2021-08-10 Planning Commission Agenda Packet1
KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING
September 08, 2020
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of
Kaua‘i was called to order at 8:35 a.m., Microsoft Teleconference. The following
Commissioners were present:
Mr. Roy Ho
Ms. Donna Apisa
Mr. Francis DeGracia
Absent and Excused:
The following staff members were present: Planning Department Director Kaaina Hull –
Planning Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Dale Cua, and Planning Commission
Secretary Leslie Takasaki; Office of the County Attorney –County Attorney Matthew Bracken;
Office of Boards and Commissions – Commission Support Clerk Arleen Kuwamura.
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Subdivision Committee Chair Ho: Called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Ho: Good morning, everyone, welcome to Subdivision. This call will start with our roll,
please. (Inaudible) Commissioner Apisa.
Planning Director Kaaina Hull: Roll call. Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Here
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Mr. DeGracia: Here
Mr. Hull: Chair Ho.
Chair Ho: Here.
Mr. Hull: You have a quorum. Three Present.
2
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Hull: The next up is approval of the Agenda. The Planning Department does not have any
recommended amendments.
Ms. Apisa: I move we approve the agenda as submitted.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: The motion before us is the approval of the Agenda. All in favor? Aye (Unanimous
voice vote) Motion carries. Motion carries 3:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Subdivision Committee
Mr. Hull: Next up is Agenda Item is review and approve of the meeting minutes for June 09,
2020.
Ms. Apisa: I move we approve the minutes of June 09, 2020.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: The motion before us is to approval the minutes of June 09, 2020. All in favor? Aye
(Unanimous voice vote) Motion approved. Motion carries 3:0.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None)
Mr. Hull: There is no Receipt of Items for the Record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Hull: Okay. Next, we have a Hearings and Public Comment. Planning Commission and
Subdivision Committee testimony needs to be submitted 24 hours in advance, however, you may
submit after we received, you have not received any public testimony, written comments for any
Subdivision agenda items. For those who are calling in, this is the time to testimony on any of
the agenda items. Is there anybody who is calling in that would like to testify as a member of the
public? Applicants, if you’re an applicant, you have your time to speak on the specific agenda
item, but is there any member of the public that has called in that would like to testify on the
agenda items? Hearing none. Moving onto New Business. I have one (inaudible) on the agenda.
3
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
Mr. Hull: We will move on to Unfinished Business, there is no Unfinished Business.
NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
Tentative Subdivision Map Approval.
Subdivision Application No. S-2020-11 Kukui`ula Development CO,
Proposed 14-lot Subdivision TMKs: (4) 2-6-019: 048 Kukui`ula, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Moving onto New Business. I have one, ah, (inaudible…)
Mr. Avery Youn: (Inaudible), on the agenda.
Mr. Hull: (Inaudible) Yes, you have, Avery, we have a specific request from you for
intervention and appeal that’s being placed for the Kilauea Ohana Plateau, so we’ll bring it up
and you can discuss that communication during that particular agenda item. However, did you
want to testify on any other – other agenda items set?
Mr. Youn: No, no, thank you very much for letting me know.
Mr. Hull: Okay, thanks, Avery. So back to I.1, Tentative Subdivision Approval Subdivision
application number S-2021-11, Kukui`ula Development Company, a proposed 14-lot
subdivision, TMK, 2-6-019:048. The application or the subdivision planner is Dale, and I will
turn it over to Dale.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Thank you, Chair, and members of the Subdivision Committee. What
you have before you is subdivision application up for tentative approval. It is regarded as the
Kukui`ula CC West Subdivision and its phase two.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The Department is recommending a tentative approval but pending the request for a
modification of requirement.
Chair Ho: Are we waiting for you to speak?
Mr. Lindsay Crawford: I am sorry, Dale, was the request for Lindsay to speak?
Mr. Cua: Yes, so sorry, Lindsey, you can go ahead and present your argument, please.
Mr. Crawford: Okay, thank you, Dale. Yes, as Dale indicated, Planning Commissioner, excuse
me, Lindsey Crawford, Kukui`ula Development for the record. As Dale indicated, Kukui`ula is
4
requesting as we have done before on very similar small residential lot subdivisions, a waiver
from the sidewalks and curbs and gutters on this particular subdivision. I submitted a request
letter and an exhibit showing exactly where the adjacent sidewalk on Ala Kukui`ula Drive is, it’s
a matter of standing 45 feet away, so an internal set of sidewalks on the small little residential
cul-de-sac road is probably unnecessary. Therefore we are requesting a waiver for the sidewalk,
the ideal sidewalk Condition, very, very similar to what we had on the last map is you would like
to refer to the last map we had approved I am going to say six months ago. In addition, we are
asking for a waiver for the curbs and gutters because we –we have swales, County approved
swales if you did your approved swales, it serves these rural type neighborhoods very similar to
every other subdivision we have done into Kukui’ula.
Chair Ho: Commissioner, you have any questions for Mr. Crawford.
Ms. Apisa: No questions.
Mr. Crawford: Okay, thank you.
Chair Ho: Oh, Lindsey, are you asking for the waiver only in that small, what is it like a semi-
circle portion?
Mr. Crawford: Are you talking, (inaudible), are you talking about the cul-de-sac?
Chair Ho: Yes.
Mr. Crawford: Ah, no. Actually I am asking for it for the entire length of the road which is a, ah,
a single loaded 14 residential lot roadway. It has 14 (inaudible) excuse me, 11, 11 lots and just a
a cul-de-sac road. It is not just a cul-de-sac but the stem of the road also.
Chair Ho: So, the residents, they face all of the Ala Kukui`ula Road? Are you asking for waiver
on that portion also?
Mr. Crawford: I am sorry; I am not recalling you saying that. It’s – these residential lots…
Chair Ho: Yes, and they back up to that all of Ala Kukui`ula Road? Am I reading this map
correctly?
Mr. Crawford: Yes, that is our major arterial roadway through the subdivision. It’s all of Ala
Kukui`ula Road, about a seven foot, an existing seven foot wide sidewalk instead of a regional
sidewalk it could usually serve as a sidewalk for this particular residential subdivision.
Chair Ho: Okay. So it does have a (inaudible) particular road and a residential.
Mr. Crawford: Yes, yes, it does.
Chair Ho: Thank you, Lindsay.
5
Mr. Crawford: You are welcome.
Mr. Cua: Sir, just for clarification purposes, the modification for the roadway construction
relates to the interior roadway serving this development. And as Lindsey mentioned, there is
already an existing sidewalk along Ala Kukui`ula Road.
Chair Ho: Thank you. Commissioners, you okay to vote, a motion.
Ms. Apisa: I take it Dale that you are in agreement with that.
Mr. Cua: Yes, correct.
Mr. Crawford: Yes.
Ms. Apisa: I am ready to make a motion.
Chair Ho: Please do.
Ms. Apisa: I move that we approve subdivision application number S-2021-11 Kukui`ula
Development Company proposed 14 lot subdivision as modified.
Mr. DeGracia: Seconded.
Chair Ho: The motion before is Tentative Map Approval, permit number 2020-11 for
modification…
Ms. Apisa: 2021?
Chair Ho: All in favor. Application Number S-2020-11, is that correct?
Mr. Cua: The agenda item is, ah, incorrectly – this – the application number for the record is
2020-11.
Ms. Apisa: My, I correct that in my motion then also.
Chair Ho: Yes.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Chair Ho: Motion before us is for Tentative Map Approval Application number 2020-11, all in –
with modification. All in favor? Aye (Unanimous voice vote) Motion approved. Motion carries
3:0.
Ms. Apisa: Obviously, that was not quite into 2021 yet.
Mr. Cua: Yes, I apologies.
6
Final Subdivision Map Approval.
Subdivision Application No. S-2018-15 Kilauea Ohana Plateau, LLC,
Proposed 10-lot Subdivision TMK: (4) 5-2-005: 023 Kilauea, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Next we have I.2, final subdivision map approval, A, subdivision application number
S-2018-15, Kilauea Ohana Plateau, LLC as the applicant, that’s a proposed 10-lot subdivision-
TMK: (4) 5-2-005:023, there’s also additional communications to this particular agenda item.
The first one is request from Avery Youn, dated September l, 2020, to become a part application
and allow intervening in the process and appeal decision with Planning Director. To assure that
action on the proposed final subdivision approval be postpone until the application can be
(inaudible) flats if both Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 205 (inaudible).
And then you also have another memorandum on the, essentially in response to the request, this
is from the applicant’s representative Ian K. Jung, requesting the (inaudible) just answer the
under appeal of the decision be dismissed for failing to meet the rules provided for any RP piece
and the final subdivision map approval being granted. At this point because its request is
possibly appealing the Director’s Decision, a turn in review and action concerning Avery’s
petition at the again response over to you, Chair, as well as to Matt Bracken, the County
Attorney.
Chair Ho: I ask that Matt Bracken give his opinion on this rebuttal convene in June.
County Attorney Matthew Bracken: Good morning, Matt Bracken, County Attorney. This
action is governed by County Code Section 9-3.8, which is the Final Subdivision Map Section.
Section (inaudible) E.1, which is directed (inaudible) Commissioner, exponentially E.2 that is the
Commission’s permanent map (inaudible). In this situation, we have to look at two different
sections within the Planning Commission rules. The first one read Chapter 4, which governs
intervention, Section 1-4-1, does not allow intervention in the appeals of actions of (inaudible)
pursuant to chapter 9. In this situation, we have a Planning Director’s Report, under the rules it
does not allow for intervention. Then, you have to look at Chapter 9; it governs the appeals,
specifically Section 1-9-1, which states, intervention pursuant to Chapter 4 of these rules shall
not be allowed in appeals from the Action Director. Again, this is the Action of Directors who
intervention would not be allowed and an appeal would not be allowed. So if you look at the
appeal, intervention is not allowed, the person would not be a party and they would not be a
party and they would not have the right to appeal this matter of the law. But the rules also don’t
allow for appeals. So it does allow for appeals from the applicant. The applicant has a right to
appeal but that is it. So in this situation, the rules do not allow for intervention and they do not
allow for appeals, you know. If you want me to review specific communications that can be
done, but that is needs to be made specifically through my email, as a request.
Chair Ho: Thank you, Matthew. Mr. Hull, could you please forward on me?
7
Mr. Hull: I will come in Chair; I think when you guys actually review the Subdivision action.
You may want allow Avery as well as Ian to present their (inaudible) to these folks.
Chair Ho: Let me see. All right. We will hear from, Mr. Jung, please.
Planning Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: Mute.
Mr. Ian Jung: Sorry about that. I was on mute. Again, good morning, Subdivision Committee
Chair, members of the Committee, Ian Jung on behalf of the applicant Kilauea Ohana Plateau
Subdivision. We did receive Mr. Youn’s request for intervention and we do concur with the
County Attorney opinion on this. We actually prepared a memo in response and guidance you
folks, we tried to rush it in to get it in before Friday. So when we get subdivisions, I think its
pretty square when you have a subdivision you’re looking at hitting all the task items from
preliminary approval and if the applicant gets those task items in the preliminary approval letter,
then final subdivision is sort of a ministerial approach to resolve the remaining Conditions.
I do not think there is any way for Mr. Youn appeal let alone intervene in a final subdivision
matter. It is my perspective that the carryover that Mr. Youn has concerns which starts with the
Gather SCU project that occurred in 2019. Mr. Youn actually lives with a significant other on
adjacent property and when they testified to this Commission previously, they were concerned
with there being noise and the ongoing construction. They tried to intervene late through a
motion of reconsideration as noted in his request. However, again, they were too late on that
similar to this case. But we met all Conditions with final subdivision approval and are now on
track to final (merit) approval. We actually do not post approval of the Gather. I went to a
meeting that Tessa Shimabukuru was also on line to answer any questions if you folks have any
questions on the Gather project. But we coordinated a meeting, invited Avery, ah, one of those
individuals did appear and we tried to work a scenario where we can start construction timelines
at a certain time that’s, you know, reasonable for the adjacent neighbors so the beeping noises
wouldn’t beep to impact those throughout the day.
But unfortunately Avery did not show up to that meeting so we weren’t able to get his official
comments on that. Now we are dealing with late in the game challenge which as I agree with or
the County Attorney, you know, it is not a plausible challenge even when we’re at the final leg of
this. Just to bring the committee to full circle on this, this started about three to four years ago,
we negotiated with the County of Kauai who wanted this New Town Kilauea Road, in response
to what then Bernard, Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. wanted as fulfilling the 2006 Kilauea Town
Plans. So when it this road design came through, this little R.6 or R.6 section that was there and
identified by then Planning Director Mike Dahilig, he actually required that we put some kind of
housing in that strip. So that’s lots B.1 and B.2, and I’ll show you on the map. Mr. Youn’s
concern – sorry, I am going to try to share the screen previous map – Mr. Youn’s concern is
highlighted in pink. This is the official zoning map, Mr. Youn actually submits only tax maps as
part of his record request. In this case, it is clearly shown on the class, on the Kilauea Town
8
Core Map that the area in question is in the urban and R.6 section. I want to show you the online
GIS system mapping that the State Land Use Commission maintains, the lines there. It shows
that bump. When they align that subdivision, they did not follow the exact location of the zoning
line.
