HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-2009 Planning Committee Minutes MINUTE S
PLANNING CONIlVIITTEE
August 26, 2009
A meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the County of Kauai,
State of Hawaii, was called to order by Councilmember Jay Furfaro, Chair, at the
Historic County Building, Room 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, August
26, 2009, at 10:07 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the
roll:
Honorable Jay Furfaro
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable Lani T. Kawahara
Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami
Honorable Bill "Kaipo" Asing, Ex-Officio Member
Honorable Dickie Chang, Ex-Officio Member
EXCUSED: Daryl W. Kaneshiro
JAY FURFARO, Planning Committee Chair: Thank you. On that note I will
call to order the Planning Committee. I would like the record to show that all
members are present with the exception of Councilmember Kaneshiro who is on an
excused absence for this meeting period. I also want to point out that we have 2
items on today's agenda. I want to also make note that Bill 2317 is draft 1, it had
some amendments up into it at our last Committee meeting and I also want to
share that Bill No. 2319, we will be moving on this item hopefully to another date as
we do not have the assigned Deputy Attorneys who gave us their point of view on
the County's overview of the Earth Justice letter. I believe both of them are
traveling on county business, but we do have representatives from the office today.
So on that note can I please have Bill No. 2317 read.
WILMA AKIONA: Would you like the minutes read first?
Mr. Furfaro: We can do the minutes first.
TIM BYNUM: Move to approve.
DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI: Seconded.
Mr. Furfaro: Are there any discussions? I know it was a
rather large packet that we passed around, thank you Pua. All those in favor please
say "aye". Thank you very much, now let's read Bill 2317 Draft 1.
Minutes of the July 29, 2009 Planning Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by
Councilmember Kawakami, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the
July 29, 2009 Planning Committee Meeting was approved.
The Committee proceeded on its agenda items as follows and as shown in the
following Committee report which is incorporated herein by reference:
1
Bill No. 2317, Draft 1 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW
ARTICLE 28, CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE
1987, RELATING TO SMALL WIND ENERGY
CONVERSION SYSTEMS
[This item Deferred as Amended.]
DARRELLYNE M. SIMAO: A bill for an Ordinance to establish a new
Article 28, Chapter 8, Kauai County Code 1987, Relating to Small Wind Energy
Conversion Systems.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. I do want the public
to know before we ask for testimony, my particular position as Chairman of this
Committee has not changed, I still prefer that this item be deferred until such time
until we have a presentation in October from our Energy Sustainability Group. I do
want to point out that small wind energy as in my presentation last week was
actually number 9 on their agenda items, I still do have concerns about not having
testimony from KIUC, in particular some of the negative visual impacts that might
apply as well as...
Mr. Bynum: I'm sorry.
Mr. Furfaro: I just wanted all members to hear my
comments.
Mr. Bynum: I'm sorry.
Mr. Furfaro: As well as I need to have some general
commentary that deals with my comments about the responsibility for actually the
permitting process and getting public testimony in a Class 4 permit, but on that
note, I will suspend the rules and I ask if there's anyone here that would like to
testify? Is there people that have signed up, could you read the...
Ms. Simao: Pat Gegen.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm sorry, Pet Gegen is the first
speaker who signed up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
PAT GEGEN: For the record my name is Pat Gegen. I
would like to thank the Committee Chair, the Chair and the rest of the
Councilmembers who are hearing my testimony this morning. There's been a lot of
debate on 2317 and in an effort to kind of clarify things for me, I went back to the
bill and just tried to read it through it again and make sure that I'm understanding
exactly what the purpose intent of this bill is. I would like to refer to it with a few
things, if you look under Section 1 (a) wind energy is an abundant, renewable, and
non-polluting resource of the County and that its conversion to electricity will
reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy sources and decrease the air and
water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. Black &
Veitch did a study for KIUC back in 2004. Part of their study, right out of it, it says
wind energy is a natural renewable technology providing competitively priced power
wind resources on Kauai are moderate with some areas with very good wind
regime. I think the county should support those who have the good regimes, those
areas people who would like to do that, be able to do that. If you actually look at the
scoring results breakdown of Black & Veitch's recommendations for KIUC, in the
2
top 10 items as far as future development, 5 of those are wind. This is from a
technical aspect looking at the pricing, looking at what resources are here available.
It is a very good alternative, granted the larger ones do have some avian concerns,
that type of stuff, those are not as apparent in the small wind energy conversion
systems.
If you continue on, well the other thing is, it talks about decreasing our air
and water pollution. We've all agreed that alternative energy is needed. We right
now are relying on 94% fossil fuels, that needs to change. As a community member,
as somebody who is active, I consider myself a environmentalist. This is an
environmental bill. I want to make the world a better place for my kids. If I can
put up a windmill, decrease the amount of oil that KIUC is burning for me in half, I
am going to do that and I did that. I want to make this a better world. Every little
bit at a time, I also have a (inaudible) I do what I can. Continuing on (d) regulation
of the placement and installation of wind turbines is necessary for the purpose of
protecting the health and safety of neighboring property owners and the general
public. Along with the Department of Health regulations, noise standards and the
current building codes, what is in here does protect for the health and the safety of
all of our neighbors of the communities here on Kauai. Between the setbacks,
between the other elements, the number of things allowed, it does that. This meets
that purpose. And (e) it is the policy of the County to promote and encourage the
use of S.W.E.C.S. and to limit obstacles to their installation and use. I applaud you
with that. Promoting and encouraging the use of 1, of many different alternatives,
granted it may not be the highest alternative out there for some people but you
know what Black & Veitch says its one of the best alternatives, it's one that works
very well in Kalaheo on my ridge, I like it. I want to be able to do that and I do
think that it's important for the County to limit the obstacles for the installation
and use. I hear my timer going off, may I be granted another 3 minutes Chair?
Mr. Furfaro: I will go ahead and grant you your 3
minutes.
Mr. Gegen: Thank you very much. Other environmental
bill's efforts also have a trade off regarding our senses. If you think about recycling,
you know what when I look over at my neighbor's house and I see those 10 bags of
recyclables outside his garage, is that something I want to look at all the time? Not
necessarily but you know what, he's doing the right thing. Sure I would love to
have a county ordinance saying, build a new garage for his recyclables, that's not
feasible, okay. He's doing the right thing. I appreciate that. Solar clothes drying,
there's some places, people don't like seeing clothes hanging out on the line. I'm
sorry, I like it. I like having my clothes dried out there, it saves money. Even some
of the covenants in some of our areas have changed over the past year to start
allowing that because of the commonsense approach ness. There is a tradeoff. The
current plastic bag reduction bill that is out there, you know what, there's a
tradeoff. It's not as convenient now, I actually might have to take something into
the store with me but you know what, it's the right thing to do. This bill also is the
right thing to do, we need to continue down this path. The original bill as written,
again I believe it's a well researched and well balanced compromise. I did not say
it's flawless, it's a well balanced good compromise. Meets the intent purpose as
described in the very beginning of this bill. The amendments proposed, I do not
believe promote and encourage their use and limit the obstacles to their installation
and use. I believe the amendments as proposed, actually are count to the intent
and purpose of this bill. Right now you know what, people on the North Shore,
people in urban areas have a much easier time putting up windmills under current
regulations than they would with the amendments attached to this bill. It does not
3
meet that intent purpose of making it and removing obstacles. I do ask that you
please pass this bill as it was originally written. Again I do feel that it is the right
thing to do. It's a small step but it's one that makes a lot of sense and thank you
very much for my... your time and allowing me to come up here yet a 3rd time
talking about wind energy.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Pat, I do want to say I don't
want many people in the audience to confuse environmental responsibility with this
bill. I think people are missing the point that I'm trying to share, we are looking at
a strategy about utilities, about energy, we're very close to having that in place. I
myself and I know there's people here that will testify to move this forward bill, this
bill forward (inaudible) but you know, from the days of when we surfed and we had
runoff in the ocean, from the times that we have really dealt with stewardship in
general in making sure that we practice a good replenishment ways and so forth,
those are items that are certainly important to the environment. And energy is as
well. But I'm saying that and this is very clear that I'm speaking for myself, we're 7
weeks away from a final draft and you know your report from Black & Veitch is no
different from the numbers that I put up on the board last week.
Mr. Gegen: Other than these are paid experts who
looked at the actual feasibility and economic feasibility of wind in potential areas,
you were going by personal opinion. I believe that's what...
Mr. Furfaro: No I think I'll correct you on that.
Mr. Gegen: Okay, please do.
Mr. Furfaro: At least the people that we paid for the
report that I put on, at least I hope they're paid experts but that was a paid report
that I put up on the board.
Mr. Gegen: I understand it was a paid report but I
believe what you had said was, this was the peoples... the people only thought this
was their 9~ best alternative.
Mr: Furfaro: You know what Pat, I'm not going to clarify
my comments anymore to you...
Mr. Gegen: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: you seem to be pointing out these short falls
in my presentation. I would like to have the whole presentation made and I made
my point very clear from the beginning, and if I come out on the short end of
moving this forward, I come out on the short end of... But I still believe this county
needs a strategic plan about energy and what is pointed out in there is, number 5 is
for industrial large wind and you pointed out particular things that deal with
certain areas of the island and that's what the report says, there are only certain
island that they would make their recommendations. But again I was just trying to
clarify some of my comments, you seem to be a challenging that rationale and I
don't think it's right to challenge it until we actually have that report in front of us
but I appreciate your comments and your point of view. Let me see if other
Councilmembers have comments. Thank you again... Oh, Mr. Chair?
KAIPO ASING: Pat, as far as your concern, you have a
windmill now so you're all set, it's no problem for you right now.
4
Mr. Gegen: Nope, not at all. You're absolutely right.
