HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcmin03-09-10
KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 9, 2010
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair, Caven Raco, at 9:08 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room
2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. James Nishida
Mr. Herman Texeira
Ms. Paula Morikami
Mr. Caven Raco
Mr. Jan Kimura
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Ms. Camilla Matsumoto
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
APROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Chair: Before I call for the approval of the agenda is there anybody in the public that
would like to testify on the agenda item or any on the Planning Commission, March 9th approval
of the agenda, seeing none...
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, on this agenda I would like to move that we amend it by
deleting item F.4.
Mr. Nishida: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by James Nishida, to approve
the agenda as amended by deleting item F.4, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Minutes of the June 10`h and February 9, and February 23`d
Ms. Morikami: Move to approve.
Mr. Kimura: Hold on, I would like to make a motion to amend the minutes, page 2 of the
February 23`d meeting to reflect that my recusal on the voting of the Subdivision Committee
Report.
Chair: Which date is that?
Mr. Kimura: February 23`d. I recused myself from the Subdivision...
Chair: I would entertain a motion to amend the minutes.
Mr. Texeira: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, thank you.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
amend minutes of February 23, 2010, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: A motion to approve the rest?
APR 13 2010
Ms. Morikami: Move to approve.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
approve the minutes of 6/10/08, 2/9/10, and 2/23/10 as amended, motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Request (2/24/10) from Walton D. Y. Hong, Esq., for a 1-year extension of time to
relocate asphalt batch plant operations in Hanama'ulu Valley for Special Permit SP-89-2, Use
Permit U-89-6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-89-6, Tax Map Key 3-7-2:por. 12, Hanama'ulu,
Kaua'i = Grace Pacific Corporation.
a. Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta read staff report (on file).
Chair: Are there any questions for the planner? Seeing none I will call the applicant up.
Mr. Walton Hong: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good
morning. For the record my name is Walton Hong, representing the applicant Grace Pacific.
With me is Robert Krebbs, Senior Vice President of Grace Pacific in the event there are any
questions. I think Mr. Laureta stated all the facts and we are here to respond to any questions.
We do as for your favorable consideration. I know it has been a long process but I think we have
finally located a site and we are actively working towards permitting that site for our relocated
batch plant. If there are any questions we would be happy to respond.
Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant?
Mr. Texeira: In terms of business for your hatching, what part of the island generates the
most business for you, east of Half-way Bridge or west of Half-way Bridge?
Mr. Krebbs: It's pretty uniform on either side. The site we are at, Hanama'ulu, is most
central for that purpose. Being out at Wahiwa Gulch is at one end of the island but it is not out
of reach in terms of getting out to the North Shore, it is doable still.
Mr. Texeira: In terms of traffic problems...
Mr. Krebbs: The site the plant would go the aggregate currently comes from instead of
hauling hot mix which is asphalt plus aggregate from the same site so no additional traffic.
Mr. Texeira: I meant when you are on the highway going north. Do you anticipate
having any problems because of the high traffic counts going into Llhu'e?
Mr. Krebbs: Like I say the rock we currently get comes the same route, same traffic.
Mr. Hong: I suspect Commissioner Texeira what you are concerned about is due to the
delays in traveling time but Mr. Krebbs can correct me if I am mistaken but asphalt is not as
crucial as cement. Cement you only have a one and a half to two hour window where you have
to get there and that is what makes it more crucial that the plant be located where you are going
to use the cement. With asphalt you can haul it all over the island without that short of ..what do
I call it, laying time.
Chair: Any more questions? Seeing none let me take some public testimony, is there
anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none I will have the
planner read the recommendation.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta read department recommendation (on file).
Planning Commission Minutes 2
March 9, 2010
Chair: Any more questions for the planner or the applicant? If not I will entertain a
motion if there is a motion.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to receive agenda item 2, the first annual status report,
also receive staff report pertaining to this matter and the recommendations for approval pursuant
to the applicant's request.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no, motion carries. The action motion was to receive?
Mr. Kimura: Receive and approve.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Herman Texeira, to receive
and approve annual status report and staff report, motion carried unanimously by voice
vote.
First Annual Status Report of Compliance with Permit Conditions (2/22/10) from Naomi
U. Kuwaye, Esq., for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2006-4, Project
Development Use Permit P.D.U-2006-6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-9, Tax Map Key
4-3-2:15,16 and 20, Waipouli, Kaua'i = Coconut Beach Development LLC.
a. Staff Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta read staff report and department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Are there any questions for the planner?
Mr. Blake: Where is this supposed to take place, this 323?
Staff: Do you know where Coconut Market Place is in Waipouli?
Mr. Costa: This is the two vacant parcels between what used to be the Kaua'i Beach Boy
and the Coconut Beach Hotel on the beach front.
Mr. Blake: And as the Planning Department views this now how is the going to impact
traffic on that corridor or is that what is on appeal?
Staff. There are a whole bunch of issues on appeal. They have done the traffic studies.
There are traffic improvements proposed we just have to wait until it comes out of court, the
litigation issues are resolve, before we know what else there is to consider.
Chair: Any more questions before I call the applicant? I will call the applicant to come
up.
Ms. Naomi Kuwave: Good morning Commissioners, Naomi Kuwaye on behalf of
Coconut Beach Development LLC. With me is Mitch Heller, the representative for Coconut
Beach. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Blake: You are proposing and I am sure this was addressed before I came on the
Commission but you are proposing a 360 odd unit vacation facility, correct?
Ms. Kuwave: That is correct.
Mr. Blake: And so that means we are talking about no less than 400 additional
automobiles in and out of that area.
Ms. Kuwave: There was a significant traffic report that was prepared when this matter
first came to the Planning Commission about 3 to 5 years ago and the traffic consultant made a
Planning Commission Minutes 3
March 9, 2010
number of recommendations. Some of those recommendations required us to, as amended by the
court, required us to pay a monetary contribution to both the County and the State as well as to
make additional studies for traffic improvements in that area. So it is not a, we have to make
monetary contributions based on that Wilson Okamoto study that was prepared several years
ago, in addition we have to continue to study the issue and work with not only the County
Transportation Department but the State Transportation Department to resolve the traffic issues.
So the applicant is aware of the traffic concerns of this Commission as well as the Kaua'i County
citizens and is continuing to work with the departments to resolve some of the concerns.
Mr. Blake: So the applicant is going to pay money to the County and to the State to fix
what we know is coming when this item is settled, am I correct so far?
Ms. Kuwave: Yes. Wilson Okamoto made several recommendations that involved
actually traffic problems not only limited to this particular project but other projects in the area.
And the traffic consultant proportioned out the applicant's fair share of traffic improvements and
made a recommendation that the applicant pay to the County and to the State its proportionate
share of the traffic improvements. In addition, when the matter went to the appeals court the
circuit court determined that if there are additional modifications that area required to address the
County's concerns regarding traffic that the applicant shall work with not only the State but the
County to continue to address those traffic concerns.
Mr. Blake: And do those traffic concerns, are they met before you start operating or
during the time you are operating or after or all three?
Ms. Kuwave: I think it is an on going study so it would be whenever whatever the traffic
consultant says when those traffic improvements are necessary.
Mr. Helier: And to a certain degree from my recollection is that the State Department of
Transportation will trigger the need for these improvements when they deem it necessary. So
they will assessing the traffic situation in that area on an ongoing basis and when the State and
the County traffic people determine that there is a need for improvements in that area that is
when the improvement program would go forward.
Mr. Costa: To further clarify, those requirements were prior to the building permit
approval.
Mr. Blake: Having driven through there recently, last week, it concerns me that we are
going to add another bunch of hundreds or vehicles dropping out of the sky on to that stretch of
highway. It's like you need an airport to get in and out of there. I am not trying to be sarcastic
but I remember taking 45 minutes to go from the Sito Building to the house that used to have
those big tikis in front of it, 45 minutes. And so at the pace that government moves how many
hanks of hair are you going to pull out of your head before you can finally take a deep breath and
move at a reasonable pace. And I don't have an answer to this but that is my concern.
Staff Commission Blake, one of the most important things that nobody is plugging into
your kind of concern is there are already steps being implemented to address it. You have the
widening of the bridges at Wailua which are ongoing right now and you have the widening to 4
lanes from the bypass to the bridge. That is going to unplug a tot of that. But at the same time
when the applicant is prepared to submit for the building permit we will see the timing of this
stuff. I think by next year those improvements over in Wailua will be completed plus there is
supposed to be traffic signalization by the housing across from Kintaros. There is a lot of stuff
already in motion, you don't see it yet. You see some it, you see the plug but there are things
already in motion.
Mr. Blake: Good.
Mr. Texeira: This is addressed to Mike I believe, can you just discuss a little bit about
this impact, this project, how will it impact the sewage or existing treatment plant?
Staff. We are not there yet. We have had discussions with Wastewater that was part of
the litigation so those issues, litigation isn't over so the issues, we don't have them all clearly
defined. We have a general framework for which to work but I am going to wait until it all
Planning Commission Minutes 4
March 9, 2010
washes out and they are ready to proceed and then we will see what we have. Because if there is
more litigation, pro and con, there is stuff that will fall out or be added on. But in terms of
sewage treatment we know that the facility is old, we know it needs to be improved on so at that
point in time it will come down to it. When they are ready to process for the building permit we
are going to sit down with all the agencies and say okay, where are we at, here is what the
condition says. What are they going to do? What does the County expect? But all of those
issues were addressed when ...this is only one, there are two projects.
Mr. Costa: And for further clarification when the Commission did approve originally
there was a condition to address the sewage treatment plant improvements to account for the
additional impact caused by this project.
Mr. Texeira: So is there any discussion on their timeline? Is the Department of Public
Works planning on expanding that sewage treatment plant to come on line with the project
completion? Has there been any discussion on that?
Mr. Costa: As the planner mentioned there is an ongoing litigation so to answer your
question the County is not making definitive plans or moving forward on any improvements until
that is resolved, until the project is clear that it will happen.
Staff. Generally what has to occur, it's two lift stations and a treatment plant so that is
one, we just don't know where it is going to be when it all washes out.
Mr. Blake: On page 6, item (d), we are talking about the grading and drainage master
plan that has been approved by Public Works. So at the present time that beach front, is white
sand beach?
Staff: Yes.
Mr. Blake: And drainage is expected to be contained mauka of the beach.
Staff: Within their property.
Mr. Blake: Within their property.
Staff: This is preliminary. This is what they have to perform to, these plans are not even
in process yet but the expectation is no drainage at all goes makai.
Chair: Is there anything that you want to add into this discussion?
Ms. Kuwave: No, I believe that a lot of the concerns that the Commissioners are voicing
today were the same concerns that were voiced by your predecessors and even though we have
been in litigation we have been in numerous discussions with the various departments over
addressing a lot of these concerns that you are voicing today. And our intention is to continue
those discussions as much as possible. We do have this Thousand Friends appeal looming in the
back drop but it is our intention to continue to work with the departments to address a lot of these
issues.
Chair: Any more questions from the Commission for the applicant or the planner?
Mr. Nishida: So as far as the court cases are concerned the only one that is pending is the
appeal?
Ms. Kuwave: There were several lawsuits that involved this project and there is one
lawsuit now remaining, it is the Thousand Friends appeal and it is a lawsuit against the County
and the developers on some EIS issues. And because that appeal is out there it kind of places a
lot of these issues that we were going forward and trying to work with the County to get
addressed kind of in limbo as Mike was pointing out. But we have been continuing our
discussions with the different departments trying to address it and come up with solutions to
address a lot of these concerns that you are raising today.
Mr. Nishida: What is the time table for that appeal?
Planning Commission Minutes 5
March 9, 2010
Ms. Kuwave: They just filed an appeal. The underlying court case, the final judgment
was entered in the beginning of February. They just filed an appeal of that court case. I spoke
with the litigation attorneys and so far the court has not set any type of briefing dates or anything
like that, it was just recently appealed.
Mr. Texeira: In regards to the time table, so has your time table been modified to
accommodate all of these problems and situations?