Mr. Youn does raise an issue of once all recorded down in the tax maps, but that is just not the
case, you know, that the state used to manage tax maps pre-86 and now the county manages the
tax maps. The tax maps are for tax purposes only. When you go to the course of law, you have to
look at what are the actual map shows and that is binding rather than a reference to a map – tax
map key number. So it’s critical that we look to the actual zoning map and the State Land Use
Map rather than just a tax map, Mr. Youn applied. So with that said, you know, we understand
his concern and, again, Gather is willing to sit down with Mr. Youn if he’s willing to come to the
table to work out, potential (inaudible), that may affect his significant other’s property and trying
to come to a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, this just isn’t the vehicle to waste the
Commissioner’s time on holding an intervention request when if he really wants to have a
challenge to mapping. He has a private right of that actual challenge under Chapter 205, to
challenge this declaratory action of the Court, rather than before this Commission. So with that
said, I will turn it over the subdivision planner, try and round out the conversation of how we
fulfill all the Tentative Conditions.
Chair Ho: Mr. Hull, are we going to ask Mr. Youn to comment?
Mr. Hull: I am trying to stay out of this because (inaudible) again he is potentially proposing but
I would strongly encourage being that it is a communication that went to the Committee Chair,
that you ask Mr. Youn to speak his communication.
Chair Ho: With that, Mr. Youn would you please comment?
Mr. Avery Youn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Chair Ho: Yes.
Mr. Youn: Okay. I’m – I’m a little upset right now ‘cause I had a funny feeling I was going to
get cut on the legal proceedings. But the issue here, first of all, I am lying awake at night. The
issue here is somewhat subdivision itself but on the way of the urban designation was
(inaudible). I disagree with Mr. Jung because I went to the Land Use Commission and first, I
have been on that side of the table for 13 years as a Director and a Planning – Planning Director
and Deputies. I went on this side of the table for about 30 – Sorry, I am trying to turn this off.
Sorry. I’m very familiar with election clause, (inaudible) what the Land Use State, I went to the
Land Use Commission twice and I got their maps and I totally disagreed with Mr. Jung. When
you apply for a Land Use, you apply with a tax key and a specific tax key use parcel. This came
here the Land Use (inaudible) for the Kilauea Plateau Subdivision, was never part of that
9
application for an application, you cannot take one tax map designated urban and include that
other one next door, the other designation.
My other question, too, is for the County Attorney, um, and an adjoining property owner or, ah,
an adjoining person that has standing to a subdivision cannot appeal under a decision of the
Director or file for Intervention then what can we do? We - is our only option to go to court in
my land use piece because we have been shut down. This is the fourth time we have shut been
down on this issue. I can say when you do a land use things, not so much the subdivision itself,
this is what the problem is, the land use thing, you cannot just arbitrarily add an adjoining lots
and make it urban when it doesn’t go to the proper authority. The proper authority to make that
designation is you the Planning Commission and the County Council. It is not the Planning
Director. You cannot apparently move the line into the access and call it urban. And I – and I
can say that because I have the application before we through the Land Use Commission I have
the subdivision map and I can show you the boundary, it’s different from what Mr. Jung has
showed you and here I’ll show you.
This map has submitted to the Land Use Commission. It is right here, and it shows this as the
urban boundary. This is Jung’s map up here. So this is what the Land Use Commission approved
and what Mr. Jung showed you is what the Planning Director approved. However, the authority
to change the urban designation rests with the Planning Commission and the County Council not
the Planning Director. And, um, and I know Mr. Jung is going to want to comment and what I
say, and I reserve the right to comment on what he says ‘cause he’ll probably say that I’m wrong
on everything. Like I said, I have enough experience, all the (inaudible) however, I am very
familiar with Land Use changes and zoning and I know for sure (inaudible), this is the land use
commission for urban designation is what was approved here. The zoning (inaudible) and
(inaudible), the issue is the subdivision is wrong if guys don’t allow me to appeal or intervene at
this point and we have no option but the Planning (inaudible). What I am trying to do is – I am
not trying to waste your time and I actually come in to see (inaudible) by breaking this up with
the County.
I understand what this subdivision is for; to create a bypass road for Kilauea I am not really
against the subdivision, what I am against is how it was done. It does not follow your rules, and
as an example is on the subdivision itself, a roadway A, which is the bypass road, we need us to,
ah, representing every landowner or that we have to follow the subdivision on this. In this case,
the roadway A does not have construction plan on it – on it is the subdivision agreement to post a
bond, construction, it is the (inaudible) modification requirement, it is like what you just hard
with Kukui’ula. This was not on so that violates Subdivision Ordinance 2. My conclusion is that
the authority to designate land that is not part of a tax map key, it was – that it is urban. The
authority to make that change that the Planning Director did rests with you, the Commissioners
and the County Council. Not arbitrarily (inaudible). For urban designation 223 into an Ag.
Designation. The map is very clear the boundary of the land use change was approximate 733. It
now 953. How can you move from 733 to 953, when you have a tax key defining the exact
10
boundary? The zoning, the (inaudible) Ag. Designation is not part of the application. How can
it be automatically put into the urban designation? That is wrong.
So you might deny me my appeal, my intervention. But the subdivision and the urban
designation is still wrong. And when I said the County Attorney addressed and say I have no
right to appeal or to intervening. What rights does a private landowner have to oppose a
subdivision? By the way, there is precedence on this, there is precedence, that I – I could not
find – I had it earlier. The subdivision colony where an adjoining landowner was allowed to re-
subdivision at the time of final approval and the Planning Commission did allow him to come in
there and convene as a party and they resolved the issue. But you do have precedence. I am not
making this up. Thank you.
Chair Ho: Thank you, Mr. Youn. I will take this; I will take this meeting back now. I think we
have heard from the attorney. He has ruled that intervention is not at applicable here. So with
that, Mr. Hull would you take us back to our meeting, please. We are on the Final Subdivision
Map Approval for Kilauea Ohana Plateau, please.
Mr. Hull: Before I turn over the appeal, let me just ask from the County Attorney Matt, does,
the Subdivision Committee need to take action on Mr. Youn’s request or, does it just take it as a
communication that they note in their reveal the Subdivision application?
Mr. Bracken: I would recommend taking action, and I can even see the recommended – the
recommendation to the client Commission, but I would recommend a formal motion and then not
have questions (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: So, Chair, I think with what Matt is essentially saying is that you should have a
motion for Mr. Youns’s request before going back into review of the actual Subdivision
Application for our Kilauea Ohana Plateau.
Chair Ho: How would the motion be stated? And how do we proceed now?
Mr. Bracken: So if it a motion to deny the appeal or the request for inter- it could just be a
motion to deny the request for intervention and appeal. If that is what the committee like to do.
Chair Ho: Commissioners, would that be by Mr. Bracken? Would you give me a motion please?
Ms. Apisa: I like the simplicity of it; I will move to deny the request or intervention and appeal.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: A motion before us is to deny the appeal of Mr. Youn, I need a roll call vote please,
Kaaina. Commissioner Apisa.
11
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Ho.
Chair Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: The motion has passed 3:0. Chair Ho.
So, Dale, now that we’re back to the regular Subdivision portion of the Agenda, I’ll turn over the
Kilauea Ohana Plateau Subdivision to you.
Mr. Cua: Okay, correct. Thank you. So Commissioners, what you have before you is
consideration for final subdivision map approval of subdivision application S-2018-15.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The final subdivision map has been routed to the various agencies for their review and
approval. The department has received all of the agency approval letters and the applicant has
the one remaining (inaudible) that need to be completed. As a result, of the Department is
recommending final subdivision approval of this application.
Chair Ho: Is Mr. Jung still with us for this?
Mr. Jung: Yes, yeah, and I just wanted to (inaudible) Mr. Youn did raise and important question
on this subdivision with regard to road block – road block A., that particular lot is the intended
road that will be dedicated over to the County. So in Section 2.4 of our memorandum of
understanding which of County of Kauai is a full applicant with Mr. Hay and his entity. We
actually put in a provision in there that we would just hand over the land, and at the time where
they can use the dedicated land as a soft cost match, to go in and build the road and they would
use that dedication. Then use the soft – soft match to go and build and design the road based on
what the County specifically wants.
So we have an agreement set out in four – prior to even filing the subdivision to address road
plotting. Now for road lot here we did do a design of the road, um, which will be the access road
to Gather and then future R6 subdivision that will go in at the further time that we’re discussing
with portable housing proponents who are looking at that lot. So a lot of the infrastructure,
especially to lot A, is relative only to a future build out based on Federal fund request, things like
that, so that’s the issue with road lot A and that was pre-prescribed in the MOU to address that
12
matter. Other than that, I will be happy to answer any specific questions with regard to the
subdivision.
Chair Ho: Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Jung?
Ms. Apisa: I have no questions.
Chair Ho: This roadblock and you going to turn it over on unimproved with just a raw land, you
will be giving the County.
Mr. Jung: Yeah, when we were in discussing how to go about doing the width of the road and
whatnot, we went through several iterations because they wanted a create – rather create a
multiuse path adjacent to the road and whatnot. So, we’re just going to dedicate the land as what
was requested by the County and then so the land is the dedication of the road lot A and then the
multiuse part which spurs off to go towards Kauapea Beach access. So there are two lots that
will dedicated over the County. I can show you all on the map. I highlighted the actual road
dedication and then the orange is the Spur bike path that will take individuals and kids over to
the Kalihiwai Road area. Let me see that.
Chair Ho: On your map that you just showed, where is the Credit Union, please?
Mr. Jung: Okay. So the Credit Union is the smaller lot, its B.1, right adjacent to the green. You
can see where the green and yellow merge. So this map, this map here, I sent this over the
Housing Director because the larger lot is what they’re looking at for future affordable housing,
for purchase from Mr. Hay as part of the dedication of its purchase that could do potential
affordable housing in that location here. But another group is looking at this portioning green
which is the R.6 portion that is disputed by Mr. Youn to do a potential affordable housing project
there as well. So the Gather lot is right here, B.1.
Chair Ho: That B lot as you just spoke of the future affordable housing lot is that across the
highway or is that… that…
Mr. Jung: Yeah. This is the, this is – sorry, my finger, following the highway here.
Chair Ho: Okay, okay, yeah.
Mr. Jung: So a portion of this lot is actually in the Urban District so that is why the County is
really interested in that (inaudible) proposal. And I’ll show you the New Town, this is the map
from Kilauea New Town plan which shows that area and that’s shaded where the road would be
here. So how future of housing in this area so for Kilauea Conceptual Plan on this map.
Chair Ho: At one point that area once was it designated Princeville to fulfill its housing
requirements. Was that the idea of that lot?
13
Mr. Jung: No, with that, that lot is actually where Mr. Youn resides with his significant other.
That was (inaudible) was affordable housing component for Princeville Subdivision or Principal
Development.
Chair Ho: Thank you.
Mr. Jung: Yes, and I can ask, I will show you, that is right here in this particular lot. This is the
area and this is the actual zoning map. Sorry. This is the actual zoning map that everybody relies
on, and this is the area, where you can see the zoning boundary and the urban boundary. That is
in dispute. So just to address Mr. Youn’s question, I know this is a very technical issue that I
think is being raised if he does want to challenge this, the right and appropriate venue is to
challenge it under a Chapter 2., Applied Right of Action, that’s the way to do it, not from the
Subdivision. We can take the matter up at the courts rather than you folks.
Chair Ho: Is there questions, Commissioners?
Ms. Apisa: No, you had good questions, Roy.
Mr. DeGracia: No questions.
Chair Ho: Okay. So no questions. So before is the Final Subdivision Map Approval, motion
please.
Mr. DeGracia: I move to approve Subdivision application as 2018-15.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion before us is for a Final Subdivision Map Approval Application of S-2018-15.
Kilauea Ohana Plateau, LLC. Roll call, please, Mr. Hull.
Mr. Hull: Roll vote, Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Ho.
Chair Ho: Aye. Motion has passed 3:0. Final Subdivision Map Approval.
Mr. Hull: Thank you.
Subdivision Application No. S-2019-15 Matthew Nelson/Stephanie
& Katherine Skow, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision
TMK: (4) 4-7-006:019 Kealia, Kauai
14
Mr. Hull: Next, on the agenda, Subdivision Application number S-2019-15, the applicant is
Nelson and Stephanie and Kathryn Skow proposed to loss of division campaign 4-7-006019,
located in again Kauai. I will turn this over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Okay. Commissioners, as Kaaina, noted this involves a two-lot subdivision.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The Department has received all of the eight agency recommendations for final
subdivision approval; as a result, the Department is recommending Final Subdivision Approval
of this application.
Chair Ho: Are there any questions for the Planner? Recommendation is for approval, Dale.
Mr. Cua: Correct. Yes, for final subdivision approval, yes.
Chair Ho: Commissioners, please, I need a motion
Ms. Apisa: I move that we approve subdivision application as 2019-15, Matthew Nelson and
Stephanie and Kathryn Skow.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion before us, Final Subdivision Map Approval application number S-2019-15,
Matthew Nelson, Stephanie and Kathryn Skow, roll call vote, please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call vote, Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho, or Chair Ho.
Chair Ho: Aye. Motion passed 3:0. Final Subdivision Map approval granted.
Subdivision Application No. S-2019-19 Kukui`ula Development Co.
Proposed 8-lot Subdivision TMKs: (4) 2-6-022:019 Kukui`ula, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Next, on the agenda is Subdivision Application No. S-2019-19, applicant is Kukui`ula
Development Company. It is a proposed subdivision TMK 2-6-022019. It is located in the
Kukui`ula, Kauai. I will turn this over to Dale now, okay.
15
Mr. Cua: Commissioners, what you have before you is an eight lot Subdivision within the
Kukui`ula Master Plan Area.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The Department has received all of the correspondence from these agencies. As a
result, we are recommending Final Subdivision Map Approval of this application.