Mr. Asing: Okay so you're okay?
Mr. Gegen: I'm not fighting this as a personal thing to
try to get something up that I want to have for myself, you're right. Um and I
would just like to say Chair, I am not trying to engage in a challenge process where
you... with you where it's bickering back and forth. You gave your report, I wanted
to give another report that also, we do...
Mr. Furfaro: Pat, the question was directed to you by
Chairman Asing, as far as I'm concerned, I've already stated I don't want to discuss
it until we have the final report.
Mr. Gegen: And I was just apologizing...
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chair, you have the floor.
Mr. Asing: Yeah and that's all. You answered my
question and thank you.
Mr. Gegen: Thank you Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Pat, you have a question from
Councilmember Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: Well not so much a question but you know I
appreciate the Black & Veitch report. And of course they're doing a feasibility study
but there's a lot of feasibility studies done that would show a technology is feasible
because we have the wind but that doesn't mean that it's right for the island. ~
Because you can do a feasibility study and say that it's feasible to have a.ea-fire ~
power plant on Kauai but is that the right thing for Kauai? So while you bring up
the feasibility study, we're trying to address all the concerns and in the fair way.
Because I see your concerns but there's another branch of concern coming from the
community that may not show up to the meetings. - Kauai took a stand many years
before I was around I think, that they wanted to preserve the view plains by
introducing a height ordinance, so that's a priority for the island so we're just trying
to address the concerns and it takes time so it may be frustrating while we go
through this but you know, feasibility studies, you have to take it with a grain of
salt because there are things that are appropriate for the island and things that
may not be appropriate. And I think you know, I took a stand back at my time in
KIUC that coal at the time wasn't...
Mr. Gegen: And I appreciate that.
Mr. Kawakami: You know. And people may disagree and say
that it is a cheap source of fuel but it's not the federal government is putting on you
know... imposing restrictions on coal that is not going to be cheap so. With that
being said we got to just take everything evenly. But we're trying to do the work,
we're trying to hear the concerns from you know environmentalist that are for it
and also environmentalist that are against it. Because there are environmentalist
that are against having wind turbines on the island so even within that community
it split.
5
Mr. Gegen: It is and I understand that and I appreciate
that; again I'm trying to make a better future for my family and anything that I can
do to promote that, I want to try to do that.
Mr. Kawakami: I think we all are so thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: And I think I appreciate that Pat, you know
saying the right thing but its also the right thing for the right reason. It's also the
right thing for the right people. It's all of those 2 things that we're trying to
consider.
Mr. Gegen: I agree.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chang do you have a question?
DICKIE CHANG: Yes thank you. Pat can you just refresh my
memory, how did your windmill come up? Did you just put it up or?
Mr. Gegen: No. I went through all the proper channels.
I went got a building permit, upon receiving that I had to go to the Planning
Commission, actually Bryan Mamaclay came out to take a look at the thing just so
he could understand. This was only the 2nd one that they were permitting, he
wanted to be careful in what he was doing. He took a look at where I was planning
on placing it, he said "you don't have to be that far back from the road, you can be
closer, you can do this" I mean I set it up relatively conservatively. After it got
through Planning, I personally walked it over to the Water Department because
they had to sign off on it. You know which makes absolutely no sense because I
wasn't dealing with water or anything like that. And I was granted, it took about
30 days to get it through and it's even with the different site visits so I was actually
very happy with the overall permitting process of how it went.
Mr. Chang: And did you inform your neighbors and say
"hey I'm going to be putting up a windmill, what do you think?"
Mr. Gegen: Yes I did.
Mr. Chang: And what was the reaction?
Mr. Gegen: I had one neighbor who was slightly
concerned about what was his view plain might be out his back window, basically
from his garage, he has the ocean on the other side and I said "what can I do to help
alleviate that?" He said "can you move it this direction a little bit?" I said "sure". I
was able to move it 15 feet, I actually moved it 5 feet down the hill, I have given up
some efficiency because I do want to be a good neighbor. That neighbor by the way
spends 11 months in the State of Washington and comes here once a month. But
none the less, I tried to appease his concerns because I didn't want any sort of
friction in the area. I want to be a long term resident, I want to be a good resident,
I want to be a active member of the community that feels like I'm doing the right
thing.
Mr. Chang: Because I remember when your... I know
exactly where your mill is at and you know that road is pretty well traveled.
Mr. Gegen: Yes it is.
6
Mr. Chang: You know different short-cuts from coming
Kalaheo to Lawa`i...
Mr. Gegen: I'd like to talk to you about speed limits some
other day.
Mr. Chang: In fact I think the marathon route is going
to be running at through...
Mr. Gegen: It is.
Mr. Chang: your property so I just kind of find it a little
interesting because I know people there especially you know not to name... and I
said "Whoa, where did that come from?" And you know honestly it was like "wow"
you know people don't know and of course like Councilmember Furfaro said is we
want to see the whole report but I just wanted to see what kind of reaction because
those that are used to (inaudible) I'm sure it's hundreds of cars a day, must have
gone like "whoa".
Mr. Gegen: Like I said I had lots of people that stop by,
they comment, they look at it, they say "it's quieter than it was" or... I haven't
heard anybody say "that's the ugliest thing in the world" maybe they save those
comments for the people in the car, I don't know but I haven't heard any of those
comments. Again the process itself was relatively painless, it did take some
walking through and a little bit of hand-holding originally, it's probably better than
it was then. I was only the second one in the island.
Mr. Chang: Thank you Pat.
Mr. Gegen: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Pat thank you very much. Oh you have
something Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Just a comment. I was on Waha Road this
week, stopped by your... stopped with some folks, we were actually touring the
marathon route, seeing the good work that Public Works are doing to keep
everything safe and the wind was really kicking when we were there just by... so I
appreciate that opportunity to see it and I just wanted to let you know that.
Mr. Gegen: It's been a good 2 months, I've actually
broken even with KIUC. It's a great feeling.
Mr. Bynum: Great.
Mr. Gegen: Thank you.
Mr. Bynum: Congratulations.
Mr. Gegen: They owe me $0.36 now.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Pat.
Mr. Gegen: Thank you.
7
Mr. Furfaro: Next speaker. Do we have anybody? We
have nobody else signed up? Thank you for the earlier courteous for those that were
signed up.
BRAD PARSONS: Brad Parsons for the record. I hadn't
planned on giving testimony, I didn't prepare but I have studied this bill and the
amendment to it that's proposed. But what prompted me to want to speak is Mr.
Furfaro, your comment about the survey and the ranking of wind energy number 9
on that...
Mr. Furfaro: Small wind...
Mr. Parsons: small wind, sure...
Mr. Furfaro: Ah commercial wind is number 5.
Mr. Parsons: that listing was from an online survey that
was taken by a 150 people, I was one of the ones that took it. Probably some of the
other people in this room took it. It's no indication of any kind of authority or even
recommendations or conclusions that have been reached, that was just an online
survey so it's... that's been repeatedly referenced. I don't believe that's of
significance of what any kind of policy decisions that will come out of this study or
even you all should pursue.
Mr. Furfaro: Ah Brad do you remember that I did make
that note in the presentation, that there were only 150 or so that responded?
Mr. Parsons: Well also describing what had actually is but,
the other thing too is that this...you speak about the report in general... when we're
talking about S.W.E.C.S. this is fairly a small area of the whole energy outlook for
the island, especially small wind energy. And I would like it to be an area of
micromanagement. I would imagine the study that Doug Hendricks and
(inaudible), they're not going to focus too much on this. They... as Doug has already
indicated this is not inconsistent with what they're going to be determining but
there's not a lot of generations that's going to come from small wind energy for this
island, it's not going to solve the big problems. So I don't suspect it's going to be a
significant portion of the report. And to wait for that then, that's just putting off
what could be dealt with now but that's another key point. I also did want to dust
comment for the record although I didn't prepare for it, I do support this S.W.E.C.S.
energy Bill No. 2317 as is. I do not think it's realistic to add additional Class 4
permitting requirements. And also the lowering the kilowatts per unit from a 100
max to 10 or 12 kilowatts per unit. I think it's unnecessary and for particularly like
Councilmember Kaneshiro, people in agriculture might want the larger allowances
but there's another aspect too, that the height for requirements in this bill as they
exists now, those are automatically going to limit what kind of kilowatts you're
going to be get out of this. For these height limits in the bill as is, you're not going
to be able to have a 100 kilowatt generator, so that's almost like anon-issue I
believe. One other point is that it's not in this current version of the bill,
thankfully. But there has been recommendations and I'll be brief here, on changing
the noise requirements. I believe the State Health Department...
Mr. Furfaro: Brad could you hold on a second? Your first
3 minutes is up but I'm going to let you continue.
8
Mr. Parsons: Thank you. I believe the State Health
Department standards for noise are adequate. And that also the Planning
Department is set up to deal with those, to try to and thankfully it's not even an
amendment, but to try to add some kind of a noise standard to this, it would be
quote imperceptible of anywhere from like 1 to 3 decibels at the property line, that's
be the way a lower noise level than what the wind makes in trees. That's
unrealistic but beyond that, the Planning Department doesn't have a way to enforce
that, they don't even have the equipment to go out and measure that kind of a
standard as is now. So I believe that would be unrealistic, I appreciate that it's not
in this bill, not even in the considered amendments and the rest of the items, I
stated my position on, thank you for the time.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much Brad. I just want to
make reference to you know the 10 to 12 was, I was talking in terms of residential
areas. I also want to point out that wind generators that do a 100 kilowatts could
actually have and they're still considered small wind turbines but they could have
blade diameters up to 70 feet in this report.
Mr. Parsons: Right.