Ms. Kuwave: The circuit court did place a moratorium on any type of things that we
could do on this project which essentially moved the time frames in which we had to perform
back. So far the court has not issued a moratorium or injunction on this project which would
further toll the time frames. So we are proceeding along as if we have to perform within the time
frames as much as possible until the court says otherwise. We may have to come in for an
extension if some of these things, if the lawsuit does not place a moratorium on the project and
we have some things that are unresolved such as the wastewater. That could be affected by the
lawsuit.
Chair: Mike, in that regard with the time table, this is the first status report from the
applicant?
Staff: Yes.
Chair: Is there a second one that if anything changes will the brought back to the
Commission?
Staff: There is nothing on the horizon. It depends on what happens with this litigation
because it could turn off the clock so like Naomi just said they are proceeding as if they need to
perform to the time table so that is why they submitted this within the same month they just got
out of litigation. And now they are back into it again. So will they submit a second status report
in February, 2011, it depends on what happens with this litigation. The clock may go off.
Chair: Is it pertinent that we ask for a status report just to see how things are going for a
year?
Staff: Either within a year or at the time that something happens.
Chair: Because right now there is nothing in the record that shows that they would need
to have any other status reports so if a judgment rules they can just move forward.
Staff: So a status report within or prior to next year?
Chair: Yes. For my Commissioners I am just saying that just to keep abreast other than
having something that has the applicant entertain to us I think we should probably put a status
report.
Mr. Blake: So we are going to ask for a status report to be submitted in accordance with
the schedule even though there status report is to tell us there is no status to report?
Chair: Yes.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioners, I would suggest that maybe a compulsory condition on top
of what is already in the permit especially a permit that is being tolled by the presence of
litigation. I would caution that any requirements be imposed while litigation is pending and
rather just stick to the time table and if something is tolled then go on that clock instead of
having something that is compulsory while litigation is pending. So that would be my
suggestion.
Chair: Does anyone understand what he just said?
Mr. Dahilig: My suggestion is that because adding ...if you asking for another status
report it is an additional condition that they have to meet. If litigation brings another stay to the
Planning Commission Minutes 6
March 9, 2010
case it would not be appropriate for the County to be asking that they meet a condition like
another status report while litigation is pending and the case is stayed. So I am sure that the
existing time table that says an annual basis, that there is no litigation that would stay the case,
that they will come back in February, 2011. If a stay does occur then maybe information
requests can be presented to the applicant but I wouldn't necessarily make it compulsory.
Mr. Nishida: What if they volunteered?
Mr. Dahilig: That would be my suggestion that maybe a formal request could be sent
over for a status report but again shy away from having it as a condition that the Commission
would impose on the applicant.
Staff: Commissioners, there already is a condition that requires an annual status report.
That is on page 9, No. 8. So you are not going to ask for anything new, it is already there.
Mr. Nishida: So it will be due next February?
Staff: It depends.
Mr. Dahiliu: Assuming no stay is imposed.
Mr. Nishida: Could we get one next February regardless of the stay?
Mr. Costa: Regardless of what the court does.
Chair: I guess my intent was just to say to keep us updated. We are in the transition of
Commissioners changing and all sorts of moving parts.
Ms. Kuwave: I understand where the Commissioners are coming from and we would be
happy to send you a correspondence saying whether or not there is or is not anything changed.
Keep in mind that because of the sensitivity of the litigation your attorneys and their litigation
attorneys might be a little bit sensitive on us disclosing some strategic decisions because at this
point we are kind of working together on the Thousand Friends appeals trying to get that appeal
dismissed against the Commission, the County and the developer. So we understand the
condition and we will send you some type of correspondence that might be brief but should keep
you apprised of what is going on if that is okay with you.
Chair: Is that okay with you?
Mr. Nishida: Yes.
Chair: Any more questions for the applicant or the planner, seeing none I will call for
public testimony if there is anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this agenda
item?
Ms. Elaine Dunbar: Elaine Dunbar. I got here late so I don't know what just transpired
so my understanding is that they are to give you a status report. I don't know if he discussed
what is planned regarding their time clock which is expired or close to expiring. And take into
consideration the fact that there may be an appeal so that is basically all I wanted to find out
about.
Chair: Prior to you coming and testifying we did talk about the time table, we spent
ample amounts of time on discussing that.
Ms. Dunbar: Is that going to be extended?
Chair: We will see what the Commission motions for but the Commission did voice their
opinions on the time table.
Ms. Dunbar: Well I guess at this time and I apologize for being late and not informed on
what has occurred this morning. Going on that assumption I could only ask that you defer this
and wait to see what a Thousand Friends is planning to do.
Planning Commission Minutes 7
March 9, 2010
Chair: Is there anybody else in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item?
Seeing none what would the Commission like to do?
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to receive the first annual status report by Coconut
Beach Development and also the staff report pertaining to this matter.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: All in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Jan Kimura, to receive
annual status report and staff report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to approve the staff report with recommendation to
accept the status report.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Herman Texeira, to approve
staff report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Request (2/16/10) from Mathew Schaller, Architect Inc., to construct a temporary
clubhouse and related facilities and to amend conditions of approval for Use Permit U-208-21
and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2008-22, Tax Map Key 5-4-006:005, Princeville, Kauai =
Princeville Clubhouse.
a. Staff Report relating to this matter.
Mr. Kimura: I want to recuse myself from this agenda item because of my affiliation
with Princeville.
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read staff report (on file).
Chair: Are there any questions for the planner?
Mr. Texeira: I have one question, you just read item No. 4 and you mentioned in item
No. 4 "the applicant should be required", why not just the applicant be required?
Staff: That was just an evaluation portion. In the conclusion and ultimately in the
recommendation in condition 11 it mandates the removal.
Chair: Any more questions for the planner before I call the applicant up? Is the applicant
here?
Mr. Avery Youn: Good morning Commissioners, my name is Avery Youn. I am the
authorized agent and with me today is Matt Schaller who is the architect for the project. I
wanted to present a little bit of background and to cover the project and how it relates to the
Princeville community. The owner is Princeville Makai Golf Course LLC which is a subsidiary
of Cornerstone Real Estate Advisors. They own the Saint Regis Hotel and this property here.
This clubhouse was originally constructed in the early 70's through a Variance application under
the interim zoning ordinance before the CZO was adopted. It contained a golf cart barn with a
pro-shop, tennis, pool and restaurant facilities but no fitness center. Originally this parcel was
never included under the Princeville Community Association ownership and is also not subject
to their review, review meaning design review although membership and use of the original
clubhouse, pool and tennis facilities were open to Princeville residents at a reduced rate.
In August of 2008 the new clubhouse was approved by the Planning Commission of
approximately 35,000 square feet and it included a restaurant, pro-shop with a cart barn below
and a fitness center, a new pool and event pavilion and tennis facilities. The existing facility was
Planning Commission Minutes 8
March 9, 2010
demolished in the later part of last year expect for the cart barn and the existing tennis shop and
restrooms and the renovation of the golf course began. However due to the economic downfall
the applicant was forced to change its development time table whereby in October of 2009 this
Commission allowed a portion of the project to proceed in phases. And the approval was for the
conversion of the existing tennis pro-shop into the golf pro-shop to accommodate the reopening
of the golf course. The development of the approved clubhouse was put on hold due to
economic conditions, the slow down in tourist resort and travel industry. It was not favorable for
obtaining financing especially to build a project. It would not be feasible based on the current
market conditions and therefore a phased approach seemed to be the most reasonable solution for
the owner and in this case Cornerstone Real Estate Advisors, the owner of the property as well as
the owner of the Saint Regis Hotel.
The Saint Regis and the Westin at Princeville is operated by Starwood. Starwood has
contracted with the owner for the Westin guests to use the facilities owned by Cornerstone at a
reduced rate which includes the Saint Regis Hotel, pool, beach and spa facilities and the facilities
proposed before you now which is a golf, tennis, pool, and fitness center facilities. Because of
this arrangement the owners must build the pool and fitness center immediately in order to meet
their contractual obligations with Starwood. Relative to use of the facility the Princeville
residents will be able to use the tennis and golf facilities as before, the pool and fitness center as
mentioned earlier is to be built to accommodate Starwood guests however it will be made
available to Princeville residents on a space available basis. At this point in time, operations are
not ongoing so it does not know what kind of space and availability there will be. Once
operations are underway it will be easier to pinpoint exact numbers at that time. The owner has
clarified that upon the development and construction of the main facility which will have better
facilities, membership for Princeville residents will be made available as before. It should also
be pointed out that Princeville residents however do have access to the Prince Club which is
owned by Princeville Corporation which has a fitness center, spa facilities and swimming pool
on a membership basis. That concludes our presentation, are there any questions?
Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant?
Ms. Morikami: Based on what you said, in the past like with the swimming pool, the
public was allowed to use the pool. How is it going to be different now?
Mr. Youn: We checked on the operations in the past and I believe the swimming pool
was contracted out to a vendor and I believe they gave Princeville residents a reduced rate in the
membership and use of that pool.
Ms. Morikami: My recollection is that it was open to the public and Princeville
Corporation employees, the lifeguards, were employed by the corporation to protect the
swimmers in the pool and that it was a public facility so I was just wondering. I guess I am not
aware of the change that took place from then to now and I am just wondering if there is
membership fee for tennis, the fitness center, the swimming pool, if that will be made available
to the public versus just exclusively to the guests of the resort.
Mr. Yount: I am not aware of any use by public. When you say public are you referring
to everybody on the island or just Princeville public, Princeville residents?
Ms. Morikami: It was actually open to the public, my recollection is that it was open to
the public and Princeville Corporation had to hire the lifeguards to protect the liability of the
corporation. And so it was public.
Mr. Youn: You mean I could have used it?
Ms. Morikami: Yes. So that is my recollection.
Mr. Heller: I believe I can respond to that, I have lived in Princeville for 33 years. When
the corporation did operate it prior to the sale to the Japanese they did operate it under that basis.
After the sale to the Japanese the clubhouse was closed and since the hurricane it did not operate
under that basis at all, it was given to a vendor and the vendor provided security and access when
they used the pool. But it was not open to the public and it had been closed since the hurricane
and even before that when they transferred ownership to the Japanese. So it had not been
Planning Commission Minutes 9
March 9, 2010
operated under that basis for many, many years once Princeville dissolved from the original
conglomerate that it was.
Ms. Morikami: I am just having some concern regarding their exclusivity of resort
accessories and amenities and that is my concern right now.
Mr. Heller: And the owners are aware of this and because of the economic conditions
they are not able obviously right now to commit to building the larger clubhouse. They intend to
build the larger clubhouse because they want to put in the restaurant and the others facilities that
will obviously bring them revenue. But at this time obviously it's not the time to make that
commitment. Long term they are committed to opening the facility to the public and to the
Princeville community especially. But right now they are fulfilling a commitment that was made
to the Westin and the Starwood people.
Mr. Yount: Can you be a little clearer? Are you saying you want this open to the public
but for free or for a reduced membership or just open public membership?
Ms. Morikami: I can understand that there would be some membership fees involved to
maintain the facilities and so I would not be objecting to having membership fees but just the
sound of exclusivity makes me kind of cringe. Because I think as a resort we really need to
include people in the community and so I would say that yes, membership fees will probably be
required for the public to use the facilities but they shouldn't just be iced out and not be able to
go swimming or use the fitness center.
Mr. Youn: Thank you.
Chair: Any more questions? I have one Avery. This building, would it be going out to
bid for local contractors?
Mr. Youn: There already is a contractor on board.
Mr. Heller: They have a contractor that they have engaged that did the work as well at
the makai pro-shop renovation and he is a local contractor from the North Shore and many North
Shore contractors and residents were engaged in that renovation and will be engaged in this
renovation. The only off-site contractors that were brought in were some specialty concrete
people from Oahu but all other work has been done by local Kaua'i contractors.
Chair: Thank you. Are there any more questions for the applicant before I call for public
testimony, is there anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing
none I would call the meeting back to order and if there is a motion. He still needs to read his
recommendation.
