HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-10 PC_minutes
KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 14, 2010
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair, Caven Raco at 9:35 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room
2A-213. The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. Herman Texeira
Ms. Paula Morikami
Mr. Jan Kimura
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Mr. James Nishida
Mr. Caven Raco
Ms. Camilla Matsumoto
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Chair: Can I get an approval of the agenda?
Mr. Texeira: So moved.
Ms. Morikami: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Paula Morikami, to approve
the agenda, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: And a motion to receive items into the record.
Ms. Morikami: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carried.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
receive items into record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Minutes for meeting of October 261", is there any revisions or deletions, if not...
Ms. Morikami: Move to approve.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Request from Association of Apartment Owners of the Makahuena at Po`ipu, to amend
Condition No. 5 of Project Development Use Permit P.D.U-15-79, Special Management Area
Use Permit SMA(U)79-6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-79-21, Tax Map Key 2-8-020:003,
Po`ipu, Kauai =Association of Apartment Owners of the Makahaena at Po`ipu. [Deferred
11/23/10.
JAN25 2011
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith: Thank you Chair. I don't have any additional response;
the applicant does have answers to the questions they were asked at the previous meeting.
Chair: If there are no questions for the planner I will call up the applicant or the
applicant's representative.
Ms. Kai Andrade: Hi, my name is Kai Andrade. I represent the Association of
Apartment Owners of the Makahuena at Po`ipu, I work for GMP International and (inaudible).
Chair: Do you remember the questions that we had?
Ms. Andrade: I have written them up, written up the questions that I understand were
asked and provided follow up responses hopefully to clarify any questions you folks have.
Chair: Do you want to go through them and explain please?
Ms. Andrade: Sure. I understand that a majority of the questions came from Mr. Blake.
Mr. Blake had asked us right now where does the waste water go and where is the new waste
water intended to go. Currently the waste water from the onsite treatment plant at Makahuena
Po`ipu is discharged into onsite underground injection wells and they are located on the lower
portion of the property. The affluent is pumped into one of their two existing permitted injection
wells. The Department of Health has issued an underground injection control permit No. UK-
1938, the primary well is located in the lower portion of the site near the existing underground
waste water treatment unit. And the secondary well is located in the upper parking lot area of the
property. That is where the existing waste water does go into existing injection wells. The waste
water from the new replacement treatment plant will go to the same existing wells. A
And that actually with the second question if you have existing injection wells there, yes,
there are two existing injection wells on the property. And "do you know if there has been any
indication of where the water comes if, if it comes up after going into the well." The treated
affluent percolates into the groundwater. The wells operate under a permit issued by the
Department of Health and it does go into the groundwater.
Mr. Blake: So as far as you know is any of it coming up...
Ms. Andrade: Actually I think due to the proximity of the wells to the shore it is likely
that the water does flow to the ocean as do most of the injection wells along the coast. I didn't
make extra copies of this, the Department of Health Safe Drinking Water branch has what they
call an underground injection control area line and makai of this control line the aquifer is
considered, it is not for drinking water it is already a saline or brackish water aquifer. And they
allow injection wells for the purposes of waste water disposal makai of this line. And so like I
said due to the proximity to the ocean it is likely that the treated affluent does reach the ocean.
Mr. Blake: I was just concerned about the (inaudible).
Ms. Andrade: It goes through relatively slowly. It isn't like it is running down the
surface. It percolates through the cracks in the rocks in the ground. There was a question about
how deep the wells are and actually I did some research on the underground injection wells that
are existing that are covered under the permit, there is one well, the first well that was installed
on the property is approximately 70 feet deep and the second well is approximately 144 feet
deep. The shallow well, the one closer to the ocean is about 38 feet below mean sea level and
the second well is approximately 90 feet below mean sea level.
And then I believe Mr. Blake had a question concerning where does it go once it gets to
the bottom of the well. It percolates into the groundwater in the area and then migrates out
through. And I believe like I said it is likely that it does reach the ocean but as do the other
injection wells in the area as well. This isn't the only one in the area. I would also like to point
out that the injection wells are existing, they are permitted under the Department of Health Clean
Water Safe Drinking Water branch and the wells are in compliance with the permit and there
have been no violations on the permits as issued.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
2
Mr. Blake: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nishida: Should the...these treatment plants are expensive to run.
Ms. Andrade: I think the owner himself may have a specific number on how much it
costs to run, it is something they have been doing since the complex has been in operation in the
early 80s. It is an ongoing expense, it is an expected expense and...
Mr. Nishida: My point was should a line be put in that would centrally treat this affluent
and then remove the injection wells from along the coast they wouldn't have any problem
hooking up to something like that.
Ms. Andrade: No I don't believe the applicant. That would be something that I would
think on a regional basis all of the condominium associations along that area would be in the
same situation.
Chair: Any more Commissioners? If not then let me see if there is anybody in the public
that would like to testify on this agenda item. Seeing none does the planner want to read the
recommendation?
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Any questions for the recommendation as read? If not what would be the pleasure
of the Commission?
Mr. Nishida: Move to approve the request of the Association of Apartment Owners of
the Makahuena at Po`ipu to amend condition No. 5 of Project Development Use Permit P.D.U-
15-79. Do we have to close public hearing and all that?
Chair: (Inaudible).
Mr. Nishida: Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-79-6 and Class IV Zoning
Permit Z-IV-79-21, Tax Map Key 2-8-020:003, Po`ipu, Kauai, Association of Apartment
Owners of Makahuena at Po`ipu.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: And if you could make a revision to your motion to receive the responses.
Mr. Nishida: I would like to add to receive the responses we received today.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, if not all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Herman Texeira, receive
responses and approve P.D.U-15-79, SMA(II)-79-6, and Z-IV-79-21, motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
Request (6/25/10) from Walton Hong, Esq., for an extension of time for Use Permit U-8-
47, Special Permit SP-89-20 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-89-53 for the continued operation
of a temporary cement batch plant located adjacent to the `Anini Vista Agricultural Subdivision,
Princeville, Tax Map Key 5-3-006:014 = Honsador Glover, LLG.
Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read staff report (on file).
Chair: Questions for the planner?
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
3
Mr. Texeira: Lisa Ellen, could you specifically describe the location of this batching
plant?
Staff: It is almost across from the Princeville Airport but it is on the makai side so as you
are heading north I think it is near mile marker, I want to say 18. It is approximately 4.6 miles
from Hanalei.
Mr. Texeira: How far in, makai, of the highway is it?
Staff: 1200 feet.
Mr. Texeira: 1200 feet.
Staff: But it is not visible from the highway, you must turn into the subdivision. And I
did take photographs although I didn't prepare them for the hearing. You must go in and it is a T
shaped intersection and if you go in and turn right you are at `Anini Vista Subdivision, should
you turn left there is a gate, a long gravel road approximately 500 feet long, another gate and the
facility site occupies approximately one and a half to one and a quarter acres.
Chair: Walton, do you have any maps with you?
Mr. Hone: I don't believe so, not with me.
Chair: Do you have a map in your office?
Staff: I don't have that in the file.
Chair: Would you want a map? We can get map during recess.
Mr. Texeira: I would like to have that.
Chair: So let me take a 5 minute recess and get a map.
Commission recessed at 9:40 a.m.
Meeting called back to order at 9:45 a.m.
Chair: The planner has provided us maps of the location so with that the Commission
sort of gets an idea of where it's at. With that are there any more questions for the planner?
Herman, you had the floor.
Mr. Blake: On page 1 of the evaluation at the bottom it says "the file contains previous
reports, conditions, letters of support and letters of complaint." What kinds of letters of
complaint did we receive?
Chair: Were all these reports and letters from your site visit and the letters that we got,
just the recent ones? Are these recent?
Staff: These letters were submitted in 2005 when the applicant came in for renewal. I
am unable to locate it however there were several letters with the same complaint and Mr.
Clendenin who lives closest to the subdivision. But I do have the letters of support from the
local contractors. I don't know why I don't have copies of the letters from Mr. Clendenin.
Mr. Blake: Do you remember the tenor of the complaints? What was it about?
Staff: The nature of the temporary use permit extending over a period since 1989, trucks.
That is why the times are limited to 8 to 4.
Mr. Blake: So his complaints were procedural or where they noise or rubbish or smoke?
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
4
Staff: Just the truck noise and the fact that there is use of a temporary use cement
batching facility near a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Blake: In your investigation were you able to determine how much time it is going
to take to relocate the plant? I am going to paragraph, the second full paragraph on page 2 where
it says "the applicant will need some time to relocate the operation to the new site." Some time
doesn't really tell us how much time.
Staff: The applicant submitted a letter of request which is included from Mr. Hong that
requested 1 year. Staff reviewed that and granted 6 months, we felt that was appropriate as long
as they could ...they have already secured a lease, they are paying as I understand it a lease on 2
properties at this time.
Mr. Blake: Then I will wait until the applicant comes up.
Chair: Does anybody else have questions for the planner? If not, Walton, do you want to
come up?
Mr. Walton Hone: Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. For
the record my name is Walton Hong representing the applicant Glover Honsador and with me is
David Pierrie of Glover Honsador. Unless there are any further questions about the location of
the site, everybody kind of knows where it is now. Let me respond first to the question raised by
Mr. Blake about the letters of complaint. The planner is correct, the letter of objection by Neil
Clendenin was because he had a lot in the `Anini Vista subdivision and he was complaining
about (inaudible) was a Special Permit allowed for such a long period of time. However I will
state that since that time we have worked with the Association for `Anini Vista, we have done
several things with them to resolve any concerns including sharing the costs in preparing and
resurfacing the road. And I think if they still had any objections they would have showed up
here today. I don't Mr. Clendenin or anyone on behalf of AOAO or `Anini Vista here today, at
least not that I know of.