Mr. Furfaro: I am again thinking that in terms of you
know we're 7 weeks away from a first full report with our people here I mean, 7
weeks, that's not a lot of time. And I do know you've made reference to the
perception of micromanaging and I'm a manager that gives a lot of autonomy to
people but I think one of the things you do learn in managing and I think you can
agree is, you never made a bad decision because you had too much information so. I
really appreciate your statements and let me see if there's other questions here.
Mr. Parsons: Can I respond to that?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes, sure you can.
Mr. Parsons: The micromanaging I was referring to I don't
think that syntax report is going to try to get into that kind of detail but I agree
with your point about it, it helps to have more information. Although that's another
point, this is not the final draft that's coming out in 7 weeks, this is just the initial
draft and that was the point that I did pose to Doug. When you put .that overhead
up, I wanted to see this... because you had draft on it and he said to me that that is
just an outline that's not even a draft that was circulated yet and then what would
be coming out in 7 weeks is just the initial draft. And they aren't due with their
final draft until the end of the year. I mean if you really did wait for what they're
going to come up with, you might be talking about waiting until the end of the year.
Mr. Furfaro: Well Brad if you were the Councilmember
that co-introduced the bill for $200,000 of tax payers money, of which I was. To
get...
Mr. Parsons: We want to get our money's worth, yeah.
Mr. Furfaro: a strategic plan, I'm sure you can sympathize
a little bit with me that it's worth waiting for at least a full draft and making it
available to the public. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Brad, there are elements of the bill as
written that restrict wind more than it currently is so for instance, the setback in
9
particular right now if you stay within the height limit you can... you just have a
standard setback from the property line which is you know... 10 or 15 feet, this bill
would restrict that in terms of it has to be a minimum of 1.1 times the height of the
bill. I don't have any objections to the amendment I know is being worked on to set
the upper limit of 12 in residential as Councilmember Kaneshiro pointed out, you
know there are Ag uses or that would look at a larger wind systems. They will as
Councilmember Furfaro has pointed out, by their nature will exceed the height
limits proposed in this bill and will require that kind of use permit but that this bill
will restrict them in terms of requiring a setback to be 1.1 times and requiring that
it may be placed any tower mounted (inaudible) on a minimum of 1 acre. Currently
if you stayed within the height limits you could put a tower mounted system
mounted system on much smaller lots and so part of the reason why I agreed with
you that it's balanced is that Planning and the folks that worked on this bill, it
doesn't just allow increased height limits, it also restricts the number, the
placement and the setback so I think people lost sight of that that the bill has
restrictions on wind placement as well as some modest allowances in terms of
height.
Mr. Parsons: I hope I didn't mistake myself earlier but
yeah.
Mr. Furfaro: Brad let me see if there's anymore questions
and I'll remind Councilmembers that after their 6 minutes we should focus on
responding to something in their testimony or asking new questions so. Mr. Chair?
KAIPO ASING: Yes. Brad, you appear to be a strong
proponent of the bill and my question is, do you have a windmill or do you plan to
put a windmill and I was trying to get a feel as to, you appear to be a strong
component so I was trying to get a feel on why so?
Mr. Parsons: Good question actually. I'm in favor of this
bill without the amendment because I believe it's an important option that people
out there have but I've spoken quite a bit with Gabriella Taylor about her windmill
and I've gone to look at it, listened to it, see how much energy she's actually getting
out of it, how much it cost her and I compared that in particular to and it's a
comparison most people wouldn't make but to solar hot water heaters and the
bottom line is that these windmill generators, these S.W.E.C.S. in particular the
sky streams, they're twice the price of a solar hot water heater and the benefit you
get on the electric bill is less than a third, is about a third to benefit. So to me, I'm
actually a solar hot water heater proponent and to lesser extent I think PV but I
also think that this is an important option and if there's, I also believe that different
kinds of S.W.E.C.S. need to be brought in here other than just the sky stream. In
particular you did have a bird expert of I don't know last I think time you dealt with
this, who spoke and at the beginning of his testimony he said that he liked the idea
of roof mounted and vertical axis and he thought those were not a threat to birds.
And I think that's probably where the most realistic and useful S.W.E.C.S. are
going to come from. These quite frankly these sky streams, the people who have
them, they're getting the dollar amount of benefit they're getting out of them is
about $50.00 a month. I think that's... this is by the way for something that cost
$15,000 minimum to install plus other improvements with things that they might
have to spend money on, could push it up close to $20,000, the payback for that at
$50.00 benefit a month which could go up as rates go up maybe but the payback for
that is like 25 years that's a terrible investment. So to be quite honest, I think it
depends on what S.W.E.C.S. generator you're talking about and' how it's installed,
where it's installed, what... I'm not necessarily big proponent but I think the people
10
should have the option with this bill enacted like an ordinance.
Mr. Asing: I'm going to assume that you stand to gain in
anyway financially?
Mr. Parsons: No I don't and I thought recently that if I
were to go into this deal to selling one of these types of sources of energy, it wouldn't
be S.W.E.C.S., it would actually be solar hot water heaters.
Mr. Asing: Okay. Let me comment on your comment,
you made a comment about Gabriella's windmill.
Mr. Parsons: Yes.
Mr. Asing: I don't know if you saw in the newspaper
there was a letter in the newspaper of a resident who had a ridge property
overlooking the Kealia area.
Mr. Parsons: Yeah.
Mr. Asing: And did you see that (inaudible)?
Mr. Parsons: And I thought it was (inaudible) kind of liked
the view of seeing those 2 windmills.
Mr. Asing: Well I think in the eyes of the beholder right
so my reading of the letter is, have this view lot, I overlook the ocean of this
beautiful Kealia valley in the Keapana area and thank you for .the beautiful
windmill.
Mr. Parsons: Yeah. Right.
Mr. Asing: And I know what the person saw. I will tell
you that you know, I've lived in Honolulu for quite awhile, 15 years. The Hawaii
Kai area, the entire Hawaii Kai area, at one particular time when we used to have
TV sets, those large antennas?
Mr. Parsons: Yeah.
Mr. Asing: They were not allowed in the entire area,
there was a covenants put on all of the residents in the area, you could not have a
TV antenna exposed. Your antenna had to be under the garage roof, the garage
roof, not on top. Underneath the roof is where the antenna was placed, so again you
know different people have different values and so you heard in Gabriella's case you
know her values seemed to be on one end and you had the resident who had the
ridge line lot with the view who has another value.
Mr. Parsons: Yeah.
Mr. Asing: So I think we need to take all of these values
and put them together. I will repeat again my value when I go to Maui and before I
land at Kahului Airport and I look on the left and I see the line of windmills on the
mountain, I think it's horrors. Horrors in my view. The beautiful mountain area
with all of these windmill poles sticking out, to me that's horrors. I mean that's my
value, your value maybe different and that's okay but I think you need to
11
understand that there are values that are important to people and we need to
consider that.
Mr. Parsons: Just a little brief response to that is that I
think peoples attitudes about view plains are evolving as the whole environment is
changing, that people are having to deal with and I think people are becoming a
little bit more acceptable that and on Maui, having been around that, having
watched those installed... After, once they got installed nobody complained about
those, everybody... maybe some of the visitors.
Mr. Asing: Wait, wait now. I think we should stop now.
Nobody complained? What did you hear from me right now?
Mr. Parsons: Well these are the people who live on Maui.
Mr. Asing: You said nobody complain? And I just told
you that.
Mr. Parsons: People who live on Maui are not complaining
and they get 10% of their electric generation from that (inaudible) wind farm. So
it's a benefit on Maui and that's how the people of Maui view it.
Mr. Furfaro: Brad, I'm going to thank you for pointing out
part of this controversy is and I would hope with the energy sustainability plan we
could have more comments to deal with the objectivity of these particular items
versus the subjectivity seems to be here and I have different views, I'm sure Mr.
Chang does, I'm sure Mr. Bynum has but that's one of the reasons I'm supporting
this option for the first draft. I also want to thank you for you evidently did some
study here the return on investment, the initial investment might be twice what it
is for solar and the return of investment you said upwards of 25 years.
Mr. Parsons: Well actually the return of investment
that's.. .
Mr. Furfaro: Well that's what you said, I just want some
clarity.
Mr. Parsons: yeah. The return on investment for solar hot
water heater is like 5 years.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Parsons: Or less. Depending on how low figure you
paid for having it installed but it's 5 years or less. For S.W.E.C.S., the sky streams
it's 25 years so that's like 5 times the requirement for return of investment but
there's other ways you could compare but that's how I...
Mr. Furfaro: But I thank you for that because that's also
something that is...
Mr. Parsons: Now if you did a roof mounted, they're going
to be a lot less expensive, you're not having to do that pole or the base and you
probably can get a return a lot quicker maybe 5 to 10 years, something like that but
I'm sorry go ahead Derek.
12
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kawakami then Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Vice Chair and thank you Mr.
Parsons for your testimony. And I know you're from Maui, yeah? So I think the
statement was generally accepted now with the wind farm up on the ridge.
Mr. Parsons: Yes.
Mr. Kawakami: Does Maui have a S.W.E.C.S. bill or are they
allowing residential and Ag, is it happening on Maui since it's generally accepted I
figured it would be an easy sell in Maui County.
Mr. Parsons: Actually I'm thinking probably Tim knows
the answer of this.
Mr. Bynum: I don't.
Mr. Parsons: In all my time in Maui...
Mr. Furfaro: Can we close the meeting and bring it back to
order, we'll ask Tim.
Mr. Parsons: In all my time on Maui, I never remember
seeing a S.W.E.C.S. like this. There's a few old time agricultural windmills that I
remember but I think that a bill like this is probably unique in the state and among
the counties and I don't recall this kind of technology being wide spread nor do I
even recall ever seeing a S.W.E.C.S. on Maui, that was a decade being there and I
was all over that island, I never recall seeing them.