Chair Ho: Is Lindsey still with…
Ms. Apisa: I move – go ahead.
Chair Ho: Is Lindsey still with us?
Mr. Lindsay Crawford: Yes, I am. Yes. Can you hear me, Commissioners? This is Lindsay
Crawford.
Chair Ho: Yes, we hear you. Is there anything that you would like to tell us about this?
Mr. Crawford: No, I think Dale has covered quite adequately. It produces four residential lots as
roadway lots and a couple of other remaining lots but it is an eight-lot subdivision producing four
residential single-family lots.
Ms. Apisa: Are we ready for a motion?
Chair Ho: Yes, we are.
Ms. Apisa: I move…
Chair Ho: Motion, please.
Ms. Apisa: …application number S-2019-19 Kukui`ula Development Company.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion on the floor to approve Kukui`ula Subdivision Final Map of S – permit
number S-2019-19. All in favor? Signify by saying Aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Ho: Aye. Opposed? (None). Motion carries. 3:0. Thank you.
16
Subdivision Application No. S-2020-2 Kukui`ula Development Co.
Proposed 13-lot Subdivision TMKs: (4) 2-6-022:020 Kukui`ula, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Next, on the Agenda is Subdivision Application No. S-2020-2, Kukui’ula
Development is also the applicant. It is a proposed 13-lot subdivision, KMK 2-6-022-020,
located again in Kukui`ula, Kauai. I will turn it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Thank you. This particular development identified as the Parcel E Subdivision, which
is situated in close proximity to the previous application that you folks took action on.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The applicant has met the requirements of the subdivision and the Department has
received agency approval letters, as a result are recommending subdivision approval of this
application.
Chair Ho: Lindsay, would you like to say something?
Mr. Crawford: I guess, yes again, thank you for looking at this map. This is a 13-lot
Subdivision, these are 11 residential lots, roadway lots and remnant lots, very simple and Dale
has explained it very accurately.
Chair Ho: Thank you, Lindsey. With that, if there is no further questions, Commissioners,
motion please.
Mr. DeGracia: I move to accept subdivision application number S-2020-2 Kukui`ula
Development Company.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion before us Final Subdivision, Final Subdivision Map Approval, application
number S-2020-2 Kukui`ula Development Company. All in favor please signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Ho: Aye. Final Subdivision Map Approval has passed. Motion carried. 3:0. Thank you.
17
NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
Tentative Subdivision Extension Request.
Subdivision Application No. S-2018-12 AOAO Kulana Condominium.
Proposed 2-lot Subdivision TMKs: (4) 4-4-003:089 Kapaa, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Okay, next we have is New Business. There are Tentative Subdivision Extension Requests.
So the first request, subdivision application No. S-2018-12, AOAO Kulana Condominium
proposed 2-lot subdivision, TMK: 4-4-003:089. I will hand it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Okay, Commissioners. What you have before you is a second extension request of this
application as noted in the Department’s Report, the proposal involves two-lot subdivision and
essentially, the primary purpose of this subdivision is to subdivide a lot for the water tank that is
currently on the property that will be dedicated to the Water Department.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The applicant is moving closely towards obtaining Final Subdivision Approval, so the
Department and the agencies have no objections to the extension request. The Department is
recommending an extension of time to May 22, 2021, with the provision the applicant submitted
and updated status report for further extensions requests.
Chair Ho: Are there any questions for the planner? If not, I will entertain a motion please.
Ms. Apisa: I move that we approve the tentative subdivision extension request for application S-
2018-12 Kulana Condominium with the provision that they give up status reports. Ah, we
extended to May 22, 2021, when would be an appropriate status report?
Mr. Cua: The requirement recommends that the applicants submit a status report 60 days prior to
the expiration date.
Ms. Apisa: So that would be on March with the provision that we have a status report on or
about March 22, 2021.
Mr. Cua: Yes.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion before is, ah, extension request for AOAO Kulana Condominium, application
number S-2018-12, extension request is made for May 22, 2021, with a review March 22, 2021.
All in favor please signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
18
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Ho: Aye. Thank you, the request has been granted. Motion carried. 3:0.
Subdivision Application No. S-2012-3 McBryde Sugar Co., LLC./Sunset Strip
Properties, LLC. 2-lot Subdivision TMKs: (4) 2-4-007:002, Kalaheo, Kauai
Proposed 5-lot Boundary Adjustment
Mr. Hull: Next, up we have Subdivision application No. S-2019-3, McBride Sugar Company,
LLC and Sunset Strip Property, LLC, are the applicant. It is a two-lot subdivision, TMK 2-4-
007:020, it is located in Kaleheo, Kauia, I’ll turn it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Hey, Commissioners, um, in this application, this is the applicant’s first extension
request involving this subdivision.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The Department’s recommendation is to grant the extension to November 18, 2021,
and similar to the previous application, the applicant will be required to submit an updated status
report no later than 60 days prior to the expiration date.
Ms. Apisa: I move for…
Chair Ho: Is there anyone…
Ms. Apisa: Sorry.
Chair Ho: Let me call for it; is there anyone from McBride that is willing to testify?
Mr. Clyde Kodani: Good morning. Can did you hear me? Yes, this Clyde Kodani for the
applicant. Happy New Year Chair Ho and Commissioners. We do not have any objections to
status reports and we are here just to answer any questions that you may have.
Ms. Apisa: No questions.
Chair Ho: No questions. Francis, do you have any questions for him?
Mr. DeGracia: No questions.
Chair Ho: Okay. With that, Commissioners, I will entertain a motion please.
Ms. Apisa: I move that we approve subdivision tentative subdivision application number S-
2019-3 McBride Sugar Company, LLC, Sunset Strip Properties, LLC, to November 18, 2021,
with a status report by 18 -2021.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
19
Chair Ho: The motion before us Extension Request for McBride Sugar, application number S-
2019-3, is asking for an extension to November 18, there is status report 60 days prior to,
November 18. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Ho: Aye. Motion passed 3:0. Extension has been granted.
Mr. Kodani: Thank you.
Subdivision Application No. S-2019-8 Stephanie Fernandes.
TMKs: (4) 4-2-005:044 Poipu, Kauai
Mr. Hull: Subdivision applicant number S-2019-8, Stephanie Fernandes is the applicant. It is
located in TMK 4-2-005:044, located in Poipu Kauai, turn it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Thank you, Commissioners. What is here before you is a five-block subdivision in the
Wailua Homestead area.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The request has been routed to both Public Works and Water and they have no
objections to the request. As a result, the Department is recommending an extension of time to
January 22, 2021; the applicant will be required to submit an updated status report no later than
60 days prior to the expiration date. Also wanted to note that I will be the extension date that the
Department is granting is relatively around the corner. I also wanted to note that final
subdivision map was brought into the agencies for their review and approval and I believe the
Department is just waiting for one more agency approval. So they are getting really close to
getting final.
Chair Ho: Is there someone from the audience that wishing to speak for Stephanie Fernandes.
No comment? Um, that date, is that correct, January 22, 2021?
Mr. Cua: Yeah, it is about five months from – five months from now but as – as I mentioned, the
final subdivision map was already routed, of the three agencies that require final approval, that
the Department had already received two of the three.
Chair Ho: Okay. Commissioners? Motion please.
Mr. DeGracia: I move to accept the extension request for subdivision application number S-
2019-8, (Stephanie Fernandez). Extension until January 22, 2021 with a status report submitted
to Planning Department no later than 60 days prior to the expiration.
20
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Ho: The motion before us is Tentative Extension Request for Subdivision application
number S-20190-8 to January 22, 21, 2021, with an action report 60 days prior. All in favor
signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Ms. Apisa: Aye. Aye.
Chair Ho: Aye. The motion before is passed 3:0. Extension request has been granted.
Subdivision Application No. S-2019-16 Robert S./Kerrilyn R.V. Barros.
TMKs: (4) 2-5-008:005 Lawai, Kauai
Mr. Hull: And the last item we have is application number S-2019-16, applicant is Robert
Kerrilyn Barros, TMKs: 2-5-008:005, located in Lawai, Kauai. I will turn it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Hey Commissioners, what you have in this proposal is two-lot subdivision in the
Lawai area.
Mr. Cua read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: The request was routed to agencies for their comment and there are no objections. We
are recommending an extension of time to May 28, 2021, and the applicant is required to submit
a status report no later than 60 days prior to the expiration date.
Chair Ho: Is there someone from Robert and Kerrilyn Barros office?
Ms. Maren Arismendez-Herrerra: Good morning, Commissioners. This is Maren Arismendez-
Herrerra from Esaki’s Surveying and on behalf of the owners. We would request your approval
for the extension. The owners have been working to advance with to the Conditions and in filing
the extension request, actually the final map to County, but we are just waiting for County to
review and hear back from agencies. We would like your approval and need an extension
request.
Ms. Apisa: I have a question. I noticed you asked for one year and – and the recommendation is
until May 28. Is that sufficient time?
Ms. Arismendez-Herrerra: Yes, we have submitted the pre-final maps and they are being
reviewed, we addressed all outstanding Conditions and it is really just time to allow the County
and approving the agencies to review the pre-final.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
21
Chair Ho: Are there any other questions, Commissioners?
Mr. DeGracia: Yes, no questions.
Chair Ho: I will entertain a motion, please.
Ms. Apisa: I move that we approve tentative subdivision application S-2019-16, Robert S. and
Kerrilyn R.V. Barros until May 28, 2021, with a status report submitted to the Planning
Department no later than 60 days prior to the expiration date.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: The motion before us the Extension Request Subdivision Application number S-
2019-16, Robert and Kerrilyn Barros to May 28, with a status report 60 days prior. All in favor
please reply by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Aye.
Chair Ho: Motion is passed 3:0. The extension has been granted. Thank you, all.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hull: And that concludes our Subdivision Agenda Item, Chair, are you ready to adjourn to
reconvene another time, Commission?
Chair Ho: Ah, is Dale still with us? Dale? Dale, please.
Mr. Cua: Yes, I am here.
Chair Ho: Yeah, okay. One question, please. Ah, we have finished with Kukui`ula and in these
last two requests for final subdivision math approval, I know he’s – Kukui`ula has asked us to
waive curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and he’s, you know, for grass swale. This was not brought up at
this time. Is there a future time where he can appeal that and ask for deletion of the curbs,
gutters and sidewalks?
Mr. Cua: Yeah, generally in the past, applicants will anticipate, you know, this requirement, as
required – the requirement for curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Um, you know, upon submittal of
their application. So, you know, it’s been the Department’s preference to receive the request to
the top five and the initial application is taken in but in this case, I think more recently the appli-
you know, the request is me, the day of. But I can honestly say, because the requirement for
curbs, gutters and sidewalks has ended in my subdivision ordinance. It is almost an automatic
that will be imposed on subdivisions whether it is in Kukui`ula or other areas.
22
Chair Ho: Thank you. I believe Mr. Hull was calling for a motion for adjournment, please.
Ms. Apisa: Move like to adjourn.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Ho: Motion is to adjourn. All in favor please signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice
vote)
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Ho: Motion carries 3:0. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee Chair Ho adjourned the meeting at 9:39 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
______________________________
Arleen Kuwamura
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval).
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of ___________ meeting
Ka-aina S.Hull
Dircctor ofl^lanning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION REPORT
Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa
Depuly Director ofPlanning
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by
Planning Commission:
Subdivision Permit No.
Name ol Applicant(s)
Consideration ofSubdivision Application No.S-2Q2I-5 that
involves an eleven (11)lot Subdivision.
Application No.S-2021-5
KUKUI'ULA DEVELOPMENT CO.LLC.
II.PROJECT 1NFORMATION
Map Title Subdivision ofLot 19,Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision Being a Portion
ofR.P.6714.L.C.Aw.7714-B,Ap.2 to M.Kekuaiwa no M.
Kekuanaoa into Lots 19-A thru 19-H,Inclusive 19-J,19-K,and
Roadway Lot 19-L and Easement A-2 at Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i.
Tax Map Key(s):(4)2-6-022:055 Area:3.21 acres
Zoning:Residential District R-4
State Land Use
District(s):
Urban General Plan
Designation:
Residential
AGENCY COMMENTS
COK Public
Works
COKWater:
COK Housing
Pending
Pending
06.30.2021
D State UOT-Highways:
StateHealth:06.15.202
DLNR-SHPD:Pending
EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S)
Road Name Existing
Width
Required
Width
Pavement
YES N0
Reserve
AlaKukui'ula 60 feet 60 feet a
a D
a D
APPLICABLE FEES
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA)
$3.500.00
Park Dedication Determined by Appraisal Report
Appraisal Report Required Yes
III.EVALUAT10N
The proposed development subdivides Lot 19 ofthe Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision
(Subdivision No.S-2016-2)that received final approval by the Kaua i Planning
Commission on January 28,2020.The proposed development establishes ten (10)
residential lots and one (1)roadway lot within the County Residential District R-4.
In further evaluating the project,it should be noted that no development shall be within any
ofthe newly created lots until the infrastructure improvements relating to Subdivision No.
S-2016-2 are inspected and certified completed.The proposed development shall be subject
to the applicable requirements/conditions of'Ordinance No.PM-2004-370 and the EIA and
Park Fees shall be credited,as specified by the ordinance.
