well as those 3 videoconference for Applicant, please mute your microphones, please. We are getting a lot of feedback and this is going to disrupt the process of the meeting. Okay. So moving on there are no Minutes to review. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None) Mr. Hull: Next on the Agenda, there are no Receipt of Items for the record. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: Right now is the point for Hearings and Public Comments. The Planning Commission accepts written testimony for any Agenda item here and written testimony includes the name and as provided 24 hours in advance to be posted. We have a number of written testimonies that have been attached to this specific Agenda item. Now this is the point in the Agenda for members of the public that have called in, if you would like to testify on any Agenda item. Now I know that a lot of people who have called in are specifically calling in to testify on the Robert D. Ferris Trust Application. That Agency hearing is following directly this public testimony section and you will be allowed to testify at that time if you would like. So does anybody that would like to testify in any Agenda item at this time - I am sorry. And one of point of clarification. The Chair is allowing testimony for each specific Agenda item. So if you intend to testify, say on the Koloa Landing application or testify on the Oma’o Ranch lands, the Chair will be affording time to testify specifically on those Agenda Items. However, if you would like to testify now before your Agenda item comes up; this is the time to testify. But again, the Ferris Application is coming up directly next on the Agenda item. So is there anybody who has called in that would like to testify on any Agenda item prior to that Agenda item being heard at this point in time? Please speak. Mr. Brad Rockwell: Commissioner, this is Brad Rockwell. Chair Nogami Streufert: Go ahead, please. Mr. Hull: Brad, is— Mr. Rockwell: Hi. I just would like to be added for, ah, just a brief testimony for Koala Landing. Mr. Hull: Go ahead, Brad. You have three minutes. Start. Mr. Rockwell: Okay. It’s not so much testimony, just you know, in light of the fact that this is a telephone meeting as opposed to an in-person. I - um, I did receive a letter as a resident in the area and I am wondering where I can go to find, um, you know, where this proposed building is going to be located. Is - is there any information available online where I can maybe get some additional information about this proposed building? Mr. Hull: Brad, let me interject real quickly here. This point in the Commission is not for the members of the public to ask questions of the Commissioners or the Applicants. You can shoot 4 the Department an email and we can follow up with you for that request. But I apologize. This is not a time to question the Commission or the Department. Mr. Rockwell: Very good. Uh, I totally understand that and, uh, I will follow up. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thanks. Is there any other member of the public that would like to provide testimony on any Agenda item at this time? Ms. Ellen Ching: Ka’aina. Ka’aina, this is Ellen Ching, Boards and Commission Administrator. Mr. Hull: Thanks, Ellen. Ms. Ching: We did get a request for a sign-language interpretation. We do not know what the individual - what the item the individual wanted to testify n. We did contact them. We were not able to make contact as of this morning and connect them with sign-language interpretation. So just, I wanted to notify of that. We are continuing to try to reach out to the individual. Mr. John Friedman: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, this is - this is John Friedman speaking. At this point, I just want to clarify - the sign language is for (inaudible)— Chair Nogami Streufert: Again, I cannot really hear you. You will have to… Okay. Then— Mr. Friedman: Can you hear me now? Chair Nogami Streufert: I yes, but— Mr. Friedman: Can you hear me now? Yes. I just wanted to - to clarify. The sign-language interpretation, I believe, was for - is from staff, I believe is what they are referring to is, for is for Kristin Zimmerman. She lives on and (inaudible). I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and that she would like to testify on the Robert D. Ferris Trust Application. And so, um, I hope that clarifies that situation. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: Thank you, John. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Friedman: You are welcome. Mr. Hull: Returning back to the public testimony, absent testifying on the specific Agenda items, is there anybody that has called in as a member of the public that would like to provide testimony at this time on any Agenda Item. Mr. Alan Gevins: Yes. 5 Mr. Hull: Okay, sir. Go ahead and speak to which - which is - state your name for the record and speak to which Agenda item you would like to testify for. Mr. Gevins: This is Alan Gevins. I would like to testify on the Ferris Application. Mr. Hull: Oh. Okay, Mr. Gevins, you can speak now. You have three minutes. Mr. Gevins: I am a neuroscientist and I specialize in neurological circuit of attention and memory in our brain. The TVR is at the long driveway that goes along the side of our property. We have owned this property since 2000, and we only moved here from the Wailua Homesteads in late May to get relief from the COVID confinement to our small Wailua yard and so many mosquitos. The other TCPR owners told me that they have endured bad experiences continuously from this TVR operation since it began 17 years ago. Hearing that, I reached out to Hilary Ferris, hoping to mediate some peace and some harmony by inquiring what she was planning to do solve these problems when she restarted after COVID. She did not discuss her plans. She said that over the years there only have been a few complaints from the neighbors for minor issues. Forty-three (43) Kapuna Road residents have signed a Petition against the TVR and fifteen (15) residents have written letters opposing it. This is more than two-thirds of the houses on the mauka side of Kapuna Road, including all but one of the houses in the immediate vicinity of the TVR, and the owners of that last house are off- island. I hope you have seen the Google Map that shows the families opposing the TVR. That Google Map says it all. Now you may hear testimony today from people supporting the TVR, but no one that any of us know who actually live on Kapuna Road supports this TVR other than the Applicant, and she does not live here. Isn’t that one of the conditions for granting a license that the TVR operation will not adversely affect neighbors? I commend Hilary for her community service, but this is not about whether the Applicant is a good person. The issue here is one of proper land use since the Permit goes with the land and not with the person. The issue is whether high turnover mini-hotels may operate in this rural neighborhood. It would be the only one on either side of Kapuna Road since vacation rentals are not allowed by the Waipake Subdivision. These documents were approved by both the State and by the County. After trying to stop this TVR for so many years, the Planning Department is giving up now because it thinks it missed a deadline and has been threatened aggressively by the Applicant’s attorney. But it may be that it is actually the Applicant who missed the deadline years ago when she inherited the property and did not properly notify the Planning Department about a change of ownership, as is required. Well I can understand that giving up is the easiest way out. Is it ethically and legally correct? Like so many other things in life, unfortunately this really appears to be all about money, both on the Applicant’s side and on the County’s side. But there are times when it is necessary, pono, for a local government to take a stand on principle, even if that’s not easy. Now I appreciate the difficult position that you are all in as independent, voluntary Commissioners, and my heart-filled mahalos reach out to you for your service. That is it. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Gevins: Thank you. 6 Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there anyone else out there who would like to speak? Mr. Terry McKee: Yes— Mr. Hull: Anyone else? Mr. McKee: Terry McKee. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah. Mr. Hull: Just hold on. Just to be clear, guys, the Agency hearing for Ferris is directly preceding this Agenda item for overall public testimony. So we’re really trying to make the offer to those that have a subsequent Agenda item if they would like to testify and not wait through the Ferris proceedings. But if you intend to testify for the Ferris proceedings, just to be clear, it is directly preceding this Agenda item. So is there anyone who would like to, again, testify on any other— Ms. Lita Sam-Vargas: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Would you state name, please, and uh— Ms. Sam-Vargas: All right. My name is Lita Sam-Vargas Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Lisa, go - please go ahead. Ms. Sam-Vargas: My name is Lita Am-Vargas and I live at 4660 Kapuna Road with my husband, Alan. As a retired management consultant and business executive, I have had to make many difficult decisions. I do not envy your task. I will be addressing two points. First, the Chandler-Ferris Trust. The new Applicant is not the original Applicant, which is the Ferris Trust. They are two different legal entities with different assets and different beneficiary. Proper notification by the new Applicant of the change in ownership in 2013 was not reported until recently. There may be no basis for grandfathering in the original Application from 2011. Second, there are a number of irregularities with the processing of the Application and the (inaudible) of the Application, showing a strong bias by the Planning Department in favor of the new Applicant, perhaps because the County thinks they missed deadlines responding to the Application. However, it is the new Applicant who missed the deadline to claim the right to the grandfathering provision of the original Applicant. As to the first point, in the Planning Department’s Staff Report, the names of the two trusts are used as if they are the same entity or that one became the other. This is not legally so. The only thing that is continuous here is that the TVR never reported - never stopped operating. The critical point is that the original Application was filed by Robert Ferris, Trustee of the Ferris Trust, using supporting documentation for his business called Retreat at Hale Luana and Plantation. No one is disputing that Hilary Ferris, trustee of the Chandler-Ferris Trust, the current Applicant, helped operate the TVR way back then and its operating now. Nor is there a question of when the property was legally transferred to trust she was entitled to the 7 grandfathering provision. The point is that when - that when the Ferris Trust became new owner and operated a new business called the Kaua’i Retreat Center, they should have notified the County in order to claim the right to the grandfather provision of the new Application. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Ms. Sam-Vargas: I am - I am not quite done. Chair Nogami Streufert: Sorry. Ms. Sam-Vargas: I - okay. I actually have been focusing on this for a long time and I am actually reading my wrong testimony. But I will submit it for the record. But essentially what I want to say is that there is no basis for grandfathering in the Application because this is essentially a new Application, and she may have not, uh, reported the change on a timely manner when it happened back in 2013. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Knowing that the Ferris case is going to be right after this is there anyone else who would like to speak. Mr. Hull: Is there any - again, I will - one call, uh, last call. Is there anybody who would like to testify now on future Agenda items because you do not have time to stay and wait for those Agenda items? If so, please speak, and state your name. Mr. Mark Oyama: Yes, I would like to testify. Mr. Hull: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Oyama: Okay. My name is Mark Oyama. I am testifying, um, for the, uh, um, Special Use Permit, um, for Omao’o Ranch, Building Permit Z-1- IV-2021-5. So I wanted, um, by put into it - put in the testimony for this. So my name is Mark Oyama. I have sat on many agriculture boards and the budget committees on the Island of Kaua’i. I was wondering— Man: ...which we— Mr. Oyama: ...if it would be possible— Man: ...which we delivered... Mr. Oyama: ...to do farming - I’m sorry? Mr. Hull: Sorry, Mark. Mr. Oyama: Are you co— Mr. Hull: Hold on. Sorry. Ho - hold on, Mark. For everybody that has called in Man: Would you— 8 Mr. Hull: Again, we have the ability to mute every single person that has called in, but I do not want to do that. If you folks could mute your own phones that the testifier can be heard by the Planning Commission. So please mute your phones unless you are speaking. Sorry. If you want to start again, Mark. Mr. Oyama: Okay, I will do it again. Yeah. My name is Mark Oyama. Once again, I have been on, uh, many agriculture boards and on budget committees on the Island of Kaua’i. We all know it is indeed to possibility to farm is otherwise not an easy task to do on Kaua’i. By allowing only agriculture tourism, and (inaudible) site as well as (inaudible) is to allow a farm to be successful throughout this— Man: He should— Mr. Oyama: (Inaudible)— Man: And— Mr. Hull: Sorry. Sorry. Mr. Oyama: ...and— Mr. Hull: I am sorry, Mark. Wait— Man: ...can - the Commissioners— Mr. Hull: Mark. Wait for, Mark. Mr. Oyama: Yeah. Mr. Hull: Sorry, Mark. I would not - so to all those who have called in, I will be muting all of your phones. In order, for you are to speak when you choose to speak for those on phone calls have to push star 6. So because this is not working out, it - there’s some that just can’t follow the rules, we’re going to mute all of the phones. In order to unmute yourself, to speak when you are called upon, you need to press star 6 for those that have called in. So, Mark, you’re going to be muted with this whole group. Just push star 6 and start your testimony, Mark. Sorry about that. Mr. Oyama: Okay. Okay. Thanks. Man: And not there. Mr. Oyama: Okay. Can you hear me now? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Mr. Hull: Yes, Mark. Thanks. 9 Mr. Oyama: Okay. I will start again. It is a good thing I wrote it down. I can use it. So once again, my name is Mark Oyama. And I’ve sat on many agriculture boards and advisory committees for the Island of Kaua’i. We all know that to be profitable through farming is not an easy task. You know, have - through - throughout the boards and, um, committees I’ve been on, we’ve been trying to find different ways to - to grow agriculture in Kaua’i and to make - and to make agriculture more profitable on the Island, uh, by allowing agri-tourism and being allowed to sell products on-site, as well as hosting a free event, this would allow a farm to be successful. Throughout the State you see examples of - of such farms, such as Kauai’i Coffee, Kualoa Ranch, Koloa Ranch, Lydgate Chocolate Farms, and Kunana Dairy, uh, especially now with the econom- economic disaster from the Pandemic, you know, we have to look into ways to help our economy recover and to be resilient for the future by - you need to support and help strategize our agricultural community on Kaua’i. Um, you know, we are too focused on tourism right now. We need to find ways to, um, balance out our - our economy on Kaua’i. Um, being in the food and catering and event business, the south side of Kaua’i has been very limited with locations for events. This is especially true with affordable locations where locals and community organizations can utilize. So by allowing events to be held at this location, this should fill a void for the community of Kaua’i. The Kaneshiro family has always been supportive in the community and has helped many local organizations and new clubs on the Island. Uh, for example, such as Kaua’i Livestock Club, Kaua’i All Girls Rodeo Association, et cetera. I truly feel that we need to support and Permit for events so we can help our Island agriculture grow even further and bring recognition and accolades for the Island of Kaua’i. And that’s all that I have for today. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Mark. Is there anybody else that has called in, and again, if you would like to speak you have to push star 6 on your phone. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on any Agenda item, also with the note that the Ferris is coming up directly next? New Agency Hearing Special Permit SP-2011-35 to permit use of an existing single-family residence for Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) purpose, as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No. 904, within the Waipake Subdivision, Waipake, Kauai, approx. 1,600 ft. west of the Kapuna Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further identified as 4670 Kapuna Road Tax Map Key: (4) 5-1-006:002 (Unit 4 comprised of 2.503 acres), with an overall parcel size of 10.008 acres = Robert D. Ferris Trust). Mr. Hull: Hearing none, Madam Chair. I recommend we move on to the Amended Agenda, which is Agenda F.2.b, Special Permit SP-2011-35, to permit use of an existing single-family residence for Transient Vacation Rental purposes, as permitted by County of Kaua’i Ordinance Number 904 within the Waipake Subdivision, Waipake, Kaua’i, approximately 1,600 feet west 10 of the Kapuna Road-Kuhio Highway Intersection, further identified as 4670 Kapuna Road, Tax Map Key: 5-1-006:002 Unit 4, comprised of 2.503 acres, with an overall parcel size of 10.008 acres. Robert D. Ferris Trust is the Applicant. We have, of course, a received a number...we, of course, have received a number of testimony. Received through addendums to the Agenda item. This is the Agency Hearing. So, recognizing that the vast majority of call-ins have called in either to speak or to testify or just to watch the proceedings. I will be calling each phone number that has been listed. If you intend to speak on the Ferris item in this Agency hearing, please identify yourself when I call the phone number, and you have three minutes of testimony. So starting at the top of the call-in list, Area Code 808- 338-9962, would you like to testify on the Ferris Agenda item? Chair Nogami Streufert: And the Code again was star— Mr. Hull: Okay. Moving on, Area Code 415-381-1921, would you like to testify on the Ferris Agenda item? And you have to push star 6 to unmute if you’d like to speak. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: And the next one, 808-651-1276, would you like to testify on the Ferris Agenda item? And you have to push star 6 to unmute your phone. Mr. Hull: Sorry. 651-1276, would you like to testify. Oh. Mr. Friedman: I am sorry. Can you hear me? This is John Friedman, 808-651-1276. Can you hear me? Mr. Hull: Yeah. Mr. Friedman: Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, good morning Madam Chair, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, and representatives of the Planning Department. My name is John Friedman. I have resided next to the subject property for the last 14 years. I submitted a seven-page letter of opposition, along with supporting photographs that I stand by. And I ask that you kindly read it in its entirety. Contrary to recent stories in the media, we are not here today because as neighbors we tied this Application up in litigation. It is simply a fabrication of the Applicant unwittingly repeated. Truth be told, the subject Application was originally rejected based on their inability to get approval of three units within the CPR. After a long and contentious battle with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, it was remanded back to the - to Circuit Court with instructions for the Planning Department to process their Application. There is absolutely no requirement that you must approve this Application. TVR use simply was never and never will be a lawful conforming use, given the breadth of the land use restrictions contained within the Applicant’s deed, state land use designations, subdivision approvals, CPR documents, and county zoning. The fact that Applicant paid GET and transient accommodation taxes are not evidence that the Applicant has abided by any other government-placed restriction on their property and its use. For 18 years, they have operated this 11 Transient Vacation Rental without authorization and in violation of their deed restrict. Any statement is (inaudible) there was no business or an owner could not operate a TVR in this area is simply false. Every owner - owner - every other owner on the mauka side of Kapuna Road understood and respected these restrictions. The Applicant has not met their burden of showing lawful non-conformity. The Applicant was issued at least two cease and desist letters. They ignored both and continued to operate. Non- permitted improvements alone should stop this NCUC from moving forward. A structure was built on the property just weeks ago without any required Permits. Section 817.11, states, “Violations and conditions of approval or providing false and misleading information on the Application or any information relating thereto at any time during the Application process shall be grounds for revocation or case and desist orders.” Considerable misinformation was provided by the Applicants within their Application, sworn Affidavit, and supporting documents. Even if they had made disclosure, they would not have been able to correct those issues directly re- associated to their deed restrictions. The sheer numbers of our community supporting their opposition and complaints must be noted. The Applicant refuses to have open two-way communication about any issues that arise concerns her guests. Instead, stink-eye, harassing emails, initiating rumors, and slow drive-byes are her attempts at intimidation. There is, of course, the question of whether this new entity created in 2013 has started to make this Application. We do not believe so. Lita Sam-Vargas’s testimony to that point aligns with us. Chapter 9, Article 5, Section 9-5.2 is clear that any Permit or License issued that is in conflict with the subdivision Ordinance shall be void. It’s to back this bus up, do not allow the Applicant to bulldoze over law and common sense with the threats of litica- with their threats of litigation. The public test in Kauai’s use land use policies relies on your prompt denial. We simply want to redeem the quiet enjoyment of our property that we have been denied by the Applicant. We implore you to deny this Application without prejudice. It is the only solution that is both fair and just. I do appreciate your time. Thank you so very much for your service to your community. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: One second, Madam Chair. Mr. Friedman: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Okay. Moving on to the number. 808-855-8830, would you like to testify? If so, you have to push star 6. Mr. Richard Parmentier: I would like to testify. Mr. Hull: Oh. Okay. Please speak, sir. Mr. Parmentier: I— Mr. Hull: You have three minutes. 12 Chair Nogami Streufert: Your name, please? Mr. Richard Parmentier: Can you hear me now? Mr. Hull: Yeah. Please identify yourself and, uh, three minutes to testify, please. Mr. Parmentier: Thank you. Good morning. I am Richard Parmentier. I am retired from Lockheed Martin’s and Systems Division, where I worked the final ten years of my career as, uh, Senior Manager of Ethics and Business Conduct. As a homeowner on Kapuna Road, I appreciate this opportunity to address the Planning Commission. Being able to spend my retirement in Kaui’i with so many great neighbors has been like living a dream for me. What a wakeup call to learn there was a TVR across as - the headlights flooding my bedroom were not wakeup call enough. I do not recall any exemptions to the TVR being in my home sales contract or CPR Rules. What happened to support for Visitor Designation Areas? How many of my neighbors would have settled if their sales contract disclosed there in 2020 the community would permit this exemption to its ban on TVRs? For all the reasons Kaua’I has Visitor Designation Areas, approving an exemption to TVR in Waipake is simply wrong, especially during a Pandemic and with an abundance of existing alternative lodging available. I implore - I implore the members of the Planning Commission to do what is right and stick to the plan to limit TVRs to Visitor Desi- Destination areas. Mahalo for your consideration. Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: All right. Area code 808-822-2170, would you like to testify on this Agenda item? If so, press star 6, please. Mr. Frank Ursomarso: Yes. This is Frank Ursomarso. Uh, we, my wife and I, have owned the property at 4640 Kapuna Road for eight years. I am, uh, formerly Director of Communications in the White House and actually, uh, we lived in Wilmington part-time and our friend, Joe Biden, was just elected President. I would like each member of the Commission to visualize your own home in your mind and next to your own home; I would like you to visualize a six-room hotel right next to you. You are home asleep. You are in bed. Its 11 o’clock at night, and two cars pull up to your house looking for the hotel, bang on your door, and you have to come down in your pajamas and tell them that you are not the hotel that it is next door. You - an hour later, you hear more noise because the people in the house have decided to jump in the pool and swim. So now, you are up again. They turn on the floodlights for the pool. You are not in a residential area. You are in a commercial hotel zone. It is a residential community. It is a farming community. We have young children there. We walk on the street and we enjoy each other’s company. You should not be allowing a hotel, a six-room hotel, to be beside your house or our house. You’ve got to find a way to do it, whether it’s common sense way, whether it’s common law way, or whether it’s a legal way, or whether it’s just aloha way. You got to stop this 13 thing and discharge your responsibilities to do so. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Commission. Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. And Area Code 808-651-6995, would you like to testify? Seeing none or hearing none, Area Code 408-997-2370, would you like to testify? If so, please press star 6. Hearing none, Area Code 808-855-5614, would you like to testify? If so, please press star 6. Hearing none, Area Code 808-378-8939, would you like to testify, again, on this Ferris Application? If so please press, If so, please press star 6. Again, it’s 378-8939. Would you like to testify? Mr. David Carmichael: This is David. This is David Carmichael, 378-8939. Mr. Hull: If you would like to testify, sir, go ahead. Mr. Carmichael: Hi. Uh, my name is David Carmichael. My wife and I live at (inaudible) 310 Kapuna Road one CPR away from the property. I was a police officer for 25 years, beginning my career at Honolulu and recently retired as Chief of Police for a police department in the San Francisco Bay area. My wife and I moved back to Kaua’i to be closer to family. Obviously, you are going to hear from other Kapuna Road residents who have experienced negative issues with the property over the years. We have occasionally been impacted by groups of tourists parking rental cars in our long driveway, walking up to our house, asking for directions to the vacation rental. Now I am not going to take any more of your time all the - the negative impact because I feel others have already discussed that and will continue. Simply, I would like to make one point. In my career as chief of police I learned quickly that Special Permits and consideration really only work out well when the applying party has demonstrated a commitment to rules and neighbors. When this is not the case, the approval nearly always turns into a disaster and it is even harder to reel in. For example, I saw many times where bar owners who had already demonstrated an inability to comply with the existing rules and regulations sought modification to increase seat capacity or live entertainment. Owners and their attorneys would write letters, stand and argue they were - were entitled to the special treatment. They would bring friends and character witnesses, usually none of which owned adjacent property, to speak on their behalf, and virtually every time that such a business was granted their wishes, they would quickly push the envelope again and the problem would continue. On the contrary, when upstanding business who had a proven track record of compliance with the rules, brought the respect and support from neighboring business, and had shown a long-term commitment to - that was deserving of the special consideration, it almost worked out as a win- win every time. In other words, when rule breakers are rewarded, it gets worse, and when rule followers are rewarded, it always works out. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Please ask yourself which category this Application falls under, the first scenario where the Applicant has little or no support from neighbors and a history of ignoring rules or the second scenario where they have broad support and a proven track record? My advice is simple. I would always listen to that track record and use that, coupled with the level of support from neighbors as the deciding factor. There is no legal requirement to approve 14 this Application. There is virtually no support from neighbors; on the contrary, there is overwhelming support against the Application. And it - the operator has proven over the years that they would flaunt cease and desist orders and their CPR document. I think that that alone makes it a very straightforward denial as the only likely scenario that would work out for everybody. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Area Code 808-632-2276, would you like to testify? I am sorry. I - let me repeat that. Area Code 808-632-2267, would you like to testify? Hearing none, Area Code 626-676-5328, would you like to testify? If so, please push star 6 on your phone. Moving on, Area Code 808- 651-1276, would you like to testify on this Ferris Application. If so, please push star 6 on your phone. Ms. Zimmerman: If I— Mr. Hull: Hearing none - oh. Go ahead, ma’am. Ms. Zimmerman: Hi. Can you hear me? Mr. Hull: Yes. Ms. Zimmerman: Thank you, Planning Commission for hearing our testimony today. Um, I really appreciate you listening to us. Um, we have been going through this for about 18 years. I understand that— Mr. Hull: Sorry. Ms. Zimmerman: ...how the— Mr. Hull: But if I could interject— Ms. Zimmerman: ...Applicant— Mr. Hull: Ma’am. Ms. Zimmerman: ...which would not— Chair Nogami Streufert: Would you— Mr. Hull: Ma’am. Ms. Zimmerman: Pardon? Chair Nogami Streufert: Excuse me. Could - name, please? Please state your name. 15 Ms. Zimmerman: Oh. I apologize. I apologize. My name is Kristin Zimmerman. I am in the same CPR as the Ferris property. I live right next door to the six-bedroom hotel. Thank you for listening to my testimony. I have been dealing with this for 18 years. I have been threatened with lawsuits if the County is holding up their right to deny their permit. We have been dealing with the...Pardon. Sorry. I keep hearing things. Um, this— Chair Nogami Streufert: They are— Ms. Zimmerman: ...should— Chair Nogami Streufert: ...breaking— Ms. Zimmerman: Where we are at right now. The subdivision documents do not allow the use of this Permit. The CPR documents do not allow the use of this Permit. The Farm-Dwelling Agreement does not allow the use of this permit. The Applicant’s father went to the County and asked a Special Permit to build a hotel. He was told that there were no Special Permits to build a hotel. I believe that is true. However, he made a decision to build something illegally, knowing fully well he was not allowed to do that. He was currently using his house as a three-bedroom bed and breakfast at the time, so he was already into his illegal business, realizing how much money he could make. The County tried to uphold this and had three hearings and three court cases and they were all - said that they did not have to do it. Her high-paid Honolulu attorney is the only reason that we are here today. If the County had a high-paid Honolulu attorney, we would not be here because they would have won again. She is not the Applicant. She is not the one who is asking for this. It was her father, who is no longer alive, and unfortunately, buried on the property without, I believe, a permit. Everything these people do is beyond not enforcing the rule. Since my mother was not allowed to answer when she heard her phone number, I am going to hand my phone to her and she is going to give her testimony. Her name is Lenda Helsa. Ms. Lenda Helsa: Hello? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Chair Nogami Streufert: Good morning. Ms. Helsa: They cannot hear me. Mr. Hull: Please state your name and testimony, ma’am. Ms. Helsa: Yeah, my is - my name is Lenda Helsa, and I have been living on Kaua’i for the last 36 years. I lived in Kalihiwai, Hawaii, where my husband and I built on - near Annini side where the locals respected us because we built it ourselves, and they were the ones who warned against crossing the Chandlers. That makes me extremely hesitant to testify against them. But I have been a little annoyed talking with my daughter - can you hear me? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Mr. Hull: Yes, ma’am. Please continue. 16 Ms. Helsa: All right. Okay. Good. I have been my living with my daughter as a widow right next door to the house; this party house is not following the rules, even though we did when we built our house. t has never been occupied by the owner. The website that they use to get groups from the mainland encourages large groups and has been shown fully booked for months and for years. They have had big groups like weddings, artists groups from here on the Island, religious groups. These groups sometimes park on our easement because it is difficult to get down and up to their property, and yet we would be responsible for accidents on that easement, though we never use it. I do have a fear of testifying for reprisals like where - robberies, fires, lawsuits, which we have already been written - uh, threatened with, written. Therefore, we have been reverting to our locking our gate and putting a no-trespassing signs to keep those people who keep coming to our door. I do love Kaua’i. I - I have a support for our community. At the Lighthouse - I have volunteered for the Lighthouse. I have been president of Friends of the Library, president of the North Star Business and Professional Woman, president of the AAUW. But my greatest pride is as a teacher with working as a regional director for the Science Olympia. I know that your love for Kaua’i as a member of this Commission is why you are here today. Please do not let our agricultural property be - being taken over by party houses for visitors that might bring COVID 19 to our neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank. The next, Area Code 408... Mr. Friedman: John Friedman and Kristin Zimmerman. Man: Is that so? Mr. Hull: Sorry. Area Code 408-499-6978, would you testify in this Agenda item? If so, please press star 6 on your phone. Hearing none, Area Code 808-639-8511, would you like to testify? Man: So this is now - I want to object to…Put a platform to doin’... Mr. Hull: Next is Area Code 808-639-0207, would you like to testify on this Agenda Item? If so, please push star 9 on your phone. Again, 808-639-0207, would you like to testify on this Agenda item? Hearing one, Area Code 760-642-8547, would you like to testify on this Agenda item? If so, please push star 6 on your phone. Moving on, Area Code 808-651-2217, would you like to testify on this Agenda item. If so, please press star 6. Hearing none, Area Code 808-651- 1332, would you like to testify on this Ferris Application Agenda item? If so, please push star 6 on your phone. Woman: Thank you. Not now. Mr. Hull: Thank you. Area Code 781-354-7962, would you like to testify in this Agenda item? If so, please push star 6. Area Code 808-828-0591, would you like to testify in this Agenda item? If so, please push star 6 and state your name. Mr. McKee: Can you hear me now? 17 Mr. Hull: Yes. Mr. Terry McKee: Okay. My name is Terry McKee. I live at 4576 Kapuna Road, a full-time resident for the last 15 years. I am a retired State Farm Insurance agent and a retired realtor on Kaua’i. I would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for allowing to testify in this matter today. I am totally against having a Transient Vacation Rental, especially one with 15 or more beds and the owner does not live there on our street. The reasons why: Excessive speed. We have many residents who walk the street with their children, grandchildren, and dogs. Numerous times, we have encountered visitors speeding up and down the street. One specific incident, myself, my wife, our two dogs were talking with our neighbors and their two grandchildren were riding their scooters in the middle of the street, when three seven-passenger visitor vans came speeding up the street. We flagged them down and please advised them to slow down. The visitors told the owner of the Transient Vacation Rental, and she threatened to sue us. I think the reason for speed I think that the reason for speed of most of our visitors come from the West Coast. And they’re not used to having sidewalks. So they’re not concerned about speeding. But here we have no sidewalks. The second reason, so we have an owner who has an operated an illegal vacation rental outside of the VDA for years. Now they want to become legal. But for others who have obeyed the law and do not have the TVR they a re banned from having one. It does not seem fair to reward someone who skirts the law and punishes people who obey the law. Please do not allow this transient vacation rail to continue. And thank you again for allowing me to testify. Mahalo. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Moving on. Area code 808-320-7089, would you like to testify this agenda item? If so, please proceed? And area code 808-320-7089, if you’d like to testify, please push down 6, and state your name. Moving on - area code 415-381-1921, if you’d like to testify, please push star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 650-759-7949, if you would like to testify on this item, please push star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 651-455-1677, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808- 651-6793, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808-631-3731, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and state your name. Okay. Go...Okay. Again, I will call, uh, number 808-631-3731, if you would like to testify, please press star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808-652-7891, if you would like to testify, please press star 6 and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808— Dr. Shabert: (Inaudible)... Mr. Hull: 651 - oh. Sorry. Go ahead, ma’am. Dr. Shabert: Can you hear me? I am sorry. I had muted— Mr. Hull: Yes. We can. Dr. Shabert: ...myself. Then, you muted me as well. 18 Mr. Hull: Oh. Okay. Dr. Shabert: Um— Mr. Hull: I thought it was the equipment. Dr. Shabert: ...I was - I was double muted. Chair Nogami Streufert: Please state your name and you may start. Dr. Shabert: Okay. Thank you so much. My name is Dr. Judy Shabert. I thank the Planning Commission for allowing me to testify, even though double muted. I lived Kapuna Road, and I am strongly opposed to having a TVR permit issued for the property at 4670 Kapuna Road, which is in our agricultural subdivision. I am a physician, trained in obstetrics and gynecology, and I have a degree in public health. This additional education allows me to observe health not only from a perspective from an individual patient but also how disease can affect a community. As all of you are well aware, we are in the middle of a worldwide COVID-19 virus pandemic where 10 million Americans have been infected, and nearly 240,000 Americans have died. It is only to the efforts of Mayor Kawakami and his healthcare team that we have been able to keep our infection rates low. However, with the opening of Hawaii to trans-Pacific visitors, Hawaii’s infection rate has increased, and the mayor has indicated that this number will continue to rise. Our current cases show that detection by pre-travel testing is imperfect at best, and estimates suggest that the pandemic will last for at least another one to one and a half years - well into 2022. Thus, all our current thinking and planning should focus on the long-term mitigation and control of this viral infection in our community. The floorplan at 4670 Kapuna Road shows that there are five or six bedrooms - three of which have doors that open to a common hallway. If all doors opened at the same time, there would be a cluster of people within one to two feet of each other. There is only one small kitchen facility. Multiple reservations can result in up to five or six different groups of individuals can comprising up to 15 people simultaneously renting in this one space. Imagine a house with these individuals from the U.S. or a number of foreign countries and all visitors share a tight space in a single kitchen. From a public health perspective, with our present case numbers increasing both in the United States and on Kauai, approval of such a situation creates a disaster waiting to happen. With the multiple visitors constantly moving in and out of the facility, how can this boarding house-like building be absolute - adequately cleaned? How can CDC and Kauai guidelines be regulated and enforced? What will be the (inaudible) and owner’s response if cases in the facility are discovered and a hot spot emerges? How will the county provide protection and support to the law-abiding individuals who already live in this agricultural community? On February 14, 2019, our mayor said, and I quote, When illegal TVR operators blatantly break the law, they disrespect our community, our people, and our island. The time is now for our community to take back their neighborhood. Thank you for your (inaudible). We hope that the Planning Commission 19 agrees with our mayor and our agricultural neighborhood and rejects this TBR proposal. Thank you all for the work you do and for your attention to my testimony. Judy Shabert. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Next, area code 808-651-4952, would you like to testify. If so, please push star 6 and state your name. Okay. Hearing none, area code 808-639-6248, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and/or unmute your phone and state your name. Woman: No, thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you. Area code 808-346-4278, if you’d like to testify, please push star 6 and/or unmute your phone and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808-855-8830, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and/or unmute your phone and state your name. Hearing none, area code area code 80...sorry. Area code 808-625-9385, if you’d like to testify, please state your name - or please press star 6, unmute, and state your name. Hearing none, area code 808-449- 6427, if you would like to testify, please push star 6 and/or unmute your phone and state your name. Hearing none, um, recognizing that, uh, additional callers have called in prior to this list being generated...okay. Again, I have gone through the entire list, um, as said, but additional callers may have called in or some may have had technical difficulties. Is there anybody that has called in at this point that has not yet spoken for the (unintelligible) Application that would like to testify? If so, please push star 6, unmute your phone, and state your name. Ms. Zeigler: Hi. Good morning, Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name’s Joanna Zeigler and I represent the Chandler-Ferris Trust. I do not know if this is a good time to speak. Mr. Hull: Miss Zeigler. This is the agency hearing in which - in which public testimony is received. We will - directly proceeding this, we will go into the actual staff report by the planner, as well as responses and our presentations on behalf of the applicant, yourself. So, this is - right on - just the agency hearing for public testimony. Ms. Zeigler: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Miss Zeigler. And so, again, for members of the public that have called in that have not yet spoken on the (inaudible) application, but would like to speak if any of you still have not spoken and would like to speak, please unmute your phones and state your name so we can take your testimony. I will hold for – for— Ms. Sam-Vargas: May I speak— Mr. Hull: Please, ma’am, if you would state your name. Ms. Sam-Vargas: Yes. My name is Lisa Sam-Vargas and I previously spoke, but I would like to have a little - another opportunity to speak because I have a hearing impairment and there was a lot of feedback. It confused me and I read my, um, a previous, uh, testimony that I had written, and I would like to have an opportunity to read, um, my testimony now, if I am allowed. 20 Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, I’ll - I’ll defer to your— Chair Nogami Streufert: Since this is so difficult - this has been a difficult, uh, proceeding with the technology, I am going to let that go. Please, go ahead. Ms. Sam-Vargas: Okay. Thank you. My name is Lita Sam-Vargas and I live at 4460 Kapuna Road with my husband - with my husband, Alan. As a retired management consultant and business executive, I have had to make many difficult decisions and do not envy your job. I will be addressing two points. First, the Chandler-Ferris Trust - the new applicant - is not the original applicant, which is the Ferris Trust. They are two different legal entities with different assets and different (inaudible). Property - proper notification by the new applicant of a change of ownership in 2013 was not reported until recently. Therefore, there may not basis for grandfathering in the original application from 2011. Second, there are a number of irregularities with the processing of evaluation of the application, showing a strong bias by your Planning Department in favor of the new applicant. Perhaps because the county faced a missed that deadline responding to the application. However, the new applicant missed the deadline to claim the rights to the grandfather provision from the original application. As to the first point, in the Planning Department’s staff report, the names of the two trusts are used as if they are the same entity, or that one became the other. This is not legally so. The only thing that is continuous here is that the TVR never stopped operating. This critical point is that the original application was filed by Robert Ferris, trustee of the Ferris Trust, using supporting documentation for his business called Retreat at Hale Luana & Plantation. No one is disputing that Hilary Ferris trustee of the Chandler-Ferris Trust, the current applicant helps operate the TVR way back then and is operating it now. Nor is there a question that when the property was legally transferred to the trust, she was entitled to the grandfathering provision. The point is that when the Chandler-Ferris Trust became the new owner in 2013 and operated a new business called Kauai Retreat Center; they hould have notified the county in order to claim the rights to the grandfather provision and to file a new application and affidavit as is required of all new property owners in ag land with special permits. She did not. She just continued to operate. It appears that the legal change of ownership documents may have finally been delivered to the Planning Department as recently as June of last year. By not reporting the change of ownership in a timely manner and filing a new application, the new applicant the Chandler-Ferris Trust may have forfeited the right to the grandfathering provision. Regarding second point - in the interest of time, I can only mention three examples of Planning Department’s strongly favoring the new applicant. The Planning Department did not require the Chandler-Ferris Trust to submit a new application and affidavit as is required of a new owner. Instead, it updated the 2011 application selectively. Second, staff report issued by the Planning Department retroactively changed the department’s position of 2011, but the original application by the Ferris Trust was incomplete, and therefore, did not merit a provisional certificate to operate a TVR. Lastly, the Planning Department staff work - performed work that the applicant was required to perform themselves, such as notifying surrounding parts of the (inaudible) and 21 filing the required associative affidavits. The points I have made are fundamental and should be considered when making your decision. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Again, for anybody that has not testified that would like to testify on the, um, Ferris application, please speak now. If I…sorry again. I thought we had some feedback. I appreciate everybody’s patience. Again, is there anybody that would like to testify on the Ferris application that has not spoken yet? If so, please push star 6 and unmute your phone and state your name. Hearing none, Madame Chair, the Department would recommend closing the closing the Agency Hearing. The Department would recommended the Agency Hearing Closed. Chair Nogami Streufert: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? Mr. Ho: I move to close the agency hearing. Mr. DeGracia: Second. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second? It has been moved and seconded to (inaudible) is there any discussion? Recording: Helen Cox is now joining. Chair Nogami Streufert: We have a motion to close the agency hearing - the Ferris case. Is there any discussion? If not, we have a roll call. Mr. Hull: Roll call Madame Chair. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Ms. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? 22 Mr. Ho: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion Passes 7:0. Madame Chair. Chair Nogami Streufert: It has it been passed. Agency hearing is closed. Special Permit SP-2011-35 to permit use of an existing single-family residence for Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) purpose, as permitted by County of Kauai Ordinance No. 904, within the Waipake Subdivision, Waipake, Kauai, approx. 1,600 ft. west of the Kapuna Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further identified as 4670 Kapuna Road Tax Map Key: (4) 5-1-006:002 (Unit 4 comprised of 2.503 acres), with an overall parcel size of 10.008 acres = Robert D. Ferris Trust). Mr. Hull: Moving on to the same agenda item for the review by the Commission, Special Permit SP-2011-35, the permit to use an existing single-family residence for Transient Vacation rental purpose as permitted by county of Kauai Ordinance number 904 Waipake Subdivision, Waipake Kauai approx. 1,600 west of the Kapuna Road/Kuhio Highway intersection, further identified as 4670 Kapuna Road, tax property 5-1-006:002, , unit four comprised of 2.503 acres with an over parcel size of 10.00 acres documented as Robert D. Ferris Trust, and I’ll turn it over to Mike Laureta, who has the Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Ho: One moment, please. Madame Chair - Madame Chair - Madame Chair? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Mr. Ho: I move - I wish to make a motion. I move that the Commission enter to the Executive Session, please. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second? Ms. Apisa: I will second it to have discussion, but it seems that would be more after we’d get the Director’s Report, but that’s in the form of a question. Chair Nogami Streufert: Mr. Ho, would you prefer it now? Or after the Director’s Report? Mr. Ho: I prefer it now. 23 Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. All right. So, it’s been moved and seconded that we ha- that we go into exec- excuse me - executive session now. Is there discussion? If not, let us, by a voice vote, all those in favor of going into Executive Session, now? Say aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Mr. Ho: Uh— Woman: Aye. Group: Aye. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. It has passed 7:0 that we will go into session and it will be, uh, it will be conducted with a 15-minute break, also. So, let us assume that we will get back into session at 11 o’clock. Ms. Apisa: So, I have a question. We do not log out of this. Or how do we - uh, cause we have a separate link to go into to executive session. Mr. Hull: Yeah. So, for both the Commissioners, as well as the members of the public that had called in and would like to watch the proceedings go down, as well as or - yeah. For all those that have called in, as well as the Commissioners themselves, the Commission is going into executive session to consult with their legal counsel. Commissioners, you will be logging - logging off this platform and logging onto a separate executive session call that has been set-up by your attorney. For those members of the public, as well as those applicants for other agenda items, if you would like to stay on, do not hang up your phones. You can stay on right now, or you can return at around 11 o’clock when the Chair is saying she anticipates coming out of executive session. Again, for the Commissioners - you need to log off this platform and log on to the separate executive session line set up. The Commission moved into Executive Session at 10:40 a.m. The Commission returned to Open Session at 11:28 a.m. Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after Executive Session. Mr. Hull: Not all are for - many of them are actually, I guess most are here for the - the Ferris case, but there are also other applicants on the other agenda items as well. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Okay. Well, the sun came out. Will you let me know kind of when we can start? Mr. Hull: We have all Commissioners present. At least, logged on, Madame Chair. Do you want do a roll call before we start? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please. Calling the regular session of the Planning Commission to order. We will have a roll call, please. 24 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Here. 7 present. Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, I’d just like to bring to your attention at your discretion, though, of course, during the break, at least one member of the public reached out to say that she was unable to testify because she unable to get her phone unmuted in time. I believe during the break she was able to figure out her technical difficulties. And so, a request has been made that those members of the public that were experiencing technical difficulties - if they could provide testimony at some point during this agenda item - I just wanted to bring that to your attention - if you wanted to let them go now or say that time has been closed - it’s at your discretion. Chair Nogami Streufert: Because it is such a contentious issue, I would prefer to hear everyone’s. So, let us give every chance to air their concerns, please. Mr. Hull: Okay. For those that did not - or had issues unmuting their phones or were able to figure that out during the break now the Chair is allowing you testify. So, we’ll open it back up. If you have not spoken on the Ferris application as a member of the public, but would like to speak, please unmute your phone, state your name, and please testify. Chair Nogami Streufert: (Inaudible) have no already testified. 