Mr. Kawakami: And that's fine and I think eventually it's
going to make a good agenda item for HSAC and how the counties are going to be
addressing distributed generation because I do believe that that's the direction
we're moving forward in. Right now currently you look at the ranking list and it's
number 7 but when you talking about residential and distributed generation for
small scale, there are only 2 options as far as generation, photovoltaic and these
wind turbines but you know just one more question, do you think it's appropriate to
address generation and distributed generation on a small scale before we address
efficiency?
Mr. Parsons: Well that sort o£ from before I was talking
about solar hot water heaters which is usually classified under efficiency in
conservation. I think distributed should be allowed, I think it should be fostered
and I think the people who are going to be taking advantage of it anyway regardless
particularly PV, they're doing it in fact that came up in testimony yesterday to the
PUC not necessary for me but one of the other experts on it is that people on Kauai
with the higher rates, they're going the distributor route regardless of what the
utility is doing and in fact if you just raise rates, they're going to further go the
distributor route or their own way whether it be with (inaudible) or S.W.E.C.S. or I
would say solar hot water heaters but that's a little different. So you can address it
before hand but the consumer is going to go that route anyway with higher and
higher rates.
Mr. Kawakami: Okay thank you Vice Chair, I think I'm going
to send a communication over to Maui County to see what they're doing there
because they face a lot of challenges too with Molokai and Lanai being so isolated
13
themselves and you know with the basic concept that you know windmills and wind
turbines have been generally accepted, I'd like to see where their stands or position
is or what they have in the pipeline as far as addressing these small wind turbines.
Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum the floor is yours.
Mr. Bynum: Thanks for your commentary and also your
analysis and that (inaudible) was based on current electricity rates?
Mr. Parsons: Yes and so as the rates go higher those
payback times or recovery times on your investment are going to get shorter. But
there still basically that relative difference between and in my case I was comparing
solar hot water heaters to wind, and S.W.E.C.S. and that difference is always going
to be there it's just that both of them there, the payback time is going to get shorter
as the rates get higher.
Mr. Bynum: Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you Brad. Can you tell us what your
professional background is? You seem like you know quite a bit on this subject.
Mr. Parsons: My degree is in finance, I went a little bit
into graduates school, I moved to Hawaii about 15 years ago and most of that time I
worked in the visitors industry. I don't actually practice a career that makes use of
my degree but I have been a researcher pretty much my whole life and I basically
employ my degree in research skills.
Mr. Chang: You know you were mentioning some of the
larger turbines taking may be up to 25 years to get back...
Mr. Parsons: This is the... that particular was the sky
stream.
Mr. Chang: Okay. Because if I'm not mistaken Gabriella
Taylor kind of joked and said that her investment with the... her windmills I
believe... plural...
Mr. Parsons: One. She has one.
Mr. Chang: Oh she has one okay. She kind of joked that
she might not live around for getting back her investment and her return.
Mr. Parsons: Right.
Mr. Chang: You have any idea about how many people
might be putting up you know S.W.E.C.S. as a write off?
Mr. Parsons: That's a good point. I think that... by the
way there's different stories I've heard about how these sky streams got unto this
island in the first place and why they're being sold and it's a small number still, I
think some of the other people giving testimony probably know the exact number
but it's I believe it's somewhere between 10 and 15, maybe less than that. But once
14
a bill like this is passed and the process becomes more efficient, I believe other
types of small wind energy generators are going to be brought in here. Hopefully
you know, continue to be the quiet kind, less expenses, smaller, maybe roof
mounted, and I believe a bill like this would foster a significantly a better contractor
industry for this than what it exist right now with the sky streams that we've seen.
How much bigger? I don't know. I've said a number that I think would be but
people have felt like I've exaggerated that so I won't repeat that number again but I
think it will be more, quite a bit more than the number of sky streams we've seen on
the island.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Brad.
Mr. Chang: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: With that I'm going to go to the next
speaker. Charlie, were you going to speak on this bill?
CHARLIE COWDEN: Sure.
Mr. Furfaro: Well you don't have to you know. You don't
want to.
Mr. Cowden: My name is Charlie Cowden. I came really
unprepared, I haven't read the bill. But I decided I need to get involved and start in
the process. I have been doing alternative energy systems for over 20 years, I've
installed over 100 systems on Kauai with various electrical contractors, we recently
did the school on Niihau and I'm quite familiar with a lot of this. I've helped
customers put up windmills in the past, both of them got... had to be taken down.
Just because it didn't work properly and the reason was the tower height in those
cases. So I have a lot of limited background and... I've been to seminars in the last
20 years across country, I've listened to Mark Segria who is the nations number 1
wind, small wind person. What he says when you go to one of his seminars, there's
3 important things about a windmill and you got to get them all right. And it's
tower height, tower height, tower height, you know... I'm in the retail business as
well as the alternative business and with us it's location, location, location you know
and it really... I had so many people ask me to put up wind but I always tell them
the story of the 2 windmills that we put up and had to take down because without
the tower height, they don't work. And when I hear these stories of paybacks are
going to be 25 years and... I can believe it because these things are put up at the
right tower height and they're not going to work. So until you get over the tower
height you might as well just almost forget doing this, is my opinion. I have
forgotten about it. Right now we probably have 15 active solar electric shocks. The
only reason they're paying for themselves is the tax credits. You take away tax
credits, solar doesn't pay for itself. It's not a financial gain, now wind really is. If
you listen to national news, these big money investors, they'll tell you, they're
getting scared now, people investing in alternative energy because we might be
having global cooling now is what they're saying, investors you know. Things are
changing and they say the only things that are really worth doing and that they're
putting their big money into, besides oil is hydro and wind because these things
actually are cost effective without any kind of credits so we really need to do wind,
big wind, small wind, wind is great... You know (inaudible) solar good now, I have
one on my store, the government going to pay 104% of it by the time I use my tax
credits and depreciation, is that a good deal? Of course. So there's a lot to be
considered and you know I saw this meeting on the other day and I thought, I got to
go in there and listen to what's going on because I've kind of given up on putting up
windmills but... I always tell my customers that's the best thing you can do but not
15
the way the rules are...
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me Charlie. And the way our rules
are, that's your first 3 minutes, I'm going to give you your second 3 minutes.
Mr. Cowden: Okay. So I made a few notes... so I think the
payback is great if you allow people to do them correctly, they work great and the
payback is going to be 5 years perhaps on these sky streams are, they're the first of
a revolution of new windmills that are coming out, they're great. They're just,
they're grid tied, they're easy to put up, they're wonderful you know. And as far as
the environment looking at them, you know I would rather look at windmills than
send my kids to Iraq, my kids are going to be up for the draft in about 5 years you
know. I just think we need to take personal responsibility, if you guys want to use
some electricity, where are you going to get it from? You know we got to get it from
some where and if we got to look at a few windmills, I'm all for it. I think there's
worst alternatives to having windmills. These things are cost effective.
Environmentally, cats... cats kill more birds than the windmills, read the statistics
go online. These big windmills, I went online they kill like 2 birds a year average,
across the U.S. how many... If you want to stop the birds from getting killed, you
got to go out and kill all the domestic cats because that's where the problem is, it's
not the windmills. So if you want to... you know keep your cat in doors you know.
Tower height.... yeah so I think there's a lot to be... you know gain from doing
windmills. I would do more, I have a guy right now he wants to do it, I told him I
was on my way to this meeting, I said I would let you know after this meeting. So I
think that's about all I have to... you know those are just some comments in what I
heard. Return on investment I think it would be really good. Even without the tax
credits but with tax credits, it be really great.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. We may have some questions for you
Charlie. You know and you and I may have been the last group that actually had a
1(a) draft card during Vietnam, I heard you say "draft your children".
Mr. Cowden: Well you never know. Kids are over there
fighting.
Mr. Furfaro: Understood. Understood Charlie. But your
testimony... have you been briefed on the energy sustainability plan for Kauai?
Mr. Cowden: No I really haven't.
Mr. Furfaro: I saw you at the Hydro meeting for Apollo.
Mr. Cowden: I decided for me personally that I just do
what I do you know. And I kind of do it passionately, I did my own house off the
grid about 20 years ago and I kind of was like an evangelist for energy conservation
and I gave up because people don't do it, government don't do it, so I thought you
know I'm just going to do it myself. People lead and the leaders will follow right?
Mr. Furfaro: Well Charlie, I want to let everybody know, I
don't think you get an electric bill that effective with your own sources but in that
sustainability plan wind shows up in number 5 if it's dealing with location and
height, large windmill. That is in the plan but before I go any further than that, let
me ask Mr. Kawakami, he had a question for you.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Vice Chair. So you have a lot of
16
experience installing these renewable energy systems for residential users, so what
is the appropriate height? Tower height? To make it work efficiently.
Mr. Cowden: Well 35 feet above anything within 500 feet.
That's like where you start.
Mr. Kawakami: So that's where you start. So that's the
minimum.. .
Mr. Cowden: Yeah.
Mr. Kawakami: for it to make sense economically?
Mr. Cowden: Yeah because if you get below that, what
happens you get turbulence. What happens with turbulence is it tears your
windmill off because everybody's kind of held a gyroscope at one time right? You
spin that thing, you're holding it, you try to turn it, it fights and so if your windmills
spinning and the wind... if you have turbulence what it is, is the wind is changing
so it starts pushing on your tail router but the gyroscope what happens, it loads up
your bearing and your windmills so these things burn up. We had a lot of
experience with bad windmills. I read road test on them for fun. But wind
turbulence tears things up so if you're in the turbulence, you're going to have some
problems you know it's not going to be cost effective because you're going to be
climbing up... you're going to be having to maintain it. So what you have to do to
avoid maintenance you got to get it up. And 35 feet above anything within 500 feet
is where you start and so that's why I gave up, I just couldn't do that.