At any rate, in June of 2010 we did submit an application for a permit for a 1 year
request. We intended to locate the operation to an alternate site to enable Glover Honsador to
continue to service the North Shore with quality ready mixed concrete. As the planner indicated
there is a short time frame after which the concrete begins to deteriorate. We have an agreement
with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands as to an alternate site in Anahola. As the planner
also indicated we are currently paying lease rent for this site as well as the Princeville site, we
are paying on two sites. Not it's not like this is an incentive to stay in Princeville as long as
possible. However there are some technical issues that have prevented Glover Honsador from
relocating at this time. And at this time if you don't mind I will turn it over to David Pierrie to
explain these technical issues to get a better feel of what we are trying to do and why we need the
additional time.
Mr. David Pierrie: Thank you Walton. During the investigations for the new site we
became aware of new water pollution permitting guidelines that the Environmental Protection
Agency had given the State of Hawaii, the Department of Health Clean Water branch. The
department has advised us that concrete process waste water treatment systems and/or control
measures be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that does not allow concrete waste
water to filter or percolate into the ground or discharge (inaudible). We weren't really sure if the
new facilities could be designed and constructed to meet these new guidelines. The development
of the new site therefore requires the design of impervious processed water treatment (inaudible)
for the operation. We are currently working on this with a mainland company experienced with
ready mix concrete and these guidelines, he day we finalize the proposed site layout design
(inaudible) for the permitting aspects for the development.
Mr. Hone: We have received a copy of the staff report and I commend Lisa Ellen for
(inaudible) and seeing what is there. However very frankly it would be very difficult for us to
relocate the plant given the technical issue we still have to resolve within 6 months, therefore we
respectfully request that instead of 6 months that we be granted a 1 year extension. However we
would provide the Planning Commission with a status report before June 30`b that would be the
Planning Commission Minutes -
December 14, 2010
5
halfway point. Right now the recommendation I believe is 6 months and if we need more time
come in with a status report. We are asking for 1 year and come in with a status report at 6
months. I think that is probably more reasonable under the circumstances and the anticipated
delays resulting in these technical issues. As I indicated we have resolved the issues relating to
the `Anini Vista subdivision by helping them upkeep and repair their roads and they are
apparently satisfied.
As Lisa Ellen indicated due to economic downswings the plant is really now more of on
demand convenience for the North Shore people. As indicated there are like 15 truck loads a
month, that is I truck load every other day. But if we have to shut it down and we cannot
relocate the plant then the concrete has to come from Halfway Bridge, there is no ifs or buts
about it. Added to the time of travel from Halfway Bridge to the North Shore, the time needed
so the concrete doesn't degrade or deteriorate, and the extra cost, it is going to cost ...the
purchase of the concrete is money because we have to pay for the travel time for the trucks. I
would guess it is an hour or hour and a half one way if you had to go from Halfway Bridge over
to the North Shore given the traffic in the LYhu`e/Kapa`a corridor.
So for that we are asking and respectfully request that the extension be for a 1 year period
instead of the recommended 6 months but with the condition, and this is to address any concerns
that we are dragging our feet. We really are not...we want to stop paying double rent but at least
we will give a status report before June 30th in so far is (inaudible). I do have proposed language
and I am (inaudible) but if the Commission goes along with our request and I can prepare or
present this proposed language to the Commission for its consideration. With that I think we are
prepared to respond to any questions that you may have.
Mr. Dahilig: Just for the Commission's information, both the planner and I have
discussed the issue of whether 6 months versus a year period for an extension would be
appropriate. And for the rationale behind having a 6 month timeline was because of the
temporary nature of the facility and we wanted to hold that potentially. But given the
information provided and at Mr. Hong's request it is not to a degree where I would raise any
objections to having the condition be amended to say 1 year with a 6 month status report to be
filed with the department.
Mr. Nishida: The new site is going to require Use Permits and all of that?
Staff: No. There are other permits.
Mr. Hong: There will be permitting requirements for the new site.
Mr. Nishida: What permits are you going to need to get to utilize the new site?
Chair: Where is the new site?
Mr. Hong: It's in Anahola on Hawaiian Homelands and there may be a permitting issue
but I think (inaudible) a legal question I don't have an answer to at this moment and that is, are
Hawaiian Homelands subject to County's permitting and I think that is a legal question that has
to answered. Once we get that question resolved we can know what permits we have to come in
for the County. But none the less we still are working out the issues with the State Department
of Health because of the potential runoff into the ground waters.
Mr. Nishida: What is the status of the plans for the retention basin or whatever you call
that?
Mr. Pierrie: We are just about finalized. We looked at maybe four different options. It
is actually sort of a catch 22 in trade off between site footprint and the rainfall that you have to
contain. We are looking at containing a 100 year storm event and also the logistical applications
for trucks to come in and out and the batching operation (inaudible) containment capacity. We
have actually just received final drawings from a company on the mainland and (inaudible) final
layout.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
6
Mr. Nishida: The closest neighbor to that site is..?
Mr. Pierrie: To the new site you are talking about?
Mr. Nishida: To the new site.
Mr. Pierrie: Towards the top the operators of the subdivisions or the closest residential
neighbors is about 1500 feet.
Mr. Nishida: And then the new site will serve Kapa`a, the north side of Kapa`a too
probably.
Mr. Pierrie: That's right. It is a little bit closer to Kapa`a but it also still gets us to the
other side of the heavy traffic corridor so we can service both sides of Kapa`a as well as the
North Shore.
Mr. Nishida: And you are going to leave your trucks on that side or the Halfway Bridge
side?
Mr. Pierrie: They would come back every night to Halfway Bridge. There will be no
parking at the new site. It will basically go up in the morning if there is anything on the schedule
for the day and then they will what we call satellite batch out of the North Shore plant.
Mr. Nishida: But the daily visits are not going to cross Wailua Bridge probably once
they go over.
Mr. Pierrie: Once they go over, correct, and they stay on the other side of Kapa`a
basically to get the (inaudible).
Mr. Nishida: Do you have any idea this coming year, say for a year you are not
anticipating heavy use of that North Shore site?
Mr. Pierrie: No, actually we see slightly less than we saw this year which is substantially
lower than probably about a quarter of what we were doing back in 2007 we were able to reduce
volume for at least traffic.
Mr. Nishida: Is that batch site, I guess mix is brought out, dry mix is brought out, the
components for cement and then it is loaded into the... can you describe that process?
Mr. Pierrie: We truck out aggregates and gravel components of ready mix concrete and
cement. The plant is for a temporary portable batch plant which combines the components by
weight, a scale, and mixing is actually done in the mixing trucks after the components are
combined with water.
Mr. Nishida: So how long does it take from the start of the process to the truck leaving
the sites?
Mr. Pierrie: (Inaudible) is a little bit slower, probably about 10 minutes. Depending on
the size of the job we could leave a batch (inaudible) the truck drivers come in and out. If the
jobs are small the truck drivers would batch themselves.
Mr. Texeira: So the current Princeville site services exactly where on the North Shore?
Mr. Pierrie: From Kawaihau to the Hanalei Bridge. Not Kawaihau, sorry, whatever the
boundary is, near the dairy, the district boundary.
Mr. Texeira: So the relocation actually is going to be more (inaudible), you will be able
to service a larger part of..
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
7
Mr. Pierrie: We can come back towards Kapa`a more, correct, that was one of our
reasons for selecting this site, (inaudible) Princeville Development being more filled out.
Mr. Texeira: Realistically do you feel that you will be able to solve your technical
problems in the next 12 months?
Mr. Pierrie: Definitely we feel like we are close. Obviously we can't predict when we
go to various agencies and things like that but (inaudible) we have gotten so far and what we
have done with the site plan layouts (inaudible). Technically we feel like we are there it is just
now the permitting process.
Mr. Blake: So one of the big questions that you have is whether the County has any
jurisdiction at all over the Anahola site?
Mr. Hone: I think I tried to research and it was kind of up in the air whether or not the
County has jurisdiction over Hawaiian Homelands and so they only way I can respond
Commissioner Blake is whatever permits are necessary we will comply with. But that particular
issue has not been resolved.
Mr. Blake: So once those questions are answered and if it is answered such that the
County does have jurisdiction or that the Hawaiian Homes want to avail themselves of the
County's services, for instance inspections and so forth, then you are going to apply for permits?
Mr. Hone: Once all these technical issues are resolved so that we know exactly what we
are going to design, what we are going to build at this new site to comply with the EPA
requirements then we will say okay, if we need for example a Special Permit, a Use Permit, a
Class IV Permit, we will come in for those permits.
Mr. Blake: And you realistically think this can be done within 6 months?
Mr. Hong: No. That is why we are asking for 1 year with a status report in 6 months
time.
Mr. Blake: Then my question is do you realistically think this can be done in 1 year?
Mr. Hong: We certainly hope so.
Mr. Blake: I mean realistically.
Mr. Hone: I think we can but again there are certain government agencies we have no
control over how fast they will help us resolve these issues. I can assure the Commission that we
will do the best we can from our side, as best and reasonably expeditious as possible to move
forward with this matter. But again I don't want to sit here and say we guarantee we can do it in
1 year. Realistically I think we can.
Mr. Blake: I don't expect a guarantee. I know that is unrealistic to speak realistically but
it has been 21 years. We have already been questioned about the propriety of the temporary
permit going on for 21 years. And now we are faced with a potential site and I would expect that
you know exactly what you are going to build, you have the plans and everything as far as what
you are going to do. It's not like you are going to start tomorrow, right?