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read staff recommendation (on file).
Chair: Are you going to read all the recommendations?
Staff: Only 11 is being amended. If the Commission wishes I can read all the conditions.
Chair: No need to read all the recommendation.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, is it possible for us to defer this item for a meeting?
Chair: Sure, you can motion to defer and we can see where it goes from there with the
Commissioners and have discussions.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to defer this agenda item.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Before I call for the vote can we at least receive the request and then we can have
discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes 10
March 9, 2010
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to receive the request.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Mr. Costa: If you could also...
Ms. Morikami: Move to also receive the staff report.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
receive applicant's request and receive the staff report, motion carried unanimously by
voice vote.
Chair: We are back to the motion to defer, is there any discussion?
Mr. Texeira: Paula, what is your purpose in asking for a deferral?
Ms. Morikami: I just want to go back and see what was the timeline from the time this
was first before the Planning Commission and now and I am not sure if this Commission can
impose any additional conditions at this time so I need to meet with the attorneys to see if we can
get involved determining memberships and things like that. I am not sure if this is the place to
do it.
Mr. Costa: And that is surrounding your concerns regarding the use of the facility by
members of the public?
Ms. Morikami: I guess I am concerned that maybe it is not within the jurisdiction of the
Commission but I need to know that before making an amendment.
Mr. Texeira: Does the applicant?
Chair: I can suspend the rules and ask the applicant if he has any concerns.
Mr. Youn: In my past experience with deferrals it is usually for the purpose for adding a
condition or clarifying conditions that are confusing. In this case it seems like you want to add a
condition relative to opening this facility up to public use or say Princeville residents. I know in
checking the previous conditions that there was nothing like that and in previous applications I
know that for other areas of the island if it was represented by the applicant that he would open
up his facility to such a condition like this then the Commission used to put the condition "as
represented by the applicant the facility shall be open to the public or to Princeville residents on
a membership basis", etc. However the last contested case that I had before the previous
Commission, we were informed that the applicant cannot make such conditions anymore
whereby you represent that you will do this. All the conditions that we represented in the other
application were all thrown out so I guess it would up to the attorney's office at this point to
determine if such a condition that has nothing to do with the CZO can be placed by this
Commission on this application as compared to what has happened to other Commission's
rulings.
Mr. Jung: In response to that Commissioner Morikami, the issue here and an issue of
private property and the Commission cannot impose conditions that can allow the exclusivity or
actually let me reverse that, allow public members to use private facility. So we can strongly
encourage it but it won't be a mandatory condition that they have to comply with because they
entitled to the use of their property.
Ms. Morikami: If that is the case then I will withdraw my motion to defer.
Mr. Blake: I have a question. Princeville avails its self of certain public benefits,
policing, fire, I am not sure about garbage and my understanding is its roads, interior roads
remain private for whatever reason. So I think that if you are going to avail yourself of public
taxpayer facilities that there should be less of a prohibition against making all the facilities
public. Of course that doesn't mean you...I mean that has its limitations. I have always been
Planning Commission Minutes I l
March 9, 2010
nervous about this public/private dichotomy; it is just like a gated community. If the gate is at
the entrance of the community the gated community can take care of all its own concerns. But
once you start inviting the County in to use taxpayer services then I get a little more protective or
feel protective of the public's right to utilize the facilities like anybody else in that development.
I am not sure how that would impact (inaudible).
Ms. Matsumoto: I have a comment. I agree that as a member of the public I personally
would not have any problem if any property would if I want to use the pool have a fee that I
would pay and I could go and use the pool. It is just like going to the restaurant there, there is no
fee to go to the restaurant for example and I am part of the public. And from another perspective
we don't have a lot of people on this island, our population is relatively small so I don't envision
droves of people filling up the pool on a private property, it would be occasional. And that is
just a comment and if anything I encourage property owners of such places to invite the public
with a fee.
Mr. Youn: Mr. Chairman, can I reiterate something? In my presentation I stated that the
facility will be made available to Princeville residents on a space available basis. Upon
development and construction of the main facility membership for Princeville residents will be
made available and I can represent that right now and you can make it a condition right now but
what I need clarification on is it Princeville residents only or should we change it to public?
Ms. Matsumoto: I hope it would be public. I personally don't think it would, well it is
your decision but I would encourage that. I think it would be a nice message to put out to the
community and not just your property; I am talking about properties in general across the island.
Mr. Heller: And the owners understand, obviously they are running a golf course and the
golf course is open to the public and they are running a tennis operation and the tennis operation
is open to the public on a membership basis as any other golf courses or tennis operations are.
This pool and fitness facility is part of a larger clubhouse master plan that will be open to the
public and the problem that the owners have right now is that they are not sure that they have the
facilities to make this open to the public when actually there is a specific reason why it is being
built to accommodate for the requirements of their contractual obligations. They will, when the
big clubhouse is built, obviously open it to the public for all the obvious reasons, the revenue and
memberships. The problem that we are having now is they want to have everybody understand
that it is limited, we are not at the full development here of this parcel and when we are, then it
can be open on a broader basis. At this point in time it is a very small, the exercise room is 400
square feet, not as large as this room, it's limited in size, limited in scope and it will be increased
in the future. So that is the point we would like to make. And we encourage the public to come
and use the facility obviously.
Ms. Matsumoto: As a member of the public if I went to your facility hoping to use it and
you explained that to me I would have no problem with it and you said sorry, it's full today I
wouldn't have a problem with that. If it was empty and you said I could use it, fine, and if you
said I could use it with a fee I would be okay with that too. I guess that is just the point of
making it, not making it entirely open and fully accessible to anyone at any time but with
keeping in mind your needs as well.
Mr. Heller: Long term I think that we are all looking at the same goal to have the
facilities open to the greatest number of people, that seems to be the right goal for both the
owners and the participants. Right now they have a contractual obligation to provide this facility
for the Westin guests and also then they would have overflow capacity obviously. The golf
course, they would love to be doing 200 rounds a day there and have a waiting list. I don't think
that is the case yet, maybe it will be this summer. So obviously that is a reasonable expectation
that if it is available on a space available then there would be some kind of membership
arrangement or something could be worked out.
Chair: So if there are no more questions for the applicant I will call the meeting back to
order. There is a motion to defer and a second on that and since the applicant has represented
that he can work with the department a deferral in my opinion would be the way to go to try to
work it out now.
Ms. Morikami: I withdrew my deferral earlier.
Planning Commission Minutes 12
March 9, 2010
Chair: You said if that were the case so (inaudible).
Ms. Morikami: I withdrew my deferral.
Ms. Matsumoto: Move to withdraw my second.
Chair: So we are back again on the main (inaudible) entertain a motion to defer or to
approve.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, on item 3 and 3.a, move to first receive.
Chair: We already did receive.
Ms. Morikami: So now it is move to approve the staff report as recommended by the
department requested by the applicant.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Is there any discussion, all those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Herman Texeira, to approve
staff recommendation, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission recessed at 10:17 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 10:32 a.m.
COMMUNICATION
There were no communications.
SUBDIVISION
Mr. Nishida: Subdivision Committee report, Tuesday, March 9, 2010, present were
myself, Cammie Matsumoto and Jan Kimura. No general business, communications, or
unfinished business. Tentative subdivision action, 5-2010-7, Cornerstone Hawai'i Holdings,
LLC, TMK: 4-7-002:003, deferred to 3/23/10, the vote was 3-0. Final subdivision action, S-
2003-25, Michael Lombardi Trust, TMK: 4-4-003:155, approved 3-0. Tentative subdivision
extension request, 5-2009-8, KMN, LLC, TMK: 4-1-006:107, approved 3-0. Modification of
requirements and conditions, 5-2009-25, County of Kaua'i, Kukui`olono Park Trust Estate,
TMK: 2-3-005:002, 006, approved 3-0. Move to approve subdivision report.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Discussion?
Mr. Texeira: Yes, I wanted to ask about the first one, Cornerstone Hawaii Holdings.
Where is it exactly? I know it is part of Kealia, is that part of Keapana?
Mr. Kimura: You know the Lopez Bridge? It is going up that road to the left. Do you
know where the Christmas Trees are?
Mr. Texeira: Yes.
Mr. Kimura: It is from the monument, mauka.
Mr. Texeira: Going toward slippery slide?
Mr. Kimura: Yes.
Mr. Texeira: You know down inside the valley...
Planning Commission Minutes 13
March 9, 2010
Chair: Do we need a map?
Mr. Texeira: Yes, I just wanted to see. I just wanted to know exactly where that is
located.
Chair: Let me take a 2 minute recess and then we can have the planner...
Mr. Texeira: I would like to see where it is. Secondly, you guys voted for a deferral?
Mr. Nishida: Yes.
Mr. Texeira: I wanted to know what is the purpose of the deferral.
Mr. Nishida: They are clarifying the ownership of that road so they could, there are some
requirements I think they are getting some discrepancies, they are not sure about the ownership
for some of that road so they have to clarify that.
Mr. Costa: It would be Hauaala.
Mr. Nishida: Hauaala, the dirt road going up. So they are going to clarify that, Dale can
answer.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: The purpose of the deferral is the applicant requested a deferral
to iron out a couple issues actually as it relates to the ownership of Hauaala Road from the
(inaudible) crossing to the intersection to Hauaala and Kealia Road.
Mr. Texeira: That is the monument?
Staff: Yes, for the monument. So that is one and the other issue is identifying the scope
of improvements to Hauaala Road.
Mr. Texeira: So that section that you mentioned was never owned by the County then.
Staff. On the tax map it is identified as government road but I think as part of the review
the Department of Public Works noted that there was an issue involving the ownership.
Mr. Texeira: Was there any discussion on the purpose of the consolidation?
Staff: The intent of the subdivision application was to relocate two existing kuleanas
within that large parcel.
Mr. Texeira: Does that include Mimino, the valley to the left as you are going up?
Staff: This particular parcel is I think Mimino Reservoir. Cornerstone Holdings owns
two parcels, this one and the one that goes all the way up to the forest reserve. The one parcel
above this one includes Mimino Reservoir.
Chair: Are you good? Do you need a map or more information?
Mr. Texeira: Maybe next time.
Mr. Blake: No. 2, the Lombardi Trust, 9-lot subdivision in Kapa`a Homesteads, that is
Ag. land so there is no need to have prohibitions against TVRs, that is already taken care of in
the vote?
Mr. Jung: That would be if any new TVRs come up they are prohibited outside the
visitor destination area.
Mr. Blake: So any TVRs on this one, these are new so there would be no TVRs on this
one?
Planning Commission Minutes 14
March 9, 2010
Mr. Jung: There would be unless the come in for a ZA, zoning amendment to re-
designate the visitor destination area which is highly unlikely.
Mr. Blake: There would be?
Mr. Jung: Only if they came in for a ZA for visitor destination which is very, very
unlikely.
Chair: There could be. Are there any more questions for our attorney or our planner?
Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to approve and is there a second?
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: I will call for the vote; all those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
approve Subdivision Committee Report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Amendment to Use Permit U-2001-13 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2001-17 to
permit the replacement of a 40 ft. high monopole with a 70 ft. high stealth monopine ( a
monopole designed to look like a pine tree) and associated equipment at an existing
telecommunication facility in Moloa'a, Kauai, situated approx. 1,400 ft. north of the southern
intersection f Koolau Road and Kuhi`6 Highway, adjacent to the Moloa'a water tank on Pun
Auau, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-9-009:009, and affecting a 1,350 sq. ft. portion of a
311.598 acre parcel = Crown Castle International [Director's Report received, 1/26/10,
hearing closed 2/9/10.1
a. Supplement No. 1 to Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read staff report and department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Based on those two conditions are there any questions for the planner?
Ms. Matsumoto: I have one question. Looking at this photograph, just out of curiosity,
what is this structure to the right of the small water tank?
Staff. I believe, the applicant can correct me if I am wrong but I believe they are power
lines actually.