Mr. Kawakami: We got to go get you... Oh I'm sorry.
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to continue with Mr. Kawakami's
questions but I just want to share with you 2 minutes before we go caption break.
Mr. Kawakami: I think we got to get you a copy of the bill
because the original bill, yeah? I think based on your statement, I don't know if it
would meet your efficiency height standard. I mean if the minimum is 35 above
anything that's what around 500 feet, I'm not sure if even the original bill would
make it efficient.
Mr. Cowden: Right. It's a tough battle.
Mr. Kawakami: Yeah.
Mr. Cowden: You know. Until we get there I'm not going
to recommend people put up wind. There's some new windmills that could deal
with turbulence a little better now but you know... you read a lot of things in
popular science, I'm in the market place when you ask me if I have any business
interest in this or personal, I have both. Because I can tell you, I would make it a
business if there were a business here but until... you know I don't want customers
calling me up in 5 years and saying, "hey my things falling apart". You know and
I've been researching it, you know what it should have been put up higher. Oh I
didn't tell you that part. So I tell them up front and it discourages them. It should.
Mr. Furfaro: Charlie on that note, bell's gone off but more
importantly we need to take a 10 minute caption break according to the rules we
have to give our captioner time in Honolulu for a break.
17
Mr. Cowden: Sure.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're on recess. Thank you Charlie.
There being no objections, the Chair recessed the meeting at 10:59 a.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 11:08 a.m., and proceeded as follows.
Mr. Furfaro: Start the meeting we have 3 Committee
Members here, I believe Mr. Bynum just stepped out for a minute so we are back to
testimony and Andrea Brower.
ANDREA BROWER: Good morning. I'm speaking on behalf of
myself and Malama Kauai in support of Bill No. 2317 without the amendments
that were introduced on August 12th. We're facing and I'm basically just going to
read my testimony you guys can ask questions but um... We're facing multifaceted
island and global crises as a result of our over-dependency on fossil fuels and we can
no longer delay in the transition to renewable sources of energy. A system of
"democratized power production", which favors small producers, is the way to
realize a socially, economically, and environmental sustainable energy future. As
Senator Hooser recently wrote in the Garden Island, "Counties who control the
zoning and permitting process, must recognize the urgency and the benefits that
comes with accelerating the process that allows individuals homes, farms and
business to be energy self-sufficient."
The comment has been made that allowing for the passage of this bill will
raise electric rates because demand will drop. If we apply this reasoning, we should
not be conserving energy, installing solar hot water heaters, or doing anything else
that might reduce our electricity usage. Although Malama Kauai is dedicated to
both a clean and a socially fair energy future, we're looking forward to the Kauai
Energy Sustainability Plan helping to guide us in that overall systematic direction
because that's going to take some systematic changes.
We're confident that the Small Wind Energy Bill will not undermine the
recommendations of the energy sustainability plan. And I think you all have
statements that were made by Maurice Kaya so I won't reread those although they
are in my testimony. When I came here earlier you were speaking about
distributed generation and I see no reason why distributed generation and
efficiency are mutually exclusive. I also like to make the point that I am a general
member of the Sierra Club, but I strongly disagree with their submitted testimony
related to this bill. In it, they raise 3 main points of concern which they call
"environmental protection" issues which are noise, visual impacts, and endangered
birds. Well I agree that endangered birds are an environmental protection issue,
it's been stated by representatives from the Hawaii State Department of Forestry,
whose job it is to monitor endangered sea birds that small wind energy systems are
little or no concern. Well there's been many, many studies on bird mortality caused
by commercial wind installations, none have been done on the impact of home-sized
wind systems. Simply because it's not an issue. Especially when one considers the
impact of lights, utility transmission lines, agriculture pesticides, and collisions
with automobiles and cats.
As an example, when confronted with the question of why there were no
studies done on home sized wind systems and birds, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources person familiar with these issue responded, "it is not even on the
radar screen," and there's never been a report or documentation of a home sized
18
wind turbine killing a bird.
The other 2 issues brought up by the Sierra Club are noise and visual
impacts. I dispute that these are "environmental protection" issues. We must put
into perspective the environmental, as well as the social and economic costs, of our
gross overdependence on fossil fuels... Sorry should I continue?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes. That was your first 3 minutes and you
may continue with your second 3 minutes.
Ms. Brower: Thank you. With the effects of climate
change upon us, our addiction to oil seems much more urgent of an "environmental
protection" issue than the "whoosh-whoosh" sound of a windmill. The list of
environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel use is long, and does include oil
spills, which also kill birds.
Concerns about the visual impacts of windmills area "Not In My Backyard"
issue. Is a new power plant more attractive than a windmill, or is this simply a
matter of people wanting to maintain their personal view plains? I know that many
share in my opinion that the site of a windmill is inspiring and symbolic of
innovation and forward-thinking.
The fact that windmill make sound can't be disputed. And I think there's
people here who own windmills, who already have spoken at length about this.
Malama Kauai does not support the amendment made on August 12th which would
make it more difficult than it already is for North Shore residents to obtain a
permit. The amendment is contrary to the purpose of this bill and from what I
surmised in many, many conversations with both homeowners and farmers on the
North Shore, there's overwhelming support for this bill. Passing this bill in a timely
manner may also benefit our agricultural sector, as there is currently substantial
federal funding available for renewable energy systems on farms. But we need to
act quickly and pass it in order to try to get some of that stimulus and Farm Bill
grants. So stalling on passing this bill will only delay our transition to a renewable
and resilient energy future. Mahalo for your considerations.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Let me see if there's any
questions. Any questions? None. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brower: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: May I ask out in the audience is there
anyone else that would like to speak but hasn't signed up. Bruce are you wanting to
speak on this? This will be the last opportunity. Okay Laurel.
LAUREL BRIER: My name is Laurel Brier, I'm one of the 4 Co-
Chairs for Apollo Kauai. I think my daughter already said it all but I wanted to
make sure we came back to the why. Why there's Apollo Kauai? Why this bill was
even introduced? And that's out of concern for the greatest environmental crisis
we're... that mankind ever looked at, which is global warming. And so I saw this
bill, we see this bill as in the spirit of and significant for what it indicates that the
County's willing to start looking at what do we need to do to be different? Because
it's a different day now. And we have... this is a crisis upon us and we need to start
looking at changes. There's not going to be hundreds of windmills going up, I
realize that wind is not going to make a significant difference on Kauai especially
what we're talking about, the home units. But it sends a message to people that we
19
are willing to make accommodations, we are willing to change, we are willing to
move in that direction. I think people who do their research for residential units,
they'll find that it's not really efficient at this time and hopefully as Brad pointed
out, they'll look at solar hot water heaters and foremost at conserving. But I just
wanted to bring us back to the "why" this came up and "why" we're asking the
county to support it.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Laurel. And those are no
different than the "whys" we spend $200,000 to do an energy study.
Ms. Brier: Yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Furfaro: It's the same thing. Do we have any
questions here? Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Brier: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: We're going to go to Glenn Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record Glenn Mickens. Thanks Jay.
Just briefly I want to compliment you, Jay. You've heard me say in the past "ready,
fire, aim" that I think you are taking this under your wing now. That you're not
progressing without looking at the total picture. And I do agree with my friend
Kaipo. I think if you went to a housing complex and start putting these things on
the roof I think it would be worse than the TV aerials that you were talking about.
I think there's a concern there. We heard some great testimony from Brad, Pat,
Charlie, this dialog is great. I mean we're hearing some testimony from people who
know what they're talking about, they're not just talking to be talking. But every
point they all bring up, I think are outstanding points. I haven't heard anything.
Charlie talking about how high you have to go up with these things to be able to get
any wind generation without vibration to wreck the bearings... I thought that was
outstanding before you know he's in the business putting things up. He's more on
the solar kick right now than he would be on wind for the things and I guess the
average person to try and get enough money to be able to do those things, outside
of... as Charlie was pointing out, he's getting what? 104% or something, with the
rebates and stuff. So that's great, whether they're going to do that with this wind
generation and these horizontal type of things, I guess they have to have more
research done to find out how efficient they're also going to be and how high they
have to go up and everything. But anyway I just want to say that I really
appreciate the dialog we're hearing from all the people and the input before you do
it, but again Jay, I really want to compliment you for going... Sometime I get really
irritated because of dragging your feet, deferring on and on and on... But in this
instance it's a big situation that there's more to it to be looked at and I really
appreciate what you're doing. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: I'm sorry if the body irritates you but we
defer (inaudible). I will say again you know we're 7 to 8 weeks away from a draft
and nobody made a bad decision because they had too much information. Is there
any questions for Glenn? Thank you. Our last speaker Carl Imparato.
CARL IMPARATO: Aloha Councilmembers, my name is Carl
Imparato. As you know I believe Bill 2317 as written is extreme and needs
extensive revision. I don't believe there's anything modest or conservative about
the bill. It puts one goal deciding of S.W.E.C.S. virtually everywhere above
everything else, has no concern for noise, visual impacts, safety or endangered
20
species. I'd like to talk about some facts rather than hand waving. I've already
provided extensive documentation to the Committee Chair and some other
Councilmembers regarding the very real noise impacts of S.W.E.C.S. and how strict
noise standards are needed to protect peace and quiet for neighbors, it's data, it's
fact, it's not lets look the other way about noise. The State DOH noise limits are
clearly inadequate and if you like I can present that data to you later. But as to the
noise, if I turned on a radio or TV set where I'm sitting here in the front row at this
Council meeting, I'm sure you'll say it's distracting. But Bill 2317 would allow that
noise level because that's the DOH noise level that would be allowed to impact your
property 24/7. That's the DOH level, that's fact. I've provided examples of how
neighbors on small lots in our towns would have to accept, with no public hearings,
structures reaching up to 40 feet or higher, just 10 feet from lot lines, closer than I
am to Chair Asing, 40 foot structures. Excuse 25 feet structures on 15 feet roofs.