Mr. Pierrie: Like I said we have just about finalized the site layout.
Mr. Blake: The design and construction layout.
Mr. Pierrie: We have just about finalized, that is what one of the big delays was to figure
out what the site layout is and to conform with EPA guidelines.
Mr. Blake: You are not getting push back from the residents within 1500 feet of your
proposed plant?
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
8
Mr. Pierrie: No we haven't. We have worked closely with the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands on securing the site.
Mr. Blake: So the residents haven't been notified, the people on the edge of your plant
boundaries?
Mr. Pierrie: There is actually a substantial amount of property between our plant
boundaries and the closest resident.
Mr. Blake: That being said my concern is that things proceed as expeditiously as
possible so then we are not faced with this issue coming up again and again and again, 21, and
now 22 years and potentially more than that. It is almost one generation already.
Mr. Pierrie: We understand and we have worked hard and we just need to resolve this
issue and then keep moving forward.
Chair: Any more questions? I have the same concerns, it has been 21 years and it has
taken you from June until now to figure out what you want to do for 6 months and only now you
are coming up with a plan.. As a business owner and a business you want to provide material to
the construction industry, I would have figured you would do this a lot quicker than only now
you are figuring out your plans. It is almost better that we deny you and say now get your permit
as quickly as you can. It has been 21 years and I have the same reservations as he has and I just
want to say the obvious, it has been 21 years and 6 months... the last time you came here for an
extension or a status report and we are still at the same point. When is it going to stop? So with
that I don't need to...it is pretty much black and white. I just want to say the obvious that it has
taken 6 months for your guys to figure out what you guys want to do without even figuring out
what the County wants to do. So with that let me see if there are any more questions for the
planner or the applicant, if not I will call if there is anybody in the public that would like to
testify on this agenda item. Seeing none what would be the pleasure of the Commission?
Mr. Kimura: I would like to make a motion to grant a 1 year extension instead of the 6
month extension.
Chair: So maybe we can read the recommendations or maybe the revised one. Walton,
did you say you had copies?
Mr. Hong: Yes I have.
Chair: What we will do Commissioners is she will read the recommendation and then we
will make a motion and if there is a revision and you guys want to grant this final year then make
a recommendation.
Mr. Hong: If I could just note that the language I have here is for the first paragraph of
the recommendation, second paragraph, "Upon termination of the cement batch plant facility the
applicant shall..." that would still stay in.
Chair: So you want to read the recommendations first and don't read the amendment yet,
let the Commission make a motion if they want to. Read your recommendation as...
Staff: Should I read the conclusion as well?
Chair: No.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read staff recommendation (on file).
Chair: Is there a motion to approve or deny?
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to approve this application.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
9
Mr. Nishida: Second.
Chair: With that this is where we could add or amend condition to the year as provided
by Walton Hong so if anybody wants to make that motion you can for that amendment.
Mr. Nishida: Move to amend the condition stated by Walton.
Chair: So if I can have the planner read what was provided and what the new condition
would be as amended.
Staff: Commissioner, based on the suggested revision, "Use of the batch plant facility
shall expire and cease by December 31, 2011. The status report and exit plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Department no later than 30 days prior to the expiration date. Upon termination
of the cement batching facility the applicant shall restore the project site to preexisting condition
to the occupancy of the site. Any improvements that are constructed shall be removed. The
applicant shall provide a status report to the Planning Commission by June 30, 2011."
Chair: Is that the condition that you were..?
Mr. Nishida: Yes.
Chair: So on that motion all those in favor say aye, opposed...
Mr. Blake: No. But we are talking about the motion to amend?
Chair: Amend.
Mr. Blake: So if I wanted to amend this further we would pass this and then amend it
again?
Chair: Yes, we would pass this and then you could...
Mr. Blake: I change mine to aye.
Chair: So all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by James Nishida, to approve
staff recommendation, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Blake: Move to further amend condition 2 to state that the status report be submitted
by April 30th because they will know whether they can be out of there in 2 months. That way we
have May and June to look at it and we are at that halfway point making a decision rather than at
the halfway point analyzing the situation.
Mr. Nishida: The permit goes until 1 year?
Chair: Yes.
Mr. Nishida: So what you are suggesting is that...
Mr. Blake: I would like to see the status report by April 30`"
Chair: Before April 30`".
Mr. Blake: Or no later than April 301"
Chair: So that way they have 2 months prior to that if they cannot make that.
Mr. Nishida: Well the permit goes for 1 year so the status report is only telling us...
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
10
Chair: If they can or cannot do it. And if they cannot do it then that leaves them 2
months to...
Mr. Blake: Let me explain myself, if it is due on June 30 h and it arrives around June 30th
we don't get to see it until July or August, if it is going to come back before the Commission...
Mr. Kimura: You want the status report in so we have it by June.
Mr. Blake: Yes.
Mr. Kimura: So if they bring it in, in April, so it gets on the agenda by June.
Mr. Nishida: You are not anticipating any action by the Commission?
Chair: It is just a status report (inaudible).
Mr. Blake: It depends on what the status report says. But even at that time they still have
until December 31st
Chair: And it's not action on the permit it is just a status report. So do you want to make
a motion for that?
Mr. Texeira: So moved.
Mr. Nishida: Second.
Chair: Wait, let's make a motion, then have discussion.
Mr. Blake: The status report be submitted to the Planning Commission no later than
April 30, 2011 for informational purposes.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any questions or discussion? Walton? I just want to give the applicant a chance
to respond but you can go first.
Mr. Nishida: (Inaudible).
Chair: No concerns, right, giving us a status report?
Mr. Hone: We will give you a status report up to that point what we have done so far. I
don't think the request is unreasonable.
Mr. Nishida: The question about whether the County has jurisdiction over these permits,
well actually can you get an answer for that by April? What is required to get that answer?
Mr. Hong: It means working with the County Attorney's office if they agree or disagree
with me.
Mr. Jung: I heard a little bit about this issue but I don't know it well enough to give you
guys an answer right now but I will look into it and see what type of requirements the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands would want to place on this applicant and how County
jurisdiction works with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. And I can work with Walton
on this.
Mr. Nishida: Do you anticipate-you have no idea actually what the County requires?
Mr. Hong: No I don't because again as you have seen final plans are going to get
adopted and then from there then we will have to check on one, does Hawaiian Homelands have
exclusive jurisdiction and the County not involved? If the answer is no, the County is involved
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
11
and has concurrent jurisdiction, let me put it that way, for permitting, then it is sitting down with
staff and determining what permits do we need to apply for as we go through the permitting
process before this Planning Commission.
Mr. Nishida: And these plans for the site will be complete plans, you are talking about
almost final, complete plans.
Mr. Hone: That is where I heard from Mr. Pierrie this morning if I am not mistaken, he
can come and correct me.
Mr. Nishida: So you are going to be able to make a decision on that within this April..?
Mr. June: I will look into it but again it all depends on what they propose to the County
in terms of what type of permitting (inaudible).
Chair: (Inaudible).
Mr. Blake: Just a comment, this is a case of first impression whether the Hawaiian
Homes Department is going to give up some of their jurisdiction to the County. I can see this
going on for years. But I believe in the past and I could be wrong, that when homes have been
built on Hawaiian Home's land I think Hawaiian Homes has asked the County to inspect the
homes to make sure that they are code compliant and so forth. And in this case I would hope
that the same type of (inaudible) between two governmental entities can take place because to
me all it does, it doesn't resolve the Hawaiian Homes giving up any of their sovereignty or
anything like that but it certainly does protect the immediate Hawaiian Home Lands and
surrounding areas environmentally with regard to code compliance and building codes and so
forth. It is a win/win situation all the way around so I hope that it doesn't get into a...I hope
everyone can work together.
Mr. Dahilie: We are aware that based on the way that Hawaiian Homelands is set up is,
based on the 1920 law, as well as subsequent case law regarding what jurisdiction Hawaiian
Homelands is on their respective zoning versus safety requirements, versus even 343
requirements. Once we get it we will shoot that over to the County Attorney's office for
communication as to what is the County's appropriate jurisdiction. (Inaudible) for instance the
Wal-Mart as well as the Target there has been quite some contention with respect to zoning
(inaudible) has asserted that they do not need to go through the process and they just submitted
everything to approve it. So if we do go that we will be like seeking guidance from (inaudible)
as to how they handle (inaudible) situations from (inaudible) not necessarily Hawaiian Homes
(inaudible).
Chair: Anymore discussion with the motion on the floor to have the status report, if not
all those in favor say aye, opposed.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Jan Kimura, to require status
report no later than April 30, 2011, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: If there is no more discussion...
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, on the conclusion, do we need to change that from 6 months
to I year and also the first paragraph for recommendations, it says be approved for 6 months.
Shouldn't that also be changed to 1 year?
Chair: Let's ask our County Attorney.
Mr. June: It appears the (inaudible) but if you guys wanted to clarify it you could and
just amend the report but the condition has already been amended but for clarity if you would
like.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
12
Chair: Anymore discussion, if not back on the main motion to approve Zoning Use
Permit U-89-47 and Special Permit SP-89-20, and Class IV Zoning Permit ZA-89-53, all those in
favor say aye, opposed, motion carries.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by James Nishida, to approve
staff report as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Dahilie: We are going to deviate a little bit from the agenda. We want to ask our
new Deputy Planning Director, Dee Crowell, to come up to the mic. I just wanted to take the
time, Dee started yesterday and we are very fortunate to have his insight and guidance. We are
referring to him as the encyclopedia in the office. His tenure as a previous Planning Director as
well as in public and private sectors is certainly helpful to the department and we are definitely
fortunate to have him aboard. So I just wanted to acknowledge him this morning, he has been
sitting in the back (inaudible).