Chair: Any more questions before I call the applicant up?
Mr. Texeira: You said 70 feet to 60 feet so how much higher than the highest trees is it
right above that view plane?
Staff: In the letter the applicant submitted I believe it comes out to roughly about 10 or
15 feet or so above the nearest trees but there aren't many trees in the vicinity.
Mr. Texeira: There aren't?
Staff: There aren't many but of the trees that are there it is roughly 10 to 15 feet above
them.
Chair: Any more questions for the planner? The supplement that we received, those
pictures in view No. 1, what height is that monopole?
Staff. The computer simulation in the letter is 60 feet.
Chair: Let me call up the applicant. If there is anything you want to add on those
specific conditions.
Planning Commission Minutes 15
March 9, 2010
Mr. Keone Fox: No. I just wanted to make sure that all the Commissioners had a chance
to read our letter.
Chair: Can you state your name?
Mr. Fox: Keone Fox with Alii Wireless representing Crown Castle.
Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant?
Mr. Nishida: This is one of those views that we have been protecting, the Commission
and past Commissions have been protecting so I still have a problem with putting up that
monopine. What you have up there right now is a 40 foot with 10 feet whip antenna?
Mr. Fox: Correct, so it is 50 feet.
Mr. Nishida: What is the difference between the whip antenna and those panel antenna
that you are going to be putting up?
Mr. Fox: The whip antenna are 10 feet so they bring that existing monopole structure up
to 50 feet. The panel antenna are a newer design antenna that almost all the carriers are moving
over to these days, they allow the signals to be directed to a specific area. We are able to get a
better coverage with fewer sites using panel antenna and it is just a much better technology.
Mr. Nishida: It seems like the 10 foot difference, what kind of increase are you going to
get from that 10 foot increase?
Mr. Fox: It will allow for a better handoff to existing sites at Kilauea and Anahola but it
will also allow for better coverage of those homes in that Moloa'a Valley and the road that goes
all the way down to Moloa'a Bay.
Mr. Nishida: So the panel antenna at 50 feet is going to be a difference in coverage than
the whip antenna though but the thing is that the money is not going to be worth it for you guys
to put it at 50 feet.
Mr. Fox: Correct because there is going to be very little improvement in coverage if we
are allowed to replace the existing structure with another structure of the same height. I did take
that back to my clients and they felt that if we are only allowed another 10 feet in height that
would justify the cost and even stealthing it to come up with a much more visually pleasing
design. So we felt that the benefit of increasing the structure by only 10 feet would justify the
cost to go ahead and replace it.
Mr. Nishida: Hopefully included in that justification was the ability to put somebody else
under you folks, right?
Mr. Fox: The structure could accommodate one other carrier instead of two with the 70
foot structure, correct.
Mr. Nishida: So that one other, what kind of coverage would that person have, it's going
to be down around that 50 foot level.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Nishida: 10 feet per carrier, right?
Mr. Fox: So they are probably not going to have as good a coverage as the carrier that is
at the top but then again they may be at different locations in Anahola and Kilauea than Verizon
is. It is a network of sites; they all work together so they may end up with just as good of
coverage. It is kind of hard to explain.
Mr. Nishida: All I can say is we have been very protective of that view plane.
Mr. Texeira: Can you describe you service area again besides Moloa'a and that valley?
Planning Commission Minutes 16
March 9, 2010
Mr. Fox: Correct. There are existing sites in Kilauea and Anahola and this site is going
to work in conjunction with those sites to hand off calls so it is good for people that are traveling
on the road that have to make a call, it will allow the signal to hand off as you are going north
from Anahola. Maybe if you get halfway towards this location and Moloa'a the signal will hand
off to this Moloa'a site. As you continue on Kuhi`O Highway the signal will eventually hand off
to the existing site at Kilauea.
Mr. Texeira: So going south towards Anahola you said you would be handing off your
signal to a site outside of Anahola?
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Texeira: So you will be serving north Anahola, 'Aliomanu or the whole Anahola
area?
Mr. Fox: Right now that site does cover most of Anahola. Verizon does not have a site
in Anahola at this current moment but they are working to add antenna there which will work in
conjunction with this project.
Mr. Texeira: But actually you could ...that site, Anahola, could act independent of that
site in Moloa'a. You don't need that Moloa'a site if you wanted to service a larger community
such as Anahola, right?
Mr. Fox: Correct. That Moloa'a site was not intended to cover Anahola but without that
site we will have a gap in coverage between Kilauea and Anahola.
Mr. Texeira: So you are primarily servicing Moloa'a, right?
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Texeira: So how many service customers are you estimating to service?
Mr. Fox: I don't know personally and actually my client and I should preface this, is not
Verizon it is Crown Castle International which owns the structure. But Verizon is getting
enough customer complaints about their services that they are willing to pay the cost of replacing
the structure with a 300 thousand dollar stealth monopine. So I can only imagine that the
complaints are significant.
Mr. Texeira: When people moved into Moloa'a didn't they move into it with that
intention in terms of the privacy and the lack of service in that area originally? I mean didn't
they think about that when they moved into such a secluded, isolated area?
Mr. Fox: I am not sure. I can only speak for myself, when I built my house I didn't think
about the cell phone coverage and actually I live on a farm out on the North Shore and my cell
phone coverage is terrible. I actually have a land line as well. So I just think over the years we
have all become a lot more dependant and expected to have that convenience of having a cell
phone especially if there is an emergency or your car breaks down. If you are like me I am
always getting lost. I am always late so I am always calling on my cell phone from the road.
Mr. Kimura: So if you guys get enough complaints from say the residents in HWena are
you guys going to build an antenna out there too?
Mr. Fox: It is a possibility. I will be honest with you the carriers build sites based on
where they are getting requests and demands from their customers. So a lot of these new
projects are reactive to customer complaints about coverage and it is actually the sales team and
marketing team that really drives where we are building the facilities.
Mr. Kimura: You talked about dead zones, improving the signals in Kilauea and
Anahola. I am sure you did your survey, where are the dead zones in Kilauea and Anahola?
Planning Commission Minutes 17
March 9, 20 10
Mr. Fox: I don't know personally. As I said I represent Crown Castle which is the tower
infrastructure company but this site won't necessarily solve those dead zones within those
communities but it will facilitate the handoff of signals between those two communities.
Mr. Kimura: So basically we are just serving the people of Moloa'a Valley.
Mr. Fox: And everybody that is driving on Kuhi`o Highway between Anahola and
Kilauea.
Mr. Kimura: Is there a problem now?
Mr. Fox: It is my understanding that the handoff of the signal is not as good as it should
be.
Mr. Kimura: Well for a handful of people to ruin the beauty of the view I do have a
problem with that.
Mr. Fox: Can I just make a comment? This picture was taken at the worst possible
vantage point. I wanted you folks to know up front that this is the worst possible view that you
will have driving on the highway looking at this facility. We are asking for another 10 feet in
height. So right now you have a tower with antenna on it that is not stealth. It is obviously a
tower, a metal pole up there with antenna on it.
Chair: Which is at what height?
Mr. Fox: Which is 50 feet, we are asking for your approval to replace that with a
structure that is only 10 feet taller that is going to look like a tree. I mean it is very close, if you
look at the photo simulation it is very close in height to those other two Cook Island pines. They
are probably the same height they are just a little lower elevation on the hill. So I really think
this is a win/win situation for both the community and the cell phone providers. I just ask you sir
if you could reconsider.
Mr. Kimura: I am done, thank you.
Mr. Texeira: So if you did not get approval today does that mean that you keep that
particular site and stealth the pole?
Mr. Fox: My client hasn't made a decision but they did explain that they probably would
not modify the existing site. They just can't justify the cost if the coverage increase isn't going
to be that much.
Mr. Texeira: So you would remove that existing pole as shown in the photo?
Mr. Fox: Do you mean if we do not get approved today?
Mr. Texeira: If you do get approved you will remove this?
Mr. Fox: Yes.
Mr. Blake: Once you need more coverage do you come in for an additional 10 feet that
you can add to this or do you put up a whole other pole?
Mr. Fox: I'm not sure, at the time we would have to weigh all our options. I mean
maybe more people will build homes in Moloa'a and they will actually need a site that is closer
to the shore area just to get better coverage. I am not sure. Like every utility the wireless
industry has to adapt to the needs of the customers and where populations are increasing, where
they are decreasing and so forth.
Mr. Blake: At 70 feet you have the desired coverage.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Planning Commission Minutes 18
March 9, 2010
Mr. Blake: The recommendation is that you drop down to 60 feet so you are loosing
some of your desired coverage.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Blake: As far as that loss is concerned, I guess this is predicting the fixture, when you
come in and you have to make up that loss that you are projecting right now do you go up or do
you put up a whole new tower? We are going to have this forest of monopoles.
Mr. Fox: Correct. I am not sure I mean if you folks are going to vote today for only a 60
foot structure I think in the future they would come back and revisit that. They would see what
the concerns were. I am sure you folks are still going to have the same concerns about the visual
impacts from the highway so if I had to just make a guess they would probably look at putting
another facility somewhere else to better serve that community. And of course they are going to
have to look at visual impacts of that whether it can work for the network, if the cost is justifiable
and so forth.
Mr. Costa: Commissioner, I think to answer one of your questions. I believe you asked
if they chose to go to a higher pole would they install a new pole. From what we have seen the
pole is designed specifically, the footing and everything for that height. So I don't think you
would just add a 10 foot section without changing the whole structure to structurally hold up that
additional 10 foot height. At least from what we have seen in the past. In other words the
footing is what holds that pole upright.
Mr. Kimura: Dig a deeper footing, a wider footing in thinking that they might have the
approval in the future.
Mr. Costa: That could be an option that they could design one that had a larger footing
than necessary in anticipation.
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, I have a question for the Director. Does the Planning
Department keep track of the number of telecommunication poles throughout the island? It
seems like this Commission has seen a lot of applicants and we have two more this afternoon and
I am just wondering how many exist on Kaua'i? What is the goal? And is it to limit the amount
or limit the height? I am just curious how many facilities do we have now operating?
Mr. Costa: I cannot give you that offhand but we can report back with that and maybe I
would ask the planner if he could at least summarize the Federal law.
Staff: As far as how many poles we can ...I can't do it right now but we could get you a
number on how many poles are within the County zoning districts but there are several poles
outside of our jurisdiction say in Hawaiian Homelands or the Conservation district. And as far
as the intent of the department, what came up during the previous or the original public hearing
for this application, generally it is the department's policy to limit the number or proliferation of
poles throughout various zoning districts. And that is via the co-location route mandated that
they be available to co-location as well as discussing with the applicants when they come in the
co-location potential before erecting and operating a facility. This is one situation where it
looked like ...you have to give either horizontal as far as proliferation or you have to give height,
you have to pick either one. You have to take one or the other. So generally it is the co-location
route which requires additional heights. This is one situation where we felt given it's location
and its proximity specifically to a designated scenic corridor that particular height might be a bit
too much.
Ms. Morikami: I guess I don't understand the technology but if there were 3, lets say a
200 foot telecommunication facility or 400 feet, would that be adequate to do all the co-locations
so we would on this island just have 4 locations, period. Or at what height is it we just have a
few and anything else...
Staff: I see what you are getting at Commissioner and that really, as I understand, maybe
the applicant can address it, has to do with how much calls a particular facility can handle. As I
understand it earlier you didn't need as many facilities, you didn't have that much traffic on the
Planning Commission Minutes 19
March 9, 2010
cellular lines. However as an increase in traffic requires more facilities to go up and handle the
cellular traffic. Perhaps the applicant can address that a bit more.
Ms. Matsumoto: I guess my question is what is the highest facility Castle owns?
Mr. Fox: That this one tower can support?
Ms. Matsumoto: No, anywhere in the United States, what is the highest pole height?