T.i.a.l
AU61 O 2021
IV.RECOMMENDATION
^l
V.AGENCY REQU1REMENTS
1.Requirements ofthe Planning Department:
a.An updated preliminary title report for the exisdng lot shall be submifted
to the PIanning Department for review.
b.All existing and proposed easements,ifany,shall be identified in the
deed descriptions ofthe affected lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
G.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8(b)ofthe Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i
County Code (1987),the Applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department an electronic record (digitized format)ofthe final
subdivision map(s)on disk for record keeping purposes prior to final
subdivision approval.
4.The subdivider is advised that no development shall be within any ofthe
newly created lots until the infrastructure improvements relating to
Subdivision No.S-2016-2 are inspected and certified complete by the
respective govemment agencies.
e.Pursuant to Ordinance No.PM-2004-370,the Applicant is allowed to
credit Environmental Impact Assessment and Park Dedication fees for
developments within their Project Area.Since the Applicant has not
resolved with the Planning Department whether they will pay fees or
provide improvements for credit,the following fees are being assessed:
(1)An Environmental Impact Assessment Fee of Three
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500.00)shall be paid
to the County ofKaua'i.
(2)The Applicant shall pay a Park Dedication fee pursuant to
Section 9-2.8 ofthe Kaua'i County Code Subdivision
Ordinance.An appraisal report and price list shall be
provided to the Planning Department to forward to the
Real Properties Division to help calculate the fee amount.
f.Relative to Condition No.1 .e.and prior to final subdivision map
approval,the Applicant shal]meet with the Planning Department to
resolve the applicable requirements ofOrdinance No.PM-2004-370.
Specifically,the following conditions shall apply to this subdivision:
Conditions ofOrdinance No.PM-2004-370:
o 3.(prohibition ofAdditional Dwelling Units)
o 7.(improvements to roadway system)
o I4.(EIAcredit)
o 15.(recreation)
21 P a g e
S-2021-5;Subdivision Report
Kukui'ula DevelopmentCo.LLC.
08.10.2021
TENATIVE APPROVAL FINAL APPROVAL
^0Approval
D Denied
D Approval
D Denied
Tentative Approval.subject to all
requiremenl^-asTioted on the follow pages:
All conditions have been CQmpIied with
^Birectoi^^fPtanning Dari DirectorofPlanning Date
o 16.(park dedication credit)
o 23.(wastewater system master plan)
o 27.(solid waste management plan)
o 30.(blasting plan)
g.The Applicant shall establish bus stops/shelters pursuant to Ordinance N&.
406.The details shall be resolved with the Planning Department and
Department ofPublic Works prior to construction plan approval.
h.The applicant shall identify on the final subdivision map lots that are to be
used forTransient Vacation Rental (TVR)purposes.ifapplicable.Ifso.
the total amount ofthe lots within this development shall be counted
towards the total amount approved through Ordinance No.PM-2004-370.
I.The Applicant is made aware that the streets designated within the
subdivision must be officially named before the Department approves the
construction plans.Street names should be in Hawaiian and be submitted
to our Department for review and approval,along with a request letter and
12 maps (on "'Letter"or "'Legal"sized paper).The maps should be
detailed such that emergency vehicles,police services,postal deliveries,
etc.,are able to locate the street.References to roadway,such as the
highway and other surrounding roads.should be shown on the street-
naming map.
j.The Applicant shall prepare and obtain construction plan approvals for
necessary road,water,drainage,electrical and telephone utilities and
facilities,and either construct the same or post a surety bond for
completion.
k.The Subdivider shall comply with the requirements in Section 9-2.3(e)of
the Kaua'i County Code (1987)relating to the provision ofcurbs,gutters
and sidewalks along Roadway Lot 19-L.The extent of improvements shall
be resolved with the Planning Department and Department ofPublic
Works prior to final subdivision map approval.
1.The subdivider is made aware that Ala Kukui'ula is classified as a "Major
Street"and relative to the requirement in Section 9-2.3(b)(2)ofthe Kauai
County Code (1987),there shall be no direct access permitted onto Ala
Kukui'ula from Lots 19-A,19-B,and 19-C.Semi-circles denoting "No
Direct Access Pennitted"shall be shown on the final subdivision map.
These provisions shall be incorporated as a restrictive covenant for the
subject lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval.
m.Additionally,there shall be no direct access pennitted onto Kahela Place
from Lot 19-K.and no direct access onto Pua Lehiwa Way from Lots 1 9-G,
19-H,I9-J,and 19-K..Semi-circles denoting "No Direct Access Permitted"
shall be shown on the final subdivision map.These provisions shall be
incorporated as a restrictive covenant for the subject lots,draft copies of
which shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
2.Requirements ofthe Department ofPubIic Works (DPW):
a.The subdivider shall comply with all requirements ofthe Department of Public
Works,ifany,prior to final subdivision approval.
3.Requirements of the Department of Water (DOW):
a.The subdivider shall comply with all requireaeflts offhe DepartmentofWater,
ifany,priorto final subdivision approval.
3|Page
S-2021-5;Subdivision Rcport
KukuitulaI)evclupmi;nlCo.1J.C.
08.10.2021
4.Requirements ofthe Department ot'Health (DOH):
a.The property is located within the covered area for Po'ipii Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer tor Po'ipu Water Reclamation
Facility.
b.The property may harbor rodents which will be dispersed to the surrounding
areas when the site is cleared.In accordance with Chapter 11 -26,entitled
Vector Control ,Title 11 ,HAR,the applicant shall ascertain the presence or
absence ofrodents on the property.Should the presence ofrodents be
determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
c.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase ofthe
project.The applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise
Control",shall not be exceeded,unless a noise permit is obtained from the State
Department ofHeaIth (DOH).
d.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activities occur.In accordance
with Title 11,HAR Chapter 11-60.1,entitled "Air Pollution Control",eftective
air pollution control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any
fugitive dust emissions caused by construction work from affecting the
surrounding areas.This includes the offsite roadways used to enter/exit the
project.The control measures include but are not limited to the use ofwater
wagons,sprinkler systems,dust fences,etc.
e.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1,"Solid Waste Management Control",the open
burning ofany ofthese wastes on or offsite is prohibited.
5.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be
discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area ofthe
archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall
contact the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation
Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures.
6.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional
conditions may be imposed by govemment agencies.Should this occur,the applicant
shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies).
The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled
for AUGUST 10,2021 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.
The entire record should include but not be limited to:
a.Pending government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The Applicant's response to staffs report and recommendation as provided herein.
^-
NNETH A.ESTES,Planner
41 P ag e
S-2021-5;Subdivision RepoU
Kukui'ula Dcvulopmtfnl Co.[A.C.
08.10.2021
5-ZOZI-5'
<e ^i ^<-</^r,-//^,„„,-,
SUBDIVISION OF LOT'19
Kukuiula Porcel 1-1 Subdivision
Being a Portion of R.P.6714,
L.C.Aw.7714-B.Ap,2 to
M.Kekuaiwo no M.Kekuanaoo
[NTO
LOTS 19-A THRU 19-H,INCLUSIVE
19-J,19-K.AND ROADWAY LOT 19-L,
AND EASEMENT A-2
K5LOA,KAUA'I,HAWAI'I
Tax Map Key (4)2-6-22:55
Owner:Kukui'ula Oe^elopment Co.LLC
Dote:July 2,2021
Jtt NknW 21-1;S /»/
Uua Hcnil at?»
*io •sio-s-z W :xiu
1N3N33W1N3 uoisiAipqns H |33JDd D|njn>|n)|2-9IQ2-S •ON uoisiAipqns
63y)V CU-'^L
SS 10-1
ww••"-^.
u •bs fr^g'bs
910^
;~1z-a wa^e^a
•U -b6 blb'Lfl ta.,,1
91 101 rfMKK^
•u'bsgiVbc -:=::;^
k>J.01 ~~-'eAi;r—//-
omni-ii
U-lt
JSl,»At-
as--C-S^»Q5V3
r----rflf,»kia
unuMj'.s '-"1'"05"^—
irrt \
u'bssww
•^Z 10^u-bswtfoe
0\101
srw-jxss.w .y -bs au-w
Zl 10-17^~
U -bs LffCS
IC 10-1
.OC-.l -TW3S
S~13SNI
~*9,.>,''<i»
»«^-/^-^.^S5"'~'~<;'-'N'-S»81 101
---tl^
;-s.
~-SS!«'-
\-s ~T"<—^l*a°^-J71XU<.<ilP;.-.•Onr-.
•?
on*-;
J \WOl
,IBE
HiaoN sfiyt
,OE-.l ^TVOS
"i<"f/^,'^
tn»—ju^i //
l-0 ^1M3K3SV3 .*'/„.../*«rti '"',_arti '"/(M'li)/ai't+i~~~s(^——^~_'^"-"I,Km"^.-^ai\^ess^'"'"v,r"^\
sz 101'i Is
HUfON 3HW.
-.•^f—n|•!/
;Bi.»KES'
Project Location.
i...,S..&.^y^8S^^SSSi
..•»«^tf£y^^^^
^-V "
Si
•>•..^-"s'^gs^
:'y^!WW!K!-'
EKUKUIULA']
SS
.'"^"a•;.•L.-^<1.^•f^M^.s^33
r*
SSXWijtEinBl^
"!T
S^ft'^foB'
l^.'1'
ll^i§'
&ffi k
•yw^r"ss^siy.^p^.m^
^
w^
A'
,^%
%•^:
^-
COUMTV nr '!<.'''JAI
•21 JUN 17 P1 :^
Pi^:.^^w}
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
'.l!i JUN 9
COUNTY OF KAUA'l '
PLANN1NG DEPARTMENT •'•'
RICE STREET,SUITE A473 LlHU'E,HAWAI'I 96766"
(808)241-4050
2021
—v-T^-
DATE:June 1,2021
Subdivision Map Revievv and Approval
REQUEST:
^Preliminary
Q Prc-Final
I_l Final
a Extension
SUD1VISION APPL1CATION N0:Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-5,
Owner(s)/Applicant(s):Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC
Name ofSurveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agcnt:Dcnnis Esaki
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2-6-022:055 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Improvements:
Route To:
COMMENTS (ConwientDue Date:7/1/2021 ):
See comments on attached sheet.
June 15,2021
Darren 1&m&azu\^cting Chief
District Environfh6'ntal"Health Office Kauai
~w
DPW-Engineering
"a'
Department ofTransportation -STP~a
DPW-SolidWaste
-0~
DOT-Highway,Kauai~w
DPW-Wastewater
~K
•."A-'^f^~D
Fire-Department E]State Historic Preservation Division~a
Department of Parks &Recreation
~D
UH Sea Grant~w
County Housing-Agency
~w
U.S.Postal Department~D~
K.HPRC
~n
Other:~w
County Water Department~w
Couniy Transportation Agency
Subdivision Application No.:S-2021-5
Applicant:Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC
Based on our review of the application at this time,we have these environdiBtttal health
concerns or comments for your consideration at this time.
1.The property is located within the covered area for Poipu Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer for Poipu Water Reclamation Facility.
2.The property may harbor rodents which will disperse to the surrounding areas
when the site is cleared.In accordance with Title 1 1,Hawaii Administrative
Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-26,"Vector Control",the applicant shall ascertain the
presence or absence of rodents on the property.Should the presence of rodents
be determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
3.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase ofthis project.
The applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,HAR,
Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise Control"shall not be exceeded unless a noise
permit is obtained from the State Department of Health.
4.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activities occur.In accordance
with Title 11,HAR Chapter 11-60.1 "Air Potlution Control",effective air pollution
control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any fugitive dust
emissions caused by construction work from affecting the surrounding areas.
This includes the off-site roadways used to enter/exit the project.The control
measures include but are not limited to the use of water wagons,sprinkler
systems,dust fences,etc.
5.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11 -58.1 "Solid Waste Management Control",the open
burning of any of these wastes on or off site prohibited.
Due to the general nature of the application submitted,we reserve the right to
implement future environmental health restrictions when infermation that is more
detailed is submitted.
KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY
ADAM ROVERSI.DIRECTOR COUHT''/nr ''i,''.UAI
•21 JUN30 P 2:4 7
DEREKSJC.KAWAKAMI.MAYOR
MICHAELA.DAH1L1G.MANAGIN6 DIRECTOR
^f^BEPT.
TO:Kaaina S.Hull,Planning Director
FROM:Adam P.Roversi,Housing Director •^&-^
DATE:June 30,2021
SUBJECT:Housing Agency Comments on Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-5,TMK:(4)2-6-022:055,
Applicant -Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC
Applicant Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC is requesting review and approval of Subdivision N0.S-2021-5
TMK:(4)2-6-022:055,which seeks subdivision of lot 19,Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision belng a portion of
R.P.6714,L.C Aw.7714-B,Ap.2 to M.Kekuaiwa No.M.Kekuanaoa into lots 19-A thru 19-H,inclusive 19-
J,19-K,and roadway lot 19-L,and easement A-2.
The proposed subdivision is partof a resort developmentthat has an overall proj'ect density of 1,500 units
that shall include hotel rooms;single-family detached and attached dwellings;and multi-family dwellings.
Affordable housing units,along with the various Project components shall be excluded from the 1,500
unit density limit Accordingly,the project is required to satisfy workforce housing requirements of the
County Housing Policy,Kauai County Code Section 7A,and as a requirement ofOrdinance PM-2004-370-
79.
Kukui ula Development Co.LLC satisfied its workforce housing requirements by entering into a workforce
housing agreement with the Housing Agency on November 4,2005.This Agreement,as subsequently
amended,led to the development of the 134-unit Koae Makana workforce housing project in Koloa,as
well as ongoing obligations that are monitored by the Housing Agency.
Accordingly,the Housing Agenc/s concerns regarding this subdivision have been addressed,and Housing
takes no issue with the approval of the proposed subdivision.