Mr. Crowell: I am not wearing a tie. It's good to be back. I see a lot of new faces in the
department.
Chair: For item A.3, I am going to, as Chair, I am going to move that to the back of the
agenda so we can have our executive session (inaudible).
Mr. Nishida: Chair, just a request on that, in case there is anyone in the public that
wanted to speak on that.
Chair: Is there anybody that wanted to speak or testify on item A.3 that I will be tabling
to the back of the agenda?
COMMUNICATION
There were no communications.
SUBDIVISION
Mr. Nishida: Subdivision Committee report, all committee members present. No general
business, communications, or unfinished business. New business, tentative subdivision action,
S-2011-11, Ysidro R. Macias/Thomas Kaiakapu, TMK: 1-9-009:013, 1-9-010:001, passed 3-0.
Antone Viela Trust Estate, TMK: 4-2-0101:012, 059, passed 3-0. Final subdivision S-2005-42,
Gregory Smith, TMK: 3-5-01:27 and 173, passed 3-0, S-2009-03, Kukui`ula Development
Company (Hawai`i) LLC, TMK: 3-5-01:27 and 173, passed 3-0. Final Subdivision S-2010-03,
State of Hawaii (DLNR) County of Kauai, TMK: 2-4-004:005, approved 3-0. Move to accept
subdivision committee report.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Discussion?
Mr. Blake: I have a question about I have a question about item S-2009-03, Kukui`ula
Development Company, final subdivision approval for the 36 lot subdivision. Is this going to be
a gated community?
Mr. Nishida: Yes.
Mr. Blake: It is going to be a gated community.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: In working with the developer they have no indication that they
were going to gate the primary entrance to the subdivision or to the planned area.
Mr. Blake: They have no indication of what?
Staff: Of providing a gate at the primary entrance to the subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
13
Mr. Blake: So is it fair to say that to our knowledge right now it is not going to be a
gated community?
Staff: That is fair to say.
Mr. Blake: And the development will be using County emergency services like Fire and
Police and ambulance, correct?
Staff: Correct.
Mr. Blake: On condition (O) states that the applicant shall resolve with the Planning
Department the provision of public access. What exactly does that mean?
Staff: Let me start by saying all subdivisions are subject to public access which is
ordinance No. 777. Whenever there is a subdivision that qualifies for public access then the
developer will be subject to those requirements. In this particular case the planned area
established a trail system throughout an entire 1,000 acre piece. For us as a department we
would be responsible in coordinating and implementing the trail system so that it is consistent
with what was originally represented and making sure that the subdivision layout accommodates
the trail system. So to date there has been a couple of divisions that are within this trail system
and this is just one of those subdivisions that have the trail system through their subdivision.
Mr. Blake: Is the trail system around the subdivision or through it or both?
Staff: It's within the planned community because the trail system kind of meanders
throughout the entire Kukui`ula planned area. This particular subdivision is in the vicinity of the
clubhouse area so in this particular subdivision the primary purpose of the trail system is in the
form of easements, access easements.
Mr. Blake: And will there be walking or bicycle or both?
Staff: It is both.
Mr. Blake: So both walking and bicycle. So based on the (inaudible) the access point
throughout the planned development area which is the whole of the Kukui`ula Development has
not yet been approved by Parks and Recreation, our Parks and Recreation.
Staff: It was initially represented to this body and then to the Council but it was part of
their requirements to their zoning amendment back in 2005.
Mr. Blake: Will these approvals have to be in place before they start selling lots or have
they started selling lots already?
Staff: I am not sure as far as where they are with selling lots but these encumbrances
need to be in place prior to the transfer of title so that it is a disclosure to these future
homeowners that the lot that they would be buying could be adjacent or is encumbered by an
access (inaudible).
Mr. Blake: And will there be a map provided to the public either directly or through the
Parks and Recreation Department of exactly where these biking and cycling trails are located?
Staff: Back in 05 they did provide a copy to the Commission, I have it in my records,
yes.
Mr. Nishida: I have a follow up question. So Dale, the way you answered that question,
Hartwell's question was whether the public is going to be provided a copy of the bike path. But
the department doesn't work with Parks and Recreation. I am just clarifying.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
14
Staff: We do have one in our records which was originally part of the zoning amendment
petition.
Mr. Nishida: So on subdivisions with these types of bike path requirements, I don't think
the public gets ...unless the developer wants to do it. We don't have that close a relationship
with Parks and Rec as far as these bikeway requirements, it is something that is not there right
now.
Staff: Right, just like any law ordinance 777 which is a public access ordinance, there
are requirements that we have to follow and there are procedures that we follow through
subdivision also.
Mr. Nishida: And so the department is responsible for securing the easements and
putting things down on the maps and stuff but what happens after that is not the department's...
Mr. Blake: Do you know whether Parks has a copy of the same thing that we have?
Staff: I am not sure.
Mr. Blake: Is there any problem with providing Parks with this so that it does get out to
the public?
Mr. Dahilig: We can request and definitely forward this information to them so there is
more (inaudible).
Ms. Matsumoto: Just a comment, it might be a nice touch to have some kind actual signs
there just to encourage walking and biking in the area for some recreation, access.
Mr. Blake: I agree with Commissioner Matsumoto. This has been a big issue consuming
interest in the Koloa/Kalaheo/Po`ipu development area.
Ms. Matsumoto: It doesn't have to be a blaring sign. It could be a subtle message but
out there available for the public.
Chair: Would you want to make a condition?
Ms. Matsumoto: I wouldn't mind making a condition for that.
Mr. Nishida: I have a question about that. The time to be putting a lot of that stuff in is
at tentative subdivision.
Mr. Dahilig: Correct.
Mr. Nishida: This is the final so how does that work with something like this?
Mr. Dahilig: (Inaudible) but the way that I read the condition, even after subdivision
final we still reserve the right to make changes.
Staff: Correct. What we can do is we can grant final subdivision approval and at the
same time we can send them a courtesy correspondence to at least identify based on the concerns
raised at the Commission level, that they make an effort to identify these access easements. As
far as the development is concerned there will be (inaudible) projects on the horizon so it is a
concerted effort between us and the developer to make sure that these easements are in place to
accommodate this access.
Mr. Kimura: With that request, if we approve, they still have to comply with the request.
Staff: The access plan it's self is part of the original zoning amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
15
Mr. Kimura: (Inaudible). We are just asking them if they want to or they can or do they
have to?
Staff: I think the condition provides that they provide an access plan. It is not quite clear
whether it needs to be signed or not.
Mr. Kimura: What Cammie is asking right now is to ask them to put up a sign. If we
request for them to put up a sign do they have or they can decide whether they want to or not?
Staff: I think in their best interest they would sign it and in a way it prevents the public
from trespassing in the development.
Mr. Kimura: (Inaudible) they have to put up the signs is the question.
Chair: Before further discussion can we just take a recess, caption break?
Commission recessed at 10:50 a.m.
Meeting called back to order at 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioners, regretfully I have to ask the Commission to consider
deferring the action D.2.13, subdivision 2009-03, Kukui`ula Development. There are some
outstanding issues that need to be addressed so the applicant is nodding to what I say so we are
going to need to potentially move this to the next agenda, January l lth of next year.
Chair: With that, there is a motion on the floor to approve and there is a second so we
shall we refer back and have a clean motion to approve items separately. Who seconded the
motion? And if you could revert you motion and pose a new motion to approve...
Mr. Nishida: Move to approve tentative subdivision action for item La, and b, and final
subdivision action item 2.a, c, and d.
Chair: And as noted by the Director we are postponing item 2.b.
Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Belles just walked into the room, did you have some questions?
Mr. Michael Belles: Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning
Commission, my name is Michael Belles representing the applicant. I apologize for the delay
and I am available to answer any questions you may have.
Staff: Basically the Commission expressed concerns regarding the, they had questions in
regards to the trail master plan for the entire project area. And I guess more specifically wanted
to inquire on whether there would be easements or does the trail system go through this
particular subdivision and have there been easements set up to accommodate the trails?
Mr. Belles: A requirement understanding when we got the zoning for the property back
in 2004 was that we work closely with the Planning Department and with the Commission
ensuring that there was a complete trail system that traversed the entire 1,002 acres. We had an
exhibit which showed in graphic form basically almost like a spider web of trails that would
cover the entire project that would be open to the public. And it wasn't a single use type of trail
either, you would have be having it for dirt bikes, you would be having it for off-road, you would
be having it for pedestrians like me who have difficulty getting around, senior citizens. But it
was intended to allow access for everyone to get around the entire project and open to the public
and not exclusive.
Staff: The other question was whether the trails will be signed?
Mr. Belles: That would be coordinated with the County as appropriate. As you know we
worked very closely with the Koloa Community Association, K61oa/Po`ipu Community
Association in terms of the roundabout, signage is very important for us both for the residents
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
16
living on Kauai as well as the residents living in the community it's self. That is something we
had intended and I think thus far we have worked closely with the County and all the
requirements and conditions that were imposed on the rezoning of the property.
Mr. Texeira: Can I have clarification?
Chair: Dale, is that it? I will give the floor to Cammie.
Ms. Matsumoto: So there isn't a requirement to add signs but I guess our conversation is
we would like to encourage signage, we welcome it so people can use the trails, to let the public
know. Because when it is in an office somewhere (inaudible) what they can do...