How would you like that outside your bedroom window? Bill 2317 would allow
that. And regarding setbacks, the bill's allowance of these 25 feet roof mounted
structures, just 10 feet from the lot line, clearly doesn't provide safety to neighbors
if they fall over, that's fact, that's math. I've provided testimony about
disempowering Kauai's residents, giving them no recourse to noise and visual
impacts because 2317 intentionally eliminates the possibility of public hearings at
which neighbors could raise concerns about proposals to locate noisy generators
next door, that's fact. Others have pointed out how the bill intentionally
circumvents the important protections that are in the North Shore Development
Plan Ordinance, that's fact. You've received testimony from DLNR, Sierra Club,
and a Thousand Friends of Kauai about the bill scheme to allow the county to
obcure its duty to see that environmental laws are followed, that's fact. You
received strong testimony of Sierra Club and Thousand Friends of Kauai, 2 of the
most important environmental protection organizations on Kauai, for many years
stating that unless 2317 is drastically amended, it shouldn't move forward. But the
advocates of 2317 say ignore these problems. Neighbors concerns, neighbors input,
around the clock noise, visual impacts, endangered species, they don't matter,
they're not important. Sponsors of 2317 say it's fine because it's worked its way to
the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. We all know how hollow
that is because you seen lots of bad bills come from the Planning Department and
Planning Commission that you Council had to rework the vacation rental bill,
shoreline setback bill, there's any number of them that really isn't a seal of
approval. I began...
Mr. Furfaro: Carl that's your first 3 minutes, I'll give you
an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. Imparato: Thank you. I began by stating that Bill No.
2317 is an extreme and lacks balance and why is that? Because it has utter disdain
for the rights of neighbors to quiet, it's anti-community and excluding hearings for
public input on projects, it's radical in allowing S.W.E.C.S. on virtually all lots
regardless of size, it's reckless (inaudible) raising height limits everywhere
regardless of visual impacts, it's dangerous in turning the blind eye to potential
endangered species, and it's short sighted and overriding the rules that have helped
keep Kauai's North Shore a special place. I do want to make it clear that Sierra
Club, Thousand Friends of Kauai, myself all support renewable energy including
wind energy where it makes sense, but they also support sound planning, they
support our residents in neighborhoods and they don't subscribe to the false choice
that you have to accept this bill or otherwise you're being anti-S.W.E.C.S. We
believe that there are very rational ways to cite S.W.E.C.S. and by amending the
S.W.E.C.S. bill along the lines of the amendments that we proposed, you can
support S.W.E.C.S., you can support renewable energy without turning your backs
21
on neighbors, communities and the land. So I urge you to deliberate based on facts,
not hand waving, I urge you to basically amend this bill or else start all over again
with a clean slate so we end up with a bill that's not bias against residents and the
environment. I do want to make one more statement which is regarding something
that came up earlier today regarding KIUC's Black &Veitch study, that was a study
that looked at utility scale wind turbines, not S.W.E.C.S. and to say that the
economics that are associated with large scale projects are the same as the ones
with small scale S.W.E.C.S. doesn't follow necessarily. It's like comparing
watermelons to the cherries. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Mr. Imparato. Let me ask you
this question, Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Vice Chair. Mr. Imparato it
sounds like the majority of your concern deals with the residential area of the visual
blight, the sound how it affects your neighbors, that being said, how would you feel
if we pulled the residential sector out and we do a trial run in Ag and commercial? I
mean just to get the people acclimated I mean if that's... the problem is the fear of
the un-known right now. It would be permitted on Ag, people would be able to see
it, it would be in the commercial districts, but it would definitely I think take care of
some of your concerns as far as noise and visual blight within the residential area.
Mr. Imparato: You know I think that's one way to go but I
do feel that's reasonable for people with residential lots to be able to do this,
provided that they don't create noise impacts, visual impacts. And then we have
the problem where there are people living on I think in Anini and other places, very
small lots that are basically residential but I think they're zoned I think Ag and so I
think... my concern isn't the residential lots per say but the impacts on residents so
I'm... a trial run like that I think might be an appropriate approach but will require
more drastic revisions to the bill than just pulling the residential pieces out. It
might be a way to do a trial approach but it says to me that we ought to be doing
that is again from starting from scratch rather than try to patch this up.
Mr. Furfaro: Any other questions of Mr. Imparato?
Mr. Asing: (inaudible) I just have a statement
(inaudible) can you give us a copy of your testimony please.
Mr. Imparato: I'll email it, I'll have to give that to you later.
Because I just had my hand written notes right now.
Mr. Asing: Oh okay. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you
Carl. I had a request from one Councilmember and I needed to reconfirm... this is
not directed at you Carl but Laurel Brier, I think you submitted testimony as an
officer of Apollo Kauai.
Ms. Brier: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes. We have questions for you. Would you
mind coming back up here for follow up questions to your earlier written
communications? Thank you Laurel. Mr. Kawakami?
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you. Thank you Laurel. You know I
22
just thought it was fair if I ask Carl that question that I present it in the same way
and since you know I think a lot of the proponents have said that this you know is
largely to do with the symbolic representation of what this bill stands for, you know
the accommodations that this community is willing to make in order to make a
statement based on the facts, well maybe not facts but based on the statements that
you know the efficiency might not be there and the return on investment might be
slow, do you have any feelings if you know, in order to address you know because
this is unchartered waters, in order to address a lot of the community's concerns if
we pulled out the residential and still continue to allow that on Ag and commercial
for the time being because you know as Councilmembers, we can revisit any
Ordinance and make amendments to it you know in the future if it isn't a problem.
But in the spirit of moving this thing forward, it seems like a bit concern is the
visual blight and the sound in the residential areas, I figure on Ag, you won't be
impacting any neighbors. In the commercial district, well it's noisy anyway because
that's where we're doing business. So in the spirit of moving this forward, do you
guys have a opinion? If you got to go back to Apollo and discuss that's fine, but I
dust wanted to pose that scenario.
Ms. Brier: Yeah, I don't know that I can speak for the
group per-say and not to evade your question, but I think people who do the
research, they're not going to put it up in residential areas because there's not that
they don't make sense... the studies that they've done. And I think a conscientious
person that was installing them, they would tell them, we don't... but there maybe
some exceptions to that and so that's why I kind of shy away from agreeing with
that because somebody maybe residential on a bluff you know maybe there's this
neighborhood up there that catches it and it's an ideal for it but for the most part,
you're not going to see these going up in neighborhoods, they're expensive and they
don't make sense. But I think people on acreage that have wind you know that's
where they're going to... and so if it's easier for those people... if we can't pass the
other thing you know that would be... I think where they're going to go anyway.
Mr. Kawakami: You know what we should do? Maybe I'll
send a communication over and then you guys can address that officially I mean
amongst the Apollo members.
Ms. Brier: Okay. Sure thank you.
Mr. Kawakami: Because you know this is really unchartered
waters I mean. There's a sector I mean that really supports renewable energy but
they're really concerned just about the visual impact I mean because on Kauai, I
mean that's what we have yeah? Our physical beauty, the mountains and so for a
lot of them, the concern is there and a lot of the concern I've been hearing about is
basically in the residential area yeah? I haven't heard too many people saying that
oh you know on Ag or commercial it's going to be a big issue but I figured in the
spirit of moving this thing forward you know, maybe you guys can have a discussion
and come back.
Mr. Brier: Okay. I'll start that conversation right away.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. On that note I'm
going to call the meeting back to order. I would like the... Charlie ah...
Mr. Cowden: Is it okay to make additional comments?
23
Mr. Furfaro: Charlie, you had your 6 minutes.
Mr. Cowden: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: And I did announce several times that you
know I was looking for people to come up but you know I did give you your 6
minutes. Okay I'm going to call the meeting back to order. I would like the Clerk's
Office to so note the request to come over as myself as Committee Chair and
Councilman Kawakami and we want that to address both to the Sierra Club as well
Apollo Kauai that question. Mr. Kawakami?
Mr. Kawakami: Mr. Chair with that being said being that
we're going to be waiting for a response, I'd like to move to defer.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay before we go to that movement of
deferral let me explain a couple particular pieces here, we can also at this point
introduce any additional amendments if we wanted to. I also want to say we are
short one Committee member today, I had review of the rules in the event that this
vote evenly is divided the particular document will automatically be deferred to the
next meeting. I myself cannot introduce a motion as Committee Chair nor can I
introduce an amendment. I would suggest that we defer until October 22nd or 28th
in our meeting; by then we will have by October 28th a full draft but obviously I'm
only one of the Committee members and if I do not have a motion and/or a vote that
is more than an equal of the divide then that will just die for a lack of a motion
and/or a second. I also want to say that there are consistent testimony that comes
up here and talks about the environmental willingness of this council to move on
alternatives to fossils fuels. We all know that, we committed to that when we
earmarked $200,000 for our Engineering, our Energy Sustainability Plan. I have
and I'm sure we can find in the records maintained that we have spent $200,000 on
this particular study and we are looking and reaching out for public testimony and I
would expect high recommendations on Ordinances that needed to be drafted by the
consultants that we hired so you know that is something that I would expect under
our contract agreement as part of the scope of work. Now I want to go back and
reiterate we're sending communication to Sierra and also to Apollo Kauai to ask the
question that Mr. Kawakami raised. We have an opportunity to introduce any new
amendments at this point if somebody would like?