Mr. Fox: It varies. In the Midwest where everything is flat there are some very tall
towers, there are some 300 foot towers there and they serve entire counties and that is because it
is flat. Here in Hawai'i we have lots of mountains, valleys, gulches, ravines. The wireless
antenna operates by line of sight so because the terrain is not flat they need different sites to hand
off to existing ones and together they work as a network. And those other sites can cover those
ravines, those gulches and those valleys and that is why we can't just have one tall tower.
Ms. Morikami: What concerns me is I have been here a year and I think this is going to
be the 9th application that we are looking at and I am just wondering at what point are we saying
we need assess how many total telecommunication towers we have on the island. And I think we
need to have some kind of plan because 7, 8 applicants coming in every year, that is a lot of
poles.
Mr. Fox: There is a huge demand. I am sorry I didn't mean to cut you off but the
demand for this is what is driving the need for new sites.
Ms. Morikami: With the County ordinance now law effective in May where there is no
cell phone usage unless you have your head phone, wouldn't that decrease the demand?
Mr. Fox: Yes and no. I think people are still receiving the calls while they are driving.
They are not necessarily using the phone and talking that way, there are a lot of people that use
ear pieces. I just got an ear piece for my phone. Also I have to stress the safety issue. If we are
on the road and there is an emergency and you are in dire need to help and you call 911 you
don't even have to say exactly where you are these days. The first responders can track your
signal now using the antenna on these towers and I just think that is critical. Today there is more
calls made to 911 from a cell phone than there are from land lines.
Mr. Costa: I do understand your point and that is why a number of years ago the
Commission made a conscious decision to begin to require that the poles be designed to allow
co-location and hopefully to cut the total number of cell towers down if by no other amount, at
least in half.
Ms. Morikami: We are seeing a lot of applicants and that was my concern.
Mr. Costa: And to some degree it is proportional to people and cars.
Ms. Morikami: Thank you.
Mr. Blake: This is just a very general question. Thank God for Norfolk Pines,
monopines look like Norfolk Pines. Do you have other tree designs?
Mr. Fox: There are two others that I know of, there is one that looks like a palm tree. Its
not a coconut tree, it is kind of like the Southern California palm trees and there is one that I
think also looks like an Oak tree which they use up in the north east.
Mr. Costa: I guess to follow that line of thinking if maybe you could pass it on and look
into whether one could look like a Mango or Bamboo.
Chair: Are there any more questions before I call for public testimony, thank you Keone.
Is there anybody in the public who would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none I will
bring the meeting back to order and entertain a motion to receive the supplemental Director's
report first.
Planning Commission Minutes 20
March 9, 2010
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chairman, move to receive the supplemental report.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no.
Mr. Kimura: No.
Chair: One no, maybe I should take a roll call.
Ms. Morikami: This motion is to receive it is not to take action.
Mr. Kimura: Sorry.
Chair: Let met just retake that vote, all those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
receive supplemental report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Next, a motion of what the Commission would like to...
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to approve the staff report's recommendation to allow
the applicant to go 60 feet and his recommendations.
Chair: Is there a second?
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: Is there any discussion before we call for the vote?
Mr. Texeira: Just one question Mr. Chair. In this particular area will the applicant be
allowed to put up another tower? We are talking about co-location and all of that but apparently
this tower can only support another company.
Staff: To put up another tower would be subject to the review of the Planning
Commission if it is in the applicable County zoning district. There are also Hawaiian Homelands
and Conservation Districts nearby.
Mr. Costa: So there is no prohibition on anybody submitting an application including the
applicant.
Mr. Texeira: I see. My point is has anybody approached you folks with the idea of
putting up another antenna in the area, another pole in the area? This is the only one you have
received?
Staff: Correct, if you will define area though.
Mr. Texeira: I mean right specifically where we are looking at.
Staff: The immediate vicinity, no we haven't. Well actually to clarify, about 2 years ago
or year and a half ago an application was submitted to place antenna on the water tank that is
directly adjacent to the facility and at this time that particular applicant hasn't placed the antenna
on the water tank. I think they are actually waiting review of this application to see if they could
even get higher potentially via co-location.
Chair: Any more discussion?
Mr. Nishida: I would like to amend the motion from 60 feet to 50 feet.
Chair: Well there is a motion to...
Mr. Nishida: Not the motion but the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes 21
March 9, 2010
Chair: Amend the staff report. Well we would have to withdraw the motion because
there is a motion on the floor to approve. Paula, did you get that?
Mr. Costa: I believe we already received the staff report. I am sure you could
recommend amending the recommendation for approval but the staff report stands as written.
Mr. Jung: Commissioners, there is a motion on the floor to approve the staff report as
recommended in the supplemental so that is the 60 foot level.
Mr. Nishida: So when should I have done that?
Mr. Jung: You should have beat Commissioner Morikami to the motion.
Chair: But we are in discussion and she could withdraw her motion and we could go
back to that.
Mr. Nishida: Or we could just vote on it and see where we are at.
Chair: Yes but this is discussion and we have a Commissioner that would like to
entertain discussion on the height so without calling out for the vote I would rather, if
Commissioner Morikami wants to withdraw.
Ms. Morikami: I will withdraw my motion to approve.
Mr. Texeira: I did the second. I wanted to bring it to the floor but if you have ...I am
open to...I will remove my second.
Chair: So there is not motion on the floor.
Mr. Blake: I have a question. I remember when there was an antenna above Kahili and it
just kind of stood out like a sore thumb. And then they made it like a scoreboard or something
and it's less obtrusive but it still looks like an antenna. And then we have the whole pine tree
(inaudible) and at our last meeting we had the one (inaudible) and then we have this one. It
seems to me that the reason it stands out is because it is just right up there by themselves which I
guess is conducive to the line of sight operations. But there is nothing that softens the visual
approach to the antenna.
Mr. Costa: There is not a background.
Mr. Blake: Right. Have we ever asked that the applicant (inaudible).
Mr. Costa: I do recall at some point years ago asking if planting some type of forest
around (inaudible).
Mr. Blake: (Inaudible).
Mr. Costa: I think my question was if for instance if there was a 60 foot pole, if we
planted 60 foot Norfolk pines all around it would that affect (inaudible).
Chair: (Inaudible).
Mr. Fox: I think their question is could we add landscaping around it to minimize the
visual impacts and to be honest with you, yes, we could. The landscaping could not or should
not be as tall as the antenna though, that is the only thing I would say because then it would
block the signal. But you could have landscaping for the bottom part of the tower to minimize
that visual impact and that is something that I have seen in some conditions.
Mr. Blake: So the operative part of the tower is the top.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Planning Commission Minutes 22
March 9, 2010
Mr. Blake: The top most portion.
Mr. Fox: Correct. The tower is just a metal pole supporting the antenna.
Mr. Nishida: You control of the land area beneath that tower is limited.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Nishida: What is it?
Mr. Fox: I would have to look back at drawings, maybe like 20 by 30 foot lease area.
Mr. Nishida: So the landscaping that can be approved pretty much just blocks the
fencing and whatever protection for the equipment and the base of...the idea with these stealth
poles is that the pole its self provides the stealth, I guess.
Mr. Fox: Correct.
Mr. Nishida: So I will move to amend the staff report?
Chair: What 1 would like to do is just take a 2 minute break so I can consult with our
attorney quickly.
Commission adjourned at 11:17 a.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 11:32 a.m.
Chair: We are back to entertain a motion, is there anything that the department or
attorney wants to say?
Mr. Costa: I guess chair I would like to ask the Commission if they would consider a
deferral and along with that a request to the County Attorney to provide an opinion as to the
applicability of section 8-1.4(d), that provides regulation standards for utility poles and towers
including transmission lines prior to us making this decision.
Mr. Jung: And just so the Commissioners know there is an issue that we do need to
resolve and how to interpret this particular provision as it applies to accompanying under 269-1
of the HRS and we would need some time to look into that. That is why a deferral is being
requested.
Mr. Texeira: What about what happened in the past, would that have any implications...
Mr. Costa: That is a really good question.
Mr. Jung: We would have to address that in particular.
Chair: My question is that with the recommendation that the department staff has already
concluded with the height and with the applicant being acceptable to the height, if the
Commission is okay with that decision do we still have to defer the item?
Mr. Jung: That would be up to the Commission.
Chair: So then that would be my question that I would raise to the Commission, if there
are any more issues with the discussion on the height. If there isn't we could go with the
recommendation if the Commission wants to or we could take the attorney's advice.
Mr. Nishida: Move to defer item D.1.
Chair: You would want to defer?
Mr. Nishida: Yes.
Planning Commission Minutes 23
March 9, 2010
Chair: Is there a second?
Ms. Matsumoto: I will second.
Chair: We are in to discussion. That is my take. I am okay with the condition that the
department has put and the acknowledgment from the applicant that he is okay with the height. I
am comfortable with the recommendation, I can go with it.
Mr. Texeira: And just to add to what you just said the applicant is agreeable to take
down the existing site.
Chair: Right, take down the existing site and go to 60 feet. Can the applicant come up if
there is anything he wants to add or anything that I am misinterpreting for the record that you are
okay with the department's recommendation, correct?
Mr. Fox: Correct. We just want to find a healthy balance.
Chair: And that is what I am trying follow too is just for a healthy balance. With that
balance I feel comfortable that I am okay with the recommendation that I feel no need for a
deferral or to look into the matter of that section. But that is my opinion for discussion, any
more discussion?
Mr. Blake: The fact that he is okay with 60 feet is fine with me until they need another
site because they only went 60 feet instead of 70. And that has to be balanced with the visual
impact that the North Shore people have to, or that everybody puts up with as you view these
monopines. So I was just informed that in Kekaha there is I guess AT&T was required to do
some type of landscaping to soften the impact of one of the poles they have over there. So I
would be...I don't know if I want to raise this to the level of a condition but it seems to me that it
would behoove every applicant to come in and show how they can, what can be done to soften
the impact of the poles which are obviously going to be put where everybody can see it because
it is in the line of sight. There are certain types of trees that don't grow any higher than ...they
don't just keep growing. Well all trees will stop some at a lower level than others and I think it
behooves all applicants to look into it. And I would like to know what they can do if we tell
them no anyway because of the FCC guidelines. How much control do we have?
Mr. Jung: And we would address that.
Ms. Matsumoto: In thinking back on some previous applications we did encourage, I
have this picture here, this is Crown Castle, care of Alii Wireless and my recollection is that we
definitely had to landscape around this fence here to soften the look of that. So I also agree that
maybe something a little higher to soften that to make it blend more with the natural environment
would be a nice touch.
Mr. Blake: A nice requirement you mean?
Ms. Matsumoto: A nice touch I said.
Chair: Does the applicant want to comment on the Commission's concern on
landscaping?
Mr. Fox: I think those are valid points to be honest with you. And I think that the
landscaping can minimize the visual impacts of the tower sites. In this situation the stealth was
the solution to minimize the visual impact. To be honest with you the landscaping probably
would have been the cheaper alternative. I will keep that in mind. If it is going to be the
departments policy to encourage or require landscaping then a lot of times when we negotiate the
leases for the sites initially we need to get the additional ground space just for the landscaping
because these compounds are relatively small. They really only accommodate the equipment
cabinets and the pole structure its self. One other comment, you did mention your concern about
the need for another tower in this community and I just want to add that it was my understanding
that the department did not want a tall tower in this area for co-location and they actually
preferred several shorter towers so that there is more of a horizontal impact than a vertical one.
Because otherwise we would have asked for the taller pole because there are other carriers that
Planning Commission Minutes 24
March 9, 2010
are interested in co-locating. So although we are agreeing to the shorter pole which will only
allow one other carrier besides Verizon those other carriers are still going to have those demands
for better service and I am not sure what kind of solutions they are going to have.
Chair: Any more questions for the applicant or any more discussion before I call for the
vote that is on the floor to defer? The motion is to defer the agenda item for our
recommendations from our attorney to look into a particular part of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Blake: So if we don't defer they have the go ahead to start.
Chair: Yes.
Mr. Costa: Only through a motion. Just because you don't defer doesn't... there is still
an approval that is needed.
Mr. Jung: Another motion would have to be made to either approve, modify, or deny.