Mr. Belles: Exactly and as part of the educational process and as the project grows it will
become more familiar with what is available and knowing that there aren't going to be exclusive
trails and that everything is going to be open to the public. Because the intent was to have a
system where there were be points where children will not be crossing over public roadways and
going over County thoroughfares and put in harm's way where people can traverse throughout
the project without having to worry about those kinds of things. The only assurance I can give
you is that we will put appropriate signage in there and that is a very subjective issue when you
talk about esthetics and how the signage should actually look. But clearly we want to educate
the people that live within the community and outside the community, South Shore to allow
people to know what is there and that it is accessible.
Ms. Matsumoto: Yes, I think that needs to be done.
Mr. Texeira: Other than mentioning the need for some signage do we need to submit a
formal letter requesting that courtesy request for putting in signs? Do we need something in
writing or just verbalizing right now?
Chair: (Inaudible) representative stated.
Staff: If you want it part of the subdivision record, part of the zoning amendment record
then yes, I would suggest formally submitting a correspondence to the applicant to sign these
trails. At least that way when there is a response we can file it in the zoning amendment file.
Mr. Belles: Or could impose a condition that we shall coordinate with the County
Planning Department appropriate signage as necessary and we will do that and I assure you that
somebody from Kukui`ula Development Company will be here forthwith and sit down with Mr.
Cua and work with them and make sure there is a complete understanding as we move forward
to have appropriate signage for the project.
Mr. Blake: Does the coordination have to be with Planning and Parks or just Planning?
Staff: I would suggest Planning, Parks, and the applicant work together in developing the
appropriate signs and necessary language.
Mr. Belles: In our experience Mr. Blake, what typically happens is when we do file
anything with the Planning Department staff they route it to the appropriate other agencies
whether it be Parks and Recreation, Public Works, or whatever the case may be and make sure
that it is coordinated and that we don't run interference or foul any other standards or guidelines
of other applicable agencies.
Chair: So Commissioners, there is a motion on the floor so you made it just in time.
Mr. Belles: Thank you very much for your patience and I apologize for (inaudible).
Mr. Nishida: So we will work on that other condition.
Chair: Yes, we can approve and then make conditions on that one application.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
17
Mr. Nishida: So move to approve subdivision committee report No. 8?
Chair: Yes.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Before I call for the vote is do you guys want to make an amendment?
Mr. Nishida: Dale, do you have wording for that amendment?
Staff: What I will do is draft correspondence notifying the applicant that this subdivision
was approved and that we start coordinating efforts to comply with providing signs for the trails.
Chair: We will take a five minute recess (inaudible).
Commission recessed at 11:17 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 11:29 a.m.
Chair: Dale, do you have anything to add?
Staff: Yes Mr. Chair, so in addition to the standard conditions of approval letter that the
department sends out to the subdivider, for this particular application the department will be
adding this particular language and it will read "The applicant agrees to coordinate appropriate
signage with the Planning Department staff relative to the applicable public access within the
entire project and as previously represented by the applicant to the County in accordance with
ordinance No. PM-2004-370. "
Chair: There was no motion to add that recommendation but if you want to amend that
condition I will entertain that motion.
Mr. Nishida: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: (Inaudible) in amending that motion, all those in favor say aye... discussion, sorry.
Ms. Morikami: For discussion, on item 2.b I will be abstaining from voting because of a
possible conflict of interest.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to amend
conditions of approval letter, motion carried unanimously voice vote.
Chair: So back to the main motion to approve subdivision, if there is no more discussion,
all those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
approve Subdivision Committee Report No. 8, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Amendment ZA-2011-2 (Draft Bill No. 2380) to Sections 9-2.13 & 9-3.4 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 9 of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, relating to
exemptions from infrastructure improvements involving the consolidation of lots and approval of
preliminary subdivision map, respectively = Kauai County Council. [Hearing continued
11/23/10.1
Staff Planner Dale Cua read the supplemental staff report (on file).
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
18
Chair: Commissioners, any questions for the supplemental report or the bill or our
planner?
Mr. Nishida: Regarding the Department of Water comments, I kind of had the same
concerns about the increased density. So these are specific to lots not having increased density?
How do you determine that increased density, there are ADU's involved, when you re-subdivide,
when you move the boundary sometimes when you allow for the ADU.
Staff: Based on the proposal whenever the department will receive a subdivision
application the department would have to assess what is the permissible density of the existing
lots before the subdivision action and determine what the result in density after subdivision. So
basically if you reference the proposed language, verbatim, it specifically states that the overall
density of the lots being involved in the subdivision application remains the same. For example
if you start off with 2 lots where the overall density is 10, through the consolidation and re-
subdivision if the resulting lots remain, sorry, where the resulting overall density remains 10 then
they would qualify for that exemption.
Mr. Nishida: So you would then look at subsequent re-subdivisions also?
Staff: Just for the involved lots. So we are not taking into account per say as far as
whether through the consolidation and re-subdivision whether they resulting lots may be further
subdivided.
Mr. Nishida: So we have several subdivisions that you have an initial subdivision that
comes in and in fact I think Kukui`ula is one of them, we would have to look at the list, there are
some at the Marriott. So you are not looking at the subsequent subdivisions, it is just the initial
subdivision.
Staff: Right.
Mr. Nishida: Now upon the subsequent subdivision you might have additional units but
the drainage, water, infrastructure, will be applied to that subsequent subdivision.
Staff: Right, it would be.
Mr. Nishida: So initially you wouldn't look at the subsequent subdivisions and see if
there was an increase in density but you are saying that this one wouldn't be affected because the
subsequent subdivision is going to be required to have the infrastructure.
Staff: It will be assessed at the time that particular resulting lot is further developed.
Mr. Nishida: So what the Department of Water is saying is true but you are saying that at
the initial subdivision, the subdivision they are talking about within this that you are still going to
exempt the infrastructure or whatever.
Staff: That is what the builder is proposing to do is to exempt. Often times I think as a
member of the Subdivision Committee you have seen where an application involved as boundary
adjustment between two existing lots to resolve an encroachment situation. Maybe the neighbor
built too closely to the adjacent lot where in the process of trying to resolve the encroachment
situation and the only way to resolve it is through the consolidation and re-subdivision. On these
applicants have been imposed additional infrastructure requirements when their primary intent
was just to resolve the encroachment.
Mr. Nishida: I totally agree with the bill. I just wanted to make sure that we are not
exempting, well actually I don't mind exempting certain construction because I think it is
unbelievable. But anyway, you know you don't want them to get away with something
unintentionally.
Staff: Right.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
19
Mr. Nishida: So how would the bill, the proposed bill apply to subdivision of resulting
properties that include non-residential zoning designations such as public, commercial, and
industrial?
Staff: When those properties are developed they would have to be assessed, well the
appropriate reviewing agencies would have to determine whether the existing infrastructure
serving those lots was adequate enough. For example for a commercial building I think because
the commercial lots don't have to necessarily have to go through the subdivision process these
development standards still apply in building and permitting.
Mr. Nishida: Actually let me go back one step, I didn't even understand the question
when they posed it. What do they mean? Why did they ask this question?
Staff: I think it was just more, from what I gather, you know commercial properties to a
certain degree have some type of density.
Mr. Nishida: Some type of what?
Staff: Residential density. But certain zoning districts, especially for commercial would
require different types of permits. I think this is more, this bill proposal from what I gather is
more applicable towards residential development.
Mr. Nishida: Because the bill is specific to the residential density of the property.
Staff: Right.
Mr. Nishida: So if it's not a residential density it's not exempt? Oh no, it's still exempt
because there is no residential density. If residential density... so you are saying for public,
commercial, or industrial, you can do a boundary adjustment because there is no residential, or if
there is no residential change then it will be exempt from infrastructure improvements and all
that because there may be significant increases in use.
Staff: In use but not necessarily density per say. That is why I would like to reference
page 2 of the ordinance, the ordinance it's self was handed out to you at the November 23rd
meeting. The one phrase that I would like to emphasize for you is...it begins on the second line
of the underscored language, at the end where it says "where no additional lots or density are
created by the resulting properties." That is the language that I would like to emphasize.
Mr. Nishida: No additional lots or density are created by the resulting properties.
Chair: It is under section 9-2.13.
Staff: If you have the ordinance in front of you it is on page 2 under section 9-2.13 under
the heading "Consolidation of Lots". If you go to the paragraph it begins at the very end of line
4 and it begins with "where no additional lots or density are created by the resulting properties."
Mr. Nishida: So the answer to how will the proposed bill apply to subdivisions of
resulting properties then it goes "non-residential zoning designation such as public, commercial
and industrial." You are saying that they can move the line as long as no new lots are permitted
so technically although the uses may or may not change it is not going to be significant because
there are no new lots.
Staff: Right.
Mr. Nishida: And there cannot be residential density as a result of the moving of the line.
Staff: Right.
Chair: Any more questions regarding the ordinance for the planner? If not...
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
20
Mr. Blake: So there is still a 4 lot limit?
Staff: There is a 4 lot limit as proposed.
Mr. Blake: And this applies to subdivisions.
Staff: Correct.
Chair: So they can make up to 4 lots?
Staff: 4 lots or less, existing.
Mr. Nishida: But just to clarify, subsequent subdivisions, all those 4 lots, you are not
considering?
Staff: No.
Mr. Blake: So if you have a 1 acre lot and it is zoned R-4 and you subdivide that into 4
lots...