Thankyoufortheopportunitytoprovidecomments.
4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •Lihu'e.Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4444 (b;•(808)241 -5118 (fl
An Equal Opportunily Employer
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDrVISION APPLICATI01
rs>
o
^-
•2:<-;
APPUCATIONTYPE
!•!Prelimmaiy -12 Maps [
;KBP'EJ3SE:'0®nEar.
Final -15 Maps Application No.
Attachments:
D Title Report
B Application Fee +$300.00 Processmg Fee
.Z]Letter of Aufhorizatioa **
Date Accepted iLi
Assigaed to:T3~
SMA Permit:
[]Yes [JNo
Owner(s)/AppIicant(s)*Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC.
*Holder ofATLEAST 75%ofthe equitable and legal title ofthe property
Dennis M.Esaki,Esaki Surveying &Mapping,IncNameofSurveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent **
Telephone No.808-246-0625
Map 'Htle/Description Subdivislon of Lot 19,Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision Being A Portion of R.P.6714,L.C AW.
7714-B,AP.2ToM.KekuaiwaNo.M.KekuanaoaintoLots19-Athruig-H,Indusive 19-J,19-Kand RoadwayLot 19-L
and Easement A-2 at Koloa,Kauai,Hawaii T1UK (4)2-6-22:55
Date:^~'/2-//2./
'l'l
AppUcant's Signature /\Ji—£,
/4^-!'.*>7--A~^'-^,,f^-__fec-A-'/-k-cL^J
Route to:
Public Works Departmeut
Water Department
HousingAgency
State Health Department
State Highways Division -DOT
State Historic Preservation Division -DLNR
For:
Review and Recommendation
Signature and Return
AGENCY DEADUNE:
AGENCYCOMMENTS QT^^^g ^(Cftl^.C<)f\M?TJT OfA -^^
P(t<OTU'.
^•'t-'le'^Date:
SubApplication^.F'R.M
Rcviscd 8.01.2013
GENERAL EWOKMATION
Tax Map Key:(4)Zonduag GeneralPlan State Land Use Designation
2-6-22:55 R-4 Residential Urban
Property Size (Acres or Sq.Peet)Total Amonnt ofLots Subdivision Fee ($16.50 perlot)
3.21 Acres 11 $481.50
COUNTYOFKAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4444 RICE STREET,SUITE A473 L!HU'E,HAWAI-I 96766
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
DATE:June 1,2021
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
JSl Preliminary
H]Prc-Final
Q Final
m Extcusiftn
SUDIVISION APPLICATION N0:Subdmsion Permit N0.S-2021-5,
Owner(s)/A pplicant(s):Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC
Name ofSurveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Dennis Esaki
Tax Map K«y:Tax Map Kcy:(4)2-6-022:055 |Assigned tn:|Kenny
Improvements:
Route To:
COMMENTS (CnmmentDue Date:7/1/2021 ):
No comments.Parcel is outside of Wastewater Management Division
servlce area.
Jason Kagimoto ^Digitally signed byJason Kagimoto
3ate:2021.06.'!4 14:28:38-tO'OO'
^s•^.^•v^SM^'^SJ^Eg.gsit
"a'
Department ofTraiisportation -STP
o DPW-SolidWaste
"a
DOT-Highway,Kauai~s
DPW-Wastcwattr
~w
State Departtnent ofHealth~D
Fire-Departmenl
~a
State Historic Preservaiioii Division~D
Dcpartmcnt ofParks &Rccrcation
'a'
UH Sea Orant~w
County Housing-Agency
~w
U.S.Postal Department~D
KHPRC
~0
Otlier~w
County Water Department~w
County Transportatidti Agency
Ka'aina S.Hull
Dircctor off>lanning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANN1NG DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION REPORT
Jodi A.Higuchi SayeguSa
Deputy Director olPlanning
L SUMMARY
Action Required by
Planning Commission:
Subdivision Permit No.
Name ofApplicant(s)
Consideration ofSubdivision Applioation No.S-2021-6 that
involves a two (2)lot subdivision.
ApplicationNo.S-2021-6
KEE KAUAI CARPORT,LLC
II.PROJECT INFORMATION
Map Title Subdivision ofLot 1 of Consolidation ofLots C and D ofKukui'ula
Residential Subdivision,Phase II-C into Lots 1-A and 1-B,Being a
Portion ofRoyal Patent 6714,Land Commission Award 7714-B,Apana
2 to M.Kekuaiwa No M.Kekuanaoa situated at Koloa (Makai),Koloa,
Kona,Kaua'i,Hawai'i.
Tax Map Key(s):2-6-017:045 Area:106.242sq.fi.
Zoning:Residential (R-4)
State Land Use
District(s):
Urban General PIan
Designation:
Residential Community
AGENCY COMMENTS
COK Public
Works
COK Water:
D Other(s)
06.10.2021
Pending
State DOT-Highways:
State Health:
DLNR-SHPD:
06.15.2021
EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S)
Road Name Existing
Width
Required
Width
Pavement
YES N0
Reserve
Haka'ula Place 40 feet 40 feet D
Holo Malani Place 40 feet 40 feet D
a a
APPL1CABLE FEES
Environmental Impact Assessment
^EIA)
$250.00
Park Dedication $300.00
Appraisal Report Required N/A
III.EVALUAT10N
The proposed development involves a two (2)lot subdivision within the County
Residential District R-4.The subject property was originally part ofKukui'ula's
Residential Subdivison,Phase II-C (Subdivision No.S-2012-7)that was approved bythe
Kaua'i PIanning Commission on April 24,2012.
Xl.b.l
AU6 1 O 2021
IV.RECOMMENDATION
TENATIVE APPROVAL FINAL APPROVAL
Lpproval
D Denied
D Approval
D Denied
Tentative Approval subject to all
requirements as noted on the follow pages:
All conditions have been complied with
Cirector o<
-^i+^ioy
anning Datf Director of Planning Date
V.AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.Requirements ofthe Planning Department:
a.An updated preliminary title report for eaeh existutg lot shgll bs submitted to the
Planning Department for review.
b.AII existing and proposed easements,ifany,shall be identified in the deed
descriptions ofthe affected lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval.
c.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8(b)ofthe Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i County Code
(1987),the Applicant shall submit to the PIanning Department an electronic record
(digitized format)ofthe final subdivision map(s)on disk for record keeping
purposes prior to final subdivision approval.
d.The Applicant shall identify on the final subdivision map whether the proposed lot
will be utilized for Transient Vacation Rental (TVR)purposes.Ifso,the total
amount ot the lots within the Kukui'ula Residential Subdivision,Phase II-C shall be
counted towards the total amount approved through Ordinance No.PM-2004-370.
e.A Park Dedication Fee ofThree Hundred Dollars ($300.00)shall be paid to the
County ofKaua'i.
f.An Environmental Impact Assessment Fee ot Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00)
shall be paid to the County ofKaua'i.
2.Requirements ofthe Department ofPublic Works (DOW):
a.The subdivider shall comply with all requirements ofthe Department ofWater,if
any,prior to final subdivision approval.
3.Requirements of'the Department ofHealth (DOH):
a.The property is located within the covered area for Po'ipu Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer for Po ipu Water Reclamation
Facility.
b,The property may harbor rodents which will be dispersed to the surrounding
areas when the site is cleared.In accordance with Chapter 11-26,entitled
"Vector Control",Title 11,HAR,the applicant shall ascertain the presence or
absenee ofrodents on the property.Should the presence ofrodents be
determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
2 1 P age
S-2021-6;Subdivision Repon
Kee Kauai Carport LL.C
08.10.2021
c.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase ofthe
project.The applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),Chapter 11 -46,"Community Noise
Control ,shall not be exceeded,unless a noise permit is obtained from the State
Department of Health (DOH).
d.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activities occur.In accordance
with Title 11,HAR Chapter 11-60.1,entitled "Air Pollution Control",efTective
air pollution control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any
fugitive dust emissions caused by construction work from affecting the
surrounding areas.This includes the offsite roadways used to enter/exit the
project.The control measures include but are not limited to the use ofwater
wagons,sprinkler systems,dust fences,etc.
e.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1,"Solid Waste Management Control",the open
buming ofany ofthese wastes on or offsite is prohibited.
4.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be
discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area ofthe
archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall
contact the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation
Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures.
5.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional
conditions may be imposed by govemment agencies.Should this occur,the applicant
shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies).
The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled
for AUGUST 10,2021 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.
The entire record should include but not be limited to:
a.Pending government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The Applicant's response to staffs report and recommendation as provided herein.
/-
'NNETH A.ESTES,PLANNER
3|Page
S-2021-6;Subdivision Rcport
Kcc Kauai Carport U.C
08.10.2021
i-^
•?;
LOT B
TMK'.(4)2-6-017'.044
MICHAEL D RICE,II
DEBORAH D RIGE
&IOW3S'-•^./?=moo
\^''
LOT F
TMK:(4)2-6-017:048
EMBURY ETCETERA
TRUST
^(S %^626r28'19"'
25.48 '
EASEMEN1 £-8-^
6,VS7.S7 S
16,916.73 E
Waler meter
Prem 10:7917772808
•<62'39'
S2.73
•14SW50"
R-40.00
-117'22'42'
7i.72
272W34'
=40.00
-1SfS1'27
LOT 1-A
56,40.5 SQ.FT.
JIS'SI'40'
SJ.42
331-40'-
50.57-ISJ'50'10'
19.69
R=180.00
EASEMENT E-10
'Woier meter
Prem 10:t851'l33744
EA3EMEMT E-9
120V
53.71 .1-0T 57
TMK;(4)2-6-018:057
49,839 SQ.n-.41.S5
^.R=205.00'•?>.
KUKUIULA DEVELOPMENT CO ILC
125W'S2'
41.2S
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
MAP SHOWING
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1
OF CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS C AND D
OF KUKUI'ULA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 11-C
INTO LOTS 1-A AND 1-B
BEING A PORTION OF ROYAL PATENT 6714,LAND COMMISSION
AWARD 7714-B,APANA 2 TO M.KEKUAIWA N0 M.KEKUANAOA
SITUATED AT KOLOA (MAKAI),KOLOA,KONA,KAUAI,HAWAII
NOTES:
LOT C
TMK:(4)Z-6-017:048
RICHARD C CLEMSON
CHRISTINE M CLEMSON
'f
OWNER:
SITE
ADDRESS:
1.Coordinates and azimuths shown on this map are referred to
Government Survey Triangulation Stotion "WAHIAWA"A.
2.Owners of adjoining parcets taken from real property tax records.
5.Flood dato from FIRM Maps Community -Panel Number 150002
0313 F,revised November 26,2010.
4.Existing easements E-8,E-9,and E-10 for electricol purposes in
favor of Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.
5.Existing easement S-1 for sanitary sewer purposes in favor of
Kukui'ula Soutti Shore Community Services,LLC.
TAX MAP KEY:(4)2-6-017:045
KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
3157 HAKAULA PLACE
KOLOA.HAWAII 96756
AUST1N,TSUTSUMI,&ASSOCIATCS INC.
501 SUMNER STREET,SUITE 521
HONOLULU,Hl 96817
THIS WORK WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY SUPERV1SION.
<4-L--s.(&^2_
LICENSEO PROFESSfONAL LAND SURVEYOR
CERTtFICATE No.9826
EXP.04/22
APRIL 21,2021
Austiri_1&/\ss o c:i
£7.l-.!t^Llil'ii
/\T &S,1 N C .
11"X 17"-1.30 50,FT.
TO:PLANNING DIRECTOR
COUNTYOFKAUA-1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTYn'-K/UAI
<;-'>»-•i.nr,
VIA:COUNTY ENGINEER
FROM:ENGFNEERING DIVISION
DATE:Junel 0,2021
•21
23 P !:'i
PLrt'iNiMG DEpT.
R£:Subdivision of Lot 1 of Consolidation of Lots C and D of
Kukui'ula Residential Subdivision,Phase II-C into Lots 1-
A and 1-B,Being a portion ofRoyal Patent 6714,Land
Commission Award 7714-B,Apana 2 to M.K-ekuaiwa No
M.Kekuanaoa situated at Koloa (Makai),Koloa,Kona,
Kaua'i,Hawai'i
SUBDIV1SION N0.
OWNER:KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAI.LAND
SURVEYOR:
Erik S.Kanesiiiro,PLS.
TAX MAP KEY:2-6-017:045
PRELIMFNARY MAP
CONSTRUCTION PLANS (T1TLE SHEET)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEE
AGREEMENT &BOND
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT
FINAL MAP
DEDICATION
x
PW 06.21.008
COMMENTS:
1.FORM &CONTENTOP MA?&SXffiPLEMENTAL IXXXIMENTS:
2.SEWER:
3.PARK:
4.DRAINAGE:
5.ROAD:
6.OTHERS:We have no comments.Recommend proceeding to FINAL Map.
a.Transmitted herewith for your review &approval is the approved construction plan Title Sheets for:
b.Engineer Estimate for Construction of Roads,Drainage and Sewer is estimated at
c.Request Developer to deposit with Public Works Department a Constmction Inspection Fee of
d.As-built tracings have (not)been received
e.Deed is approved
f.Attached Deed requires revision(s)as follows
Sincerely,
MICHAEL MOULE,P.E.