Mr. Blake: That would be coming up right now?
Mr. Jung: If it is not deferred.
Chair: The vote is to defer and that is why I was saying that I will be voting against the
deferral because of the balance from the department and the balance from the applicant that there
is now they can both resolve this issue now. The 60 foot will work for the applicant and the 60
foot will work for me as a community member that horizontally or vertically that I am okay with
that height too. That is why I will be voting against the deferral.
Mr. Texeira: Mr. Chair, just a clarification from the County Attorney, so that means if
we approve you don't have to come up with any recommendations in regards to...
Mr. Jung: We would still have to come up with ...not in terms of recommendations but
interpreting section 8-1.4.
Mr. Blake: That would come up at the next meeting.
Mr. Jung: We would hope it would come up at the next meeting.
Chair: Are you clear on that?
Mr. Texeira: I am clear on that but we have two more matters coming up in regards to
poles so does that mean you will be recommending deferral for those as well?
Mr. Jung: Those are up for public hearing so you could either keep the public hearing
open or close the public hearing and either take action after but in these particular cases we
would ask for the deferral until the next meeting.
Chair: So are we all clear?
Mr. Texeira: My question is in regards to what Hartwell was just mentioning about the
landscaping suggestions. Does that still hold true? In other words could we amend the existing
motion?
Mr. Costa: If there was a motion to approve you could amend to either add or delete
conditions.
Mr. Texeira: So this is something a little bit more ...we have always in the past around
the fencing used some kind of landscaping. I think Hartwell is talking about some other higher
types of landscaping.
Mr. Costa: And just to clarify I don't believe that we have quote "always" done that, it
really depends on how visible that...
Planning Commission Minutes 25
March 9, 2010
Mr. Texeira: That fence is, right.
Chair: But for right now what is on the table and the floor is the motion to defer and in
order to get to that we have to vote on this defer if we want the defer instead. Any more
questions, everybody clear? I will call for a roll call.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to defer
action, motion was denied by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Nishida, Kimura, -2
Noes: Matsumoto, Texeira, Blake, Morikami, Raco -5
Absent: None -0
Not Voting: None -0
Chair: Motion denied so now we are back at the motion to approve or deny?
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, on item D.1; move to approve.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Mr. Costa: Just to clarify, move to approve as recommended.
Ms. Morikami: Move to approve the applicants request as recommended by the staff
report.
Mr. June: Would that be the supplemental staff report?
Ms. Morikami: Yes, supplement No. 1 to the Director's report pertaining to this matter.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Is there any discussion before I call for the vote, seeing none can I get a roll call?
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
approve supplement No. I to the Director's report, motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes: Matsumoto, Texeira, Blake, Morikami, Raco -5
Noes: Nishida, Texeira -2
Absent: None -0
Not Voting: None -0
Mr. Blake: Now we are supposed to modify.
Chair: Yes, if you want to move to modify or make recommendations for the
landscaping. Oh, that was the vote? I thought we vote first...
Mr. Blake: There is nothing to modify if it doesn't pass, right?
Mr. June: What you should have done if you wanted to modify is you should have
opened it up for discussion and then you would have amended the staff report but Commissioner
Morikami made the motion to approve based on the staff report supplemented. So the conditions
in that staff report is what was approved.
Mr. Blake: But there was an issue in the staff report about landscaping.
Mr. Costa: The Chair did allow for discussion after the motion and that would have been
the time.
Mr. June: But the action has been taken.
Mr. Costa: That would have been the time to propose any amendments.
Planning Commission Minutes 26
March 9, 2010
Mr. Blake: So how do I reverse this?
Mr. Jung: You would or someone would have to make a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Blake: Having voted for the motion I move to reconsider in order to modify the
recommendation to modify the approval to add a landscaping condition.
Mr. Texcira: Second it.
Mr. Jung: Time out.
Mr. Kimura: I don't think they have the land, the property to landscape, am I correct?
You guys don't have the property to landscape.
Mr. Fox: No we would probably need to renegotiate with the landlord for additional
ground space.
Chair: So you would have to do more additional grading, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Fox: We would have to do an amendment to the lease and renegotiate for more
ground space.
Chair: But landscaping is possible, right?
Mr. Fox: It is possible.
Mr. Blake: So where are we?
Chair: He is going to look into reconsideration.
Mr. Jung: You can do reconsideration at the same meeting.
Mr. Costa: Maybe before that I would like to ask the planner to clarify what exists on the
surrounding land which I believe is farm land and for the most part you would have farming
activities that could serve as a visual buffer.
Staff: I guess if you are going to go into the landscaping issue as was previously brought
up about how the condition has been imposed for landscaping around the fence to mitigate what
is going on in the specific facility as apposed to the pole. But I think what Commissioner Blake
is getting at is landscaping of a higher characteristic so as to mitigate the pole it's self, correct?
Mr. Blake: I'm not just talking about shrubbery. I am going to leave that up to the
people constructing it and the planner rather than impose my idea for what is appropriate but as
guidance if you will landscape sufficient to soften the silhouette that is going to be obviously
imposed on the public by that monopine.
Mrs. Matsumoto: Is that a motion?
Chair: We have a motion to reconsider and a second and we are in to discussion right
now.
Ms. Matsumoto: I agree with that suggestion. I am just looking at this photo and it's
hard to tell going back even to that surrounding fence. I wouldn't like to see an exposed fence
from the highway. I would prefer to see at least some kind of like I said before, Stephanotis or
something pretty growing on the fence to soften that whole look, at the very least. But I also
encourage the growing of higher vegetation as well if possible. I can understand, we all know it
is such a beautiful island and you just want to keep (inaudible).
Mr. Fox: And I understand your concerns. I have nothing but respect for that.
Planning Commission Minutes 27
March 9, 2010
Mr. June: Before any action is taken on the motion to reconsider, as the Deputy County
Attorney I would request that we move into executive session so if I could have someone
potentially make a motion to go into executive session pursuant to section 92-5(a), Hawai'i
Revised Statues. And the executive session would be held to discussion the board's duties,
powers and liabilities.
Mr. Nishida: So moved.
Ms. Morikami: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries.
On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Paula Morikami, to go into
executive session, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Commission went into executive session at 11:55 a.m.
Commission adjourned the executive session at 12:21 p.m.
Commission recessed for lunch at 12:21 p.m.
Meeting was called back to order at 1:40 p.m.
Chair: We are on item D.1, there is a motion on the floor to reconsider, there is a motion
and a second, is there any more discussion?
Mr. Blake: I with draw my motion to reconsider.
Mr. Texeira: I withdraw my second.
Chair: So for the record Commissioner Hartwell and Commissioner Herman have
withdrawn their motions.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
There were no continued public hearings.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit U-2010-9 Variance Permit V-2010-3, Special Permit SP-2010-1, and Class
IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2010-10 to permit the construction and operation of a temporary
concrete batch plant located on a private access road off of Kaumuali`i Highway, approx 1.7
miles west of the Kaumuali`i Highway and KYpu Road intersection, and approx. 500 ft. north of
that area generally referred to as Halfway Bridge further identified as Tax Map Key 3-4-001:003
and affecting a 1 acre area of a 2893.705 acre parcel = Jas W. Glover, Ltd [Director's Report
received 2/23/10.1
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read Director's Report and evaluation (on file).
Chair: Are there any questions for our planner for the preliminary evaluation?
Mr. Texeira: Why a temporary batch plant as apposed to a permanent batch plant?
Staff: There are existing batch plants on the island. There is an existing batch plant at
this specific location however this batch plant is required for the specific road widening project
of Kaumuali`i Highway and as soon as that road widening project is done and its needs are no
longer on the island the batch plant will be removed and taken to another island.
Mr. Texeira: I guess I was just thinking longer term thinking that we will probably have
other batch requirements for our State Highways and I was just wondering if every time we have
a need you are going to install a temporary batch plant facility.
Planning Commission Minutes 28
March 9, 2010
Staff: The applicant might be able to address this question a little bit better but I think
also in regards to this specific road widening project specifically for concrete, I believe the plant
needs to be located within close vicinity to the project and may required the applications for new
ones given the area or location of the respective project.
Mr. Costa: I guess the applicant can clarify but I believe it is a new approach similar to
what they did at Kapule Highway to actually use concrete paving but again we can clarify with
the applicant.
Chair: Any more questions, seeing none I will call the applicant up.
Mr. Walton Hong: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission my
name is Walton Hong representing the applicant James Glover, Ltd. And with me is David Perry
of the company. Let me briefly touch upon questions raised by Commissioner Texeria. The
reason for the temporary permit is because this batch plant is designed to provide concrete
specifically for the widening of Kaumuali`i Highway. We have an existing batch plant at that
site and I explained in my letter and I think I will spend a few minutes so you can understand
why we are doing this. The existing batch plant is your traditional dry batching plant where the
concrete trucks that you see running around back up into the plant, the cement, aggregate, sand
and water is dumped into the drum truck and as the drum revolves, that is the batching or the
mixing process. Then the truck goes on and of course delivers the concrete through these chutes
at the back of the truck, we have all seen this.
Because of the volume needed for the highway the discharge from the trucks is too slow,
it cannot be accommodated. What the contractor is doing for the widening is using the piece of
equipment that is similar to an asphalt spreader where you dump the asphalt in and it just spreads
it out and lays it out. But the traditional trucks can't handle the volume so what we are doing
with this batch plant is a wet batch plant where the concrete is actually mixed already within the
plant it's self rather than just the dry ingredients put into the truck. Special types of dump truck
will accept the wet concrete, go out to the site and just dump it into the spreader so you get a
bigger volume in a shorter time to feed this spreader. That is the reason we need this particular
batch plant.
Now with respect to the question is it going to be temporary? Is it going to be there for
another project? We don't know. All we see at this point in time is the need for this particular
plant to meet the Kaumuali`i Highway road widening. Now it may be funds may be available to
extend the road widening or widen some other area of Kaua'i, we don't know. Should that
happen I guess we will have to cross that bridge when we get to it.
Mr. Texeria: I was just wondering, as mentioned by Ka`aina, if there is another project
that is undertaken you need to batch close to the project? Is that really a consideration?
Mr. Hong: I guess there are so many factors. For example the road widening project that
they are doing with concrete and lets say hypothetically it is somewhere on the North Shore.
Then do we come for a permit to put a temporary batch plant on the North Shore or do we truck
it from Halfway Bridge? And there are pros and cons like where is the aggregate coming from?
Halfway Bridge is perfect for our needs because aggregate is there, we don't have to haul
aggregate around the island to the batch plant. On the other hand if lets say the road widening
project is down towards Hanapepe then we can just leave the batch plant where it is and work out
of there.
Mr. David Perry: And may I just further clarify that as Mr. Costa mentioned the concrete
pavement that is going to be utilized on the Kaumuali`i widening is relatively new. It is
something the DOT is working to develop longer lasting pavement so like Walton said the long
term direction is still unsure. This is sort of like a pilot project in terms of they are doing similar
ones throughout the State. It is thicker. The big issue on this one is the high volume, high
production rates that they want to do to minimize traffic concerns and get the job done at a
higher production rate is the reason for this type of plant.
Mr. Texeira: Is this pretty standard across the State, this process?
Planning Commission Minutes 29
March 9, 2010
Mr. Perry: Not yet. It is developing. The DOT have just completed a major portion of
the north/south road out in Kapule on Oahu. They have done a little bit on Maui. There is one
contract left on the west side of the Big Island and there is another one bidding at the moment so
it is part of the direction from Federal Highways for durable type pavements. Which way it goes
in the future we don't know. Obviously there is asphalt and other pavement type materials. That
is why this one is very specific for this job.
Mr. Kimura: Will you guys be using the older type of concrete trucks as well as this type
on that project?
Mr. Perry: There will be some needs depending on the scheduling of the job, the traffic.
There could be times where there are traditional ready-mix trucks, yes. But at this stage it is
anticipated that there will be proportionately less than the other type.
Mr. Costa: A couple questions, Kapule, was that mixed on-site as well?