25 Mr. Hull: Yeah. Correct. It is for those who have not testified. So, again, for those that have not testified, but would like to speak, please unmute your phone, state your name, and provide your testimony, please. Ms. Loo: Good morning. Can you hear me? Mr. Thomas: My name is, uh, Bart Thomas. I am the junior vice commander for the (inaudible) center. I am also on the board for Salvation Army. I am to speak on behalf of what the Kauai Landing property has done for us. Mr. Hull: Oh, no. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Thomas. We are on the Ferris case right now. The - the testimony right now is for the Ferris application. Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, brother. I am looking at my (inaudible) numbers, so I have no clue where you stand. Sorry about that. Mr. Hull: Yeah. No problem. So, again, Kauai Landing is - is coming up next on the agenda. But for those that’d like to - for members of the public, again, that would like to testify for the Ferris application that have not yet been able to speak, please unmute your phone and state your name and provide testimony at this time. Ms. Loo: Good morning. Can— Chair Nogami Streufert: Hello. Ms. Loo: Good morning. Good morning. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. State your name, please. Ms. Loo: Oh. Okay. This is Laurel Loo. I would like to provide a short statement. I am an attorney representing the first two speakers that you heard this morning on the Ferris Trust, and I wanted to; uh, just clarify our position. The court has remanded the case back to the Planning Commission to process the permit. And my view is in processing the permit, the Planning Commission now has to consider three things. Whether this is a reasonable use, whether this promotes the objective of agricultural lands, and whether this is in keeping with Hawaii statutes 205, which requires that a single-family dwelling be located in a farm where there is agricultural activity which provides income to the family occupying the dwelling. We do not believe it meets any of these three prongs. You know, you folks have a tough call to make, and I, myself, as an attorney have represented other applicants in front of the Planning Commission who have pursued a special permit to operate a vacation rental on Ag land. And in each case, we made the effort to reach out to all of our neighbors, whether they were unit mates, or just geographical neighbors, to make sure that there were no concerns, and if there were concerns, to address those prior to a hearing, and we would just have liked to be able to have had that conversation with the applicant. So, thank you for the opportunity on behalf of my clients to be able to submit testimony information. Thank you. 26 Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Ms. Loo. Again, for any other members of the public that have no testified on the Ferris application, and would like to provide testimony the Chair is allowing that testimony now. So, please unmute your phone and state your name. Hearing none, Madame Chair, I think you folks may proceed now with your deliberations. Oh. Excuse me. There is deliberations to go into, but Mr. Laureta, our staff planner assigned to this project is ready to give his report if you folks want to receive it now. Sorry, Madame Chair. I believe you are muted. Chair Nogami Streufert: (inaudible) muted. Yes. We are ready to hear Mr. Laureta read the, uh, the report. Staff Planner Mike Laureta: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Laureta. I will present this, uh, as briefly as I can. I know you want to get to the questions, but this is a special permit - SP1135 - that was originally submitted in 2011 for processing. Um, the applicant name at that time was Robert D. Ferris Trust, now known as the Chandler-Ferris Trust. Um, the reason for the request - special permit required pursuant Chapter 205 of HRF and Chapter 13 of the Rules and Practice and Procedures of the Planning Commission, and this special permit is for a six-bedroom, 4.5 bath farm dwelling, single-family, transient vacation rental located on planned designated state valued as Ag. Um, this was a completed application August 16, 2011. Um, this special permit’s action is applicable within 60 days after the close of the public hearing, but within a longer period if may be agreed by the applicant to the extent permitted by law, and the additional public hearing dates are reflected. Notification requirements have been completed. 100 percent of the neighbors within 300 feet have been notified. Properties located (unintelligible) highway, Kapuna Road intersection. (Inaudible) Key 516, parcel 2, unit 4, property 5, 2.5 acres, compliance to ordinance 904. All these documents and all this information was submitted, uh, as necessary. GE tax, transient accommodation tax payments, federal and state employee income tax returns, reservations lists, and receipts showing payments. The property is less than five acres in size for Ag dedication, but it had Ag dedication at the time. Ordinance standards one and two are applicable. Ag activity on the property does exist. Property has been inspected three times - 2011, 2016, and 2017. The last two were based on complaints received from a neighbor. All types reflected in ratings. Agency comments are attached. Mr. Laureta read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, Preliminary Evaluation, and Preliminary Conclusion sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Laureta: So, we considered the analysis had special permit considerations, general plan consideration, ordinance 904, and the number of TVRs in a geographical region and then, we had the preliminary valuation. Conclusion and preliminary recommendation - um, that is as fast as I could do it. I can take any of your questions. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions for what the - would the Commission like to have all these read? Or would you like to just ask questions of Mr. Laureta? 27 Ms. Cox: At some point, I would like to recommend all the recommendations read. Chair Nogami Streufert: Mr. Laureta, where - now, that the recommendations - yet, where are the preliminary evaluation - discussion and preliminary evaluation? Ms. Cox: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: Before we go to the recommended action, though, I would like to have your - the Conclusions read. Mr. Hull: No questions? Chair Nogami Streufert: We are not (inaudible) if, uh, would you rather have the conclusions first? Or we can talk about the, uh, discuss the, uh, evaluation. Are there any questions for Mr. Laureta for - about the evaluation? For the Findings or the Evaluation? Ms. Apisa: It just seems that there is a short Conclusion preceding the Recommended Actions. So, I would like to see us follow the order, unless there’s an objection. Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry. Reading the entire thing from the discussion to the Evaluation? And then, to the Conclusion? Is that what you are asking for? Ms. Apisa: No. I am just saying to take the Conclusion prior to the Recommended Action. Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct. We will do that. But right now, I’m asking were there any questions of Mr. Laureta about the preliminary evaluation or about the discussion? Ms. Apisa: No question from me. Chair Nogami Streufert: Mr. Laureta could you, since this is about the special permit, on the preliminary evaluation, talk a little bit about that special permit how that standard requirements (inaudible)? Mr. Laureta: Okay. So, I’ll take you from the bottom of page six. Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct. Mr. Laureta: Okay. Pursuant to HRS 205.6, the County Planning Commission may permit certain unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the State Land Use District is classified. Special permits for land areas exceeding 15 acres in size are subject to approval by the Land Use Commission. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Commission Special Permit to operate a TVR on the subject property as a permitted unusual and reasonable use with a - within the state agricultural land used district. Standards for considering a Land Use Commission Special Permit are found under Title XV Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism, Subtitle 3, State Land Use Commission, Chapter 15, Land Use Commission Rules, Subchapter 12, Special Permits, Sub- Subsection 15, 15-9-5 of 28 the Hawaii Administrative Rules, and Section 13-6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the County of Kauai Planning Commission. The proposed request could be considered to be an unusual and reasonable use based on the following - one, the use shall not be contrary to the objective sought to be accomplished by chapter 205, 205a HRS and the Rules of the Land Use Commission. The analysis - the proposed action can comport with the state land use laws objectives and policies for agricultural regions since this property is being utilized for agricultural purposes, despite it being for home consumption and guest enjoyment purposes. The many different types of fruit and flower trees on the property are maintained by the applicant for personal use and for enjoyment by the guests. The project site is largely buffered by considerable distances between neighboring residence and by its rural agricultural setting. The proposed action will not result in a significant increase in visitors to the area, will not induce population growth, and will not significantly change the character of the property. Therefore, the proposed action will not result in a significant change to the rural agricultural character of the area, nor impact the area’s limited public infrastructure and services. The desired - two - the desired use would not adversely affect surrounding property. The property is serviced by an unimproved driveway off of Kapuna Road. The property can accommodate vehicular parking on site without impacting the Kapuna Road right of way or surrounding properties, and can be accessed by emergency vehicles, provided the access way is maintained as recommended by the Fire Department. Staff does not anticipate any impacts to the surrounding or abutting agricultural districted lands or residential improvements on said lands providing the recommendations contained in this report are implemented and proper management of the property is provided. Three, the use would not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, and school improvements, and police and fire protection. The TVR use of existing farm dwelling unit in this location would not have a noticeable impact on local roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire protection or other public and private infrastructure systems and services. Four, unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since district boundaries and rules were established. Kauai’s economy has dramatically evolved since the establishment of the State Land Use Law in 1961. Tourism is now the largest economic driver in the county. While the tourism industry itself has evolved from centralized and localized by large resorts and hotels that operate along the coastal areas of the island, the time-share industry, and now the transient vacation rental industry has been part of a growing demand for more rustic and private accommodations on the island. This location is a prime rustic location that the movie industry has taken advantage of. Further, the county of Kauai general plan also entertains the possibility of alternative visitor accommodation structures and operations in residential, agriculture, open, and resorts only districts. However, subsection 4.2.6.2, County Policy and Zoning Regulations states the following - specific development standards should be developed for multi-unit B&Bs and single- family vacation rentals addressing at least the following factors - buffering of adjacent properties in order to prevent noise impacts and visual impacts, related factors are the size of the property and the location of the visitor units relative to adjacent properties, access to adequate public 29 roads, parking for employees and patrons, adequate waste water treatment and disposal, the total number of vacation rentals in the area, and the cumulative impacts on the neighborhood. Five - the land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. The subject property is being used for agricultural purposes, although such cannot be considered intensive Ag due to its limited size - under 5. - 5 acres. Further, other physical - physical constraints, such as poor soil inhibits intensive agriculture. The subject property is being used for agricultural purposes. Chapter 15, Land Use Commission Rules, Subchapter 12, Special Use Permits allows for certain unusual and reasonable uses provided that these uses are consistent with the state’s land use laws objectives and policies. The proposed use of an existing single-family residence/farm dwelling will not produce significant impacts to adjacent agriculturally zoned properties and will benefit the island by offering alternative eco-tourism accommodations in Anini available to both visitors and Kauai residents - Anini/Kilauea. The Planning Commission may impose such protective conditions as it views necessary to the - in the issuance of this special permit. The Planning Commission may establish - among other Conditions - a reasonable time limit suited to establishing a particular use, and if appropriate, a time limit for the duration of a particular use, which shall be condition of this special permit. Such conditions on the existing TVR could ensure that the owners of these entitlements and their neighbors would know what to expect from each other. Failure to abide by the Conditions of approval could mean possible forfeiture of the use should complaint to the Department remain unresolved. Would you like me to go into the conclusion? Ms. Otsuka: Glenda, you need to unmute. Mr. Laureta: Chair, you are muted. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are we ready to continue with the Conclusions? Do we have the, the applicant there? Or would - is the applicant available? Would - is this a proper time for the applicant to respond? Mr. Hull: Yeah, Madame Chair. The applicant’s representative, Ms. Zeigler is - is available, I believe. Chair Nogami Streufert: Would this be an appropriate time to have her respond to this? Or to - to make a statement? Mr. Hull: It would. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Ms. Zeigler: Okay. Good morning. I am Joanna Zeigler, and I represent the Chandler-Ferris Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this time. We sent a letter to the Planning Department and Planning Commission dated October 23, 2020, which set forth the trust position with regard to the special permit. And I’ll just highlight a few important aspects of that letter for the Planning Commission. Just based on what we heard earlier this morning and to clarify the 30 history and procedural posture of this application - um, to begin with, uh, Hillary Ferris is the trustee of the Chandler-Ferris Trust, and her family her and her family are local residents to Kauai and have been operating the TVR prior to the change of the ordinance in 2008, which is undisputed, and the applicant, um, or the application was submitted in 2010, um, was at that time denied. However, it went through the appeals process and in 2016, the ICA entered, um, its opinion, which came to two important conclusions. The first was that the application was complete which I believe Mr. Laureta also just stated. Then, secondly, and more importantly, that it was improperly denied. So, at that point, the ICA or the Intermediate Court of Appeals remanded it back to the Planning Commissions. Subsequent to that 2016 decision, there was discussion between ourselves and the County Attorney, and we attached some exhibits to our letter in which the County Attorney then stated in 2016 that it would…the Planning Department would accept the application and that it would need to be processed pursuant to the non-conforming use certificate ordinance and the special permit statute and rules. However, no action was taken since 2016. I just would like to highlight that the applicant did not initiate the Planning Commission action today and has not in any way updated or submitted any additional information to the Planning Commission because that application was deemed complete in 20- by the ICA in 2016. Um, and so, the - the position of the trust is that, um, although other opinions have been expressed, there is actually a legal, requirement to approve the special permit at this point, and that’s just simply pursuant to state statute and the Planning Commission Rules. Um, state statute provides that applications must be processed within a maximum period of time, which is set forth in the agency rules. Um, otherwise, it shall be deemed approved, and the Planning Commission rules Chapter 13 provide for those maximum time periods. The first, 1-13-5 provides that a public hearing will be heard within 60 days of acceptance. Then, 1-13-7 and 1-13-8 provide that the Planning Commission must act within 210 days, and neither of those deadlines have occurred. Um, and so, the - the application must be deemed automatically approved at this point. Um, and I believe Mr. Laureta’s going to move into the - the, um, Conditions for approval, which the applicants or the trust understands that there are standard conditions that go along with this, um, special permit. But at this point, the, um, under the statute and rules, the automatic approval is required at this point. And I think that’s all I have, unless there’s other questions. Ms. Apisa: I have a question. I believe you were present at the, um, meeting and listened to the testimony and there is a lot of concern from neighbors as far as noise and disturbances. Um, I mean, I guess some response from the applicant as far as addressing those concerns to maybe be a better neighbor. Ms. Zeigler: Yeah. I think there is a couple aspects to that. The first is that because of this automatic approval that has - that would eliminate discretion to consider those types of input from the community at this point. There was a complete application that just was not acted upon for four years. And so, at this point the applicant would prefer not to waive, um, the arguments that the automatic approval is in play. But I will just note that there were other testimony 31 submitted. I believe we received, uh - uh - uh, several letters that were submitted, I guess, maybe not, um, oral testimony today, but that contradict the oral testimony that was given. Ms. Apisa: Another question, are you - or who is the on-island appointed agent for the applicant? Or just on a regular rental basis? Ms. Zeigler: The applicant is on-island, and she does visit the property on a almost daily basis. Because of the (inaudible) and because of the TVR use as well. Ms. Apisa: Well, okay. Thank you. I was not aware the applicant is on island. Thank you. Ms. Zeigler: Yes. Yes. It has a - it is a local family. Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: So, if the neighbors had any problems, they would go directly to that - to the applicant. Is that correct? Ms. Zeigler: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: There is one concern that some of the neighbors have that the units - the rooms were being rented out separately as - and not as a - as a total unit. Is that more like a boarding house, as opposed to a TVR? Do you know? That came up several times in the discussion. Ms. Zeigler: Yes. And I guess I will - I will defer to that, um, automatic approval argument as well, um, and I don’t have specific information to address those concerns right now. Um, however, even if a special permit is automatically approved today because of those deadlines, there is still a review process that happens with each of these permits. You know, that would not be prevented to occur in the future. Ms. Apisa: But you are aware or the applicant is aware of the, um, recommended, um, approvals which Conditions - which we will get into but the applicant is, um, right now there are 23, may change. But, the applicant is aware of and accepts those Conditions? Ms. Zeigler: Yes. The applicant accepts the standard conditions that are included in the staff report. Um, there were two conditions - 20- 22 and 23 - which seemed problematic and - and are site specific. So, in other words, the standard conditions are - are certainly accepted, as part of the special permit process. I do not know if we talk about specific conditions at this point, but I will say 22 and 23 were site specific, so there was, there would be some comments on those. Chair Nogami Streufert: We will get into that in just a minute after, Mr. Laureta reads all of the, um, the conditions - as we get into it. Are there any questions for the applicant or for Mr. Laureta? Mr. Laureta: You want me to read the Conclusion. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Let us read the Conclusion. 32 Mr. Laureta: Okay. Let us see. I will do this. What you see noted in the right-hand column as standard or applicant specific are the Conditions of approval that were imposed on approximately (inaudible). Ms. Zimmerman: May I please ask a question? May I please ask a question? I am sorry. Could I please ask a question? Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry. Who is this, please? Ms. Zimmerman: This is Kristin Zimmerman, and the application is not complete. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah. We are not at that place in the— Ms. Zimmerman: I have a right to close-captions. The caption is stopped and I am deaf. I need to have closed caption, please. I am an owner within the CPR. Mr. John Friedman: And I am legally deaf. Mr. Hull: Okay. Hold on one second. Ellen, is the close captioning system not available at this time? Mr. Friedman: (Inaudible) legally deaf. I - I sent - I sent - hold on. She - she cannot hear - she cannot - (inaudible) hold on. She - she cannot hear you, uh, ma’am. What - that - she - she cannot - she cannot hear you. I am going to ask that the hearing be discontinued until such time as she can have access to it as (inaudible). Mr. Hull: Hold on. Hold on. Ms. Zimmerman: Yeah. I am just reading - it says, Captioner must proceed to the next scheduled event. Under federal law, I am legally deaf. You have to allow me to hear the hearing. So, I’m going to ask if you can discontinue this session and reconfirm at a different time, please - or such time as the captioner can continue. Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, what - we (inaudible). Ms. Zimmerman: I do not know if you heard me. Mr. Hull: Yeah. Madame Chair, if we could take a 10-minute recess to see if we can resolve (inaudible). Chair Nogami Streufert: (inaudible). Mr. Hull: Hold on one second. Okay. Go ahead. Ms. Zimmerman: I do not know what is going on. 33 Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. If your partner is there - we could - we are trying to resolve this issue. If you will just hold on a minute. Mr. Friedman: They are - they are going to try to resolve the issue. Just hold on. Ms. Ellen Ching: Madame Chair, this is Ellen Ching with the Commission Administrator. Um, if you will call a recess, we will try to get this resolved immediately. Chair Nogami Streufert: How much - how much of a recess would you like to have? Ms. Ching: Um, give me about 10 minutes. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Let’s, uh— Ms. Zimmerman: Okay. I think my other half just said you are going to resolve it. So, I’m going to mute you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. We are going to - we will take a 10-minute - oh. Let us - uh, well, 15 - we will take a break until 12:15 and we will resume. Will that give you enough time, Ellen? Ms. Ching: I have to contact the Relay Hawaii and see what the issue is and - and get back. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Let us take a 10-minute break. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 12:04 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 12:17 p.m. Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Here. 34 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Seven Present. Would you bring us up to date on where we are? (Inaudible), please. Mr. Hull: Yes. Well to the members of the public that requested the captioning, we apologize that the captioner essentially broke off. We were able to secure a captioner starting at 1 o’clock. So, it’s the Department’s recommendation to the Chair and the Commission to take its lunch break right now. Then, once we reconvene at 1:00 or thereafter, the caption - the captioning system will be back in place. Chair Nogami Streufert: Do I have a motion from the Commission to take a lunch break? Is that something that we would like to do? And have a captioner join us this afternoon and - I think the anticipation is that we will have someone by about 1 o’clock. So, if we just say 1:15? That will give us an hour’s lunchtime. Ms. Cox: I move that we break until 1:15 pm. Chair Nogami Streufert: Second? Ms. Otsuka: I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: Seconded. An all those in favor? Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Group: Aye. Chair Nogami Streufert: Motioned Carried 7:0. Now - then, when we will reconvene at 1:15. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting for lunch at 12:18 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after the recess. Okay. Could we have a roll call, please? Mr. Hull: Yes, ma’am. Roll call. Commissioner Apisa? 35 Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Here. Mr. Hull: We have a quorum seven present, Madame Chair, and we have gotten a captioner, uh, back in place. We apologize to the members of the public that needed those services but we do have one back in place. So, I think we can convene the meeting where we left off. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. And I think we’re at the Conclusion. Mr. Laureta: Conclusion? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please. Mr. Laureta: Okay. For the Conclusion, on the right-hand column, you will see the Conditions recommended with the notation that was standard. These are Conditions— Chair Nogami Streufert: Oh. Sorry. Did you have Conclusion to the evaluation? Mr. Laureta: Oh. Conclusion? Okay. Based on foregoing findings and evaluation, this concluded that the transient— Chair Nogami Streufert: After that, we are going to have Mr. Bracken to talk about where we are - where we are standing right now. Then, we will get to the Conditions. 