Cluef,Engineering Division
MM/PT
Copy:S-2021.6
CODMTY OF '•<A'JAI
•21 JUN17 P1 :(/
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
Pi.;,n;:I^L ;lcP T.PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
4444 RICE STREET,SUITE A473 LIHU-E,HAWAI'I 96766
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
DATE:June I,2021
y.^..;...-..-.-.
l'i JUN 9 S21
1
S.i;lhJ!^"'.~;li-l'<;-'11 ':'•^L
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
^l Preluninary
Q Pre-Final
a Final
Q Extension
SUDIVISION APPLICATION N0:
Owner(s)/Applicant(s):
Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-6,
KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
Name of Surveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Erik S.Kaneshiro
Tax Map Key:
Improvements:
Tax Map Key:(4)2-6-017:045 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Route To:
COMMENTS (Commenl Due Date:7/1/2021 ):
See comments on attached sheet.
June 15,2021
Darreii T7ameka
Environmental
Acting Chief,District
fllth Office Kauai
~w
DPW-Eneineerin?
-D-
Department ofTransportation -STP~D
DPW-SolidWaste
-a-
DOT-Hiehway.Kauai~w
DPW-Wastewater
~w
State Department ofHealth.g~D
Fire'Ctepartment
~w
State Historic Presen/ation Division-u-
Department of Parks &Recrcation
-a-
UH Sca Granl~w
County Housing-Agency
~w
LJ.S.Postal Depanment~D
KHPRC
~D~
Other:~w
County Water Department~w
County Transportation Agency
Subdivision Application No.:S-2021-6
Applicant:KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
Based on our review of the application at this time,we have these environmental health
concerns or comments for your consideration at this time.
1.The property is located within the covered area for Poipu Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer for Poipu Water Reclamation Facility.
2.The property may harbor rodents which will disperse to the surrounding areas
when the site is cleared.In accordance with Title 1 1,Hawaii Administrative
Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-26,"Vector Control",the applicant shall ascertain the
presence or absence of rodents on the property.Should the presence of rodents
be determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
3.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase of this project.
The applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,HAR,
Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise Control"shall not be exceeded unless a noise
permit is obtained from the State Department of Health.
4.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activjties occur.In accordance
withTitte 11,HARChapter 11-60.1 "Air Pollution Control",effective air pollution
control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any fugitive dust
emissions caused by construction work from affecting the surrounding areas.
This includes the off-site roadways used to enter/exit the project.The control
measures include but are not limited to the use of water wagons,sprinkler
systems,dust fences,etc.
5.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal fadlity that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1 "Solid Waste Management Control",the open
burning of any of these wastes on or off site prohibited.
Due to the general nature ofthe application submitted,we reserve the right to
implement future environmental health restrictions when information that is more
detailed is submitted.
KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY
ADAM ROVERSI,DIRECTOR COl)h!TY n!-'<Ai,l./\|
•21 JUN30 P2^
MEMORANp^f,NjfJGOEPT.
OEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR
MJCHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING OJRECTQR
TO:Kaaina S.Hull,Planning Director
FROM:Adam P.Roversi,Housing Director ^tc-—'
DATE:June 30,2021
SUBJECT:Housing Agency Comments on Subdivision PennitNO.S-2021-6,TMKs (4)2-6-017rf)45,
Applicant -KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
Applicant KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC is requesting review and approval of Subdivision N0.S-2021-6
TMK:(4)2-6-017:045,which seeks subdivision of Lot 1 of consolidation of lots C and D of Kukui'ula
Residential Subdivision,Phase 11-C into lots 1-A and 1-B.
The proposed subdivision is part of a resort development that has an overall project density of 1,500 units
that shall Inciude hotel rooms;single-family detached and attached dwellings;and mLJlti-family dwellings.
Affordable housing units,along with the various Project components shall be excluded from the 1,500
unit density limit.Accordingly,the project is required to satisfy workforce housing requirements of the
County Housing Policy,Kauai County Code Section 7A,and as a requirement of Ordinance PM-2004-370-
73.
Kukui'ula Development Co.LLC previously satisfied the workforce housing requirements for the
KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC project by entering into a workforce housing agreement with the Housing Agency
on November 4,2005.Thls Agreement,as subsequently amended,led to the development of the 134-
unit Koae Makana workforce housing project in Koloa,as well as ongoing obligations that are monitored
by the Housing Agency.
Accordingly,the HousingAgency'sconcems regardingthissubdivision have beenaddressed,and Housing
takes no issue with the approval ofthe proposed subdivision.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •Lihu'e.Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4444 (b]
An Equal Opportunity Employer
241-S118(f)
RECEIVED
JUN -2 202;
COUNTYnrK/'ijAi
"21 JUN18 A8:1U
COUNTYOFKAUA-I Countyot'Kauai
F PLANNING DEPARTMENT Transportation Agency"""'fB4yrRTdE STREET.SUITE A473 LIHU'E.HAWAI'I 96766
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICAT10N ROUTING FORM
DATE:June 1,2021
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
Preliminary
Q Pre-Final
Q Final
a Extensioa
SUDIVISION APPLICATION N0:Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021.6,
Owner(s)/Applicant(s):KEEKAUAICARPORT LLC
Name of Surveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Erik S.Kaneshiro
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2-6-017:045 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Improvements:
Rpute To:
COMMENTS (Comment Due Date:7/1/2021 ):
CTf\^No ^(?TK£SZ.C»^^t>^oij ^>t>-^^3^<T.
'—^v-^^
~s
DPW-Engineeri ng
~D-
Department ofTransportation -STP-a-
DPW-SolidWaste
~a
DOT-Highway.Kauai~w
DPW-Wasiewater
~w
State Department of Health~D~
Fire-Depanment
~w
State Historic Preservation Division~D
Depanment of Parks &Recreation
~D
UH Sea Grant~w
County Housing-Agency
~s
U.S,Posia]Departmeni-D~
KHPRC
'a"
Olher:~w
County Water Department'w
Coiu^r'EFa.nqwri^GHEi.Agps.cy ^
COUNTY OF KAUA-I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Countyol Kauai
DEPAffTMENT OF PU8LIC WORKS
4444 RICE STREET.SUITE A473 LIHU-E.HAWAI'l ^b;bb
<°"""?m'TON'
JUN 2 2021
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
DATE:June 1,2021
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
@ Preluninary
d Pre-Final
Q Final
d Extcnsion
SUDFVISION APPUCATION N0:Subdivision Perinit N0.S-2021-6,
Owner(s)/A pplicant(5):KEEKAUAICASPORT LLC
Name ofSurveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Erik S.Kaneshiro
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2.6^)17:045 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Improvemeuts:
Route To:
COMMENTS (Cominent Due Date:7/1/2021 ):
No comments.Parcel is outside of Wastewater Management Division
servlce area.
Jason KaQimotOKagimouDate:2021.06.14 M:a6:S7-I<rO(r
~w
DPW-Engineeriog T Dcpartment ofTransportation -STP"a'
DPW-SolidWue
~D
DOT-Highway,Kauai~w
DPW-Wastewater
~w
State Department of Heaith~a
Fire-Department
~w
State Historic Presen/ation Division"D'
Department of Parks &Recreation
~D
UH Sea Oranl~w
County Huusing-Agcncy
~w
U.S.Postal Depanmeni'a"
KHPRC
~0
Othcr:~w
County Water Depariment~w
County Transportation Agency
Ka'aina S.Hull
Oircclor ol'I:>lanning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVIS10N REPORT
Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa
Dt;puty Director ofPlanning
1.SUMMARY
Action Required by
PIanning Commission:
Subdivision Permit No.
Name of Applicant(s)
Consideration ofSubdivision Application No.S-2021-7 that
involves a two (2)lot consolidation and re-subdivision into four
(4)lots.
Application No.S-202I-7
YELLOW HALE.LLC.
II.PROJECT INFORMAT10N
Map Title
Tax Map Key(s):
Zoning:
State Land Use
District(s):
Consolidation ofLot 88 ofLand Court Consolidation 164 and Lot B,
Being Portion ofL.C.Aw,2668,Apana 1 and Resubdivision into Lots 1
through 4,Inclusive Ka Ua Noe O Koloa at Koloa.Kaua'i,Hawai'i.
2-8-014:032 Area:27.885 acres
Residential (R-10)/Open (0)
Urban General Plan
Designation:
Resort
AGENCY COMMENTS
COK Public
Works
COK Water:
0ther(8)
06.17.2021
Pending
State DOT-Highways:
State Health:
DLNR-SHPD:
06.15.2021
Pending
EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S)
Road Name
Kiahuna Plantation Drive
Pa'u A Laka Street
Existing
Width
24 t'eet
24 feet
Required
Width
60 feet
60 feet
Pavement
YES
a
N0
D
D
D
Reserve
APPL1CABLE FEES
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA)
Park Dedication
Appraisal Report Required
$250.00
$300.00
N/A
III.EVALUAT10N
The proposed development involves a four (4)lot subdivision that establishes two (2)lots
with County Residential District (R-10)zoning,one (1)remnant lot zoned County Open
(0)District and one (1)roadway lot.The proposed development is within the State Land
Use Urban District and within the Kaua'i Genera]PIan Resort District.The intent ofthe
subdivision is to separate Kiahuna Plantation Drive from existing Lot 88 and Lot B.It
should be noted that the portion ofKiahuna Plantation Drive that traverses through Lot
and Lot B is a constructed roadway and it currently provides access to the 73-Iot Wainani
at Kiahuna Subdivision (Subdivision No.S-2004-48)that was approved by the Kaua'i
Planning Commission on October 24,2006.
In further evaluating the proposed development,the subject property has been reviewed
through Project Development Use Permit PDU-2006-25,Use Permit U-2006-26 and Class
IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-27 to construct a 280-unit multi-family residential project
used primarily for transient vacation rentals,with extensive project amenities similar to,
those found in resort hotels.The subject permits were approved with conditions by the
Kaua'i PIanning Commission on August 22,2006.
o
\-\
rsj
C3
c~~ll
co
IV.RECOMMENDATION
TENATIVE APPROVAL
ipproval
D Denied
[OVAL
D Approval
d Denied
Tentative Approval subject to all
requirements^s^ioted on the follow pages:
All conditions have been complied with
I^at Director of Planning Date
V.AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.Requirements ofthe Planning Department:
a.An updated preliminary title report for each existing lot shall be submitted to the
PIanning Department for review.
b.AII existing and proposed easements,ifany,shall be identified in the deed
descriptions ofthe affected lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval.
c.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8(b)ot the Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i County Code
(1987),the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an electronic record
(digitized format)ofthe final subdivision map(s)on disk for record keeping
purposes prior to final subdivision approval.
d.The street labeling for Pau A Laka Street needs to be amended to Pa u A Laka
Street.
e.A Park Dedication Fee ofThree Hundred Dollars ($300.00)shall be paid to the
County ofKaua'i.
f.An Environmental Impact Assessment Fee of'Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00)
shall be paid to the County ofK.aua'i.
g.The Subdivider shall comply with the requirements in Section 9-2.3(e)ofthe
Kaua'i County Code (1987)relating to the provision ofcurbs,gutters and
sidewalks along Roadway Lot 2.The extent of improvements shall be resolved
with the Planning Department and Department ofPubIic Works prior to final
subdivision map approval.
h.The improvements within Roadway Lot 2 shall be constructed to the Department of
Public Works standards for a "Minor Street"classification.
i.Relative to Condition No.1 .i.,the Applicant shall prepare and obtain construction
plan approvals for necessary road,water,drainage,electrical and telephone utilities
and facilities,and either construct the same or post a surety bond for completion.
j.Pursuant to Section 9-2.7(a)ofthe Subdivision Ordinance,all electrical services,
street light wiring and other utility and communication services shall be installed
underground within the proposed residential subdivision.
2|Pa;ge
S-202I-7;Subdivi.sion Report
YcllowHaIe.l.l.C.
08.10.2021
2.Requirements ofthe Department ofPublic Works (DOW):
a.The subdivider shall comply with all requirements ofthe Department of Water,if
any,prior to final subdivision approval.
3.Requirements ofthe Department ofHealth (DOH):
a.The property is located within the covered area for Po'ipu Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer for Po'ipii Water Reclamation
Facility.
b.The property may harbor rodents which will be dispersed to the surrounding
areas when the site is cleared.In accordance with Chapter 11-26,entitled
"Vector Control",Title 11,HAR,the applicant shall ascertain the presence or
absence of rodents on the property.Should the presence of rodents be
determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
c.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase ofthe
project.The applicable maximum pennissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise
Control",shall not be exceeded,unless a noise permit is obtained from the State
Department ofHealth (DOH).
d.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activities occur.In accordance
with Title 11,HAR Chapter 11 -60.1,entitled "Air Pollution Control",effective
air pollution control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any
fugitive dust emissions caused by construction work from affecting the
surrounding areas.This includes the offsite roadways used to enter/exit the
project.The control measures include but are not limited to the use ofwater
wagons,sprinkler systems,dust fences,etc.
e.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1,"Solid Waste Management Control",the open
buming ofany ofthese wastes on or offsite is prohibited.
4.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be
discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area ofthe
archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall
contact the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation
Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures.
5.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional
conditions may be imposed by govemment agencies.Should this occur,the applicant
shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies).
3|Page
S-2021-7;Subdivision Repun
YelIowllalc.l.l.C.
08.10.2021
The PIanning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled
for AUGUST 10,2021 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.
The entire record should include but not be limited to:
a.Pending government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The Applicant's response to staffs report and recommendation as provided herein.
<//1-c^&^-
NNETH A.ESTES,PLANNER
4|Page
S-2021-7;Subdivision Report
Ycllowllalc,I.I.C.