Mr. Perry: No that was mixed in our permanent batch plant because it was a different
type of mix, it was only 4 inches thick whereas the pavement at Kaumuali`i will be 8 to 9 inches
thick so substantially more volume and a longer job for Kaumuali`i.
Mr. Costa: And then the other question is having this temporary batch then doesn't
impact the availability of concrete services for normal means, private jobs and all of that.
Mr. Perry: That is correct. This scenario enables us to continue to dedicate our
permanent plant and our truck fleet to the other normal customers, the small homeowners, the
small contractors. It is not impacted to such a large extent by a big short-term volume that will
take up all our resources.
Chair: Are there any more questions?
Mr. Texeira: Do you use sand as part of the batching process?
Mr. Perry: That is correct, yes.
Mr. Texeira: Do you bring in sand from other parts of the island or do you bring it from
off-island?
Mr. Perry: For this project actually all our ready-mix concrete we blend a limestone sand
that we quarry at our Mahaulepu quarry so we truck that portion of the mix from Mahaulepu to
Halfway Bridge as well as manufactured basalt sand which we quarry and crush at Halfway
Bridge. So what we call the sands or the fine aggregate portion of concrete is a blend of the two
but definitely from this island.
Mr. Texeira: So this is not typical sand, this is like limestone that is crushed into sand.
Mr. Perry: Correct. It is limestone that is crushed into fine sand. The manufactured sand
is the term we call it in the industry.
Chair: Is there anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item?
Seeing none then what would the Commission like to do? We have already received this for the
record and we can either before the planner reads the recommendation I would like to just
know if the Commission wants to continue the public hearing or close the public hearing.
Mr. Texeira: I move to close the public hearing.
Ms. Morikami: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no.
On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Paula Morikami, to close the
public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Planning Commission Minutes 30
March 9, 2010
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read conclusion and department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Based on the recommendation does the Commission have any questions for the
Planner? I have one question, being that this permit is for 3 years is there a need for a status
report?
Staff: At this time the department doesn't feel that one is necessary however if you feel
that one may be needed we can draft some language.
Chair: Because if there is a concern from the community because this is the first
(inaudible).
Mr. Costa: Typically we have been putting those annual status report conditions on
projects that span a number of years but also to if there are significant impacts or impacts to the
general public such as traffic or otherwise that that would be a means to keep abreast of the
progress of the project. And so if the Commission feels that is something we should put on this
then that is your prerogative.
Chair: Any more comments or questions?
Ms. Matsumoto: I think a status report would be good, at least feedback updating the
current state of the project.
Mr. Texeira: Mr. Chair, could I ask one more question in regards to this project, of the
applicant? My question is about the discharge.
Chair: We will suspend the rules and have the applicant...
Mr. Texeira: I just wanted you to tell me about the discharge and how you plan to
transport it and if it will be transported from the site.
Mr. Hong: There will be very limited discharge because once you wet the concrete
(inaudible) put into the truck and it is (inaudible). However there will be some water generated
from washing of the equipment and washing of the plant periodically. There is a holding pond if
you will in which water will run into the holding pond. If, in a very, very large rain condition the
holding pond gets filled which we don't anticipate but if there is, then the water will overflow
into an old quarry pit. And very frankly if the quarry pit overflows we are in big trouble. We
have bigger troubles than this concrete plant because that pit is quite substantial and then from
there it will just leech and the ground it's self acts like a filter. The applicant has as I said an
existing batch plant operation and quarry operation at that site. They have various holding
ponds, settling ponds and these have all met the Department of Health requirements for
discharge of water and we expect the same to be met. So that is not really a concern.
Chair: Any more questions for the applicant, thank you Walton. I will bring the meeting
back to order, are there any more questions before I entertain a motion? Seeing none what would
the Commission like to do?
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to approve E.2.a as recommended by the Planning
Department.
Mrs. Matsumoto: Second.
Staff: Staff would just like to interject that while we have a recommendation prepared
for you folks that is mandated by section 8-20 of the Kauai County Code, I think at this time it
would be prudent to defer action on the case until a later date just for staff to incorporate certain
concerns raised in the agency comments that were submitted to the Commission recently.
Chair: Let me entertain that motion and go into discussion and we can talk about what he
just said so let's move into discussion. I will entertain the motion and there was a second. So
you are saying that there are agency comments...
Planning Commission Minutes 31
March 9, 2010
Staff. There are agency comments which were nothing really stood out but since
receiving them the department feels it would be prudent to incorporate them, some of them
specifically into the conditions of approval.
Chair: And what comments are those? Did we get a copy of those comments or did you
just get them?
Staff: The Commission did get those comments, specifically the Department of Health,
applying for a new NPDS permit.
Mr. Costa: I think as typically as is the case we do route to agencies and when we get
those agency comments back we typically would incorporate those into the recommendation.
And being that these comments have just come back we haven't had a chance to do that. All you
have to date is our preliminary report and recommendation.
Chair: So do we need to hold the application up for deferral based on the comments that
the department wants to revise?
Mr. Jung: That is at the pleasure of the Commission if you want to impose conditions
based on what the agency requested then it would be prudent to do so but it is up to you folks.
Chair: There is a condition already for the department to impose government agency
conditions. I guess what I am saying is does condition No. 8 catchall?
Mr. Jung: Theoretically it is a catch all but if a particular agency wants to put in a
specific condition then the Planning Department usually recommends that be potentially put in.
Mr. Costa: So given that we would ask that the Commission considers deferral, basically
closing the public hearing and we will bring it back once we incorporate those comments into a
final recommendation.
Mr. Jung: Director, it is usually the case where after a public hearing is closed there is a
chance to do a supplemental report and that has happened in the past, correct?
Mr. Costa: That is correct and what you typically get in the public hearing is a
preliminary report which is done prior to receipt of agency comments.
Mr. Hong: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for the record the applicant has no objections to a
deferral because we understand the position the staff is in having lately received these agency
comments. We don't have any problem with it but I can see the necessity for the staff to want to
incorporate it so we would request that if it is deferred that this matter be put on the next
Planning Commission agenda for action.
Ms. Morikami: With that being said Mr. Chair, I with draw my motion for approval.
Ms. Matsumoto: I withdraw my second.
Chair: So we are back to no motion on the floor.
Mrs. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to receive communications received today from the
four different agencies, State of Hawaii, Department of Health, communication from Gerald
Takamura, District Environmental Health Program, communication from State of Hawai'i,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the final one is the State of Hawai'i, Department
of Transportation comments.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
receive agency comments, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Planning Commission Minutes 32
March 9, 2010
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move to defer this matter to the next meeting.
Chair: I would say that we don't need to defer the item but we could defer the public
hearing.
Ms. Morikami: We did.
Chair: We did close it, sorry.
Mr. Costa: Yes, a deferral...
Chair: We will do that at clean up.
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2010-12 to permit the construction and operation of a
telecommunication facility comprised of a 70' monopole and associated equipment located on
Kekaha Road, immediately north of the Kekaha Road and Kala Road intersection, Kekaha,
Kaua'i, further identified as Tax Map Key 1-3-009:001, and containing: a lot area of 1.943 acres =
Sprint Together with Nextel. [Director's Report received 2/23/10.1
Staff Planner Ka`aina Hull read Director's report and evaluation (on file).
Chair: Are there any questions on the evaluation, if not then I will call the applicant up.
Mr. Nishida: I have a quick question for Ka`aina. Ka`aina, what is the height limitation
for General Industrial?
Staff: It is 50 feet for industrial structures but they are given an additional 20 feet for
utility structures.
Mr. Carl Young: Good afternoon, my name is Carl Young representing Sprint together
with Nextel.
Chair: Is there anything you want to add to the preliminary evaluation or make a
presentation to the Commission?
Mr. Young: I believe you have the report and I guess the one comment that did come up
before was the visibility or the impact to the community in speaking with Ka`aina before and that
is why I gave a visual of the top view. This site is actually pretty nice in that it can only be seen
within about 150 feet of roadway. Other than that it is very difficult to see from anywhere else.
Also I do have the owner here as well of the parcel and he can confirm that there are two other
lease agreements with both T-Mobile and Verizon for the existing AT&T site.
Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you, is there
anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none...
Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, move that we close this public hearing.
Mr. Texeira: Second.
Chair: All those in favor say aye, no, motion carries.
On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Herman Texeira, to close the
public hearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Nishida: Question for Ka`aina, Ka`aina, this one fits clearly within the requirements
of the CZO?
Staff: The only reason it is before the Commission is because the parcel is over an acre
in size. In the event the parcel is less than an acre this would have met all standards of the
regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and indeed would have been permitted over
the counter.
Planning Commission Minutes 33
March 9, 2010
Chair: Is there a reason we have black and white photos when it says here is has colored
arrows?
Staff: I can check on that.
Chair: Are there any more questions for our planner? I will entertain a motion or we
could just continue and have it come on the next agenda.
Mr. Nishida: We can vote on this because it is clearly within the CZO.
Chair: If you guys feel that way we can have discussion.
Mr. Nishida: Ian, this one clearly falls within the requirements?
Mr. Jung: Yes, that is correct.
Chair: If the Commission is comfortable then if we want to entertain a motion.
Mr. Nishida: Move to receive staff report.
Chair: We already received it.
Mr. Nishida: Move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2010-12 to permit the
construction and operation of a telecommunication facility comprised of a 70 ft. monopole and
associated equipment located on Kekaha Road, immediately north of the Kekaha Road and Kala
Road intersection, Kekaha, Kaua'i, Tax Map Key: 1-3-009:01, and containing a lot area of 1.943
acres, Sprint together with Nextel.
Mr. Jung: I am sorry Commissioners, before there is a second on that motion there are
additional agency comments that still need to be received.
Chair: Could we get a second and then receive the others?
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: So before we vote on the agenda item if I could get a motion to receive E.2.b.1.
Mr. Nishida: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Now this is discussion, if there are any recommendations, additions, deletions,
anything that we want to add to the Director's report now is the time.
Mr. Texeira: Just for discussion about stealthing the pole, why not?
Staff: It is within sight of other use districts however the facility being proposed is within
the Industrial Zoning District which has the overall purposes laid out by the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance as that area designated for those facilities, uses, and operations that in fact
offensive to sight, smell, hearing. And in regards to that the department didn't feel it was
prudent to recommend the mandate of a stealth pole as well as in looking at previous
Commission actions for which there has been a pole permitted at the exact same site in which
stealthing also was not required.
Chair: If I could add something Herman. On these black and white photos that we have
in our packets the applicant does say proposed 70 ft. monopine. So was it the department at that
time to just say you don't need the monopine? If he proposed it...
Staff Maybe the applicant can speak to that because at no time were we in any
discussions of monopine for this area.
Planning Conunission Minutes 34
March 9, 2010
Mr. Young: Carl Young, Sprint with Nextel. That is just a typo. I used the applications
for other ones and probably just left that by mistake.
Chair: That is a costly mistake. I know it's a black and white photo but you also did it
twice on two pages.
Mr. Young: I apologize for that sir.
Chair: So could you do a monopine?
Mr. Young: Well the decision for a monopine is an economic decision. I am here to
represent Sprint and Nextel, what they are trying to do is provide coverage for the island and the
cost of a monopine is about five or six times the cost so it will impact the overall coverage of the
island. If they don't have to, they would prefer not to because of economic reasons.
Chair: How far is it from Po'ipu Road to the site?
Mr. Young: Commissioner Raco, I think you are on the Koloa one, maybe that is why.
Chair: I take back everything I said for the record. So do you want to do a monopine?
But it does still say monopine, yes it does.
Mr. Young: Then it was a typo.
Ms. Matsumoto: That is a good question because if you are looking ahead and you look
at these photos, even though they are black and white, there are trees and I see Palm trees in the
area, not a pine tree but Palm tress. And in recent applications ...I don't know if Kekaha is going
to stay the way it is. It is just a thought.