Staff: It would apply. Like I said it places emphasis on that particular language where it
reads "where no additional lots or density are created." So in the example that I stated you start
with 1 and you end up with 4, there is an increase in lots. So you start with the same number and
you end with the same number.
Mr. Blake: You have an R-4 lot and you put 4 separate dwellings on it without
subdividing it...
Staff: This is only applicable to subdivision of a parcel.
Mr. Nishida: So you have R-1 zoned lot and you have a three quarter acre so that is 1
unit per acre. In other words you need to have an acre to subdivide that. And then you a lot
boundary adjustment that would make an acre and a half parcel into a 2 acre parcel. You are not
counting the subsequent subdivision of that lot into 2, 1 acre parcel because at that point
everything would come into play.
Staff: Right. If I understand you correctly, your question correctly, you start off with a
parcel that is approximately an acre and a half in size, zoned R-1 and if you do a consolidation
and re-subdivision there is another parcel where the resulting parcel you end up with a 2 acre
piece. Although the number of lots remains the same the density of the resulting lots is more.
So you first start off with a lot that only qualified for one as a result of the consolidation re-
subdivision it now qualifies for two. So it wouldn't qualify through this exemption.
Mr. Nishida: Yes because there is two, one is the density and one is the number.
Staff: Correct.
Chair: It would not qualify...
Staff: For this exemption.
Chair: Any more discussion Commissioners, if nothing let me see if there is anybody in
the public that would like to testify on this agenda item. And this is going to the Council too?
Mr. Avery Good morning Commissioners, my name is Avery Youn and I would
like to testify on this bill. I provided you written testimony but I wasn't able to make it at your
last meeting so I will summarize what I wrote but I want to read portions of it also. Firstly I
would like to say that I think I have been here too long because the subdivision ordinance was
adopted in 1972 and since then there has been about 6 Mayors and 7 and 8 Planning Directors. I
have been through all of them. But it is the same ordinance but it has been going through
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
21
transitions and interpretations over the last few administrations and even over Planning
Directors.
I am not saying it is for the worst but my main point is that for the first I think 13 years
since the ordinance was adopted, when it came to relocation of Kuleanas and the relocation of
lots the Planning Commission was always helpful and the administration was always helpful.
And I know for the first, from 1973 to the early 1990s most of these types of applications there
were not any conditions on it. Then it started to get more conditions, roadway improvements,
highway, roadway widening, dedication of roadways, waterline extensions. And it got to the
point where by all of these conditions actually it kills subdivisions such as this, relocating a
Kuleana to try to help a family, people trying to get the Kuleana closer to utilities, existing
utilities.
Where there is no increase in density you can actually develop now, put your house or
your ADU on an existing lot and just the time that you are going to move it to a different location
is within the same lot or parcel closer to the roadway it should not be any additional taxation on
infrastructure or public utilities. So on that basis is what this ordinance is all about trying to
make it easier on small people that are not maximizing their density. I can see whereby you are
going to subdivide and max out your density and create as many lots as you can possibly do
based on zoning, then you should put in all the infrastructure requirements and you should
extend the waterlines and do the roadway improvements. But in situations whereby you are just
relocating to help out a family whereby no density is created... and also on density if you relocate
like you say a 1.5 acre lot you cannot create a new lot that is 2 acres because that is an increase
in density so that (inaudible) would have to make sure that your lot size increase of the same lot
does not exceed the density according to zoning calculations.
I would like to also say that there is a reason for this Commission when you address
situations like this. I know that the County Charter created the Commission whereby to assure
that there is some kind of balanced decision making process so that this Commission can use
reasonable discretion when you come to areas where the law is kind of grey or not clear. That is
why people come to you whereby you can use your better judgment in trying to help alleviate
these kinds of problems. And somewhere along the way, I would say in the late 80s, 1990, this
got lost and all these heavy duty conditions started to come into play. I would like to see this
Commission use their discretion whereby more reasonable decisions can be made when it comes
to projects like this because there is no increase in density. And like I say it only makes sense if
you area increasing and maximizing what zoning allows whereby you are creating additional
lots.
So I would just like to read my last paragraph in this one that I did give to you. "I ask
this Commission to allow this amendment to go through to hopefully restore the original
procedure relative to the smaller subdivisions, keeping conditions of approval reasonable and not
requiring major infrastructure and/or even onsite improvements that would deem the project
unfeasible or too costly. And also of importance restore more compassion on the part of
reviewing agencies to provide a system to the smaller landowners and families and instead of
making situations more difficult and costly than it needs to be."
One last item, I would like to state relative to the Water Department comments, I might
be going out on a limb by saying this but this is the department that is usually the one that kills
and makes the most unreasonable conditions requiring 1,500 feet mainline extensions that cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a project such as this. If I read their comments, addressing
that question, I mean how would the proposed bill apply to subdivisions with resulting properties
that include non-residential zoning designations such as public, commercial, or industrial? That
is why I brought the point out about the condition, we are all not stupid here, we understand the
law. I don't think any of you is going to use your discretion in the wrong way whereby a
commercial or industrial project would be allowed to go through without any improvements. I
know you have the public hearing process, the zoning permit process, and the building permit
process whereby if you don't go through a subdivision that these kinds of zoned areas will have
to address infrastructure requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
22
But I would also like to say that in their last statement, it sort of supports what we are
trying to get through here. My suggestion is that the system before lot changes must be able to
service the lot. This does not mean you cannot do the subdivision it just means they may not be
able to get water service if none is available. You can apply this to commercial and industrial
lots if there is not water service available there then of course when you relocate the lots, adjust
boundaries, they have to come in with water service improvements because it is already not
available before you can begin the process. So I am here to express my support of this bill and
hopefully you will understand my reasoning, thank you. Are there any questions?
Chair: Thank you Avery, anybody else?
Mr. Dennis Esaki: Good morning, Dennis Esaki speaking in favor of the proposed
zoning amendment with the deletion of the word "County" in section 9-2.13, when referring to
off-site infrastructure since a private system may be required sometimes. Avery Youn took a lot
of my time but I agree with what he said so I urge a favorable decision on this zoning
amendment.
Chair: Dennis, read that one section again.
Mr. Esaki: 9-2.13, the underlined section, in the middle of it, it says ...because
sometimes they require say a water tank or a source which may not necessarily be County.
Mr. Texeira: How would you change it?
Mr. Esaki: I would just delete the word "County".
Chair: Thank you Dennis.
Mr. Clyde Kodani: For the record, Clyde Kodani. I am wearing shoes for this. I don't
have any prepared speech but Dennis and Avery did say everything and I am asking to vote in
favor of it. I am in favor of it and support it because you guys are smart, common sense shall
prevail, thank you.
Chair: Anybody else?
Mr. Darrel Kaneshiro: Good morning members of the Honorable Planning Commission.
I wasn't prepared to make testimony but for the record my name is Darrel Kaneshiro. I support
the amendment as written. In many cases you will find that there are different departments that
are probably way behind in their 20/20 plan and in recognizing the shortfall that the departments
face either in financial or being able to come up to their 20/20 plans, they rely on individuals that
come before you that ask for various, simple, boundary adjustments or movements of Kuleana.
But at some point these poor people are faced with putting in off-site infrastructure to meet other
department 20/20 plans. I feel that is very unfair for the small people or owners of land, very
unfair for people that simply want to do a boundary adjustment because of encroachment
matters. It is unfair because of farmers trying to move Kuleana for their kids and children so
they can make better use of where their once Kuleana land was for farming.
And yes, we are faced with every department's ...to ponder the idea of putting
infrastructures that are way beyond the affordability of a simple farmer or person trying to do the
best he wants to do for his family. I for myself, serving many years on the Council, there is no
way putting it there that if you are going to subdivide and really increase density, there is no
reason why you are doing that, you should provide infrastructure, I believe in that. But simply
there is no density increased at all. CZO allows you under certain sections in the (inaudible)
where up to 4 lots, Public Works would not require you to make roadway improvements, up to 4
lots. I mean it allows you to do that even through a process. And yes, when we simply go in to
move a boundary, simply go in to move a Kuleana we are faced with this hundreds of thousands
of dollars of off-site infrastructures because simply different departments found the County could
not fiscally meet their 20/20 plan. I think it is uncalled for and I really believe the Commission
as stated by previous speakers stated, use your common sense and you can see that we are not
here to skip the whole concept of subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
23
We are not here to not do infrastructure if we are creating (inaudible) density on the
property. But I come before you to consider this a favorable response for people that face this
throughout what Avery spoke about, that over several years, somehow this policy was being
adopted as it changed I guess through different Planning Directors, administration, or Water
Department and so on and so forth. So I ask that you will favorably act on this amendment,
thank you for your time.
Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nishida: Darrel, so Mike, what Dennis said about removing the County, off-site
County infrastructure, does that sound reasonable to you? I don't know what the intent...
Mr. Dahilig: Based on his comment it is true that in certain circumstances off-site private
systems have been required in the past. I think the recommendation that Mr. Esaki made makes
sense. I don't know if we want to necessarily forcefully suggest it as a change but I think it
makes sense.
Mr. Nishida: The way we do it if this would be recommended to the County Council, it
would go up as is with a recommendation to remove that.
Mr. Dahilie: That's correct.