Ms. Kawahara: I do have a minor amendment.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Kawahara: And one housekeeping one. If I could it was
for Section 8-28.4 (a) (10) was a housekeeping change for Section 8-28.3 (a) to be
included in front of the (4) they just missed a letter there. And Yvette's passing it
out right now. And the other amendment on the same submission was just to
change the discontinued period, should the use of the S.W.E.C.S. be discontinued for
a period of 2 year or more years be changed to discontinued for a period of 1 year
the landowner shall inform the Planning Department and remove the S.W.E.C.S.
So does the Councilmembers have that in front of them right now? Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let me go over the procedural piece
then so that we have this. Councilwoman has summarized her amendment as
drafted, I would like to say that we first need to entertain the bill, we will entertain
24
the bill and then move to amend. When we move to amend... I'd like to finish my
commentary about the procedure... move to amend with the Councilwoman
Kawahara's amendment, we would go back to the main bill but in the that time we
could ask for a deferral on the bill so. Thank you for your circulation.
Mr. Bynum: Move to approve.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay move to approve...
Mr. Bynum: The bill.
Mr. Furfaro: The bill okay. Do I have a seconded?
Ms. Kawahara: Seconded.
Councilmember Bynum moved to approve Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, seconded by
Councilmember Kawahara.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay there's a motion to approve and a
seconded to approve the bill. Now since we have that on the table, Councilwoman
Kawahara has a amendment being circulated, may I ask you to introduce the
amendment again.
Ms. Kawahara: Motion to amend as noted in the handout.
Mr. Furfaro: As circulated.
Ms. Kawahara: As circulated.
Mr. Bynum: Seconded.
Councilmember Kawahara moved to amend the bill as circulated, seconded
by Councilmember Bynum.
Mr. Furfaro: There was a seconded. Is there any
discussion on this amendment? Hearing none may I ask if we can vote all those in
favor of the amendments say "aye".
Committee Members: Aye.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we have a 4-0 approval on the
amendment. Now we're back to the main bill and wow we have another
amendment, I'm very sorry.
Mr. Kawakami: I have 2 more yeah.
Mr. Furfaro: You have 2 more? Okay. Very good.
Progress is being made here. Mr. Kawakami, I will let you introduce your
amendment as circulated.
Mr. Kawakami: Okay and the first amendment I'm going to
address is basically... I think it was deferred at the last meeting yeah?
25
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Kawakami: With the additional requirements and that
was by request but it further amends it to add in the language that no more than 12
kilowatts in the residential district and no more than 100 kilowatts in all other
districts. And the rest of the amendment basically is for the class 4 zoning
permitting.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. This is identified amendment number
2, circulated by Mr. Kawakami by request. If this divide is equally on the table,
this amendment will not pass. So on that note, this amendment as circulated on
Bill No. 2317 I have an introduction by Mr. Kawakami and I'm not sure may I
seconded? As Chair?
If it doesn't get a seconded it will die for lack of a seconded.
Mr. Bynum: Comment?
Mr. Furfaro: I think we need to get to the point of a
seconded. If we can't get to a seconded, it will die.
Mr. Kawakami: Move to approve.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to amend Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, as
amended, as circulated.
Mr. Furfaro: We have one move to approve. Okay we have
no seconded. This dies for lack of a seconded. I want to thank Mr. Kawakami for
introducing this; these are the amendments that came from the Committee Chair.
Okay we'll go to item number 3.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Vice Chair. This basically adds in
language to address KIUC's requirements that all applicants proposing to construct
and/or operate a S.W.E.C.S. shall have an executed Interconnection Agreement
with KIUC prior to operation of a S.W.E.C.S.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Um... The vast majority of people who put up
a S.W.E.C.S. will do an Interconnection Agreement. I believe that this language
was in the original bill I proposed and I'm trying to recall frankly what the rationale
was for removing it and I believe and I was going to ask Yvette if she could look that
up and the staff report from Planning. And I believe it had to do with... what would
be the minority of people who are not looking to connect to the grid. Perhaps
they're... you know that they're going to be off grid, they're going to use the
S.W.E.C.S. for lighting in a greenhouse or should they be using battery storage, but
I know that the Planning Commission recommended removing this provision.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I just want to stop with you... We need
a seconded even for the discussion.
Mr. Bynum: I'm sorry? Seconded.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to amend Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, as
26
amended herein, as circulated, seconded by Councilmember Bynum.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. You can continue.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah. So I just want to say this was the
original language in there, I know the Planning Department recommended
removing it, I'm just trying to recall the rationale and Yvette's looking for that in
their, staff report right now. But you know just at the top of my head, I think it had
to do with this minority of people...
Mr. Furfaro: So rather than offer your... off the top of
your head, since we have a motion and a seconded, would you mind if I took a 5
minute recess?
Mr. Bynum: That would be a good idea.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay very good. We're on recess for 5
minutes. Thank you.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:40 a.m.
The Committee reconvened at 11:49 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. I want to go back and for the staff
recap a few things. The first amendment that was introduced by Councilwoman
Kawakami, I mean I'm sorry Councilwoman Kawahara, sorry. That was introduced
by Councilwoman Kawahara has passed. The second piece and I want to remind
us... I reminded everybody then, you can introduce an amendment but you need a
seconded before we have any discussion. The amendment that I had asked to be
introduced by Mr. Kawakami failed for lack of a seconded. Now we are on
Amendment number 3, which I allowed a question be by Mr. Bynum but I also want
to point out there's a very good chance that this bill is going to be deferred and you
will have additional time to be able to work on other amendments. I am looking for
someone to ask to amend this to October 28th because I cannot introduce a item to
defer to the October 28th, and I hope by now understands the 28th is the completion
of the draft bill. If there is no seconded on that or if we are divided, the bill will
automatically be deferred for 2 weeks. So Mr. Bynum, did you get your question?
We have a motion and a seconded on Amendment number 3, did you get your
question answered?
Mr. Bynum: Um... Yes I think so. I mean, my only
concern is that there are individuals who would want to use S.W.E.C.S. for off-grid
system and so staff suggested that we could accept this amendment with an
additional sentence that just says "this provision does not apply to off-grid systems"
so it will make it clear if anybody wanted to connect this up in anyway, they would
have to get the Interconnection Agreement, that would allow somebody with off-grid
and you know can... if that's acceptable to other members, we can do that next time.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we can do that next time and that
means although we have a motion and a seconded, then I would vote no on this
amendment, modify it in 2 weeks.
Mr. Bynum: Or just leave it on the table.
Mr. Furfaro: Well ah... let's say that again?
27
Mr. Bynum: Just leave it on the table.
Mr. Furfaro: No if we motion and seconded we need to
take a vote. We have to vote.
Mr. Bynum: So I would ask the Committee to consider
you know voting no only for the purposes of reintroducing it with this language
added to it.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so I'm assuming as Chairman that a
"no" vote will allow this to come back in 2 weeks in a different form with the
narrative. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Bynum: With the additional sentence.
Mr. Furfaro: But I still have to call for the vote for those
who want this and I may be voting for it in an exsisting form. Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: And you can correct me if I'm wrong but I
think you still can vote "yes" because the bill is going to be deferred anyway and
come back with another amendment to address it in 2 weeks also so, I mean you
don't have to vote "no" now, you can vote "yes" and then change it.
Mr. Furfaro: But I do... I do want to acknowledge that if
you want to reconsider something like that, it's those who vote "yes" that can...
Okay I'm going to call for the vote.
Mr. Bynum: Further discussion?
Mr. Furfaro: Further discussion.
Mr. Bynum: May I pose a question to Councilmember
Kawakami?
Mr. Furfaro: Sure.
Mr. Bynum: Would your intent of this amendment be to
not allow off-grid systems?
Mr. Kawakami: No absolutely not. But I think what's
appropriate is... I'm sorry you have the floor so?
Mr. Furfaro: He's asking you the question, go right ahead.
Mr. Kawakami: I think what would be appropriate is to get
some comments from KIUC and how they would handle such cases like that. I don't
know if there's any technicality but I think you know in 2 weeks we'll have enough
time to ask KIUC if they have any issues with off-grid people who want to put up
wind turbines.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. Let me ask Mr. Watanabe, if we
decided to remove this after a first and seconded motion, can we still remove it?
RICKY WATANABE: (inaudible)
28
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. So there's another opinion for you
folks.
Ms. Kawahara: What was his reply, I'm sorry.
Mr. Bynum: What would you recommend?
Mr. Furfaro: I will state it again. The options that we
have. Vote "yes", vote "no", or ask for this to be removed until we get the feedback
from KIUC, which would mean somebody taking back the motion to approve and
the motion... the seconded.
Mr. Bynum: Well that would seem to be the cleanest way
to...
Mr. Furfaro: It would be. And I just checked with Mr.
Watanabe that can be done. Am I correct Mr. Watanabe?
Mr. Watanabe: Yes.
Mr. Kawakami: I will remove my motion.
Mr. Bynum: I will remove my seconded.
Mr. Furfaro: Very good. And that will come up another
time. Do you have another amendment?
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you Mr. Vice Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: The floor is yours.
Mr. Kawakami: And you know the last amendment died due
to the lack of a seconded but there's some value in that amendment so I'm
circulating this piece that kind of extracts it and it's just to change the language to
"no more than 12 kilowatts in the residential district and no more than 100
kilowatts in all other districts" so I move to approve.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you.
Ms. Kawahara: Seconded.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to amend Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, as
amended herein, as circulated, seconded by Councilmember Kawahara.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and there is a seconded, any further
discussion on that?
Mr. Bynum: Just a question.