Mr. Nishida: Question for the applicant, this site, the poles are behind the old Kekaha
Plantation building? And in the front you have a series of Monkey Pod trees, across the street is
the old Mill and then adjacent to this I think there are some open fields and some fertilizer tanks
as well as it looks like equipment storage shed company. And then the back side of this is
belongs to Ag. Development Corporation?
Mr. Young: I am not exactly sure. I think it is leased by someone but it belongs to the
State.
Mr. Nishida: State of Hawai'i.
Mr. Young: It's Ag., yes, there are some large utility poles.
Mr. Nishida: Currently there is a temporary ...is that a temporary or permanent antenna?
Mr. Young: There used to be a temporary cell on wheels, they call them COW'S and that
has been taken away and an actual cell site has already been built by AT&T. I am sorry, the
owner has mentioned that it is still there but they have to take it out.
Mr. Nishida: This one you don't have any landscaping surrounding the bottom of
the...from what views can you see the bottom of the pole?
Mr. Young: You wouldn't be able to see the bottom of this pole at all.
Mr. Nishida: It is not going to be to where the old, temporary one was?
Mr. Young: No. It is actually behind one of the buildings and it is under and below the
canopy of the Monkey Pod trees.
Chair: It is below the canopy.
Mr. Young: Yes. The question was the equipment. So the fenced area and equipment
compound would be below the Monkey Pod trees.
Planning Commission Minutes 35
March 9, 2010
Mr. Texeira: So all you can see is the last 20 feet or so?
Mr. Young: Exactly. And the Monkey Pods are approximately 50 feet. They are mature
at this point.
Chair: What is that street that is front of that?
Mr. Young: Kekaha Road.
Chair: How far is it from the pole to Kekaha Road?
Mr. Young: About 200 feet.
Chair: So I will be able to see the tower?
Mr. Young: Sure, you will. I guess the point I would make is as you drive by there is
only a viewing corridor of 150 feet so as you drive from one end of the street where it is visible,
where it becomes visible through the Monkey Pod trees you can see it for 150 feet and then you
can't, and coming the other way as well.
Chair: So what would your concern be about coming down from Koke`e Road then?
What would my view plane be from that side?
Mr. Young: I'm sorry. I am not familiar with that road.
Chair: The road to Koke`e coming down.
Staff: The road up to the State Park.
Mr. Young: I don't know what the view would be from there. I can't say I actually went
there to take a look so I don't know the distance and the actual view point. I didn't do that.
Chair: Tell me the reason why you don't want to do stealth?
Mr. Young: It's mainly cost; the cost of stealth is about six times.
Chair: That is the only reason?
Mr. Young: That is a very big reason. Really and truly if you are to think about
coverage and cell sites are built on complaints and people want them in certain areas. That
would change the equation on what people get in terms of coverage. And one of the things that
Sprint is offering, for example on Oahu, they are part of the E-911 system, they work with Civil
Defense, the work with the hospitals and they work on these emergency operations. They are
also a part of the ambulance service on Oahu and they are trying to be part of the ambulance
services on all the islands. And what some people ask is why do you need wireless internet for
example on the road? Well the ambulance is starting to use them and they use them in the
mainland quite a bit and what they are beginning to do is especially in areas that are under served
in rural areas, they are beginning to provide medical care in transit. And that is a very big deal
for people who can't get medical care. And so because there is this E-911 mandate they have to
try to provide care and emergency service in as many areas as possible. So if you don't use your
funds wisely you will deliver these cell sites slower or maybe to some areas not at all. So the
decision may come down that it doesn't become a cost benefit, it doesn't make sense to build a
site in a certain area because of the size of the population. So the cost of a cell site does
determine whether or not...and if it services an area that pays back for that site it will determine
whether sometimes a site will be built.
Mr. Texeira: Again, can you describe the service area in terms of how far? Are you
going towards Waimea too?
Mr. Young: It hands off to Waimea and it hands off to Barking Sands.
Planning Conunission Minutes 36
March 9, 2010
Mr. Texeira: There is a very large project between Waimea and Kekaha that is proposed,
right, subdivision, Kikiaoloa Land Company, right, is proposing a development.
Chair: Yes.
Mr. Texeira: So I am just saying we are expecting some large residential and
nonresidential growth in the community in the future. So that was not a consideration in your
costs, the fact that it will be servicing a larger population?
Mr. Young: I am just giving you a generic answer. I can't tell you exactly what the
analysis was. Cell sites are built basically on complaints and what is happening now. They are
probably going to ask for a cell site in that area in the future if a community comes up there.
That is just a generic answer for why it is not stealth, basically it is cost, and it is about six times
the cost.
Chair: On the back end of that question, the community is not here right now and just
because it is not there now or when we do this, what would the repercussions be? I mean we are
going to get questioned on this, why did you guys stealth it in the middle of a sugar cane field
where there are trees which is perfectly (inaudible). But why didn't you guys still stealth when it
was close to the community near the trees too so I have to defer my decision on why would I do
it far away but not where people will be able to see more visibility because it is closer to them
and the street. And that is why I asked besides the fact for cost. With this ramification of cost
there are also profits that you will gain having this too. It is a win/win situation and when I look
at the visibility that is what I am looking at, why would you do it far but not near. That is all I
am saying.
Mr. Young: One of the reasons for picking this location is it is far from view from
basically everywhere in town. We did look around the area for other areas that might work and
visibility wise this was the best alternative from what we could see. So I don't know exactly the
street you are talking about but I did drive around as much as I could and it just seems like the
best area for it. We could barely see even the smoke stack from the rest of town.
Chair: I wouldn't say it is far away from town, to me Kekaha is a town. There is an
elementary school there, there is a grocery store there, it is a get away to...you might not know
the demographics of Kekaha but it is the last town before Port Allen so it is a town.
Ms. Matsumoto: Some people think it is the heart of their sense of place and I am also
concerned about the visual look of a pole in that historic community. It seems like not many
people go through there, it is almost industrial in a way but it is actually the center of Kekaha
Town. What do you think would be the best type of pole to make it blend in to that kind of
community, what design, what color?
Mr. Young: One of the things that was brought up at the meeting last with the Historic
Review Committee was they said they had already made one recommendation but we did offer
to paint it and we offered to paint it to blend in with the background.
Ms. Matsumoto: Paint it what color?
Mr. Young: Whatever would blend in, they weren't really sure, they were saying maybe
green or they said even red dirt, somebody said but I think green probably would be the best.
Ms. Matsumoto: But the intent was to try to make it blend in as much as possible?
Mr. Young: That was voluntary. I said we would do it. They said they couldn't make a
ruling that was different, something like that, from what was already recommended.
Ms. Matsumoto: So are you waiting for their decision?
Mr. Young: No. They made that decision last week Thursday so we are agreeable to
painting it. Ka`aina, on that note, is there a comment for their concerns?
Planning Commission Minutes 37
March 9, 2010
Staff: We don't have any from SHPD, they didn't send any however we reviewed the
previous application which was an application for a facility virtually identical to the one being
proposed right now and SHPD didn't raise any concerns for that particular application.
Mr. Costa: The Kaua'i Historic Preservation Commission did review this last Thursday
and has not... basically we haven't completed transmitting the results of that to Ka`aina.
Ms. Matsumoto: So do you think it would be better to defer until we receive their
comments?
Mr. Costa: I know there was some discussion at the Historic Preservation Commission
regarding visual impacts so I guess given that and in hearing some of the concerns expressed by
the Commission I could recommend that the Commission defer.
Mr. Nishida: Ka`aina, the AT&T monopole is already approved, right?
Staff: Correct.
Mr. Nishida: How come we are getting another monopole? Aren't they supposed to co-
locate?
Staff: As explained in the report the AT&T pole has reached it's, while it isn't up yet I
believe or it is up but hasn't gotten all the co-locators on it however that pole is completely
leased out to two other carriers being able to only locate three on to it. So because of that, that
applicant today is proposing a site virtually identical at the same area because co-Iocation is
impossible anymore on that existing pole.
Mr. Costa: And since we are on it, that AT&T pole, were any measures taken to stealth
or otherwise?
Staff: No, it is a monopole.
Chair: Did that one come in front of us?
Staff: That was approved by the Commission I believe two years ago or excuse me, three
years ago.
Chair: It's just that what Paula was saying this morning is that when do we stop putting
more poles? Do we put one more monopole there because there are two more?
Ms. Matsumoto: I think there is still great opportunity to keep the island as beautiful as
possible.
Staff: I will stress that as stated before it is the department's policy to not allow a
proliferation particularly in a given area however that doesn't necessarily apply to the Industrial
Zoning District, particularly because the Industrial District is zoned for those industrial types of
uses.
Ms. Matsumoto: But that doesn't necessarily mean that an industrial area can't be as
pleasing to look at as it can be, right?
Mr. Costa: There may be other factors in each within the context of each Industrial
District that may warrant different treatment.
Chair: I agree with that because the Industrial Park in LYhu'e is industrial but sensitivity
in Kekaha, well the Mill is in the community, houses are built around the community.
Mr. Costa: And I will tell you that the placement of industrial zoning in this particular
location is a function of an existing mill, that is how the zoning was placed which is no longer in
operation.
Chair: And you couldn't use the Mill tower?
Planning Commission Minutes 38
March 9, 2010
Mr. Young: The mill tower is desirable. We want to go there but the landlord didn't
want to do it. I guess they have future plans. But that is preferable, we would much rather go up
on the stack.
Chair: So there is a motion on the floor for approval and then there is a second.
Mr. Nishida: Should we wait until the...
Chair: I think we need to vote on that motion and then...
Mr. Nishida: Or I can withdraw it.
Chair: Or you can with draw it.
Mr. Nishida: And then we can wait until we get the comments from the State...
Mr. Costa: It's not the State Historic Preservation it is the Kaua'i Historic Preservation
Commission who merely makes recommendations.
Mr. Nishida: I am going to withdraw my motion so that we can get the comments.
Mr. Kimura: I withdraw my second.
Chair: Then the motion would be we just close the public hearing and continue to the
next date.
Use Permit U-2010-11 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2010-13 to permit the
construction and operation of a telecommunication facility comprised of a 70' monopine (a
monopole designed to look like a pine tree) and associated equipment located on a property
approx. 600' west of the Po'ipn Road and Malino Road intersection, Koloa, Kaua'i, further
identified as Tax Map Key 2-8-010:009, and containing a lot area of 3 acres = Sprint Together
with Nextel. [Director's Report received 2/23/10.1
Hearing was closed.
NEW BUSINESS
For Acceptance into Record - Director's Reports for Proiects Scheduled for Public
Hearing for 3/23/10 Public Hearing.
Use Permit U-2010-12 Special Permit SP-2010-2, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2010-14 to permit the construction of a backup injection well and other facility improvements at
the existing Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Waimea on a gravel access road off
of Kaumuali`i Highway, approx. 45 miles west of the Kaumuali`i Highway and Huakai Road
intersection further identified as Tax Map Keys 1-2-006:036, 1-2-006:037, and 1-2-006:009, and
affecting an area of approx. 6.3 acres = County ofKaua'i, Department of Public Works
(Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant).
For Acceptance and Finalization - Director's Report for Shoreline Determination.
There were no reports for shoreline determination.
Memorandum 3/3/10 from Director Ian K. Costa to Caven Raco, Chair, Kaua'i Planning
Commission recommending the Commission consent to the issuance on Non-Conforming Use
Certificates pertaining to Transient Vacation Rentals (see Agenda Attachment "A").
a. Staff Reports pertaining to the recommendation to consent to issuance of Non-
Conforming Use Certificates for Transient Vacation Rentals listed in Attachment
"A" _
Planning Commission Minutes 39
March 9, 2010
b. Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statues Sections 92-4 and 92-
5(a)(4), the pMose of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal
counsel on -questions issues status and procedural matters This consultation
involves consideration of the powers duties privileges, immunities and/or
liabilities of the Commission and the Coun as they related to these agenda
items.
Agenda item deleted from agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Commission adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
& .o -
Lani L. Agoot
Commission Support Cler
Planning Commission Minutes 40
March 9, 2010