Mr. Nishida: So Darrel, this part about the off-site infrastructure improvements, do you
have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Kaneshiro: That is what my whole testimony was...in fact dealt upon was that many
times if there are some on-site infrastructure that needs to be done I don't think that is a big deal
for any of us to do that. But to demand off-site infrastructure way beyond the density that we
have already qualified then we may as well have gone into the regular subdivision process and
divide that whole piece of property up into 40 lots if you need to because it doesn't change. The
cost for one Kuleana and you subdivide an Ag. property up to 40 lots, you have the same
requirements so I think what we try to do is make clear that we are not to increase the density on
the property at all through this process. Unfortunately the requirement through the CZO is that
anytime you do a boundary adjustment or you move a Kuleana it is considered a subdivision,
unfortunately. If we could get that language out of there it will be okay. So anytime when
subdivision pops out there are different departments that look at it as a regular subdivision
whether it is one lot and you are not creating any density or not, you are subdividing. And
therefore we need to hit you with all the off-site infrastructure improvements as a regular
subdivision.
Chair: Thank you, questions for Darrel?
Mr. Texeira: The question is you don't mind if we take out the word "County" then?
That is what was suggested, right, delete the word "County".
Mr. Kaneshiro: I am not sure to delete "County". All I am saying is that we shouldn't
have, if we were not really creating extra density or anyone is doing that there shouldn't be any
off-site infrastructure requirements so whether it is County of not, I am not certain, most of the
time it is County departments that do that.
Chair: Thank you Darrel, anybody else in the public? Seeing none, I could entertain a
motion to close the public hearing first on this agenda item.
Ms. Morikami: Move that we close this public hearing.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, opposed motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
24
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to close
the public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: With that the Director has requested to just close the public hearing and take
action at our next meeting due to house clean up and making this bill recommendation.
Mr. Dahilig: Just based on the public hearing comments there are probably a couple
suggested changes that we want to put into the package before we ask the Commission for their
consent to send up to Council.
Mr. Texeira: So would that include taking the word "County" out in the
recommendation?
Mr. Dahilig: That would be correct Commissioner.
Chair: So with that, Commissioners, we will not take action.
Use Permit U-2011-7 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-7 to permit the
construction of an addition to an existing sin le family residence in Open-Special Treatment
District within Sea Cliff Plantation on Makana`ano Drive, located in Kilauea, approx..25 miles
from the intersection of Pali Moana, further identified a Tax Map Key 5-2-004:092. an
d
containing, a total area of 5.287 acres= Mark Hurt. [Hearing continued 11/23/10.1
Chair: Are there any new developments or concerns?
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith: No. I have received the Department of Public Works
Engineering Division report but that is all I am passing out now. There is no supplemental staff
report at this time.
Chair: Are there any questions for the planner regarding this application? If not I would
ask the applicant if he wants to come up and present.
Mr. Avery Youn: Good morning, my name is Avery Youn representing Mr. Mark Hurt,
the applicant for this property. Again I wasn't here at the last meeting when the public hearing
first started but as I understand there were two critical issues that had to be addressed and I
wanted to address today. One of them was drainage from the Public Works report and the other
one was agricultural concerns. So I put some exhibits up on the board and I will go up there and
try to explain them to you. The first one is drainage. Now we have here a subdivision map and I
would like to first state that when the subdivision was first done the drainage plan was altered.
The drainage basin that affects this property has been reduced and I will show you how.
Chair: Whose question was that, about drainage?
Mr. Youn: This is the site in question and the proposed building is right over here. Now
you will see that there is an existing drainage way here, it goes right next to this building, there is
another one here and there is a third one here. Now I am very familiar with this subdivision
because I walk up Crater Hill almost every morning except when I get a gout attack and can't
make it up the hill. On this side here there is a concrete line culvert that goes all the way to there
so this culvert catches all of the drainage by the upper part of the hill. On this side here there is a
concrete line culvert that comes here and right here there is a culvert that shoots the drainage
through there and that is the only part that affects this property. There is another culvert that
shoots it across here however all this drainage does not go where the houses ...the proposed
addition, it goes down this valley here. And it can be seen even clearer on this site right here.
Again here is the site and that drainage you can see clearly right here, it comes down
right through that property. Everything else drains around and then everything up here drains
here and comes through this culvert right here and goes down this valley.
So the drainage basin has been greatly reduced that comes by this property here. In fact if I
highlighted, see how all the drainage goes that way, so what actually goes through here is only
this little area here. So this is the drainage basin that goes through that valley.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
25
Chair: Jimmy, you had a question?
Mr. Nishida: You know, today Avery, we are not approving, the Commission doesn't
approve the drainage requirements. You are giving this information to us as information. You
are still going to have to make Wally happy.
Mr. Youn: I realize that.
Mr. Nishida: This is additional information for us. We approving the Use Permit won't
do anything for the drainage report or requirements or whatever.
Mr. Youn: What I was trying to resolve here is that we are going to be able to meet the
requirements of Public Works and the building can be adjusted slightly and the drainage
proposed culvert adjacent to the building can be increased so that we can accommodate the
drainage concerns of Public Works. I just wanted to show you that the drainage basin may not
have been as big as initially foreseen based on the drainage report. I just wanted to make it so
that it is similar to other projects whereby you just allow us a condition to resolve that with the
Department of Public Works.
The other item that I wanted to address is a little bit more critical. I know this is in the
Agricultural State Land Use classification however it is zoned Open/Special Treatment Resource
and I think primarily because it is Crater Hill. It is a bird sanctuary for one thing and it is a
natural landmark. But the reason why we got this aerial photograph was there are several
reasons why this site is not conducive to agriculture production, there are several constraints, it
has poor or marginal soils. Even in the days when it was a sugar plantation they didn't use this
area for sugar cane cultivation, this particular site anyway. There are slope constraints; it is very
steep with two valleys running through it. The majority of the site, it is too steep for any kind of
mechanized cultivation so any kind of farming work you do there would have to be all hand
labor which not too many people do anymore today. There is also the north east salty ocean
breeze that blows right off the valley so even if you put wind breaks it would have to be pretty
high because of the topography of this site.
The valley portion will be most ideal for any type of cultivated vegetative growth and if
absolutely necessary tropical flowers could be grown in the low valley areas. I will go back up
here and show you on the aerial photograph how overly dense the vegetation is on this site. I
also gave you pictures and the reason for these pictures is to show you how steep the valleys
(inaudible). If you look at pictures 1 and 2 it is taken from the lot above showing the first valley.
Let me get to the board, it is easier for me to explain. The first picture was taken down that
valley so you see how overgrown it is so you can see all of this is not really conducive for
agricultural production anyway because it is in the valley. The second picture was taken from
here showing that vegetative growth. The third picture was taken from here showing that valley
right there, see how overgrown it is? And then the fourth picture was taken right at this
driveway over here. Here is the existing driveway; it goes like that to the house. Access is
through the adjoining property. The fifth picture was taken to show again that grassy area of the
house and the next one was taken over here and the reason for that was to show the slope.
The next picture was taken from the existing driveway right here looking down from the
house. The next one, No. 8, was taken from the bottom right up here looking towards where the
building was going to go. This picture was taken more to show how steep that hill was. On the
last page, that picture was taken right here were the building site is, that is No. 9, and picture No.
10 was taken from the driveway again, at that location, to show the steepness of the hill and the
vegetative growth. The reason why we got this picture here was to show how the majority of the
lot is all overgrown or steep or in the valley. So if we are to do any kind of agricultural plan it
would be difficult because the majority of the site is not conducive to agriculture to begin with.
Mr. Texeira: The site you just referred to, how much of that is going to be cleared or
remain in its pristine, original condition?
Mr. Youn: As far as now the site is to remain like that. If you look at picture No. 9 that
is where the building goes, that is the only portion that is proposed to be cleared at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
26
Chair: Which was already cleared, so your design is sort of using the slope of the
topography to build that second floor.
Mr. Youn: The design, the first lower level goes below grade and that footprint
(inaudible) it is like 5,000 and another 1,000 feet for a storage area, about 6,000 square feet. But
if you look at that picture you see the size of the neighboring houses, they are much bigger. So
you will see primarily the upper floor which is about 5,000 square feet but it is because it sits
way down in the valley, it doesn't affect anybody's view plane. It probably cannot be seen from
any of the other existing houses except for the one below and they would have to look up the hill
towards it. So it won't affect their view planes towards the ocean.
Chair: Any more questions, Cammie?
Ms. Matsumoto: If you look at photo No. 9, what are those items on the left, there is like
some white tubing and then it looks like a slab on the far left.
Mr. Youn: The white tubing is the existing irrigation system which runs throughout their
property it has just been disconnected at this point. The reason why this part is graded is because
they just did renovations on the house and I believe it was not very long ago so this part here
hasn't been put back to its original condition because we were waiting to see what happens with
this addition here.
Ms. Matsumoto: Is that a piece of wood or cement or what in the lower left corner?
Mr. Youn: That is a piece of wood. We didn't do anything yet, any questions?
Mr. Blake: Thank you for providing these pictures. As in contrast to what we have seen
before where they want us to imagine everything, this really helps.
Mr. Nishida: Something for Lisa Ellen, the discussion went toward this area being not
suitable for agriculture except on the intensive labor. The requirement that the State has
regarding farm dwelling units is that, part of it is that the land have some income producing
requirement for that. So technically this farm dwelling is not in compliance. If there is no
income producing farm on or...I think it also says the farm can be somewhere else for this. But
basically it is not in compliance. In my mind it is not in compliance with the State law which is
good with me because we have other areas that we haven't gone for but I think what I was
concerned with was that the discussion based on that this was not agriculturally good, really
good land, that by giving this Use Permit we are saying that that is a good excuse for these kinds
of buildings. So I kind of have a problem with that particular kind of thing because I think you
know the requirements for this is income producing, it can be any level of income, it just has to
be some kind of agriculture on the thing or they are not in compliance. So I kind of never
wanted to approve the Use Permit if that is the understanding that by approving this Use Permit
that we are approving a non-agricultural use for an undesirable property.