36 Mr. Laureta: Okay. Based on the foregoing findings and evaluation, it is concluded that the transient vacation rental use can comply with the requirements for the issuance of a special permit. Such an approval should be with the imposition of conditions of approval to address the use and mitigate potential and/or anticipated impacts in the neighborhood. This use needs to be strictly managed in order to prevent an animal house type impact of a neighborhood from occurring. It is finally concluded that even though the Department has strong reservations about TVR uses outside the visitor destination area, especially within the state land use district agricultural district, the law must be paramount. Our recommendations were contemplated under the confines of the law, including Federal Constitutional considerations concerning property rights and takings, the county’s ordinance number 904, the recommendation of the general plan, and Chapter 13 of the Planning Commission’s Rules of Practice. That concludes the recommendation. Chair Nogami Streufert: That concludes your Conclusion. Okay. Mr. Laureta: I will— Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry. Before we go further Mr. Bracken is the County Attorney, and he will provide some background on the where we are legally. County Attorney Matthew Bracken: Thank you, Chair. Due to the delay in process in special permit, it is automatically approved by operation of law, specifically (inaudible) by Statute Section, 91-13.5 requires the approval. However, the Planning Commission has the authority under the Planning Commission Rule 1-13.8 Section 2, and (inaudible) provides statute to apply (inaudible) 6 (c) - to establish protective restrictions or Conditions. Accordingly, this Commission may now discuss and adopt appropriate Conditions. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Um, as - as we, uh— Mr. Friedman: I am sorry, can I interrupt momentarily? I am sorry. May I interrupt momentarily? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah. Your question, please? Mr. Friedman: Yeah. It - it is not really a question. It’s - we - we still do not have captions and although we are able to hear to hear and the captioner is there, um, but she - I am here, but I am still on hold. Has the event started? And I told her yes, but - but she’s not able to caption for - for Kristin. Mr. Hull: Okay. Hold on one second. Mr. Friedman: I’m not sure exactly what the holdup is, and - and - and I can bring - I can bring Kristin up to date on - on - on the - on the presiding of the right-hand column of the report from the direct - from Mike Laureta. Um, but this point forward, I am sure she would like to hear it, if 37 possible. It - it’s - to be able to understand - she will never be able to hear - but to able to understand it through captions, if possible. Mr. Hull: Yeah. Hold on one second. Ellen— Ms. Ching: I am trying to - Ellen Ching, Boards and Commission Administrator, at this point, I would - I would, I apologize to the Commission. I would recommend this item be deferred. Mr. Hull: Well, I mean, is she is the captioner gone? Because what the member of public is saying is that captioner is on hold. Did they just - did they just give a different number? Ms. Ching: We are not - when we set up the services, the captioner, and the company works directly with the client. So, we cannot ascertain whether the captioner is there or not. Mr. Hull: Um— Mr. Friedman: If you guys can hear me, what - what we’re getting on our end is an - an error message the captioner has not been admitted to the meeting. Chair Nogami Streufert: Oh. Does this mean that the captioner is there, and is just waiting to come in to the meeting? Mr. Friedman: Yeah. But the captioner is there. We can text back and forth with the captioner, but she’s unable to caption the - she’s un- she’s unable to caption the meeting because she has not been admitted to the meeting. Mr. Hull: Uh— Mr. Friedman: That is what we are getting on our end. Mr. Hull: Okay. Then, hold - hold on one second, then. Um, Madame Chair. I apologize. Will you mind asking - would - could we ask for a 10-minute recess to try and resolve this again? Chair Nogami Streufert: Let us - yes. We will be back in 10 minutes. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 1:23 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 1:26 p.m. Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after the recess. Mr. Hull: Sir, could you confirm that you guys have the captioning system? Mr. Friedman: Yes. We are now on 100 percent. Thank you very, very, very much. I am, I am confirming for both you and the captioner, who is asking the same question. Mr. Hull: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. 38 Woman: Thank you. Man: Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Kaaina, can you confirm that every - all of the Commissioners are back on, please? Mr. Hull: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: Well, we do not have to do a roll call- we just - if we know everybody’s on. Mr. Hull: All Commissioners are logged on. Yes, Madame Chair. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. And if we just hit the Mr. Bracken, who’s the county attorney gave us - do we do that over? Or you okay with that? Hearing nothing, then we will continue with Mr. Laureta, would you lead the recommended action by the Commission? Mr. Laureta: Okay. I will re-explain the layout of the conditions of approval. On the right-hand side in the column it says, “Standard, Applicant specific for site specific.” This template, this Staff Report form, these Conditions of approval were used in approximately 67 other Special Permits approved by the Planning Commission for vacation rentals in the State Land Use Ag District. That is why it says “standard.” So everybody has these Conditions of approval. So I’ll read them one at a time. “Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is recommended that Special Permit SP-2011-35 to Robert Ferris, Deceased, now known as Chandler-Ferris Trust be approved subject to the following Conditions: 1. This Permit is not evidence of compliance with any all pertinent zoning and use regulations of the County of Kaua’i. 2. This Permit does not bear upon any subsequent annual renewal of the Certificate or inspection of the property by the Planning Department and/or any other government agency as may be necessary. 3. The owner or lessee who has obtained a Nonconforming Use Certificate under this section shall apply with the Planning Department to renew the NCU Certificate annually no later than one month prior to the date of issuance of the NCU certificate. Application forms can be found on” the Department’s website. “4. Any subsequent use, development, repair, and/or improvement on the property requires Planning Department review and approval prior to such occurring. 5. This approval for use of the Transient Vacation Rental is being permitted at this time. Further, the Agency comments, concerns, or recommendations must be resolved and be complied with and/or addressed prior to any consideration for renewal of this Permit. 6. The property in operation is subject to the applicable per- provisions of subsection 8-17 of the Kaua’i County, in particular, those provisions adopted by Ordinances Number 864, 876, and 904. Section 8- 17.11(a) also states the following: ‘Violations of conditions of approval or providing false or misleading information on the Application or in any information related thereto at any time during the Application process shall be grounds for revocation or cease and desist orders.’ 7. The Applicant and successors and permitted assigns shall exercise reasonable due care as to third parties with respect to all areas affected by the subject Special Permit and shall procure at its own cost and expense and shall maintain during the entire period of this Special Permit a 39 policy or policies of comprehensive liability insurance in the minimum amount of 3 million dollars to cover against any and all claims or demands for property damage, personal, injury, and/or death arising out of this Permit, including, but not limited, to (1) Claims from and any accident in connection with the permitted use or occasioned by any act or nuisance made or suffered in connection with the permitted use in exercise by the Applicant of said rights and (2) All actions, suits, damages, and claims by whomsoever brought or made by the reason of the non-observance or non-performance of any the terms and conditions of this permit or as a result of a natural disaster. A copy of a policy shall be submitted to the Department within 90 calendar days from the date of granting of the Special Permit. Failure to renew the Certificate and to provide the County Planning Department with a new - Renewal Certificate shall result in the implementation of Condition Number 6 above. This Special Permit shall be renewed annually, commencing from the date of Planning Commission approval by the Planning Director or his designee. The Renewal Application shall be submitted to the Department no - no less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration. The Renewal Application shall discuss compliance with the conditions of approval, and any issues that may have arisen. If the renewal request is submitted late, then the use shall cease until the Planning Commission renders a decision on this matter. If a denial of the renewal request is to be recommended, such matter shall be brought to the Planning Commission. 9. If historical or cultural remains such as archeological artifacts, charcoal deposits, or human burials are found at any time during any subsurface on the property, the Applicant shall stop working the immediate area and shall contact the State Historic Preservation Division and the Planning Department to determine appropriate action. 10. To respect the neighboring residential properties and for safety of the visitors, all vehicular parking related to this use and property, including maintenance vehicles, shall be accommodated on the subject property at all times. On-street parking shall not be permitted at any time. Guests shall be informed that elevated noise activities or amplified music shall not be permitted after ten o’clock pm. An evacuation plan shall be developed and posted in conjunction with the below- referenced notices. These limitations shall be incorporated in the compulsory safe - “Safety For You and Your Neighbors” and “Welcome and Notice” posted within the dwelling and within any and all contracts and advertisements for use of the structure from the date of this approval. Copies of these documents shall be provided to the Department. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revise, add, or delete conditions of approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts the project may create or to revoke the Permits through the proper procedures should adverse impacts occur that cannot be mitigated. The Applicants, successors, and assigns shall indemnify, defend, and hold the County of Kaua’i harmless from and against any loss, liability, claim, or demand for property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of any act or omission of the Applicant, its successors, assigns, officers, employees, contractors, and agents under this Permit or relating to or connected with the granting of this Permit. This indemnification agreement shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department within 30 days from the date of approval of the Special Permit and shall be recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances or Land Court within 60 days of approval by the Department. A recording copy shall be provided to the Department. 13. The Applicant is on notice that this property sits within the State Agricultural District and adjacent parcels may engage in intensive farming and the subject parcel may experience noise, fugitive dust, and environmental impacts associated with good farming practices. The Applicant shall notify any TVR tenant of potential impacts associated with adjacent farming and to refrain 40 from calling or reporting such activity to governmental agencies. 14. As previously recommended by these agencies for TVR uses: The fire department: A multi-purpose ABC fire extinguisher be mounted near an exit and an emergency escape plan be mounted behind the main door with emergency phone numbers and information about natural disasters. Smoke alarms in accordance with the Building Code shall be installed. The driveway shall maintained to provide emergency vehicular access and if an entry gate is utilized access shall be provided for emergency services with Knox rapid-entry system. For the Water Department: Applicant is made aware that the water service will be limited to the existing water meter serving this parcel. Request for additional water meters or increase in water meter size will be dependent on the adequacy of the source, storage, and transmission facilities existing at that time. 15. These conditions of approval and Agency comments shall be recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances or Land Court within 60 days of approval by the Planning Commission. A recording copy shall be provided to the Department within 30 days of recordation. 16. Should any property interest in the subject property be transferred or sold, the Planning Commission shall be notified prior to the closing of the sale. 17. The Transient Vacation Nonconforming registration number, tax map key, and site address shall also be reflected on any internet advertising. A copy of all internet advertising reflecting this condition shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days of approval of this Special Permit and for any subsequent annual renewal. 18. No other commercial use of the property shall be permitted unless approved by the Planning Commission, such as weddings and parties other than by registered guests, commercial retail or rental of items other than ag-related produce grown on the property, commercial filming, et cetera. 19. Applicant shall discuss and resolve applicable Agency comments with the appropriate government agency prior to the renewal of this Permit and provide documentation of such.” Excuse me. “20. No further enlargement, alterations, or expansion of the existing residence shall be permitted unless authorized by the Planning Commission or required by a government agency. 21. The Planning Commission delegates authority to the Planning Director to ensure non-encroachment of agricultural and improvements on abutting properties. 22. The TVR operation shall be made available for the Planning Department inspection upon 12-hours’ notice to the owner or authorized agent. The inspection shall be for the purpose of verifying, with all provisions of the CZO and conditions of approval to the Special Permit. 23. The a- maximum number of people on the property using the TVR structure during any rental time period shall not exceed 12 at any one time. The number of the vehicles on the property at any one time shall not exceed two vehicles.” This concludes Staff’s recommendation. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions from the Commissions to the Planning Department? Okay. If not, is the Applicant aware of all these conditions? Ms. Zeigler: Hi. Joanna Zeigler again, representing the Applicant. The Applicant is aware of the Conditions that are on this form and does agree to the standard Conditions imposed. Just had two comments with regard to Condition 22 and 23. Um, with regard to 22, the notice of 12 hours seems to be kind of a short amount of time, um, to give the Applicant enough time to notify guests if they are on the property and/or be available for a site inspection. So we’d just request that it would be changed to 72-hour notice. Then 23, given that the maximum number of guests is 12, the number of vehicles on the property, would request to be allowed four vehicles for the registered TVR guests. Um, right now it says shall not exceed two vehicles, um, but if - if the 41 Applicant and if you also arrive on the property, it would likely exceed. So if we could just, um, make it 12 - or excuse me. Not 12 vehicles. Four (4) vehicles for the registered guests. Mr. Laureta: Staff has no objections. Chair Nogami Streufert: Also for the 12 hours of notification and going - changing that to, I think, uh, you said 72 hours. Is that correct? Ms. Zeigler: That would be preferable, yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: Would 24 be efficient? Ms. Zeigler: I think 24, would be better than 12, yes. Just to give the - I mean, the idea would just be so that the Applicant would have time to, you know, be available and notify the guests and whatnot. So 24 would probably be doable. Seventy-two is - is preferable. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any questions? Ms. Otsuka: If the Applicant would like to change from two vehicles to four. Uh, if the four is agreed upon, will the four vehicles remain on the Applicant’s property? Ms. Zeigler: Uh, yes, the applicant, oh, sorry. Chair Nogami Streufert: The way that it states right now is that no- those on the property at any one time, shall not exceed— Ms. Otsuka: But the…Applicant does have - does have space on her property— Ms. Zeigler: Yes. It— Ms. Otsuka: For the four? Ms. Zeigler: There is plenty of - there is - there is a lot of space for parking, so four (4) vehicles for, the TVR guests would be certainly able to accommodate. Ms. Otsuka: Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: There was some concern by the neighbors about noise and there is a statement in here, as is standard with every other TVR, that says it shall not permit 10:00 pm. would that - and you have seen that? It is under Number 10 of the recommendation. Ms. Zeigler: Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Helen, is there anything you would like to add to this? 42 Ms. Cox: I was going to say the same thing about the noise. As you know, we heard quite a lot of testimony about that and I guess I would just - I just hope the Applicant realizes that should these provisions not be adhered to, these recommendations, that may lead to a cease and desist order. Chair Nogami Streufert: And the owner is held responsible. Ms. Cox: Yes. Yeah. And may - maybe one of the clarifications is that although it says here that it must post the fact that these - the noise can’t happen after 10:00, in the - it actually is the owner’s responsibility to make sure that that actually happens, that noise does not - doesn’t happen after 10:00. It is not just posting. Ms. Zeigler: Yes, the owner is aware of the 10:00 pm noise cutoff. Chair Nogami Streufert: Does, does that need to be in the - uh, in the Condition, Mr. Laureta, or within that standard? Mr. Ho: It is. Mr. Laureta: Yeah, it is. That will be posted in - eh, could be posted in the “For Your Comfort and Safety” document. Also, it could be put in the internet advertising also. Um, you know, the more you put it more there, the more they have to realize you cannot get nuts out there. Chair Nogami Streufert: Uh, what— Ms. Apisa: What you mention, it’s in Condition No. 10. Chair Nogami Streufert: Right. Yes. And that the owner is also responsible for - is that part of that, uh, the safety? Mr. Laureta: Yes. It is the final paragraph in 10. Ms. Cox: So one of the things that is not handled in 10, I am wondering if, - what we should do about it. That is the, uh, we, the other thing we heard quite a lot of this morning was the traffic. Not the amount of traffic, but the speed of the traffic on the road. And I’m just wondering if there’s something that needs to be in the - in what’s posted and what’s told to the, um, visitors, uh, about this being a rural residential neighborhood and that there cannot be - uh, you know, they need to obey speed limit? Which I am assuming is very low there. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are you suggesting that as an additional Condition? Ms. Cox: I am suggesting that that maybe that needs to be added into Number 10. It’s a respect neighboring residential properties and for the safety of the visitors, that in addition to the parking and the noise and the evacuation plan, that there should also be something about, uh - I don’t know if I have the exact wording but “guests need to be aware this is a rural residential neighborhood and vehicle speed should not exceed - I don’t know what the speed is there but or 43 should watch out for pedestrians.” I do not - I mean, I do not have the exact wording that we should use. I am just concerned about the idea. Ms. Zeigler: I do not think the owner would have a problem in posting the speed limit and the, um - the “For Your Safety” - the - the “For Your Safety” post that has to be in the - in the house. I think the speed limit could certainly be added in there. Ms. Cox: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: If I could just maybe for clarification then, the Department would look at updating its respective sheet to read as a fourth sub point below, “An evacuation plan shall be developed and posted in conjunction with the below-referenced notices.” A new fourth subparagraph would be, “Guests shall be informed to adhere to traffic-speed standards for the surrounding area?” Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct. Ms. Cox: I might make it even stronger, Kaaina, and say, “The surrounding area, which is,” um, “rural residential area” or some - some - something so that they know, uh, the kind of place they are staying. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox, I had - I am going to read this back to you. Ms. Cox: Okay. Mr. Hull: The Department could recommend, “Guests shall be informed to adhere to traffic speeding - speed standards for the surrounding rural area.” I would be hesitant to classify this as a residential being that it is an Agricultural District. Ms. Cox: All right. Mr. Hull: I know residents are habituating and living there, but this technically is a residential - uh, technically a - an agriculture area. So we could - we would amend our new sub condition to read, “Guests shall be informed to adhere to traffic speed standards for the surrounding rural area.” Ms. Cox: Yeah, I am fine with that. You are right. Mr. Hull: Ms. Zeigler, do you have any objections to that amended Condition? Ms. Zeigler: No. Mr. Hull: Okay. Mr. Ho: Kaaina please. 44 Mr. Hull: Just speak. Mr. Ho: I believe - I believe the Commission wants the Applicant to know that violations or anything that or complaints can be filed…how would you get something like that, Kaaina? To keep on record when they renew the Permit with you so that you can, uh - you can…when they apply for the permit you can bring this to their attention. Can you— Mr. Hull: Well we do— Mr. Ho: Would the police give you a copy of the violation or, uh, neighbors’ complaints, matters, filed with you? Mr. Hull: If it was filed yeah. Yeah, Commissioner Ho, it would specifically be neighbor complaints submitted to the Planning Department would be kept in its file of record. And if there are specific complaints pertaining to conditions of approval that have been adopted, say, then we do initiate discussion, if not, and/or an investigation into the possible violation of those conditions. Chair Nogami Streufert: And that is just standard, right? Mr. Ho: Just off a— Mr. Hull: That standard for - for all conditions of approval, correct. Oh, I am sorry. The standard for all Planning Commission level permits that have specific conditions of approval if a complaint has been levied against the property owner, um, for violating those conditions. It is not specific to this particular TVR application. That is all-around how enforcement, uh, works with discretionary Permit. Mr. Laureta: Commissioners, can I add, also, that the Enforcement Section has already conducted two inspections of this property based on complaints and found them to be not actually correct. But in terms of enforcement, our considerations include the issuance of zoning complaints, notice - notice of violation or stiffer. But all the complaints that come to the Planning Department, we follow through on them. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Cox: Because this seems to be a - a - an issue that is of - of great concern to the neighbors, I would just hope that the - those who are listening to the call realize that that is the appropriate step to take, is to make their concerns known to the - their complaints known to the Planning Department. Mr. Laureta: Yes. Now there is going to be Conditions of approval. Those are the performance standards. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any other suggestions to the Conditions of approval? 45 Mr. DeGracia: Madam Chair, there is one item I would like to address. It is, um - we have heard a lot about guests getting lost in the area and like I’ve heard, I wouldn’t want anybody showing up on my residence trying to figure out where their TVR is. I am wondering if there is anything we can include to address that and mitigate the effects of having lost, guests show up at surrounding neighbor’s property. Mr. Hull: Yeah, Commissioner DeGracia, that is a good point, and, Mike, please free to correct me if I am wrong. Now should this or dare I say should this Application be approved, an official TVNCU number would be given to this property, which is required to be posted at the property. Through that signage, the site can now at least should be least effectively identifiable from the roadway. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Hull: Mike. Ms. Apisa: Kaaina, you might clarify that I believe the TVR sign must include the TVR number as well as the 24/7 after-hour emergency number that anybody could call. Mr. Laureta: That is correct. And that signage has to be visible from the roadway. So one of the methodologies that a lot the TVRs have is they take a picture of the sign. They either post it on their website or give it to their guests and say, “This is the sign you’re looking for. This the TVR number you are looking for. Do not stop at any houses that doesn’t have - have this sign.” Chair Nogami Streufert: Is this a shared driveway, Mike? Mr. Laureta: Uh, sort of. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is that where the problem is coming from? Mr. Laureta: They could actually post - and I have thought about it. They could actually post a TVR sign farther up on the - on the common road, but it depends on if they get approval from the neighbor if it’s on someone else’s property. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Apisa: Another question, does it have its own house number or is parked A, B, C, D? If it had its own house number that, we could goo- that anybody could Google and it is easier than if it is a House Number A, B, C. That does get confusing. People do not put in the A, B, and C. I am just curious if anyone knows if it has its separate house number. Mr. Laureta: I think Joanna will discuss this with her client. Chair Nogami Streufert: How about rather than just say something about the clearer signage as to the appropriate or the correct location of the TVR, something that I— 46 Ms. Apisa: It is clearer. Chair Nogami Streufert: I think that would work for the guests as well as for the neighbors. Ms. Apisa: Clearer sign— Mr. Laureta: Yeah, up to the neighbors to work out with them. Ms. Apisa: Clearer signage as well as specific, uh, driving directions given to the guests in advance to arrival. Mr. Laureta: Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. All right. Any other comments, additions that the Commissioners are thinking? Ms. Cox: Just a question since we are trying to address all the concerns that came up this morning. Do you think the noise; the ten o’clock noise situation will also take care of the lights because the lights were another issue? I do not know if there is a way to, you know, tell people they have to turn out their lights and they can arrive at any time, so I do not know if there is any way to do anything about it. But I just want to acknowledge that that was another concern we heard, both lights on the property, but also lights of cars arriving late at night. Ms. Otsuka: Sadly, I think that also included the late-night arrivals when certain vehicles, rental cars, they would lock the door and beeps of the - the cars, car alarms. So that can be disturbing, also, after 10:00 pm. Ms. Cox: I don’t know if we could require guests to arrive at certain times, but I - and I wonder if it couldn’t - if the information given to guests couldn’t say something about, “Please try to arrive prior to 10:00 pm since this a rural neighborhood” or something. I do not know. Ms. Otsuka: I am not sure— Ms. Cox: I mean sympathize— Ms. Otsuka: Some mainland flights arrive - some flights arrive late in the evening. Ms. Cox: Right. Chair Nogami Streufert: And with the co— Ms. Otsuka: And drive there. Chair Nogami Streufert: With the COVID- response of getting out of the airport in a timely manner may also pose an issue right now, at least, so that - I am not sure how you would enforce that if and who to fault. 