08.10.2021
CONSOLIDATIDN OF LOT 68
OF LAND COURT CONSOLIDATION IM
AND LOT B
BEINS PORTION OF L.C.AW 2&&&,APANA (
AND RESUBDIVISION
INTO LOTS I THROUGH -4,INCLUSIVE
KA UA NOE O KOLOA
KOLOA,KAUAI,MAWAII
OMNER:TELLOW HALE,1-LC
Tax Map Key:(4)2-8-14.32
Date:nay 21,2021
h-ko
M
01
Nio
No
(/)c
o-
Q.
^•B
<
w
^^no
3
w
1
No
N
^
p
I
fli
(D
n
Subdivision S-2021-7 Yellow Hale,LLC
10/14/2020
Subdivision S-2021-7 Yellow Hale,LLC
09/13/2020
COUNTYOFKAUA'l
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CQW.'Ty n'-'ffijAI
TO:PLANNING DIRECTOR s-7mi-n7
VIA:COUNTY ENGINEER
FROM:ENGINEERING DIVIS10N
'21 JUL-7 .fi 5:07
PLANfilNGDEPT.
DATE:JuneI7,2021
R£:Consolidation of Lot 88 of Land Court Consolidation 1 64
and Lot B Being Portion ofL.C.AW 2668,Apana 1 and
Resubdivision into Lots 1 through 4,Inclusive Ka Ua Noe
O Koloa,Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i
SUBDIVIS10N N0.
OWNER:Yellow Hale,Llc.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR:
Deimis M.Esaki
TAX MAP KEY:2-8-014:032
PRELIMfNARY MAP
CONSTRUCT10N PLANS (TITLE SHEET)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEE
AGREEMENT &BOND
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT
FINALMAP
DEDICATION
PW 06.21.016
COMMENTS:
1.FORM&CONTBH'OPMAiP&SUPPLEMENTALDQCyMBNTS:
2.SEWER:
3.PARK:
4.DRAINAGE:
5.ROAD:
6.OTHERS:We have no comments.Recommend proceeding to FEMAL Map.
a.Transmitted herewith for your review &approvai is the approved construction plan Title Sheets for:
b.Engineer Estiniate for Construction of Roads,Drainage and Sewer is estimated at
c.Request Developer to deposit with Public Works Department a Construction Inspection Fee of
d.As-built tracings have (not)been received
e.Deed is approved
f.Attached Deed requires revision(s)as follows
Sincerely,
^
MICHAEL MOULE,P.E.
Chief,Engineering Division
MM/PT
Copy:S-2021-7
CQUNTYnc!"'^'
•21 JUN17 D1'p7
•'.-^;
I
JU1'!a yfi\
COUNTY OF KAUA-I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
F',,.Ht-l:"C nt4§J4RlCESTREET.SUITEA473UHU'E,HAWAI'I 96766--
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
DATE:June 3,2021
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
^|PreUminary
a Pre-FinaI
Cl Final
J—]Extension
SUD1VISION APPLICATION N0:Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-7,
Owner(s)/AppIicant(s):Yellow Hale LLC
Name of Surveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Dennis Esaki
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2-8-014:032 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Improvements:
Route To:
COMMENTS (Comment Due Date:7/3/2021 ):
See comments on attached sheet.
Jime 1S,2021
Darren l^mekaz^j Acting Chief,District
Environmental Bealth Ofiice Kauai
~w
DPW-Engineering
~a
Department ofTransportation -STP~a
DPW-SolidWase
~0
DOT-Highway.Kauai'w
DPW-Wastewater
~w
Stote Department of tfealth ^~D
Fire-Depanment
~w
State Historic PreservaEion Division"D"
Department of Parks &Recreation
~D
UH Sea Grant~a
County Housing-Agency
~w
U.S.Postal Department~D
KHPRC
~0
Other:~w
County Water Departmeni~w
County Transportation Agency
Subdivision Application No.:S-2021-7
Applicant:Yellow Hale,LLC
Based on our review ofthe application at this time,we have these environmental health
concerns or comments for your consideration at this time.
1.The property is located within the covered area for Poipu Water Reclamation
Facility private sewer treatment plant.All lots and structures within new
subdivision must connect to private sewer for Poipu Water Reclamation Facility.
2.The property may harbor rodents which will disperse to the surrounding areas
when the site is cleared.In accordance with Title 1 1,Hawaii Administrative
Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-26,"Vector Control",the applicant shall ascertain the
presence or absence of rodents on the property.Should the presence of rodents
be determined,the applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
3.Noise will be generated during the construction and grading phase of this project.
The gpplicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 11,HAR,
Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise Control"shall not be exceeded unless a noise
permit is obtained from the State Department of Health.
4.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is
prepared for construction and when construction activities occur.In accordance
with Title 11,HARChapter 11-60.1 "Air Pollution Control",effective air pollution
control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize any fugitive dust
emissions caused by construction work from affecting the surrounding areas.
This includes the off-site roadways used to enter/exit the project.The control
measures include but are not limited to the use ofwaterwagons,sprinkler
systems,dust fences,etc.
5.The construction waste that will be generated by the project shall be disposed of
at a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the applicable provisions of
Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1 "Solid Waste Management Control",the open
burning of any of these wastes on or off site prohibited.
Due to the general nature of the application submitted,we reserve the right to
implement future environmental health restrictions when information that is more
detailed is submitted.
KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY
ADAM ROVERSI,DIRECTOR
D6REK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR
MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DtRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:Kaaina S.Hull,Planning Director
FROM:Adam P.Roversi,Housing Director ^tti.—
DATE:June 8,2021
SUBJECT:Housing Agency Comments on Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-7,TMK:(4)2-8-014:032,
Applicant Yellow Hale LLC
Applicant Yellow Hale LLC is requesting review and approval of Subdivision N0.S-2021-7,
TMK:(4)2-8-014:032,which seeks consolidation of Lot 88 of Land Court Consolidation 164 and Lot B
being portion of L.C.AW 2668,Apana 1 and lots 1 through 4,inclusive of Ka Ua Noe O Koloa.
The proposed subdivision is a resort development with an overall project density of 282 dwelling units.
Accordingly,the project is required to satisfy workforce housing requirements of the County Housing
Policy,Kauai County Code Section 7A,as originally required by Ordinance PM-31-79.
Yellow Hale LLC satisfied its workforce housing requirements by entering into a workforce housing
agreement with the Housing Agency.Under this agreement Yellow Hale LLC agrees to pay various in-lieu
fees totaling approximately $5 million.
Accordingly,the Housing Agency's concerns regarding this subdivision have been addressed,and Housing
takes no issue with the approval ofthe proposed subdivision.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4444 (b)•1808)241-S118 (f)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
COIJNTY nr-K/'IJAI
'21 JUN18 A 8:1 COUNTYOFKAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLnflNiNG DEPT 4444RICESTREET,SUITEA473LlHU'E,HAWAn 96766
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
DATE:June 3,2021
Subdivision Map Review and_Approval
REQUEST:
@ Freliminary
Q Fre-Final
Q Final
Q Extension
SUDIVISION APPLICATION N0:Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021-7,
Owner(s)/Applicant(s):Yellow Hale LLC
Name of Surveyor/Engineer/Authorized Agent:|Dennis Esaki
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2-8.014:032 |Assigned to:|Kenny
Improvements:
Route To:
COMMENTS (CommeM Due Date:7/3/2021 ):
^^Mo <=v^Cft Co^^
O^T»<^S p(&cQS^T.
\3^2£^\
JUN -3 2o?(
Ira^%,
~w
DPW-Engineering
~0
Department ofTransportation -STP-a-
DPW-SolidWaste
~D~
DOT-Highway.Kauai~w
DPW-Wastewater
~w
State Depanment of Health~a
Fire-Department
~w
State Historic Preservation Division~a-
Department of Parks &.Recrcation
-a-
UH Sea Grant~w
County Housing-Agency w U.S.Postal Department"D-
KHPRC
-D~
Other:~w
County Water Department~w
County Transportatioa Agency;^|
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT
4444 RICE STREET.SUFTE A473 LIHU'E.HAWAl'I 96766
(808)241-4050
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ROUTING FQRM
DATE:June 3,2021
Subdivision Map Review and Approval
REQUEST:
J^FtelmuDary
Q Pre-Fiiul
a Final
Q Extensioa
SUDFVISION APPLICATION N0:Subdivision Permit N0.S-2021.7,
Owner(s)/AppIieant(s):Yellow Hale LLC
NameofSurveyor/EDgiDeer/Authorized Agent:Dennis Esaki
Tax Map Key:Tax Map Key:(4)2-8-014:032 |Assigned to:|Kenny
hnprovemeats:
Route To:
COMMENTS (Comment Due Date:7/3/2021 ):
No comments.Parcel is outside of Wastewater Management Division
service area.
Digitalty signed byJason
Jason Kaaimoto Kagimoto
Date:2021.06.14 14:24:40-lO'OO'
~w
DPW-Engineering
~a~
Department ot Tran^ortation -STP"D'
DPW-SolidWaste
'D'
DOT-Highway.Kauai~s
DPW-Wasiewater
~w
State Departfflent of Health"a'
Hre-Department
-B-
State Historic h'eservation Division~0
Department of Parks &Recreation
~a
UH Sea Grant'w
County Housing-Agency w U.S.Postal Department~D
KHPRC
'D"
Othcr:~s
County Water Department~w
County Transportation Agency
Ka'aina S.Hull
Directoroi l-'tanning
^
Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa
Deputy Director ofPlanning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION REPORT
TO CHAMGS
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by
Planning Commission:
Subdivision Permit No.
Name of Applicant(s)
Consideration of Subdivision Application No.S-2Q21-3 that
redefines the boundary between two (2)lots.
Application No.S-2021-3
ALLAN &KAREN NESBITT,TRUST
II.PROJECT 1NFORMATION
Map Title
Tax Map Key(s):
Zoning:
State Land Use
District(s):
Consolidation ofLots 44 &45 ofKalaheo Makai Homesites (F.P.1963)
and resubdivision ofsaid consolidation into Lots 44-A &45-A and
designation ofEasements AU-1 &AU-2 at Kalaheo,Koloa,Kauai,
Hawaii
2-3-022:044 &045 Area:Lot44(ll,240sq.ft.)
Lot 45(177,943 sq.ft.)
Residential (R-4)/Open (0)
Urban General Plan
Designation:
Residential Community
AGENCY COMMENTS
COK Public
Works
COK Water:
Q Other(s)
12.23.2020
01.20.2021
State DOT-Highways:
State Health:
DLNR-SHPD:
01.07.2021
Pending
EX1STING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S)
Road Name
Pai Steet
Existing
Width
44 feet
Required
Width
44 feet
Pavement
YES
a
a
N0
D
a
a
Reserve
APPLICABLE FEES
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA)
Park Dedication
Appraisal Report Required
N/A
N/A
N/A
III.EVALUAT10N
The proposed development is a boundary adjustment between two (2)existing lots.Since
the application does not create additional lots,no EIA &Park Fees are assessed at this
time.The surrounding parcels to the North are County zoned Residential District (R-4)and
are within the State Land Use Urban District.The surrounding parcels to the South and
West are an assortment ofCounty zoned Residential District (R-4)and Open (0)District
and are within the State Land Use Urban District.The parcel to the East ofthe subject
property is County zoned Agriculture (Ag)and is within the State Land Use Agricultural
District.
T.^.^-1-I^1-'r.,,..-—.FEBy'9^'iAUG 1 O 2021
^
FV.RECOMMENDATION
V.AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.Requirements of the Planning Department:
a.An updated preliminary title report for the existing lot shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review.
b.All existing and proposed easements,ifany,shall be identified in the deed
descriptions ofthe affected lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval.
c.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8(b)ofthe Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i County
Code (1987),the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an
electronic record (digitized format)ofthe final subdivision map(s)on disk for
record keeping purposes prior to final subdivision approval.
2.Requirements ofthe Department ofWater (DOW):
a.Locate and show existing water meter/s (with appropriate meter number)on
subdivision map for the DOW's review and approval.Also,identify the proposed
subdivision lot the existing water meters will be assigned to.
3.Requirements of the Department of Health (DOH):
a.Temporary fugitive dust emissions will be emitted if/when construction and
development ofLots 44-A and 45-A commence.In accordance with Title 11,
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),Chapter 11-60.1 "Air Pollution Control".
effective air pollution control measures shall be provided to prevent or minimize
any fugitive dust emissions caused by construction work from affecting the
surrounding areas.This includes the off-site roadways used to enter/exit the
project.The control measures include but are not limited to the use ofwater
wagons,sprinkler systems,dust fences,etc.
b.Noise will be generated if/when construction begins on Lots 44-A and 45-A.
The applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 1 1,HAR,
Chapter 11-46,"Community Noise Control",shall not be exceeded unless a
noise permit is obtained from the Department ofHeaIth.
c.If/when construction begins,the construction waste from Lots 44-A and 45-A
shall be disposed ofat a solid waste disposal facility that complies with the
applicable provisions ofTitle 11,HAR,Chapter 11-58.1 "Solid Waste
Management Control",the open buming ofany ofthese wastes on or offsite
prohibited.
2 |P a ge
S-2021-3;Subdivision Rcport
Allan &Karen Nesbitt Trust
02/09/2021
TENATIVE APPROVAL FINAL APPROVAL
ipproval
D Denied
^•'Approval
D Denied
Tentative Approval subject to all"7^^'""^All conditions
±1-
have been coinplied with
^l^7>^\
firector of I^lanning Date'
d.The property may harbor rodents will disperse to the surrounding areas if/when
Lots 44-A and 45-A is cleared.In accordance with Title 11,HAR,Chapter 11-
26,"Vector Control",the applicant shall ascertain the presence or absence of
rodents on the property.Should the presence ofrodents be determined,the
applicant shall eradicate the rodents prior to clearing the site.