Mr. Dahilie: Commissioner I completely understand your position regarding the
interpretation of specifically how Chapter 205 Hawaii Revised Statutes is being applied in this
circumstance. Before I comment I did want to ask the County Attorney to weigh in on what the
requirements are under 205 with respect to farm dwellings and those types of things.
Mr. Jung: You are correct Commissioner Nishida. The farm dwelling requirement does
require income (inaudible). So that is a State law requirement and it essentially is what it is so
there will have to be some type of farming.
Mr. Nishida: I wouldn't mind some addition into the deed or like normally what is put on
these subdivisions is that there is some addition, some form of notification. I am not really in
favor of the farm dwelling requirement or a farm plan, especially the marketing component to a
farm plan. So for these existing units it may be too late to... and really I am not really in
agreement with creating farm plans too because they just have to comply. If we put down a farm
plan, if they have to comply with a farm plan the agricultural requirement is much greater than
any normal farm plan unless you are giving some general farm plan. But the essential part is that
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
27
they need to comply with that 205, some kind of notification whether it be a deed or whatever
way they need to comply and that is that. And it is a really sort of a minimal requirement and
especially in an area that is close to Conservation, that kind of thing, you kind of want to keep it
kind of Open and low impact and all of that.
Mr. Youn: Mr. Chairman, can I add something? You have to go back to the history of
this subdivision when it was first created, the farm, agriculture production element did come into
play and that is way that 75 acre piece was set aside specifically for Kilauea farmers to utilize it.
I know it is still not utilized but that was the original purpose to offset and to make sure that there
was some kind of agricultural activity would be maintained in that subdivision. What you are
saying about the State law is correct. I would rather see it as a condition on this Use Permit that
we comply with that State law. The reason why I put that picture of all those coconut trees in
there because you are familiar, you see other large estates on this island and they go back in
order to meet the real property tax law, they will plant a lot of coconut trees or citrus in order, to
comply and get that Ag. dedication or to avoid the higher taxes.
In this case you have nothing with this applicant, avoiding the higher taxes is a problem
but the reason why I put the coconut trees, if you to any farmers market on this island it wasn't
there before, a couple years ago, but now you have to pay 3 dollars to buy a coconut with a straw
in it and if it is husked it is 5 to 6 dollars. So we know he can plant a lot more coconut trees
(inaudible) because that is probably the best thing to grow there. But like I said if we really had
to come up with a plan if there was such a condition in the valley areas you can look at the
pictures are more lush and would accommodate more tropical flower type of agriculture which
probably could be marketed. So I just want to say that we are aware of that law and we know it
probably will come out as a condition of your approval and hopefully we get this approval.
Mr. Texeira: I would like to make one comment. This is in regards to if the project is
approved, not to ensure but to hopefully request that the labor for this project will come from our
local labor force and not from imported labor from the mainland. All too often with some of
these major projects the contractors bring in their people from the mainland and we are trying to
encourage employment, utilize our local labor force.
Mr. Youn: I have seen that condition put in Use Permits also.
Mr. Texeira: So going back to what Avery mentioned do we want to put some kind of
condition, how do we address that condition?
Mr. Dahilig: I guess and maybe the attorney can weigh in on this, for constitutional
reasons we may want to just suggest strongly that as much labor and resources be used from the
State of Hawaii. But actually making it a requirement, I don't think I could recommend that it
be a Use requirement.
Mr. Jung: Commissioner Texeira I think you used the word encourage and I think you
would have to make that in the condition that it just be a recommendation versus a mandatory
(inaudible) to encourage the use of local labor.
Mr. Texeira: That was my intent.
Mr. Youn: To assist you we will represent that we use local contractors.
Mr. Texeira: Do we need to take a break to develop the language?
Mr. Youn: We don't have to, this is still a public hearing.
Mr. Kimura: I have a question, Avery, is that their white roof right there?
Mr. Youn: That white roof right below where the proposed building is, is a CPR unit.
Mr. Kimura: Is that part of his property?
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
28
Mr. Youn: No it's not.
Vice Chair Texeira: Is there a motion to close the public hearing or anybody from the
public... okay I would like to take any testimony from the public if there is any at this time.
There being none is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Mr. Blake: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Vice Chair: All those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to close
the public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Vice Chair: Before we do anything else we have to break for lunch, we will be back at
1:30.
Commission recessed for lunch at 12:30 p.m.
Meeting called back to order at 2:23 p.m.
Chair: We are on item E.l.b. for Use Permit U-2011-7 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-
IV-2011-7 and the public hearing was closed so what will be the Commission's...
Mr. Nishida: Move to approve Use Permit U-2011-7 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2011-7 to permit the construction of an addition to an existing single family residence in Open-
Special Treatment District within Sea Cliff Plantation on Makana`ano Drive located in Kilauea
approximately .25 miles from the intersection of Pali Moana, further identified as Tax Map Key
5-2-004:092, and containing a total area of 5.287 acres, Mark Hurt.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye...
Mr. Nishida: What are the two conditions added?
Chair: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Nishida: She can read them.
Staff: The Commission had requested at the previous hearing that two conditions be
added to the recommendation section of this hearing. Kaaina Hull is dropping something off for
me at this moment and then I have the condition which would read condition No. 8, "The
applicant is encouraged to design and construct the proposed structures to meet or exceed
Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design, LEED Certification or other compatible State
approved and Nationally recognized consensus based guideline or core system." As well as "To
the extent possible in the confines of Union requirements and applicable legal prohibition against
discrimination of employment the applicant shall seek to hire Kauai contractors as long as they
are qualified and reasonably competitive with other contractors and shall seek to employ
residents of Kauai in the construction of the approved structures. It is recognized the applicant
may have to employ non-Kauai residents for particular skilled jobs where no qualified Kauai
resident possess such skills. For the purpose of this condition the Commission shall relieve the
applicant of this requirement if the applicant is subject to any competitive restraints on trade or
other monopolistic and/or non-monopolistic practices."
Chair: Is there a motion on the floor to approve as read?
Mr. Nishida: So moved.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
29
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: All those in favor of the amendment say aye, opposed, motion carries.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Jan Kimura, to amend staff
recommendation as read, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Any more amendments or conditions to be added? If not we will go to the main
motion to approve, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve staff
recommendation as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING (NONE)
NEW BUSINESS
For Acceptance into Record - Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled
for Public Hearing on 1/11/11.
Use Permit U-2011-6, Variance Permit V-2011-1 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2011-6 to permit the construction and operation of a telecommunication facility that includes a
165 ft. high stealth monopine (a monopole designed to look like a pine tree) and associated
equipment at a site located on a cane haul road approx. 90 ft. north of the cane haul road's
intersection with Kaumuali`i Highway intersection, said intersection is located approx. 1.7 miles
west of the Kaumuali`i Highway and Kipu Road intersection, and approx..40 miles north of that
area generally referred to as Halfway Bridge, further identified as Tax Map Key 3-4-001:003,
and affecting a 600 sq. ft. portion of a 2,668.037 acre parcel = Sprint/Nextel.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to accept
Director's Report into the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Use Permit U-2011-8, Variance Permit V-2011-2 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2011-8 to construct a new softball stadium at Kapa`a High School, located along Mailihuna
Road, approx. 550 ft. southeast from the intersection of Mailihuna Road and Silva Road, Kapa`a,
Kauai, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-6-014:031, and affecting a 2.4 acre portion of a
52.166 parcel. State ofHawai`i, Department of Education.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to accept
Director's Report into the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
For Acceptance and Finalization - Director's Report for Shoreline Setback Activity
Determination.
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2011-4 for a shoreline determination Tax
Map Key 5-8-008:027, Wainiha, Kauai, for acceptance by the Planning Commission = Rod and
Suzanne Fisher.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioners we have just been notified that item F.3 as incorporating
information that was falsely put in by the applicant and so that application will have to be redone
and recalculated so let me ask the Commission not to (inaudible) on this item.
Mr. Texeira: What does that mean?
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010
30
Mr. Dahilig: Apparently the application was filled out with false information, not
purposely false but false information so the calculations used, the numbers used in calculation
used for the shoreline setback are not correct.
Mr. Texeira: Which application?
Mr. Dahilig: F.3.
Mr. Kimura: So they didn't do it intentionally.
Mr. Dahilig: They didn't do it intentionally is what I am saying.
Chair: So that is removed from the agenda and we will move to the executive session if
someone can read so we can go into executive session. Being that this is executive session can
we just adjourn the meeting or not adjourn the meeting but do we need BC to wait? Okay can
someone read the executive session?
Mr. Kimura: The Commission may go into an executive session on an agenda item for
one of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-5(a) Hawai`i Revised Statutes (H.R.S.),
without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not
anticipated in advance. HRS Section 92-7(a). The executive session may only be held, however,
upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present, which much also be the majority
of the members to which the board is entitled. HRS Section 92-4. The reason for holding the
executive session shall be publically announced.
Chair: Good practice on that one, if I could have you read A.3.
Mr. Kimura: Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Section 92-5(a)(2), the
purpose of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the evaluation of the
Planning Director. This session pertains to the Planning Director's evaluation where
consideration of matters affecting privacy shall be involved.
Chair: With that, before we get a motion is there anybody in the public that would like to
testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, for the record, that was a motion is there a second?
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to go into
executive session, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission went into executive session at 2:14 p.m.
Executive session ended at 3:40 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Commission adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
4Lani goot
ssion Support erk
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2010 _
31