47 Ms. Cox: Yeah, I do not think we can enforce it. I was just - I guess I am - I would like to believe that people try to be nice to each other. And so just putting it in the - in the notice just to remind people that if possible try to arrive before 10:00. It might not make any…I would like to believe that it would. Ms. Apisa: That really depends on flight arrival times. Mr. Hull: Yeah, if I could just interject. So I think, you know, Mike has presented the Commission with simply the standards conditions of approval. I think this is a very, you know, unfortunate situation in that, as Mr. Bracken explained, there are certain timely requirements permitting-wise where it’s - it’s pretty much an automatic approval. I think this discussion that’s being had about overall impacts, you know, should the Commission act in their - somewhat of the insight of the County Attorney’s Office and the Permit is issued, there still - it is still a Special Permit. And so the Special Permit, there are still criteria expressly for the Special Permit under Kauai, Hawaii Statutes and as well as the Rules and Regulations that require compatibility and not adverse being proffered. So should the Permit be issued, it still is now and more particularly argued incumbent upon the property owner and Applicant to ensure that - that no further - no adverse impacts or further adverse impacts are happening to neighboring properties cause then it is cause for the Planning Commission to bring it back for an order to show cause. Then, in fact, the requirements of a Special Permit, even though this Permit has been granted under automatic approval and waiver of timelines that the requirements of compatibility are still in place. So it is, of course, still incumbent upon that - the property owner to now ensure that adverse impacts are not happening to the surrounding - to the surrounding, environment or properties. Ms. Cox: Thank you, Kaaina. Chair Nogami Streufert: No, that helps. Ms. Cox: Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Okay. If there are no other Conditions that are - that the Commissioners are suggesting, do we have a motion either to accept or to deny this with the Conditions? Ms. Apisa: I will move to approve wait I just - I - I just lost it. It is not here so I can reference it. Chair Nogami Streufert: Special Permit SP-2— Ms. Apisa: SP-2011-35, Robert D. Ferris Trust, with special conditions as noted. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second? Mr. DeGracia: Second. 48 Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded that we accept or we approve Special Permit SP-2011-35, the Robert D. Ferris Trust, for this TVR with the Conditions outlined previously, the 23 Conditions outlined previously. Any questions? Mr. Chiba: Just for clarification, please. So 22 and 23, that is the 24-hours? Mr. Laureta: Yeah, and— Mr. Chiba: And for the— Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay, great, Mr. Laureta, could you read the 22 and 23 as it stands now with the (inaudible) for the amendment put in there? Mr. Laureta: Okay. “22. The TVR operation shall be made available for the Planning Department inspection upon 24-hour notice to the owner or authorized agent. The inspection shall be for the purpose of verifying with all provisions of the CZO and conditions of approval of this Special Permit. 23. The maximum number of people on the property using the TVR structure during any rental time period shall not exceed twelve (12) at any one time. The number of vehicles on the property at any one time shall not exceed four (4) vehicles.” Ms. Cox: We also made changes to Number 10. Chair Nogami Streufert: We added one special. Ms. Cox: Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: About the speed limit. Ms. Cox: Yep. Ms. Zeigler: If I may just add, sorry. One more thing to Number 23, if it’s - “The number of vehicles on the property at any time shall not exceed four (4) vehicles for TVR guests.” For TVR, it says “guests”. Chair Nogami Streufert: Does the Planning Department have any problems with that? Mr. Laureta: None. Because, yeah, I realized that when I was reading it, that the maintenance personnel, if they showed up to either work in the forest or do property work four-plus is - you are going to exceed with the maintenance people already. So four for the TVR guests is not objectionable. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. And then 10 now, sub requirement, about speed? Mr. Laureta: Okay. Mr. Hull: Some - for, Madam Chair, would read, “Guest shall (inaudible).” All right. 49 Man: Okay. Who’s doin’ that? Woman: Is that Cox? Mr. Hull: Yeah. I am going to mute everybody. All right. Thank you. So Sections - Condition 10, sub- subsection 4 would read, “Guests shall be informed to adhere to traffic speed standards for the surrounding rural area.” Chair Nogami Streufert: Those are the 23 conditions as amended. Any other clarification before we continue on for the discussion of the vote? We have a motion on the floor to accept the - the - the Special Permit or to approve the Special Permit 2011-35 with the conditions. Let’s have a rollcall vote on this then. Mr. Hull: Roll call. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Mine is a silent vote. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: The motion passes, 6: 1 silent, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, did you want to take a recess at this point or would you continue with the Agenda? 50 Chair Nogami Streufert: If the Commissioner members feel. I’m ready to continue ‘cause we - this - this again, it’s like - it’s like the - if there’s a - if there’s a Commission member who would like to take a break, we can do that. Ms. Otsuka I’m ready to continue. Ms. Cox: Me, too. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Then let’s continue on. Continued Agency Hearing Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2021-1, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2021-3, and Use Permit U-2021-2 to allow operation of a retail facility, conduct agriculture tours & host community events, and associated site improvements that include an unimproved parking parking area on parcels situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town, approx. 900 ft. east of the Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection, further identified as 5-5067 Kuhio Highway, Tax Map Keys: (4) 5-5-009:013 & 5-4-003:001 (Por.), and affecting a total area of 13.54 acres = Laird Superfood, Inc. [ Director’s Report received by Commission Clerk 9/22/20, hearing continued 10/13/20, Third Addition to Agenda received 10/13/20.] Mr. Hull: Okay. We’re back to the top of the Agenda, Continued Agency Hearing, Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2021-1, Class IV Zoning Permit ZIV-2021-3 and Use Permit U-2021-2, to allow operation of a retail facility, conduct agriculture tours and host community events and associated site improvements to include an unimproved parking Area on parcel situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town Approximately 900 feet of the Kuhio Highway-Aku Road intersection further identified as 5-5067 Kuhio Highway. The Tax Map Key is 5-5-009:013 and 5-4-003:001, a portion of property affecting a total area of 13.54 acres. Laird Superfood, Incorporated. This is technically the Agency portion of this Agenda item. So we have received a withdrawal letter, but if there is anybody that called in that would like to testify on this Agency hearing for Laird Superfoods, please, um, uh, now and state your name for the record. Chair Nogami Streufert: Kaaina, are - are they all muted and do they have to do the star 6? Mr. Hull: I apologize. Yeah. So for those of you have called in - anybody that may - has called in to speak on the Laird Superfoods, um, and would like to testify in this Agency hearing, please unmute your phone star 6 would be the code and speak and state your name. Hearing none, again, we have received a withdrawal letter for this Petition. So the Department would simultaneously recommend closing the Agency hearing and receiving the letter of withdrawal for the record. The Department would recommend closing the agency hearing. 51 Chair Nogami Streufert: I will entertain a motion to close the Agency hearing and to accept or to receive the withdrawal letter. Mr. DeGracia: I move to close the hearing, the, the letter into record. Ms. Cox: I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been moved - it’s been moved and seconded to close the Agency hearing and to (inaudible) letter of with- any discussion? All right. All those in favor - do this is as a voice - a voice, uh - a voice vote. All those in favor say, aye. (Unanimous voice vote). All those opposed? The motion carried 7:0. It’s been received. New Agency Hearing Amendment to Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2004-6, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2004-30, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35, to allow an increase in the total number of units from 323 t 426 on a parcel situated on the makai side of Po’ipu Road, further identified as the Koloa Resort, 2641 Po’ipu Road, Tax Map Keys: (4) 2-8- 015:025-037, 045-074 & 081, and containing a total area of 22.2 acres = Po’ipu Beach Villas, LLC [Director’s Report received by Commission Clerk 10/27/20.] Mr. Hull: Moving on to - back to the New Agency Hearing, Amendment to Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2004=6, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2004-30 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35, to allow an increase in the total number of units from 323 to 426 on a parcel situation on the makai side of Po’ipū Road, further identified as the Kōloa Landing Resort, 2641 Po-’ipū Road, Tax Map Keys 2-8-015:025 through :037 and :045 through :081, and containing a total area of 22.2 acres. Po’ipū Beach Villas is the Applicant. This is the Agency hearing portion of the Agenda. Is there anybody on here that would like to testify on this Agency hearing? If so, please unmute your phone by pushing star 6 and speak and state your name, please, at this time. Ms. Apisa: First, this is Donna Apisa. I would like to, uh, make the disclosure that, um, my corporation, Ocean Front Sotheby Internationally Realty is the, um, listing brokerage over there. We have been since preconstruction. We do not do any marketing, um, so our involvement, uh, on sales is occasional and not substantial. I just want to make that disclosure. Mr. Hull: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Apisa. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are you recusing yourself? Or are you or just stating— Ms. Apisa: No, I was making a disclosure. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Apisa: I have consulted with legal and the required - you know, the question is, um - is occasional and not substantial, and I answered yes to both of those. 52 Chair Nogami Streufert: Got it. Mr. Hull: Okay. Hold on. Well - so a- again, if anybody has called in at this point - if anybody has called in as a member of the public and would like to testify in the Kōloa Landing Agency hearing, please unmute your phone and state your... Ms. Jeri Di Pietro: Hello. Uh, this is Jeri - I am sorry. Go ahead, sir. You first. Mr. Blake: Ted Blake from Kaua’i. I would like to add some testimony. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please. State your name and then you may speak, please. Mr. Ted Blake: My name is Ted Blake. I am concerned about a couple things. I had visited the site with Al Hammitt, just before the Pandemic. And what had concerned me was the burial site that they had wasn’t been cared for. And I understand since - I haven’t been down there since the Pandemic, but I understand since they have been cared. They had some put some care into that, but I haven’t checked lately. The second thing I’m worried about is they already five injection route and are they putting in a sixth to handle the extra bathrooms you have, uh, 140 units now that wo- one-bedrooms have two bathrooms, two-bedrooms have three bathrooms. The - the three-bedrooms have four bathrooms, and that is a lot of effluent comin’ out. And - yeah, there’s more I can’t remember. That is the two concerns I have. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Mr. Blake. If there is anybody else. I - know, Ms. DiPietro, you are attempting to speak. Would you like to speak and provide your testimony at this time? Ms. Di Pietro: Yes, Director Hull, I would. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair and Planning Commissioner and Planning Director Hull. I am Jeri Di Pietro, the president of the Kōloa Community Association. After review of the Kōloa Landing project Application with the Community, um, Association Board, we are opposed to any increase of units from the approved 323 units to 426 units. Our South Shore community believes it is important to retain the experience of a world-class destination and preserve the experience of South Kaua’i for everyone enjoying it. There are too many approved and existing developments already for our area. Constantly pushing for higher numbers each year is not the model for us. Our community has concerns over wastewater treatment, given our experience under high occupancy. More units have already been approved at other sites, which will connect to the HOH area private, uh, sewage treatment system plant, and that growth should be limited. Those of us that reside in private residences and multifamily properties are on cesspools, septic systems, or antiquated private systems. The community feels this must be addressed with a municipal waste system. The effluent from so many systems, commercial and residential, eventually makes its way into our oceans waters of Po-ipū. We are also very concerned about existing and additional injection wells. Our South Shore beaches are overtasked with typical number of visitors, without factoring in future growth. There is very little parking and no shuttle service. What will we do with even more guests? 53 During these last months of no visitors to our area, we see healthier water from less sun screening to less sewage. Our local coastal areas are repairing themselves rapidly. We also see better air quality, peaceful environment, and more abundant wildlife, including rare and endangered species, all reasons to preserve the South Shore area for generations to come. Our community asked questions regarding the Kōloa Landing project. They are - is the project wastewater, is it being sent to the HOA sewage treatment across Po-ipū Road? Are injection wells used now or planned for water disposal? Is there a provision for workfo- workforce housing requirements? Has the County received the development fee per unit built that is sufficient to meet our needs for infrastructure maintenance? And are there any lockouts allowed on the property’s unit? KCA has requested a copy of the original conditions for approval from the Planning Department, which likely addresses some of these queries. We would like to thank you for the time to listen to Kōloa community members’ concerns and take them to heart. Most sincerely, the Kōloa Community Association. Thank you very much. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else who has called in as a member of the public that would like to speak on the Kōloa Landing Application? If so, please unmute your phone by pressing star 6 and state your name. I just want to restate again just ‘cause I know we ran into some technical issues earlier. Again, if anybody would like to testify on the Kōloa a- Landing Application in this Agency hearing, please unmute your phone by pressing star 6, as well as unmuting your cellphone if you’re on a cellphone and state your name, please? Ms. Donna Awanji: Hi. This is Donna Awanji. Mr. Hull: Go ahead, Ms. Awanji. Ms. Awanji: Um, I’m on the board at Po’ipu Kapili, which is right, um, uh - it’s a- adjoining property, um, with Kōloa Landing and where they are planning on being built - building the new building. And I would like to echo the Kōloa Landing Community Association. We are very concerned with the drainage because it would come directly onto our property if it’s not properly disposed of. And obviously we are concerned about the extra traffic and other, um, problems that it will create in the community. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Hull: Again, is there anyone else who has called in that would like to testify in the Kōloa Landing Application, uh, please unmute your cellphone, as well as pressing star 6 and state your name, please. I will make a last call. If anybody who has called in who would like to testify in the Kōloa Landing Application, please unmute your phone and press star 6 and state your name, please. 54 Ms. Kathleen Ford: Hello? Yes. My name is Kathleen Ford and I an owner of a unit at Po’ipo Kapili. Also, uh, directly abutting the, uh, Kōloa Landing project. And, um, I have also concerns about the, uh - the drainage and the runoff with - uh, you have us all a permeable surface over there where it’s just going into the ground and the coverage of pre-existing buildings, such large buildings will, um, make it an impermeable. And I would like to echo the other concerns about, uh, drainage. I also would like to make sure that, uh, the noise and is - is abated during - as best as it can be done during this construction. And I would like to add the Applicant, if there are any plans to do blasting as there were in - during the construction of the earlier - earlier buildings. Um, thank you very much. And I also - wait. I also would like to make sure that the Association at Po’ipo Kapili is notified of any, uh, future hearings and - uh, and - and meetings. Thank you very much. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Again, if anyone would like to testify on the Kōloa Landing Application, um, please unmute your phone, press star 6 and state your name, please. The - uh, the last call here again. If anybody would like to testify in the Agency hearing for Kōloa landing, please unmute your cellphone or landline, press star 6, and state your name, please. Okay. Hearing one, uh, Madam Chair, the Department would recommend closing the Agency hearing. The Department would recommend closing the agency hearing. Chair Nogami Streufert: Could we have a motion to close Agency hearing? Ms. Cox: I move we close the Agency hearing for the Kōloa Landing project. Mr. Ho: Second it. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded to close the Agency hearing on the Po’ipū Beach Villas project. The, uh, the (inaudible). If not, let’s do a voice vote on this. All in favor of closing the Agency hearing, “aye”. (Unanimous voice vote). All those opposed? Motion passed. Motion carried 7:0. Chair Streufert announced that the Agency Hearing in closed. Mr. Hull: Okay. Moving into the actual review and discussion. Again, this Amendment to Special Management Area Permit SMA(U)-2004-6, PDU-2004-30, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-35, to allow an increase in the total number of units from - from 323 to 426 on a parcel situation on the mukai side of Po’ipū Road, further identified as the Kōloa Landing Resort, 2641 Po’ipū Road, uh, Tax Map Keys 2-8-015:025 through :037, :045 through :074 and :081. Uh, the Applicant is again Po’ipū Beach Villas. Dale is our Staff Planner on this, so I’ll turn it over to him for the s- for the Director’s Report. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. My apologies. I am getting my report ready. Okay. At this time, I will go ahead and briefly summarize the Commission’s action and the project itself. So it’s a consideration of 55 the Applicant’s proposal involving an Amendment to SMA Use Permit, Project Development Use Permit, and IV Zoning Permit to allow an increase in the total of units from 323 to 426. Mr. Cua read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Dale Cua: Good that concludes the Department’s Directors Report for findings. Maybe just for your reference in Exhibit A, it contains the 2004 Planning Commission approval letter. I have also attached, Agency requirements, and in the most recent submittals to you it - uh, there are testimony received from the general public concerning the development. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Questions for the Planner? Ms. Cox: Yeah, I have a question. So the original— Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Cox: The original Permit was for 326 units or 323. Mr. Cua: Correct. Ms. Cox: But 306 have already been built. So right now they could build three more buildings, but if we didn’t - don’t approve this the original Permit called for more buildings, so they could build more buildings, but they can’t have any more units, right, than 17 more? Okay. Mr. Cua: Correct. Ms. Cox: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding that. Mr. Cua: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: When you are - under the request, the reduction in the total number of bedrooms you are increasing the number of units from 323 to 426, but decreasing the number of bedrooms from 765 to 612. Is that because the studios are not considered to have bedrooms? Mr. Cua: It’s actually the Applicant’s preference but, you know, many of these units were intended to have, um, kitchen. So whether they have kitchens or not, you know, it would be the Applicant’s preference. Cause the underlying zoning is, um, actually residential. Chair Nogami Streufert: Right. No, but this is about bedrooms. Mr. Cua: Right. Chair Nogami Streufert: Cause you said that the - going down in term - from 765 will be now down to 612, but you’re having— 56 Mr. Cua: Right. Chair Nogami Streufert: ...more - that does not quite make any sense to me unless it’s - unless it’s the studios, uh, are not considered to be bedrooms, and that would be a hundred and - that would account for 112 of this discrepancy here. Is that how that was - part of that was figured out? Mr. Cua: That - that is how it was calculated, yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Though but technically in terms of the total number of people there, we are still looking at the same - eh, the number of people you would have for 765 bedrooms, essentially. Mr. Cua: Yeah. Ms. Cox: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: There also something about the number of parking spaces? And going back to the proposal for that Kōloa Landing project description that was submitted, I presume by the developer on March 5, 2020, and in there it states that there’s a total of 508 parking stalls were required to accommodate Phases 1 and 3 and the additional stalls needed would be 202, which there would be 700 parking stalls. These are their numbers, not ours. First of all, are there 508 parking stalls already there and is there space for 710 parking stalls? Mr. Cua: Not as of that— Mr. Hull: Just the - sorry. Go ahead, Dale. Mr. Cua: Oh, no. No. I was going to say I have not verified the actual number that is there, but in my description of the project, understand that as part of the original approval it was approved with two parking structures in mind. Whether they can physically fit the - that 700 parking stalls I guess maybe that’s for the Applicant to answer, but, um, you know, if doesn’t fit from two- dimensional standpoint, they can go for - go with a parking structure. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah, but then the - it - apparently there was a total of 508 parking stalls with - that were required to accommodate Phases 1 to 3 and we’ve— Mr. Cua: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: ...already completed Phases 1 to 3. So are there 508 parking stalls is the question right now. And if we don’t know, we can always ask the Applicant— Mr. Cua: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: ...but I’m just wondering if we are. There were several people who are - who were interested in the wastewater and where there was - and what - into the injection wells 57 or whether it was going to the HOH Utilities. Uh, do - is there anything that would indicate which way that would go on this? Mr. Cua: It is not clear. I am presuming that, uh, the facility is connected to the wastewater plant that is situated across the street. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. So that would be another question for the Applicant. Mr. Cua: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: And is there a workforce-housing requirement on this? Mr. Cua: This project actually, um, preceded the Ordinance however for these additional units with these additional units; the project would be subject to the housing requirements that is in place today. Mr. Hull: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: And— Mr. Hull: I have talked, preliminarily with the Housing Agency. So the Housing Agency will make that assessment as to whether or not - well Dale is absolutely correct, that the original project predated the Housing Ordinances requirements. They ended up - these are additional proposed units. The Housing Agency itself in consultation with the County Attorney’s Office is going to make the determination as to whether or not that Housing Ordinance is applicable. And that will be done should this proposal be approved by the Planning Commission. Just as a reminder again, the Planning Commission reviewed happens at the forefront and then during Building Permit review, the specifics requirements, say if Department of Health or Sanitation, Department of Public Works for Drainage, Public Works has made the - the statement that all drainage shall be retained on-site are all managed through the Building Permit process. You folks are completely within the purview to wanting the Applicant to be able to answer that question during a clarification in your review. But I just want to state that those are things that - that are often addressed, um, after zoning review. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions from the other questions for the Planner? If not, if the Applicant is available? Do we have the Applicant? Ms.Avery Youn: Yes, can you hear me? Chair Nogami Streufert: Good morning. State your name. Ms. Youn: Uh, my name is Avery Youn and I am the authorized agent for Kōloa, Landing, formerly known as Po’ipū Villas. Chair Nogami Streufert: And we have (inaudible). All right. You - would you like to - would you like to (inaudible) project. I am having a lot of feedback. 58 Ms. Youn: Yes. I am having difficulty hearing you, also. Chair Nogami Streufert: I will try it again. Would you like to have, present the project? Ms. Youn: Yes. First of all, can you - can you hear me clearly? Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, I can. Ms. Youn: Okay. My n ame is Avery Youn, and I have been the authorized agent for this project since, uh, 2004. And, uh, I’d like to first reiterate this is an amendment to existing SMA Project Development and Class IV Unit Permit that was approved back then. Initially it was planned for four phrases, of which three, you know, are already constructed. Um, it’s important to remember that, um, it’s zoned R-20 and we’re allowed, based on 24.6 acres of land, we’re allowed 492 units. Uh, Kōloa Landing is requesting a total density of, uh, 426 units, which is 66 units less than what is allowable. And as Dale mentioned, it was approved for 323 units, with a total 765 bedrooms, uh, with 306 units already being built. Uh, this final phase, which will include another 120 units, will be built on the remaining approximately 4 acres, and three, most likely, four-story buildings along with the new spa and fitness building. Now initially the project was approved with 16 one-bedroom units, 173 two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms there were 124 and there were 4 four-bedroom units. Um, but after 2008 when the market tumbled, the visitor market also changed, so there was a less demand for three- and four-bedroom units and more studios and one-bedroom units and this - uh, were desired by the resort ma- industry and a smaller number of two- and three-bedroom units were proposed. So in Phase 3 this, uh, unit mix was changed whereby studios and one-bedroom tre- increased over the number of two- and three - three- bedroom units. So totally the amendment should be - be allowed the 426 units. There will be 184 studios, 104 one-bedrooms, 76 two-bedrooms, and, uh, 44 three-bedroom units, which is less than once - what was originally projected, and that’s why we have a lesser bedroom count. But the point you brought about, uh, studios being bedrooms, uh, that’s a pretty good point. I think you might be right. So some of these figures that I’ll throw out is just for comparison purposes. First there is a deduction in the total number of buildings. We had 19 originally approved, but only 12 was constructed. And what the benefit of this was it created more open space and, uh, more distance between buildings and, uh, ended up with less building mass with seven few buildings than the original plan contained. Uh, three more would make it four less buildings should the total project be built up. It should be noted— Chair Nogami Streufert: Excuse, excuse me. Ms. Youn: ...total, yes? Chair Nogami Streufert: Could I ask, I see you’ve got your - you’ve got Phase (inaudible) as opposed 12? Ms. Youn: I cannot hear you. Um, can you repeat that question? 59 Chair Nogami Streufert: For Phases 1 to (inaudible), I have that you have (inaudible) built. That— Ms. Youn: For Phases 1 through 3 we have one, two, three, four - eight buildings. Uh, Building 1 is considered two buildings. So then one, two, three, four, five, six. I am sorry. There is ten buildings in Phase 1 to 3. Hello? Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. I will go with... Ms. Youn: Building 1, it has two sections, so it technically is connected, so it actually is nine buildings in Phases 1 through 3. So with the proposed 120 unit in addition, it’s three additional buildings, so there will be a total of 12 should the project be built up. Okay. I’d also like to mention that there’s a reduction in the total number of square footage, you know, from 471,400 to three hun- approximately 350,000, which is 123,800-square feet less. You know, just for comparison purposes, the average three-bedroom house on this island is approximately 1500- square feet, so that’s make the, uh, equivalent to approximately 80, 82 single-family residences. So say it so that you can compare the space difference from what was originally approved to what is being proposed for the - overall for 126 units. So there - the total living area is less than the originally approved 320 units by at least 122,000-square feet. Also there is the reduction in the total number of bedrooms. You know, originally it was 765. Now it’s 612. Uh, if we do a comparison again, uh, the average - the average three-bedroom home, this will be equivalent to about 50 to 51 homes reduction in terms of number of bedrooms. But you brought up a good point about, uh, studios being bedrooms. If that’s the case, then the, uh, bedroom count would definitely increase. Although this increase in density - the request is for an increase in density, however, the project results in an overall reduction in terms of occupant density. I’d like to address some of the Kōloa Neighborhood Association Comments. First of all, wastewater. How, HOH, uh, wa- now thi- this project will be connected to the HOH wastewater plant, but you should know that during the initial development of the property, the Kōloa Landing formerly - Kōloa Landing today, which was - was formerly known as Po’ipū Beach Villas was assessed a fee to accommodate the 323-unit project with the 765 bedrooms. With the change in the unit mix and the reduction in bedrooms, the initial compensated provided for the onset of the project already accommodates, uh, the projected increase in wastewater generation for this phase, and I believe we do have a letter on file from HOH stating that they can accept the effluent generated from this increase. Uh, the second point was injection wells. Injection the site are for storm drainage purposes only, not sewage. The sewage all will go to the HOH facility and all stormwater runoff was designed to be contained within these wells on-site. Should any of these, uh, runoff issues occur to Paipo Kapili as was, uh, heard in a previous testimony, I believe, uh, from an engineering standing that you accommodate any addition runoff from addi- from the expansion to on-site injection wells, just like how it is in the existing, uh, design for wastewater. Not wastewater. For stormwater runoff today. The fourth addition was a development for inta- infrastructure improvements. But again, ah, I - I need that state that initially when Phases 1 and - Phase 1 actually was built, many of the infrastructure improvements had to be burdened the developer. The road improvements were made to Po’ipū Road, Po-ipū Kapili. Uh, there was storage lanes, holdings lanes, left, uh, acceleration and deacceleration lanes both, uh, to access to the site to Pi’ipū Beach, uh, Estates and also Kapili Road. There was also a sewer line extension that were required of them or which they put in. They also had to upgrade the pump station 60 which was down by the Sheraton. Uh, that would - that would be the sewage pump station. And they also do a water line extensions for m- for the Department of Water. Also if you look at the Staff Report, which we had a chance to review earlier, there’s a Condition Number 17 on there, which was put in specifically for an improvement district that was supposed to be for maintenance of, um, traffic improvements in Kōloa-Pi’ipū, Kaua’i, area. If you read - look at, uh, Condition Number 17, I’ll read it. As represented by the Applicant - as represented, the Applicant shall set up a trust account into which $250 shall be deposited upon the initial sale, rental, or occupancy of each unit and shall work with the County Council to create a mechanism to accept the find to be applied to traffic improvements for the intersection with the Kōloa Po’ipū area only.” Again this was initially - a check was initially sent to the County. However, the trust account was never set up, so this fee is still in - in limbo, but I’m sure the Applicant is willing to take care of this fee as required by Condition Number 17. And their fifth concern was dealing with lockouts and the way these, uh, are designed. There are no lockouts, no - nor - it’s not designed for that. There is no second entry or separate entries to, uh, bedrooms, et cetera. Um, in our Application, though, in the package you should have had two letters, one from the Public Works Department on the traffic review. Uh, we did a traffic in - back - analysis during the first couple of phases of this development. And again, from the Public Works Department we were informed that the improvements made to the intersections and the entry into the project already accommodated the - any kind of increase that would have come up with this 120-unit increase. Um, second, there was a letter in your packet from the Department of Water. It was a review of our water-demand requirements, and again the infrastructure that was provided by the Applicant during Phase 1 also covers the water needs for this expansion. I was - I read the comments from the Kōloa Neighborhood Association and I - I share some of their same feelings, you know, that - that they expressed. Uh, in this last few months we did enjoy a slowdown in tourism. There was a lot less traffic, less crowded beaches, no lines at restaurants, and it’s understandable that some residents may oppose this project, especially if it’s proposing an increase in the number of visitor units. But, you know, from past experience, uh, this is just the initial phase. As you know, we started this in 2004 and it was, uh, really 2007 and - or 2008 before the units actually got constructed and ready for occupancy. So if we are here at this phase and it - some people think that there is need for additional, um, tourist facility or visitor units, just be mindful of that this will not occur maybe at least three to four years from now, and who knows, by then there may be more of a demand. But I’d also like to add that there’s, um, multi-family, R-20, or resort - resort zoning on this island has been frozen for at least 30 years. I don’t know of any new expansion or increase in such zoned lands, and because our econo- econo- economy needs to recover, uh, we need to utilize existing zoned lands to allow the Applicant to build up what they’re entitled to, especially if the infrastructure improvements were already provided for in the first phase to accommodate the 323 units, and according to our research, uh, infrastructure that was initially put in can also accommodate the additional 120 units proposed. On - on the other hand, um, there’s some Pandemic issues I’d like to bring up that’s - should be, uh, attributed to Kōloa Landing. They kept 35 percent of its workers employed, even though they had to shut down for a few months. Upon opening, they offered greatly-reduced rates to local residents for stay- staycations s or just so that they could get a chance to get out of being locked up for a while and, uh, enjoy the island while the tourists are not here. They also offered reduced rates to front-line and essential workers and emergency hires, and they now have 60% of their workforce back employed. Also Kōloa Landing a- and has been considered one of the best resorts in the state of Hawaii and definitely on this island of Kaua’i. I believe it was also voted the best resort in the 61 state and Top 10 pools in the United States. Uh, this project sh- actually should be commended and in trying to keep its workers employed and provided respite for Kaua’i residents and essential workers at reduced rates prior to the return of visitors, and even though they had to offer it at a loss of approximately 50% of its revenue until today. In conclusion I - we agree with the Staff Report and we will work with the County Housing Agency on the workforce issue. I was able to get of the comments from the Housing Agency, and it states, uh, “That the project is applicable - the Applicant shall resolve the workforce housing assessment and shall execute a workforce - workforce housing agreement with the Kaua’i County Housing Agency as to the method of meeting the workforce housing requirement pursuant to Chapter 7(A) of the County Code and that the county of co- the County Housing Agency reserves the right to change a determination of the petition or application changes from the above or if the project incorporates or becomes part of a larger residential or resort project, such as provisions of Kaua’i County Code Section 7(A) become applicable.” So the housing issue that was brought up earlier will definitely be addressed. Uh, Mr. Todd Hadley is also - should be on this, um, presentation with me. He can also answer questions that you have relative to drainage or related to blasting and whatever other questions you may have. That concludes my testimony. Are there any questions? Chair Nogami Streufert: Could you address the parking situation? Ms. Youn: Yes (inaudible). Mr. Hull: Avery, I think you are muted, sir. Ms. Youn: Yeah. Yes, I believe there is adequate parking on the site now that was developed in the first few phases, but I’d like Mr. Hadley to address that question since he’s on - since he’s the project manager and he’s much more familiar with the details on the parking than I am. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Todd? Ms. Youn: But there is - we have no issues with the parking requirement that the Department wants to put on us. We will provide however - however many parking stalls is required, and there will be room for overflow parking. That was an issue that was put on the original Application’s approval, that we provide overflow grassed areas for parking should more parking be needed for special events. The same thing can happen in, uh, Phase 4 in development. There is adequate to accommodate the parking requirements. Chair Nogami Streufert: Mr. Hadley, I think you are— Mr. Todd Hadley: Okay. Todd Hadley. I am the president of Kōloa Landing. And let me clarify a few points from, uh - that - that came up, a few questions. Uh, specific to parking, right now we have built out 530 parking stalls. To meet the requirements, we need to build a hu- another 180 parking stalls, which - which we intend to do. We actually with - with this phase will end up with 710 parking stalls, so we have met - we can meet the requirement there within the open space. There was a question about the studio, whether those were counted as bedrooms, and I would like to confirm that those were counted as bedrooms. In the matrix those - those are part of the bedroom count, so it is a - a net reduction in number of bedrooms. There was a question 62 about blasting. So when we did the initial grading for the site back in 2007-2008 we did, um - we did all the infrastructure for the project, which included all the blasting, all the, uh, utility lines, uh, other than specific building laterals. So, um, there are 41 dry wells, uh, on the project, and that includes Phase 4. All of the drainage and different, um, infrastructure has already been constructed there, so we do not anticipate having to do any additional blasting for the Phase 4 improvements. All of the storm water flows are self-contained. We have heard the concern for Po’ipū Kapili and I’ve talked specifically in the past with their resident manager about that. We - we feel there are no issues given the way - given the engineering that has been done. Um, and the other questions with regards to our connection to HOH, that connection has been in place for some time. Our, uh, total flows, we had - actually anticipate based on the original will be, uh, slightly less than what was anticipated. Uh, so they are more than capable of handling that and anticipate doing so. Um, I think that addresses the notes and questions that, uh - that I had. Of course, on the - on that housing side, um, as Avery stated, we agree with the Staff Report. We would look forward to working with the Housing Agency. We - we are trying to finish this project. This is an amendment to an existing, uh, SMA and we anticipate finishing this and we will - uh, we will abide by whatever is determined we need to do there. Is there any other additional questions that I can answer on behalf of our company? Ms. Cox: Yes, I have a question. I am wondering about where the nearest bus stop is or if you’re go- planning to have any kind of shuttle available because that’s a lot of people, and not only the people who are the guests, but also the workers that will be working in the additional, uh - I mean, it will be a large development when it’s done. So what about the bus transportation or other multi-mobile transportation opportunities? Mr. Hadley: Yeah, that is a great question. It has, um - as stated before, eh, in the initial phase we had to do road widening and road improvements, both Po’ipū and Kapili Roads. I would leave that question to the County to determine where the bus stops are. I believe there is one, it looks, right across from us in the adjacent to Kōloa Po’ipū, um - Po’ipū Beach Estates neighborhood. That would be directly across the street. Ms. Cox: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox, I can say that this specific Application was referred to our Department of Transportation, which is essentially our bus agency. And they had no comment on any particular requirements that they might impose. If you would like further follow-up with the Agency concerning your inquiry, we can do if you feel fit to. Ms. Cox: Yeah, actually I would, uh, only because I’m thinking that as we move forward, we’re trying very hard to not increase. I mean, when I had 700-and-something parking spaces, that is a lot of traffic on the road, uh, and I know we are trying not only for that, but also for the climate crisis, to reduce, uh, personal auto traffic. And so yeah, I would love to know what the - and what the current situation is and what plans there is. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: I am muting myself because I think we are having some feedback glicks all over the place, so I may be a little slower in getting back to this. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners to the Applicant? The - the diagrams that we have herewhich 63 ones are accurate transcripts? I have Exhibit (inaudible). I have got another one that - 14 buildings. I am not sure with all the parking that— Ms. Apisa: This is Donna. I think this is accurate. The parking is put to handle special events. I know they have special events there, and that requires additional parking. Is that correct? Mr. Hull: If I could inject one quick one before Todd answers or Avery. I believe, Avery, the feedback is coming from your line. I think what the problem may be, Avery, is that you are perhaps listening in on the computer, as well as a phone. One of those I think you have to mute if you have two systems. But Avery, that’s why I muted because the feedback seems to be coming from you. But I don’t know if Todd can answer that question. Mr. Hadley: Yeah, I would be happy to answer that question. So in terms of - let me answer the question about the plans, first of all. The plans in the packet, you have an original plan that shows what was originally approved with the 19 buildings. It’s labeled “Original Plan”. The next one it shows what’s current built and then the third one gives - gives the exhibit for what it’s proposed to be built. So if wha- it’s what was originally planned with the original 19, which was then amended to what is currently built, and then the final one is what’s being proposed. Um, in terms of the - the parking question, um, like I mentioned, we have - we have currently 530 stalls built now. We will build up to 710. And that leaves us plenty to meet the - the Code minimums plus additional for the, uh, event parking that Ms. Apisa mentioned. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other questions? If not, are we ready to hear the rest of the Director’s Report? Is Dale there? Could we get the rest of the - rest of the Director’s Report, please? Mr. Cua: Sure, Madam Chair. Avoiding the, um, evaluation. I am just going to move on to the recommendation, if you are okay with that. Chair Nogami Streufert: Just one more question that Ted brought. Where are you? How is being (inaudible) Mr. Blake came up, with, uh - had said that the burial sites were not well taken of, but they were just taken of recently? How are you anticipating taking care of that in the future, a sustainable plan? Mr. Cua: Yes, that is a question for the Applicant. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah, right. Fine, yeah. Yeah. Mr. Hadley: I can answer that question. Uh, during COVID, there was some (inaudible) and so they had to go back in (inaudible), remains in - cared for. There is a perimeter that was called out by, um, our Preservation Plan that’s - that’s maintained and that will not happen again. So all of the preservation sites that we maintain are done on a regular basis and Teddy - uh, Teddy must have come during a time when that was not maintained well during COVID. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Dale, would you continue with the Director’s Report, please? 64 Mr. Cua: Sure. Madam Chair, did you want me to continue from the evaluation do I need to fast forward to the recommendation? Chair Nogami Streufert: For the recommendations, could you do - could you just do the changes that are being proposed? Mr. Cua: Sure. Absolutely. Okay. Moving on to the recommendation, “It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed development involving the addition of 300 - the addition of 103 units and the construction of a hospitality/fitness center. For clarification purposes, the conditions of Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2004-6, Project Development Use Permit PDU-2004-30, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-34 are - 2004- 35 are being reiterated with the following amendments.” So I’m just gonna identify the, uh, amendments. Um, condition nu- there’s a new Condition Number 1. “The proposed improvements shall be constructed as represented in the Application. Any changes to such structures and/or facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to determine whether Planning Commission review and approval is warranted.” The moving on to Condition Number 22, “The Application shall be advised that the Planning Director may increase parking requirements when particular uses or locations occur in areas where unusual traffic congestion or conditions exist or are projected. 23. The Applicant is reminded that during the construction of the project, and off - on-site parking area shall be designated for construction workers. Workers are discouraged from parking along Po’ipū Road and Ka- Kapili road right-of way.” Uh, Condition Number 24, “The development shall be evaluated pursuant to the applicability of Section 8-27 of the Kaua’i County Code relating to the Shoreline Ordinance. Off-shoreline setback determination may be necessary prior to Building Permit Application.” Condition Number 25, “Prior to Building Permit review and action, the Applicant shall meet any requirements established by the Housing Agency. Documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Department by the Applicant demonstrating compliance with the Housing Agency’s Rules and Requirements.” And that concludes the Departments recommendation for this project. Chair Nogami Streufert: Oh. Mr. Youn: Madam Chair may - can I make a comment? Chair Nogami Streufert: Please. Mr. Youn: Relative to the place for information from the County Transportation Division relative to bus stops, could we have a condition should Transportation Division require any improvements relative to the bus stop, that we resolved it with that Agency, that it can be added on? Rather than deferring to our next meeting. Chair Nogami Streufert: Planning Department, have, uh— Mr. Cua: Staff has no objection to this additional condition. Just for the record added a condition or the condition would be Condition Number 26. It would read, “The Applicant shall consult with the County Transportation Agency to determine whether a bus stop is necessary to accommodate the additional units for the project.” 65 Chair Nogami Streufert: Looking at all, Exhibit F, (inaudible) plan include all buildings that are proposed as all of the buildings that have already been completed and the parking areas? Mr. Cua: Yes, that is correct. Chair Nogami Streufert: If you were to do this and you where also then required to have work- workforce housing, where would you put that? Mr. Hadley: Well I think the first step and we have to have discussion with the Housing Agency to see what the requirement is. Then we have - we have, um - we would not have a land here to do it. We do have other parcels, so we, ah, do have other options, um, (inaudible). Mr. Hull: I will also, add, too, Madam Chair, that the requirement for housing should - should the Agency determine that it is applicable that can be on-site. It can also be done off-site. As well as then it can also be via in payment to the Housing Agency. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay, because it - if that Exhibit F is the accurate one, then the total parking spaces on here is 154. It is not 710. Mr. Hadley: What you’re - what you’re seeing the 154 on the site plan is the additional parking that is specific to phase four (4) that was added. So you would add that to the existing parking and the calculations get you to approximate 700 stalls. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. So the additional stalls that are needed are to 204 as opposed to 154, according to your document on Page 5 and your diagram. And I’m addressing that because there is a concern about traffic and about parking in that area that could come from many residents of, uh, Po’ipū. Mr. Hadley: Yeah. I - we appreciate that. I - I think that we need to look at that closer. I know we have at least 530 stalls constructed right now, so we are talking about a - a difference of maybe— Chair Nogami Streufert: 180. Mr. Hadley: 20 stalls off - off of what’s shown here. And I think that was probably why the condition was put in the, uh, the recommendations for the - for the, um, Planning Department to work with us to make sure there’s adequate. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Okay. We have a motion on the floor, I think, to accept this or do we? I am not sure how far along we are at this point. Do we have a motion on the floor? Dale or Kaaina? Mr. Hull: Oh, sorry. Apologies and no there is no motion on the floor at this time. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. 66 Mr. Hull: Dale has just read his recommendation and then I believe it, was, um, if - if - we would welcome the County of Kaua’i Transportation Agency amendment as a friendly amendment and incorporate into our recommendation conditions of approval, but I don’t believe a motion is on the floor. Chair Nogami Streufert: Would you go through the - uh, what the options are at this point, Kaaina? Mr. Hull: The options are to take action today and the action could include approving, approving as recommended with the Conditions of Approval as represented by the Planning Department, approving with additional Conditions of Approval or modified Conditions of Approval, or deny the Application. Or, lastly, if no action is taken today, a deferral can happen should a Commissioner or Commissioners want additional time and additional information. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Okay. So Commissioners we have before us to approve as is, to approve with current conditions, to approve with modifications, and then we can add or we can modify the conditions, to deny or – or (inaudible). Mr. Hull: Commission Apisa, I believe you are muted. Ms. Apsia: I said I was hoping somebody else would speak up, but to move this along, I would move that we approve with the conditions as has been modified here today. Mr. Hull: A second would need a further discussion. Otherwise it is a fail. Mr. Ho: I second that. Ms. Chiba: I second. Mr. Ho: Kaaina. Mr. Hull: Okay. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded with the modifications as stated. Any discussion? Okay. If not, do the - are we ready for a vote? Okay. We’ll let us do a rollcall vote on this. If not more discussion, then we will go to a vote. If there is more to be had, then let us have the discussion now. Then let us do a rollcall vote. Mr. Hull: Rollcall, Madam Chair. Motion to the floor as amended with modified Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Aye. 67 Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: No. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: No. Mr. Hull: Motion passes 5:2, Madam Chair. New Agency Hearing Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2021-5, Use Permit U-2021-4, and Special Permit SP 2021- 1, to allow an operation that involves construction of a retail facility & utility building, conduct agriculture tours & host community events, and associated site improvements that include a graveled parking area on parcels situated on the mauka side of Koloa Road in Koloa, approx. 1,100 ft. east of the Koloa Road/Mana Hema Place intersection, further identified as Oma’o Ranch, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-7-003:005 (Por.) & 24, and affecting a total area approx. 4 acres of a larger parcel = Oma’o Ranch Lands, LLC. [Director’s Report received by Commission Clerk 10/27/20.] Mr. Hull: Madam Chair. Moving on to the next Agency item, sorry. New Agency Hearing for a Class IV Zoning Permit Z-14-2021-5, Use Permit 2021-4, and Special Permit SP-2021-1, to allow and operate that involves construction of a retail facility and utility building to conduct agriculture tours and host community events and associated site improvements that include a graveled parking area on parcels situated on the mauka side of Kōloa Road in Kōloa, approximately 1100 feet east of the Kōloa Road-Mānā Hema Place and - intersection, further identified as ‘Ōma’o Ranch, Tax Map Keys 2-7-003:004 and :024, and affecting a total area of approximately 4 acres of a larger parcel. The Applicant is ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands LLC. This is the Agency hearing. So for those members of the public who have called in and would like to testify on the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands’ Application, please unmute your phone, press star 6 and state your name. 68 Ms. Leina’ala Jardin: Uh, this is Leina’ala Jardin. Mr. Hull: Hello, ma’am Ms. Jardin: Aloha. This is Leina’ala Jardin. Mr. Hull: Oh, good ahead, Kumu. Ms. Jardin: Aloha. Aloha, Commissioners. Mahalo for your time and outstanding service. I know this has been a long day for all of you. I know exactly how you feel so I’ll make this really quick. Um, I - as I am Kumu Hula Leina’ala Pavao Jardin. And I wish to share my full support for the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land proposed project. I wish to speak up today because, as we all know, COVID has changed our lives, and it has kept families apart and kept visitors from experiencing our beautiful island. Soon, I’m being very optimistic here -- COVID will be etched in our history and it will be then that we will desperately need healing. And how do we heal? With projects like this. I call this development a humble, humble development that is our tied to our Aina and it promotes a better understanding and respect of our island and our lifestyle. For our Halau as a nonprofit, we look forward to sharing our culture at the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Pavilion. It is a like a backyard where we will be able to gather and celebrate life and celebrate Kaua’i with an entirely new appreciate. The Kanashiro Ohana has graciously our support our Halau and numerous organizations through the years, and I believe, sincerely believe, it is their intention that their property become a hub of learning and employing - and enjoyment for both Kamaina and Malahini. Mahalo nui again, for your time and I mahalo you all in advance for allowing this project to proceed, and it is your forward thinking and care for this island that it’s so very much appreciated. Mahalo nui. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Again, this is the Agency Hearing for the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land Application. So any member of the public that has called in that would like to testify, please press - please unmute your phone and press star 6 and state your name. Ms. Jeri Di Pietro: Aloha. I’m Jeri Di Pietro, the President of Kōloa Community Association. Aloha again, Madam Chair, Planning Commissioner, and Planning Director Hull. Our board after, um, going through the documents early, we welcome the opportunity for a South Shore food hub, locally grown and value-added products. Um, the need for compatible activities in support of local agriculture is also very apparent. Um, as Kumu has stated, especially, in this Pandemic situation. Uh, we - we wish to grow towards more food security. We see this large endeavor by ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land as meeting growing need and a beginning to incorporate what has been learned through this time of the Pandemic. We are also aware that the Use Permit will run with the land and must meet guidelines in keeping with our community desire. I do want to voice our concerns about the large project that is on Kōloa Road as it is our throughfare to 69 Kaumualii and the west side. Our top concern is safety for ingress and egress between Kōloa Road, um, and to the project site. We raise this concern out of an abundance of caution and safety. We would like to see turn lanes and holding lanes both eastbound and westbound since the speed limit of 35 miles per hour, uh, is that area and drivers are not anticipating any stopped vehicles to turn. Um, I actually experienced this last week at the entrance to the, uh, hemp operation where there’s a slight turn in the road going in eastb- uh, yes, eastbound, and a truck was stopped to make a left-hand turn, and, um, it was unanticipated by myself without any, uh, place to pass on the right-hand side. So we, uh, with the work in progress we would very much, um, insist on seeing these turning and holding lines. In addition, the Kōloa Community Association also supports the concerns by residential landowners in the area which we may not be directly aware of yet impacts of this project. Our community will have concerns of them from traffic, noise, light pollution, erosion. But chief of the neighbors of those in the valley, resolution of these concerns may include these and other issues. Traffic control engineering, the limits of one per week for special and private events over a specified occupancy, hours of operation no later than 10:00 pm for lights out, and hours for amplified music be limited to 9:30 pm. We’d like to see limitation on the number of gasoline-powered UTV or other vehicles operating at the same time in order to control noise and pollution. We’re have some concern about erosion mitigation written procedures for UTV and other vehicular traffic on the unpaved cane type pathways to protect the stream below, and we’d like to see no operations on Sundays. Since our islands have been in shutdown for approximately six months, we recognize the peaceful, calm South Shore family the time and space that families have enjoyed. And we acknowledge as a world-class visitor destination Kōloa and Pa-piū will again have new visitors. This is a time to restack and design a new experience to meet all needs. We believe that by establishing Sunday as a no-commercial activity, a holiday, it will give our community a neighborhood - a day per week to enjoy. We hope to carry this idea forward to all projects such as ATV tours, helicopter and boat tours, and other tours and businesses as time goes on. A restorative day of rest from high- volume commercial use for our community, our land, and see. It’s so very, very important. Considering the impact, size, and uses of this project, uh, from ag, we request the public Agency— Mr. Hull: Four minutes now. Ms. Di Pietro: ...to remain - okay. Almost done. Um, we would press the public Agency hearing to remain open for other South Shore community concerns to be addressed. Since the beginning of the Pandemic and limits to gathering and the use of community neighborhood centers, communication has been a challenge, and we feel that additional notification from the Kōloa Community Association of the planned— Mr. Hull: Time is up. Mr. DiPetro: ...project should be circulated, uh, as a courtesy to our community. Thank you very much. Mahalo. 70 Mr. Hull: Okay. Thank you, Jeri. For those, know again we are still in the Agency hearing, so for those members of the public that have called in, um, and would like to testify on the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land’s Application, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. Okay. I’ll make a last call. For those members of the public that have called in and would like to testify in the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land’s Application, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. Okay. Recognizing that there is some technical issues, I’ll make one final last call. Any individuals that have called in to testify on the Agency hearing for ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. Ms. Bevin Evans: Hello? Mr. Hull: Hello, ma’am. Go ahead. Mr. Evans: Hello? Mr. Hull: Hello. If you’re calling to testify about ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please state your— Ms. Evans: Yes. Mr. Hull: ...name? Ms. Evans: Yes. Thank you. I was having some technical difficulties. Uh, my name is Bevin Parker Evans. I’m here with my husband, Richard Evans, and we live in ‘Ōma’o in a property that’s adjacent to the development. And we only recently discovered that this, uh, development was happening, so we contacted the developer and went for a tour, and I’d like to echo with Kumu Jardin said, and also what Jeri Di Pietro said, that the property - um, the development is an amazing project in agriculture and I basically support, um, most ag tours and agricultural development and economic, um, diversity on the Island. I do not want to say at this time that there’s been several neighbors that have only recently also heard of this and, um, I think we need a little bit more time to put our testimony in. I have some concerns about the - the traffic on Kōloa Road, as Jeri mentioned, and I also have, um, a few concerns about some of the mission and - and where the project is going and - and what the limitations and expansions may be in the future. So I just would like to say today may I please submit my written testimony and can any decisions be deferred ‘til later? Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you thank you for your input and we’ll obviously - obviously we hear everything that people are saying. Mr. Hull: Again, we’re on the Agency hearing for ‘Ōma’o Ranch and so if anybody - a member of the public has called to testify on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please do so by unmuting your phone, pressing star 6 and stating your name. Mr. Ted Blake: Hello. Can you hear me? Mr. Hull: Go ahead, sir. 71 Mr. Blake: This is Ted Blake. I just wanted to add some comments. The man that - the man that the Use permitted have been applied for has been a farm man for over a century. The Kanashiro family has been there for over a century. Everybody that has come in and - and now has complaints about it have bought farmland. And, yeah, the question on the lights, when I checked with Darryl, I said, “Do your lights run all night?” He said, “No, we turn them on at 12:00 and shut ‘em off 6:00” since they’re on meters. And, uh, I said, “What about your parking?” He said, “We have big improved parking. It’s going to be gravel that can handle 60 cars” cause they do have a - they do have a lab there and they’ll have - they’ll probably have - I don’t know if he put it in for it yet, but they’ll probably have a commercial store there for the product that they produce. And as far as the150 parking stalls, it’s going to be done in a pasture. More than likely - what I’ve seen when I’ve passed there, most of the cars are parked along Kōloa Road, which doesn’t affect anybody on the other side of the valley. And, uh, it’s a place you have, you can gather a large - more than - more than it - they’ll handle the twice amount that Kōloa - Kōloa Neighborhood Center can, but the only other community place that we have in Kōloa to do something unless you rent something from - from the hotels, rent a ballroom or try and get out early and get a - get enough space at the pavilion. But there’s also limitation on the count of tables on park that you - that may not go with the celebration you’re having. And the fact - the fact that I’ve seen - I’ve seenweddings, wedding parties. I’ve seen graduation parties. I’ve seen birthday parties. And I haven’t - I don’t - I’ve never been on the other side of the valley to hear noise, but, you know, I don’t think it’s too much of a problem for them to close off the noise by ten o’clock, which is what most people in neighborhoods consider the time - the time before they call the cops on you. But I think this is something that, you know, I - it goes with the agricultural, um - it goes with the agricultural zoning that they have right now. And I can’t see - you know, it’s the same thing that happened that happened Mahaulepu. The - it’s important ag land. It passed everything, but in the County they should do a - they should do a, they should go for an environmental statement, and it came back and of course the - the naysayers jumped on that and said, “This is what’s happening.” A lot of it was - was not - was not true. And I’ll stand up here to anybody in Kōloa that wants to have a debate with me on that. You know, they talk about the effluent going - coming from the pastures and getting down into the ocean, but they don’t what - how the current works. You know, the currents go down to Po’ipu. The currents go to Nawiliwil. And it’s the same thing like, you know, it - it’s coming off like the, um - I just - I support - I support - I support what Darryl’s all doing’ out there at ‘Ōma’o Ranch. Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thank you, Mr. Blake. Again, this is the Agency hearing section. So for those who would like to testify, please - I’m sorry. We are getting feedback of a dog barking, so if anybody is at a house that has a barking dog, please mute your phones. Okay. So, um, if - for those of you that have - members of the public that have called in that would like to testify on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands now is the time to do so. Please if you want to testify on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. We will do a second call. For those who would like to testify on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. Then okay. A final call for ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands’ Applications, those members of the public that have called in to this meeting, if you would like to testify on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, please unmute your phone, press star 6, and state your name. Hearing no further testimony, Madam Chair, the Department would recommend closing the Agency hearing. Chair Nogami Streufert: If there are any motion to close the hearing, Agency hearing? 72 Ms. Cox: Yes, I move we close the Agency hearing. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second? Mr. Ho: Seconded. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded to close the agency hearing on ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands LLC. Any discussion? If not, we are ready for the vote. All those in favor, aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 7:0. Agency Hearing is closed. Chair Streufert announced that the Agency Hearing in closed Mr. Hull: Moving into the same item, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2021-5, Use Permit 2021-4, and Special Permit SP-2021-1 to allow an operation that involves construction of a retail facility and utility building, conduct agriculture tours, and host community events, and associated site improvements - I’m going to mute. Um, associated site improvements that include a graveled parking area on parcels situated on the mauka side of Kōloa Road in Kōloa, further identified as ‘Ōma’o Ranch, Tax Map Keys 2-7-003:005 and :024, and affecting a total area of approximate 4 acres of a larger parcel. Again, the Applicant is ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands, LLC. I will turn it over to Dale, who has the Director’s Report for this Agenda Item, as well. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Thank you. Um, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Again, I am going to summarize the Director’s Report. Mr. Cua read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Cua: The Agency comments are attached in Exhibit “A” of the Director’s Report. Subsequent to the Report, there has been several Supplemental Reports transmitted to you folks, including, um, Agency comments, as well as public testimony. So at this time, that concludes our Director’s Report. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions (inaudible)? In your Report, uh, you did not see anything about the tours or the hours of operation or the events. Does that need to be in the Report or do we go based upon the Application alone? Mr. Cua: What was represented in the Application, yes? Chair Nogami Streufert: The (inaudible) tours of no more than 20 people per seven days a week. Uh, the retail, they did not anticipate more than 100 people per day on Monday through Saturday, and they are open from 8:00 through 6:00. 8:00 to 6:00. I am sorry. Then the events would be less than or equal to 350 people, and that could be any time, uh, seven days a week from 12:00 to 10:30. That’s - that was in the computation. So if that’s— Mr. Cua: Correct. 73 Chair Nogami Streufert: ...in the y- does that mean that in the Application is as stated and there will be no change with that? Cause I think I heard— Mr. Cua: Right. Chair Nogami Streufert: ...comments of concerns about the hours and the days of operation. Okay. Mr. Hull: Madam Chair that - just to clarify Dale’s comments. Yes, the Department is recommending that, uh, approval with, um - as represented by the Application and to hold those representations as essentially the conditions of approval. The Department is definitely aware of the concerns, particularly as they pertain to, say, the events. Um, well I’ll say that the traffic improvements, we’re still awaiting Public Works, and that is done as part of the Public Works review of the Building Permit should the zoning approval happened, as I kind of stated in an earlier application, that they’ll make that assessment based off of what you folks approve, if you approve anything at all. And then for the events, the - the Department is aware of these concerns, um, and I again would state that, you know, in initial discussions with the Applicant, um, the ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands’ area is a known events facility. It’s being used right now. It’s not being done commercially because Mr. Kaneshiro and his family are essentially allowing family, friends, and, quite honestly, the community that requested to freely use his site, which is an outright permitted use once there isn’t a commercial aspect to it. So, you know, in recognizing that the Applicant may want to go to a commercial aspect the Department did view that as, well then this is a way that it can be reeled into, the hours of operation, and what they’re proposing as 10:30 is significantly reduced from what, quite honestly, Mr. Kaneshiro has been freely letting the community do there out of the graces of his own good will. So the proposal that he’s restricting himself to now an hours of operation of 10:30 we see as a meaningful gesture of compromise to - to bring the hours of operation down with - with this commercial aspect added to it. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions for Planner? If not, is the Applicant available? Mr. Hull: Mike, you are on mute, Mike. Mr. Michael Belles: Can you hear me now? Mr. Hull: We can. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Mr. Belles: Good afternoon. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Mr. Belles: Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Michael Belles, representing ‘Ōma’o Ranch Lands LLC. And, uh, with me today and you can see behind me and to my right, you have, uh, Daryl Kaneshiro, one of the Applicants and the 74 principles of the project. Sitting to his left is Lindsey Bosshard. She’s also one of the, uh, principles in the project. And sitting to her left is my partner, Max Graham, primarily responsible for the crafting of this Application. I would like to extend a great deal of gratitude to the Planning Department staff, the Planning Director, um, Mr. Kaaina Hull, as well as Staff Planner Dale Kua. We met together with them out at the property to discuss the project, you know, after the last couple of months. We have worked closely with the Department, and with their input and recommendations I believe we have been able to craft, uh, the best possible Application that reflects the, uh, desires of the Applicant, uh, to pose the least possible impacts on neighboring owners, uh, and people who live in the immediate area and clearly want to minimize the impacts wherever possible and yet provide for a viable operation of the land. I think it’s important to distinguish based some of the public testimony that’s been submitted what is pre-existing on the property. What we have pre-existing on the property and are not the subject of the Class IV Zoning Permit, the Use Permit, and the Special Use Permit which we’re seeking today, are the sheep, cattle, and horse grazing that occur on the property, the aquaponics projects that serves the lettuce farm, the hemp farm, both the growing of the hemp product, as well as the processing and production of hemp products, and finally, the solar farm. These are all sites and portions of the project that have been developed previously with the appropriate permits, none requiring action by the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua’i. And as was stated in the Application and mentioned, uh, by Mr. Kua, um, of the 104 acres represented in the entire campus, I’ll call it for lack of a better term, our project area, uh, only 4 acres are being set aside for the agricultural retail, for the educational special events, family, um, operations, as well as the parking. That is occurring on 4 acres. In addition, there are approximately 1.64 miles of existing farm roads throughout the property which we will be utilizing UTVs to conduct the various tours on the property. And the Chair is correct when she recited the times, uh, for operations of tours, um, the, uh, times that the agricultural retail building will be open and the times for operations within the, uh, dual-purpose vehicle storage, equipment storage, and special events, uh, pavilion that exists on the property. In listening to the comments by the Kōloa Community Association and others, we are sensitive to the issue of traffic and we commit to working closely with the Department of Public Works, uh, to come up with the appropriate, uh, storage lane or right-turn lane into the property, so as not to create, safety hazards or create traffic problems. In addition, for any special events, we will have security that will assist with traffic control to avoid any unfortunate accidents or problems with the traffic that would be generated. And it is stated in the Report and is mentioned by Mr. Kua, there are two parking sites located within the 4 acres. One is an improved parking area that will accommodate 60 cars and the other will be for 150, and those will be improved parcel that will be - it could be overflow for the larger events that would be occurring, uh, primarily at the special events, uh, pavilion and the storage of and vehicle storage/pavilion. It is clear now with that we’ve all experienced and will probably experience for some time, COVID. We do need to do what I heard when I first started with the County of Kaua’i when I graduated from law school in 1975, to have more diversification in our economy. Clearly after the closing of pineapple and sugarcane in the Count of Kaua’i, we were primarily left with Visitor Destination Areas and tourism. We also have Barking Sands in, in Kekaha, but beyond that there are no primarily employment opportunities on Kaua’i that are significant. This project currently employs approximately 20 full-time employees, and without being presumptuous, if the Commission approves what we are applying for today, it would basically be providing, uh, permanent employment for approximately another 20 employees, and that doesn’t really even include part-time caterers and people that would be participating in events that would 75 occur in the pavilion. Beyond that I really do not want to be redundant and harp on issues that have all been - already been properly raised by the Planning Department staff in their evaluation of our Application. And I would like to say that we are sensitive to the comments being made by all the public witnesses, those that provided unqualified support for the project and those who provided qualified support by the project. But we believe that in continuing to work with the County of Kaua’i we can respond to any impacts that may be created in a way that doesn’t have adverse impacts on our neighbors. And I think it’s also important to point out that, uh, early this morning, uh, I believe you all received copies of a Petition signed by approximately 125 residents immediately occupying lands around this project area that I’ll call our neighbors, or the hoalauna, and they totally support the project. Nothing can be done without creating some impacts. We believe that we have done our level best to mitigate wherever reasonable impacts to our neighbors and yet still allow for a viable and economically, uh, sustainable operation on the property, recognizing again and I’ll repeat it, that - really focusing on 4 acres of the 104 acre total parcel that’s currently being utilized by the Kaneshiro family for the various activities that have already been outline. Uh, and it pleases the Commission, I’d like to allow Mr. Kaneshiro to read a brief statement and then we’ll invite any questions the Commission may have of either myself or Mr. Kaneshiro. Chair Nogami Streufert: We would be pleased that. Mr. Belles: Okay. Thank you. I will turn this over to Mr. Kaneshiro. I believe you can see him over my right shoulder and hopefully, you can hear him. If not, we will make whatever adjustments are necessary. Thank you. Mr. Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mr. Belles. Thank you, Commissioners, Honorable Commissioners of the Kaua’i County Planning Commission. I know, you know, we are - many of you are in voting, you know, all the time and resources that you have to spend with your family by serving on a Commission as such and we appreciate it a lot. Briefly, what I am going to do is just give you a brief history of our ancestors for all in the room here today. My grandfather, Oishi Kaneshiro, left Okinawa at the age of 20 and arrived on Oahu in 1909, to work in the sugar fields. In 1915, he came to Kaua’i, relocated the Kōloa Planation and lived at placed called Banana Camp. After a number of years, the dollar-a-day salary was not enough to support his growing family and he decided to leave working for the sugar industry and start raising hogs on the land that was next to Kōloa Ball Park in 1920. Besides raising hogs, he also raised turkeys, chickens, gardens of vegetables and sweet potatoes. He built a slaughtering facility for cattle, hog, chicken, and turkey to provide meat for the planation workers and local markets. In 1946 my dad, Satoshi, also known as “Sugar”, and brother Seiso purchased land on O’mau, where was more room to farm. My dad went into poultry brother and his brother raised hogs. My my dad built a fresh egg processing facility, along with a slaughter and processing facility for chickens. Besides raising chickens, he and I also acres of gardens of vegetables during my high school Future Farmers of America program to harvest and deliver to the local markets, restaurants, and plantation workers along with his chicken orders. In 1953, another brother, Mamo opened a store in Kōloa called Kaneshiro Market to help and facilitate the sale of products common from the Kaneshiro farms. Before opening a market, he used to drive a food truck that used to peddle the fresh foods coming from the farm to neighboring communities. My dad’s poultry business closed in 1966, after my older brother was drafted into the Army and deployed to Vietnam. And when I 76 left the Island, my dad said, “You need to go to college. You need to do something.” I left the state for the first time in my life to attend college in California. There was no one else to help tend to the chickens and to help slaughter the chickens and process the eggs produced on the farm. In 1978, another brother, Mamo, took over the hog farm and hog-slaughtering facility until it finally closed in March 2020, after 100 years of operation, which started from my grandpa, Oishi, in 1920. In the early 1970s when I finally settled in Kaua’i, besides working with the hotels in the hotel industry, started up a building business and a boat business and other ranchers, like continue the family tradition ‘til today. Thank you. Mr. Belles: Again, thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. That concludes our presentation and we make ourselves to respond to any questions you may have. Chair Nogami Streufert: Ask just one. I have gone through the Kōloa area and I was positively impressed with it, so I will put that out before I go any further with it. If there is anyone else on the Commission who would like to ask any questions of the Applicant? Ms. Cox: I don’t have a question. I command the project. I think it’s great and I guess I just want to say a couple of things. One is that I know that the - the wording in the State talks about, uh, Hawaii products, but I just wanted to encourage you and I know you’re already thinking this, that Kaua’i products are going to be the premier products, even though you may also Hawaii project - products. And then the second thing I would say is that I would encourage you as much possible that the building is a green building because I honestly believe that you could make a huge difference for this Island, not just by this one operation, but by being an model for the Island. So thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Any other comments or questions of the Mr. Kaneshiro or of Mr. Belles? If not, uh, Ka’aina, would you tell us what our options are at this point? Mr. Hull: The Department has transmitted its recommendations, um, and it is to approve, um, with the respective conditions of approval. Um, so the options essentially are you can prove, approve - or sorry. You can approve without conditions of approval, you can approve as recommended by the Planning Department’s conditions of approval, you can approve with modified conditions of approval, you can deny, or you can defer if you need further information. Chair Nogami Streufert: So then, Mr. Kua, could we hear the preliminary conclusion and the recommendations? Mr. Cua: Sure, Madam Chair. Absolutely. “Conclusion: Based on the foregoing findings and evaluation, it is concluded that proper mitigative measures and compliance efforts to the proposed developed can be considered and it should not have significant adverse impacts to the environment or the surrounding neighbors. The proposal is generally in compliance of criteria outlined for the granting of a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the goal and - goals and polices outlined in the General Plan, as well as the development standards prescribed by the Comprehensive Ordinance. Applicant should institute ‘The Best Management Practices’ to ensure that the operation of this facility does not generate impacts that may affect the health, safety, and welfare 77 of those in the surrounding area of the proposal.” Uh, moving onto the recommendation. Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, it is hereby recommended that the proposed development involving the construction of a retail building and equipment building/events pavilion, conduct commercialized agricultural tours, and host community-related events and associated site improvements through Special Permit SP-2021-1, Use Permit U-2021-4, and Class IV Zoning per- Permit Z-IV-2021-5 be approved with the following conditions.” Uh, Madam Chair, did you want me to read all 13 conditions or - or are you okay with the conditions that you see? Chair Nogami Streufert: We are fine with the conditions as stated, but are there any modifications or any additions or change that the Commissioners would like to add or delete? Are there any I am waiting just in case because of the, uh, in delays of giving off the mutes and everything? I am letting a little more time go by. Is there anything - anyone with any comments, any additions, and changes to it? Ms. Apisa: I want to say that the Kaneshiro family is doing an excellent job. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Ms. Cox: Actually one my comment and it’s not anything we need to add, but I think that this thing is going to be so popular that I’m very excited that it - the traffic study about what is going to be needed to - to enter in egress is being looked at because I actually think they’re going to be - this is going to be something that really works. Thank you. Ms. Apisa: Oh, actually Helen, that is a good point. I mean, I think they are going to be asking to increase the quantity of these - the size of these tours very soon. Maybe they want to amend that now. Chair Nogami Streufert: If there are no other, uh, questions, would you - the Chair would entertain a motion to either accept or to modify or to accept with, or to deny or to defer or defer? Ms. Cox: I move that we approve with the recommendations madeby the Planning Department for ‘Ōma’o Ranch Land project. Ms. Otsuka: Second. I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded to accept the Director’s Report on ‘Ōma’o Land Project with the recommendations as stated or the recommendations as stated. Any discussion? If not, are we ready for the vote? Could we have a rollcall vote, please? Mr. Hull: Rollcall, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? 78 Mr. Chiba: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Mr. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes 7:0, Madam Chair. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Congratulations. Mr. Hull: Moving on to and let me just check with you, Madam Chair. There are three more Agenda items. Did you continue or would you take a brief recess? Chair Nogami Streufert: How about we take a ten-minute recess and come right back. Mr. Hull: So returning at 4:20. Chair Nogami Streufert: At 4:20. We will get started promptly at 4:20 and hopefully we will get through the last three - uh, three topics. All right. Thank you. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 4:09 p.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after the recess. Can you see all the—? Mr. Hull: Yes, we do have all members of the Commission log onto the platform. Chair Nogami Streufert: I had (inaudible) rollcall. All right. 79 GENERAL BUSINESS Amendment of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-1981-7 and Use Permit U-1981-4 to allow for the construction of outdoor niches to an existing columbarium, further identified as the Waimea United Church of Christ, 9675 Tsuchiya Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-6-010:006, and containing an area of approximately 2.6 acres = Waimea United Church of Christ. Mr. Hull: Moving on to the next Agenda item, General Business I (1), Amendment to Class IV Zoning Permit Z-4-1981-7 and Use Permit U-1981-4, to allow for the construction of outdoor niches to an existing columbarium, further identified as the Waimea United Church of Christ, 9675 Tsuchiya Road, Tax Map Key 1-6-010:006 and containing a total area of approximately 2.6 acres. Waimea United Church of Christ is the Applicant. This is not an Agency hearing. It is an amendment. So I’ll turn this directly over to Marisa Valenciano, who is our Staff Planner for this. Staff Planner Marisa Valenciano: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. I am going to go ahead and summarize the highlights of my report. Ms. Valenciano read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Ms. Valenciano: So the Department’s full evaluation of the project is contained within the Report that is provided and I am just here to answer any questions that you folks may have. Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners to the, uh, Planner? Marisa, this is the 1980, conditions of approval were already for the additional niches to be developed? Is that correct? Ms. Valenciano: No. So 1980 the existing columbarium was created. They were indoor, um - they were indoor niches. But this one is different. This Application coming before you is for outdoor niches that are going to be outside. They will construct it outside of the exterior of the columbarium, if that makes sense. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. And they will be facing into the columbarium or out to? Ms. Valenciano: So I think the picture and the visual the Applicant provided is probably the easiest way to understand it. Uh, at least for me it was. But basically it’s - there’s a total of four walls. Two of the walls will be flush against the sidings of the ex- of the exterior com- the existing columbarium. And then there were two others that’s going to belocated, um, parallel about five feet a- five feet apart from the ones that are going to be on the side. So it’ll be two, two on both sides. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other questions for the - from the Commissioners? I think this morning we also got an amendment or addendum that you sent in. 80 Ms.Valenciano: Correct. Chair Nogami Streufert: One that we have here, that is the Number 4? Is that correct? That’s... Ms.Valenciano: I believe the Supplemental Director’s - Supplemental Number 1 to the Director’s Report is just the KHPRC’s report and recommendation, the memo to Regulatory, um, that a lot of the - the report was already integrating into the Director’s Report, but we just wanted to formally submit the KHPRC comments because KHPRC is not meeting at this time. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Kaaina, would you explain what our options are for this. Mr. Hull: Yeah. A gain the options are to approve a- as proposed, approve it with conditions as recommended by the Department, approve with modified conditions, deny, or defer. Madam Chair, I’d ask that being that this isn’t an Agency hearing, no formal Agency hearing was had, but it may be prudent for us to - or for the Commission to avail for any comments that maybe there from those that have called in. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Oh, again realizing there are still people who had called in or are still on this -- all right -- is there anyone in the audience who would be - who would like to say anything about this? It’s a star 6 to unmute. Mr. Hull: We will make one last call. For any of the members of the public that have called in... Pastor Olaf Hoeckmann: Pastor Olaf Hoeckmann. Mr. Hull: Oh, go ahead. Mr. Hoeckmann: Yeah. I just, I am representing the Applicants of the church. And I just wanted to thank you Director Valenciano for creating a very diligent report and also to thank the Commissioners, hopefully in advance and to ask if there is any need for clarifications or questions from you all? Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions from the Commissioners to the Applicant? Man: No. Chair Nogami Streufert: I think we’re - we’re, thank - thank you for being there and, uh, willing to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Hoeckmann: Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Could we have a motion? Mr. Hull: Let me just for clarity sake, Madam Chair, if I could make one last call for public testimony? Okay. So again, if there’s any members of the public that have called in that would like to testify on the Waimea United Church of Christ Application, please unmute your phone, 81 press star 6, and state your name. Hearing none, Madam Chair, you can proceed on with any further deliberations and/or a motion. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. If there are no questions, are there any - if, could I have a motion for the Waimea United Church of Christ columbarium? Mr. Ho: I move— Ms. Apisa: I— Mr. Ho: ...the Zoning Permit Z-1981-7 and Use Permit U-1981-4, Waimea United Church of Christ. Ms. Otsuka: I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded to accept the Director’s Report with the recommended, with the recommendations. Correct? Mr. Ho, is that you wanted to accept this with the recommendations that are in the Director’s Report? Mr. Ho: Yes. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. All right. Mr. Ho: Do you wish to re- do you want me to restate my motion? Chair Nogami Streufert: If you would, that would be great. Mr. Ho: Motion to approve with the recommendation from the Planner’s Report Zoning Permit Z-1981-7 and Use Permit U-1981-4, u- Waimea United Church of Christ. Ms. Otsuka: And I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded to accept the Director’s Report with the conditions of approval for the Class IV Zoning Permit ZI-1981-7 and Use Permit U-1981-4. Any discussion? Can we have a rollcall vote, please? Mr. Hull: Roll call vote, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. 82 Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? Ms. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye. Mr. Hull: Motion passes 7:0, Madam Chair. Request for extension of time for Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-04 and Special Management Area Use Permit SM (U)-2020-2, Tax Map Key: (4) 4-3-007:028, = KHS. Mr. Hull: Madam Chair. On to the next Agenda item, I, General Business, I(2), Request for an extension of time for Class Permit ZIV-2020-4 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA- 2020-2, Tax Map Key 4-007:028. The Applicant is KHS. And I’ll turn this over to Romio, who is our Staff Planner. Staff Planner Romio Idica: Aloha, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Consideration for Applicant’s request for time extension for Class IV Zoning Permit ZIV-2020-4 and SMA Use Permit SMA-2020-2. Applicant is KHS, LLC, Tom Schnell of PBR Hawaii as authorized agent. Mr. Idica read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Idica: So that concludes m brief report, Madam Chair. Myself or the Applicant is open for any questions that you folks may have. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there— Mr. Ho: Romio. Chair Nogami Streufert: ..any questions for... Mr. Ho: Romio, please, is there any questions from SHPD on any of the removal of trees or anything that is being done there. 83 Mr. Idica: No, we have not approached SHPD, but we did approach our, uh, Arborist Advisory Committee, who has - who is part of the reviewing committee, the committee that is - that oversees this Ordinance. Mr. Ho: And one last question, Romio. What is the time extension that they want? Mr. Idica: They wanted to extend it to two years as originally stated within the original Permit, it was for one year from the date of approval of the Application. Mr. Ho: So what is it? 2023? Mr. Idica: That is correct. Mr. Ho: I think it is November 20, 2023? Chair Nogami Streufert: No, 2022. Mr. Idica: Oh, yes, 2022. My apologies. Mr. Ho: I am sorry. Yeah. November 20, 2022, is what they are asking for. Chair Nogami Streufert: Right. Mr. Idica: Yes, from the date of approval of this Application they want two years. Mr. Ho: Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: An interesting question, does the Coconut grove fall under historic? Mr. Idica: No, not - not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. But this particular Application did go through the SHPD process and the Applicant satisfied all the archeology requirements regarding SHPD’s request in the original Permit, as stated in the original Permit. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any other questions for the Planner? Kaaina, do we - should we ask whether there is anyone in the, the public who would like to say anything— Mr. Hull: Yeah. Chair Nogami Streufert: ...about— Mr. Hull: I do not know if first if the Applicant has any further the Applicant representatives is - if you have any questions for the Applicants themselves. Other than that, after that it would be appropriate to open it up if there is any public testimony. Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Is the Applicant here? 84 Mr. Tom Schnell: Yes, Madam Chair and Planning Commission. This is Tom Schnell with PDR Hawaii. I am the representative for the Applicant, KHS. And also, two representatives from KS at - KHS are on the phone, as well as a representative from Hawaii United, who is the contractor providing the PV system. If I could clarify a couple of points. So the request is for an extension of Condition 8, which required Building Permits to be obtained within one year from approval of the SMA. So the SMA was approved on November 12, 2019. So we or - per the condition, the Building Permit should be obtained by November 12, 2020. That is why we are here before you today. We are asking for a one-year extension of that, so it’s - it’s two years from the date of the original approval, which was November 19, 2019. So we’re asking one - one more year from today, if that makes sense, or for November 12, 2020, for a total of two years. So that it would go until 2021. We would need to obtain Building Permits by 2021. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Mr. Schnell: And then, regarding there was a question about SHPD approval. Um, there was an Archeological Inventory Survey done of the parking lot area and also other areas of the property and the Luau building area and there was nothing significant found during those, the parking lot and the Luau, um, facility area. But, um, the recommendation of the Archeological Inventory Survey and also from SHPD is that archeological monitoring be done during the time there’s any ground disturbance, so changing the location of the coconut trees or putting the - in the pillars for the, um, PV system or, um, putting the foundation in for the Luau facility. So, um, we’re in compliance with SHPD re- requirements and it will be monitored during any ground-disturbing activity. Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any further questions? Mr. Schnell: If I could just elaborate a little bit? On the reason that we have not obtained a Building Permit, uh, for both of these facilities yet, actually - so Romio is correct. Um, for the Luau facility Building Permit, plans have been reviewed and they were finalized, I believe, in May 2020. Uh, but there is a - there is a Building Permit fee to be paid, uh, before the fla- the plans are finalized. Um, the owner, KHS, uh, opted not to commence construction the Luau facility this summer due to COVID and the down to - turn in tourism. There was no demand for a Luau facility. Um, so they - they elected to, um, delay the construction of the Luau facility. But they do plan to pay for the Building Permit in May of 2021, commence construction no later than September 2021, and they plan be finished with the Luau facility in December of 2021. That’s when the anticipated tourism may return back to normal levels and also hopefully that there’s, um, a - some remedy for the COVID situation and that, you know, people could gather at a Luau again and eat from a buffet and, you know, enjoy a Luau. Regarding the PV system, due to the complexity of the plans, there’s been a lot of back and forth with the Building Permit reviews, but the building - or the PV provider does anticipate Building Permit to be approved in 2021 with Construction to start late 2021 for Phase 1 and then there’s a Phase 2 that would be completed in 2022. So progress has been made and things have been on along. We just need a little bit more time. Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there anyone who is listening in on this who would like to speak? If not, Romio, if you could continue with your recommendations? 85 Mr. Idica: It is recommended that the Commission approve the extension of time to allow the completion of the PV solar canopies and the reconstruction of the Luau facility and that the Applicant be subjected to the applicable requirements. Furthermore, Condition Number 8 of Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-2 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020- 4, be amended to read as follows: “The Applicant shall obtain the necessary Building Permits and commence construction within two years from the date of approval of this Application, and complete construction within two years of the date of approval of the Building Permit.” That is my that concludes the recommendation, Madam Chair. Chair Nogami Streufert: All previous applicable conditions of approval still apply? Mr. Idica: That is correct. Chair Nogami Streufert: Could we have a motion if there are no other questions? Ms. Apisa: I move we approve the extension of time for Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2004-4, Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-2, uh, TMK (4)4-3-007-028 for KHS, LLC. Ms. Cox: I second that motion. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded that we approve the extension of time for the KHS, LLC. Any discussion, any questions. Are we ready for the vote? Ro- uh, let us do it - let us just do a rollcall and be clean about the whole thing if... Mr. Hull: Rollcall on motion to approve. Commissioner Apisa? Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Mr. Chiba: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox? Ms. Cox: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia? Mr. DeGracia: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho? Mr. Ho: Aye. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka? 86 Mr. Otsuka: Aye. Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert? Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye. Okay. Motion passes 7:0. Congratulations. Mr. Schnell: Thank you very much. Continued Agency Hearing New Agency Hearing Continued Public Hearing All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law) CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports Director’s Report for Project Scheduled for Agency Hearing COMMUNICATIONS (For Action) Mr. Hull: Moving right along, we have no Communications for Actions. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Mr. Hull: On to the last Agenda item. Subdivision Report. Subdivision Committee Chair Ho? Mr. Ho: As fast as I can. The final map approval for three Applicants. The first Applicant is Stephen Palama is granted. The second Applicant is -I am fully - oh, I am sorry. The second Applicant, Ralph Oswald, granted. And the last one, Garden Isle OZ LLC was granted. All final map approval. I recommend that the Commission accept my Report. Chair Nogami Streufert: There is a motion to that. Apisa: Second. Chair Nogami Streufert: All those in favor, all say aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Commissioners: Aye. Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed - all those opposed, nay. None. The motion passes 7:0. The Subdivision Report has been accepted. 87 UNFINISIHED BUSINESS ( For Action) Mr. Hull: Moving on, there is no Unfinished Business. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Hull: Now moving on there is no further New Business. For Action - See Agenda F for Project Descriptions ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on December 08, 2020. The Planning Commission anticipates meeting via teleconference but will announce its intended meeting method via agenda electronically posted at least six days prior to the meeting date. Mr. Hull: Lady Madam Chair, so all we have left is…and I just want to say thank you to all of you Commissioners for bearing with us and going through. This was a particularly long day. So, it’s one of the meetings that I just want to express the Department, uh, and the County’s deep deep thank you for your patience and fortitude and going through meetings like this. Mr. Ho: Kaaina? Mr. Hull: Yes, sir. Mr. Ho: I just would like to point out, might be a Mike Laureta’s Report on the Ferris, is - the way he’s - his format was presented, it was easy reading for me. I guess I have old eyes. It was - it was very good. Very good for me. And also hello to Marisa. Welcome back. Mr. Hull: And thank you, Commissioner Ho. For, we have set a - the action on the Agenda items, for topics for future meetings, the December Agenda, is full. There are several Special Management Area Applications. There is also a Council (inaudible) zoning amendment for the agriculture districts and there is also another vacation rental Application that has been referred, um, back from, um, a contested case hearing. Um, so we do anticipate that also being a lengthy meeting. But if there’s anything that Commissioners would like to have placed on the Agenda, you can contact myself or the Commission Chair and we can go over additional informative Agenda items if you would so like. Mr. Ho: Kaaina, before we leave and just for point of clarification, when CPR units come for approval there is a longer a two-thirds/three-quarter quota. It has to be 100% approval. Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Nogami Streufert: Oh. 88 Mr. Ho: It has to be 100% of the CPR unit owners approved - approved whatever they want to. Mr. Hull: Either they have to have authoriza- and what Commissioner Ho is referring to is the recent adopt of a County Ordinance redefining the Applicant, and so either it has to have full authorization of the Applicant’s respective CPR - co-CPR owners or in many situations if the CPR documents provide power of attorney. Mr. Ho: Thank you, Kaaina. Mr. Hull: Thank you. Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Ms. Apsia: So, Kaaina, just confirming that there is no meeting on November 24, the next meeting is December 8 and plan on a long one? Mr. Hull: Correct, that was - the next meeting is December 8 and yes, Commission Apisa, I would say we anticipate it being equally as long as this one was today. Ms. Cox: Oh, got lucky. Another long meeting. Mr. Ho: Wow. Two in a row. Chair Nogami Streufert: We get to know each other much better, how is that? Mr. Apisa: Well we are just consolidating. Instead of twice a month, we just do once and twice as long. Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah. It will be our holiday party. We will just together. Ms. Apisa: All righty. Ms. Cox: That was good company. ADJOURNMENT Chair Nogami Streufert: So could I have a motion to adjourn, please? Mr. Ho: Motion to adjourn. Ms. Cox: I second. Ms. Otsuka: I second. Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor, say aye? (Unanimous voice vote). All those opposed? Nay? None. Motion Carried 7:0. All right meeting is adjourned. 89 Mr. Hull: Thank you, all. Chair Nogami Streufert adjourned the meeting at 4:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: _________________________ Arleen Kuwamura, Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of __________ meeting.