Mr. Furfaro: No. This is discussion.
Ms. Kawahara: We're on this one now.
Mr. Bynum: I know but I'm just reading it for the first
29
time so.
Mr. Furfaro: So that's discussion time.
Mr. Bynum: Now I've have chance to read it. I'm
confused. Okay no problem, pau.
Mr. Furfaro: May I call for a vote, all those in favor?
Committee Members: Aye.
The motion to amend was then put, and unanimously carried.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Any opposed? Hearing none.
Okay that amendment has passed. Now we're back to the main motion, as amended
and I will again ask if I could have a deferral to October 28th. Based on the fact that
I think we will have the draft by then. There is no motion?
Mr. Kawakami: Mr. Chair, I move to defer.
Mr. Bynum: Seconded.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay there is a motion to defer and a
seconded, all those in favor say "aye".
Councilmember Kawakami moved to defer Bill No. 2317, Draft 1, as
amended herein, seconded by Councilmember Bynum, and unanimously
carried.
Committee Members: Aye.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Will we read the next
item on the Planning Committee's agenda.
Bill No. 2319 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE (Amending
Article 27, Chapter 8, Kauai County Code 1987, relating to
Shoreline Setbacks and Coastal Protection)
[This item was Deferred.]
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. I would like to look to
the audience, is there any testimony? Is there any testimony on this bill? No
testimony. Did anyone sign up? No one signed up, I do want to say that I'm a bit
concerned that we have some conflicts and a very lengthily from Ian Jung of the
Deputy County Attorney's Office, regarding the proposed amendments with Earth
Justice and for that reason with both of them off island, attending on other county
business, I would like to ask for a deferral on this. Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Just a short comment prior to the deferral.
Mr. Furfaro: Sure.
Mr. Bynum: I have prepared amendments to this bill and
I understand that there are others and it probably be prudent for us to discuss that
30
as well before to see if there... how they (inaudible) and merge and so I'd be
supportive of a motion to defer.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by
Councilmember Kawakami, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2319 was
deferred.
Mr. Furfaro: Any oppose? Hearing none, the Planning
Committee is completed it's work for the day.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~1J U/1/I.Q~I~ ~rl~,~ ~ i I! 0 11' I U,W
Darrellyne M. Simao
Council Service Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on September 16, 2009:
ai anning C e
31
August 26, 2009
FLOOR AMENDMENT
BILL NO. 2317, Relating to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS)
Introduced by: Derek Kawakami (by request)
Amend Section 8-28.2 as follows:
"Sec. 8-28.2 Definitions. When used in this Article, the following
words or phrases shall have the meaning given in this section unless it
shall be apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended:
"Blade" means an extension from the hub of the S.W.E.C.S. that is
designed, in conjunction with other extensions, to catch the wind and
turn the rotor to generate electricity.
"F.A.A." means Federal Aviation Administration.
"Horizontal axis wind energy conversion system" means a wind
energy conversion system that employs a horizontal rotor shaft.
"Hub" means the center of the rotor to which the blades are
attached.
"S.W.E.C.S." means a small wind energy conversion system which
is an apparatus for converting kinetic energy from wind to mechanical
energy in order to produce electrical energy of no more than twelve
(12) kilowatts in the residential district and no more than one-hundred
(100) kilowatts in all other districts and is intended primarily to reduce
on-site consumption of utility power. The term S.W.E.C.S. applies to
tower- and roof-mounted small wind energy conversion systems as well
as horizontal and vertical axis small wind energy conversion systems.
The term also applies to wind monitoring or meteorological towers used
for supporting anemometers, wind vanes, and other equipment to assess
the wind resource at a predetermined height above the ground.
"Total Height" means the combined height as measured from the
existing grade at the base of the tower or structure to which the
S.W.E.C.S. is mounted to the tip of the rotor blade when extended
vertically ninety (90) degrees from the horizontal plane of the ground.
"Tower" means the upright portion of a wind energy system to
which the primary generator systems are attached, either at the top (i.e.
generally for horizontal axis wind energy conversion systems) or the
bottom (i.e. generally for vertical axis wind energy conversion systems).
"Vertical axis wind energy conversion system" means a wind
energy conversion system that employs a vertical rotor shaft."
Amend Section 8-28.4 as follows:
Sec. 8-28.4 S.W.E.C.S. that require a Use Permit.
[(a) Tower-mounted S.W.E.C.S. shall require a Use Permit in
the following use and overlay districts:]
1 - ~-/
4
~a) In addition to the limits set forth in Section 8-28.3(a), tower-
mounted S.W.E.C.S. shall require a Use Permit and a Class IV Zoning
Permit in the following use and overlay districts:
(1) Resort District (RR).
(2) Special Treatment District, Public Facilities (ST-P).
(3) Special Treatment District, CulturaUHistoric (ST-C).
(4) Special Treatment District, Scenic/Ecological Resources
(STR).
(5) Kapa'a Special Planning Areas A, B, and C.
(6) Residential District (R-1 - R-20), when the lot is less
than one (1) acre in size.
(7) Neighborhood Commercial District (C-N), when the
lot is less than [20,000 square feet] one (1) acre in size.
(8) General Commercial District (C-G), when the lot is
less than 20,000 square feet in size.
(9) Open District, when the lot is less than five (5) acres
in size.
(10) North Shore Special Planning Area.
[(b) Roof-mounted S.W.E.C.S. shall require a Use Permit in the
following use and overlay districts:]
(b) In addition to the limits set forth in Section 8-28.3(b), roof-
mounted S.W.E.C.S. shall require a Use Permit and a Class IV Zoning
Permit in the following use and overlay districts:
(1) Resort District (R,R).
(2) Special Treatment District, Public Facilities (ST-P).
(3) Special Treatment District, CulturaUHistoric (ST-C).
(4) Special Treatment District, Scenic/Ecological
Resources (ST-R).
(5) Kapa'a Special Planning Areas A, B, and C.
~6) North Shore Special Plannin~_
(7) Residential District (R-1 - R-20), when the lot is less
than one (1) acre in size.
(8 Neighborhood Commercial District (C-N), when the
lot is less than one (1) acre in size.
~9) General Commercial District, when the lot is less than
one (1) acre in size."
(New material to be added is underscored. Material to be deleted is bracketed.)
V:\CS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS\2317FA-jf.doc/ys
2
(August 26, 2009)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
BILL NO. 2317, Draft 1, Relating to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(SWECS)
Introduced by: Derek Kawakami
Amend Bill No. 2317, Draft 1 as follows:
SECTION 1(f) is amended to read as follows:
"(f) This ordinance is concerned solely with the regulations and
requirements for the issuing of those permits established under Chapter 8 of the
Kauai County Code, including but not limited to Zoning Permits and Use Permits.
Approval of said permits does not constitute an approval of other permits or imply
the meeting of other standards that may be required by County, State, or Federal
agencies[.] and the electrical utility."
Section 8-28.5 is amended by adding subsection (j) to read as follows:
"(i) All abplicants proposing to construct and/or operate a S.W E C S shall
have an executed Interconnection Agreement with Kauai Island Utility Cooperative
~KIUCZprior to operation of a S.W.E.C.S."
(New material to be added is underscored. Material to be deleted is bracketed.)
1
(August 26, 2009)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
BILL NO. 2317, Draft 1, Relating to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(SWECS)
Introduced by: Derek Kawakami
Section 8-28.2 is amended by amending the definition of "S.W.E.C.S." to read as
follows:
""S.W.E.C.S." means a small wind energy conversion system which is an
apparatus for converting kinetic energy from wind to mechanical energy in order to
produce electrical energy of no more than twelve (12~ kilowatts in the residential
district and no more than one-hundred (100) kilowatts in all other districts and is
intended primarily to reduce on-site consumption of utility power. The term
S.W.E.C.S. applies to tower- and roof-mounted small wind energy conversion
systems as well as horizontal and vertical axis small wind energy conversion
systems. The term also applies to wind monitoring or meteorological towers used
for supporting anemometers, wind vanes, and other equipment to assess the wind
resource at a predetermined height above the ground."
(New material to be added is underscored. Material to be deleted is bracketed.)
1
August 26, 2009
FLOOR AMENDMENT
BILL NO. 2317, Draft 1, Relating to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(SWECS)
Introduced by: Lani Kawahara
Section 8-28.4(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Tower-mounted S.W.E.C.S. shall require a Use Permit in the following
use and overlay districts:
(1) Resort District (RR).
(2) Special Treatment District, Public Facilities (ST-P).
(3) Special Treatment District, CulturaUHistoric (ST-C).
(4) Special Treatment District, Scenic/Ecological Resources (STR).
(5) Kapa`a Special Planning Areas A, B, and C.
(6) Residential District (R-1 - R-20), when the lot is less than one
(1) acre in size.
(7) Neighborhood Commercial District (C-N), when the lot is less
than one (1) acre in size.
(8) General Commercial District (C-G), when the lot is less than
20,000 square feet in size.
(9) Open District, when the lot is less than five (5) acres in size.
(10) Agriculture District, when the density of tower-mounted
S.W.E.C.S. proposed exceeds the density of tower-mounted S.W.E.C.S.
permitted under [Section 8-28.3(4).] Section 8-28.3(a)(4).
Section 8-28.5(1) is amended to read as follows:
"(i) Discontinuance of S.W.E.C.S. Should the use of a
S.W.E.C.S. be discontinued for a period of [two (2) or more years,] one (1) ear.
the respective land owner shall inform the Planning Department and remove
the S.W.E.C.S. and any associated equipment and/or structures from the
subject property."
(New material to be added is underscored. Material to be deleted is bracketed. All
material is new.)
(V:\CS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS\2317fa-lk.doc:ys)
1