4.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be
discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area ofthe
archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall
contact the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation
Division and the PIanning Department to determine mitigation measures.
5.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional
conditions may be imposed by govemment agencies.Should this occur,the applicant
shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies).
The PIanning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning
Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled
for FEBURARY 09,2021 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-
making.The entire record should include but not be limited to:
a.Pending government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The Applicant's response to staffs report and recommendation as provided herein.
ENNETH A.ESTES,Planner
3|Page
S-2021 -3;Subdivision Report
Aflan &Karen Nesbin Trust
02/09/2021
Lucss avciiefir*dye t AssoctalES,tn-
kfr-n^PLS .Lhcn;»Takp»Klp<fU -Waw P SlKJwnJt*
'•^'S^A s
S'^C'^-.
»fOUNDWPII>£(Ofl4SN07EO)
«FOUNO CEmEHLNE MOlNUMEW
CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 44 &45
OF KALAHEO MAKAI HOMESiTES (F.P.1693)
AND RESUBDIWSION OF SAID CONSOLIDATION
INTO
LOTS 44-A &4S-A
ANO
DESIGNATION OF EASEMENTS AU-1 &AU-2
ATKALAHEO.KOLOA.KAUA'I,HAWAI't
Tsx Map Key:(4th DnrtsfonJ 2-3-022:Patcel 44
Tex Map Key:(4th Divismn)2-3-022:Paicei 45
5CAl£'f-W
^^^^^^^^^^MI^S^^^^fjJ^^^'^:;";MI;RII^I^SSli'i3$i8^^
''"rv^i'^':"'.Y;:;';.'-'.'^•i1;-/?;;;^^£^^-^^^^::;$s^£'^f;^'^;;@~:~;-^:;^'ml;''svis•^ L^^WW
^^SoSi^M'j^"^/-^^'"'—~-1SS;."''
,^^,^;'•i ^:
;.'';'^''^^^'ll<i'^.;".^\'^
^V';':)•'
y Ys^;®^!
•..'1.%'^W
w»-G/.%l•&ym ^&ft:'•\.^'-.'
;T:.•-^-
^-s.;"-H^-^
I®..•"..^
•¥
'.'^^'
S..(^S'P^m i?^-
~<,i.!l-t~/r^
i€3]
-.-\\
iF.S'.i',"?;^.^
&».]l-i;•-<V«^
i.iei,~»s«s
Si-&vfs'wiri
sKsssswasKi'?
^^^^^'^^^^•'•^-'
i$S9
•^SitwWSS^-''•'WS'SiW^.:-
.^Ks-'as.'reBsi;^.i-{-si''?SKS4S^
3i-SSS!-s
:S3!S»t-WM:~~p
11^KS
!^£
<&.'s^'i^a.'^M'K,
V-
^vS:
^6&..;?wW-^Vi
^ygS^j^l
fe8S£.3j'3
,?'
^^•v/
.X
^.
K%'
^s ®
3 <3S
sis.mo^^09 ouopy^Rijgy ,'<-^^:•^^•-^<L--;'7:'''is-::s'-.:z-i'':""•'^'•;:*f"'T?.y.J
WSf
Rgi m
%3|ws-'VW},
ss;1..
'w>-^
~M:-»!"a-
/YS2iI'KV^'.WSS;
i»"
ts'y.yffl'(^2?<?
wsy"^-^'^
<-s:
m•/3"%SA'I
SfflB ^"
'SSSf^.^..»
^ww//''.''^S&^':"'!s%Al
S..:A;''"^-^'•.:-•
^.'f.'y^-"^•~;x:^\-
:ii^"
^A<K:^3^
sa^\i.9>'tS!»,
w3..M3a@
1^'/if
^w
w^
£^56;""s^p->
^aajSSx^'NSa
-g^'
eW
;i''l'y/apB
<3"%B^V'^wM^^
Mr?r-SSSSsSWS^%?S''1.€
w •^
'•&
';.h m ^
.'•^;
WSI&
ftssayv-^jl-Je~-fc^^
•:y^":'^
..•3;$d^
'•f;-^^../:.i
~ft-'•>E3^
<.a^ffiS!
K
sss-s^•a%ai-.,-l:
^
^Q
i%:
lA-Lii'
fsa
';'.;>i,^£<1gfel w< ;^aSi'i^-,33fe-"'^'f^^'^'i''•~'-'A',"'•'•'.•.v^-'^.1'':}'.'••^-X^^-^T'^TI-^m^V^^t9iSiS^^.^KMMWiySisV,^
^n7~!~^
a
^
^s-:^s&^^^'i»r"TT'TTiTI^?"'lltl r^!L^
if3
i'-w^^;.,!'
.iy^5?%.5,s?«':»sg;-S^s^'-n,-^
V¥K x-f
^^?^'-:";\\:A^
K-i'
..^ §
'^^LV
.31!.
...^VS SiiS&SiSM^i9i&^
f^/'^^.y^^y
'^iSibM^-:SSSK}iviy!'Jy^^
(^'''•.^''•:'y~~~'~~:<.^';'%p!^:,^/:-:¥^^^;i\^.,^••^H,.^'.;J^|^N^^;,^:^^^&€£J:?
;'
L Si'fH'Mr~1f
f
ifl
'o
^IIIWfc..
^
3?i
^"?!
fSSf'—'ssy ,-
^'M?^
T7e-
'
^&^ss^'
^^Y'^^^'^^-^^L^'^
In4itw1;^--tw'wm
J-.LiT
If-^i-fSh
'il^
.I :II,
&':^-yv^
,ISI
?^^^
M&,^\Wiy^SS3S&
;4MWh-—
3y.y?»>,..wv.,;Affi'?;fc?'&:l^[^'^
m<m^yiia-.M
'-sr^-litatn-f'» ,,,r^K
•3-1l--T-"-~i T<
k^
.•1-^.-^-
.//?
w ^^WW^mSxx^-(..^
%
€^^1 A^
^^•—l-y'S"<W&JO,^f .^.^:/K~^?'<?»;'»••^hn-
.>—-"^S"1 &»B
COUNTY OF KAUA-I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COI'JN'T"1-
TO:DLAJ\T\TNG DIRECTQR '21 JUL -7
VIA:COUNTY ENGINEER
FROM:ENGINEERING DTVISION -,.,
<;-7"7'-t
:')/
—•i.-i
DATE:Junel7,2021
RE:Consolidation ofLots 44 &45 ofKalaheo Makai
Homesites (F.P.1693)and Resubdivision ofsaid
Consolidation into Lots 44-A &45-A and Designation of
Easements AU-1 &AU-2 at Kalaheo,Koloa,Kaua'i,
Hawaii
SUBDfVISION N0.
OWNER:AIlan &Karen Nesbitt Tmst
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR:
Lucas Z.Breckenridge,PLS.
TAX MAP KEY:2-3-022:044 &045
PREFWALMAP
CONSTRUCTION PLANS (TITLE SHEET)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEE
AGREEMENT &BOND
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT
FINALMAP
DEDICATION
PW 06.21.047
COMMENTS:
1.FORM &CONTENT OF MAP &SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS:
2.SEWER:
3.PARK:
4.DRAINAGE:
5.ROAD:
6.OTHERS:
•We find the Prefuial Subdivision Map acceptable and recommend proceeding to Final Map.
a.Transiiiitted herewith for your review &approval is the approved constmction plaa Title Sheets for:
b.Engineer Estimate for Construction ofRoads,Dramage and Sewer is estimated at
c.Request Developer to deposit with Public Works Department a Construction Inspection Fee of
d.As-built tracings have (not)been received
e.Deed is approved
f.Attached Deed requires revision(s)as follows
Sincerely,
MICHAEL MOULE,P.E.
Chief,Engineering Division
MM/PT
Copy:S-2021-3
Oepattnwitaf
Ctouiny of Kauad
4398 PUA LOKE STBECT
UUU'E.KAUA'I.HAWAI'I 96766
(808)245-5400 (F)•(S08)24S-S813 [F]
Wat&r has .TO whstiCute.......Conserve it'
SUBDIVISION REPORT
TO:PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:DEPARTMENT OF WATER
2-3-22:044,Liicas
TMK-2-3-22:045 NAME:AIIan &Karen Nesbitt Trust SURVEYOR:Breckeiyidse REPORTNO:S-2021-3
I.Domestic water is adequate.Tentative approval is recommeuded.
Water Requirements are not affected.Tentative approval is recotmnended.
2.AI1 requirements have been fiiUy met and;therefore,Fmal approval is recommended.
3.Before jEnaI approval can be recoiamended,fhe subdivider must
A.Pay the Department ofWater fhe followmg charges in effect at the time ofTeceipt At the presen.t ijaxie,
tihese charges mclude:
1)The Facilities Reserve Oage (FRQ:
Lot@$I4,lI5perlot =$
or relocateFaymenttoinfft-aU service coitaectioais(s)at the fixed cost of$_.If
2)the subdivider causes a delay in the service connection installatiou after one year smce fiiial map
qrproval,fhe subdivider shall be charged tiie iacrease m tbie fixed cost,ifany.
Deposit (&e subdivider will either be billed or returaed the differeace between fhis deposit and tiie3)actaal cost of constniction of $for coDstruction by &e Department ofWater (DOW).
B.Submit to fhe DOW a copy offfae subdivider's pemut to perform woA upon a State hi^iway from flie
State Highways Division
a
D
s
a
a
D
o
a
D
C-Prepare and rcceive DOWs ^proval of construction drawmgs for fhe necessary water system.facilities
and either construct said facilities or post a perfoiinaxice boad for constnictiorL These facilities shall also Q
include:
a
n
D.Prepare and convey to tiie Departtnent ofWater a Right-of-Entry and Teit^oiary GraiLt ofEasement for
tbe purpose ofconstruction,repair,mamteaaiice,and opCTation oftiie subdivision water system
improvements installed in otlier &SD.Couuty-owiied property.
E.tfa bond is filed,to secure final subdivision approval,the subdivider shaU clearly letter die followmg on
the approved constmction placas,fina]subdivision map,and deeds:
"Domestic water service will not be avaitable until the required constTuction improvements for this
subdivision are completed and accepted by the Department ofWater,County ofKaua'i."
Tbis deedrestriction ?haU be recorded with tfae Bureau ofConveyances withm iiinety (90)days offinal
subdivision approval by tfae Plamiing Departmeat.
4.lastallationofservicecoimectionswillnotberequiredmitilrequestfor'waterseTviceismade.TheappJicaat
for service will be cfaarged fhe applicable service coimectton charges at that time.
5.Other (or rai'Darks):D
'^-^y^f'
May 19,2021 SUBDIVISION REPORT N0.S-2021-3
MaikR.KnofEPA.PhD
Maziager &ChiefEagmeer
Date
RF^nIm
S-2021-3,Final Approval.AUan &.Ksiea.Nesbitt Tmst,2-3-Z2-044,2-3-22-045
DAVID Y.IGE
GOVBiNOROFHAWAII ,^,,-,_,,,.,»,ELZABETHA.CIUR.M.D.i y ;;^-'"U ^JA i D!RECTOR OF HEALTH
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O.BOX3378
HONOLULU,Hl 96801-3378
"21 MA?3 30
In reply,please refer to:
File'.
March 23,2021
Mr.Ka'aina Hull,Director
County of Kauai
Planning Department
4444 Rice Street,Suite A473
Lihue,Hl 96766
Dear Mr.Hull,
SUBJECT:PRE-FINAL Subdivision Map Review and Approval
Subdivision No.:S-2021-3
Applicant:ALLAN &KAREN NESBITT,TRUST
We have no additional environmental health concerns to add to those previously
submitted on January7,2021 and have no objections with final approval ofthis
subdivision application.
Should you have any questions,please call me at 241-3323.
Sincerely,j
-y
District Environrtental HealtltLProgram Kaua'i
1
`
KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 08, 2020
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by
Chair Glenda Nogami Streufert at 9:44 a.m., - Microsoft Teams Audio +1 469-848-0234,
Conference ID: 602 169 501# The following Commissioners were present:
Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert
Ms. Donna Apisa
Mr. Melvin Chiba
Ms. Helen Cox
Mr. Francis DeGracia
Mr. Roy Ho
Ms. Lori Otsuka
The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaaina Hull,
Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, and Planning Commission
Secretary Leslie Takasaki; Office of the County Attorney –County Attorney Matthew Bracken;
Office of Boards and Commissions – Administrator Ellen Ching, Support Clerk Arleen
Kuwamura
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nogami Streufert: Called the meeting to order at 9:44 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Mr. Kaaina Hull: Good morning, Commissioners. First Agenda Item of order
of business is roll call. Commissioner Apisa.
Ms. Apisa: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba. Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox
Ms. Cox: Here.
2
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Mr. DeGracia: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho. Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka.
Ms. Otsuka: Here.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Here.
Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madame Chair. Seven present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Hull: Next on the Agenda. Our next is approval of the agenda. The Department would request
that a small modification be made that New Business, Action Items, and there’s only one, but the
Hanalei Brewing Action Item be reviewed in tandem with the Agency Hearing. So directly after
the Agency Hearing, we can move right into that particular agenda item to discuss and review.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any discussion (inaudible) members? If not, could I have a
motion to accept the amended agenda?
Ms. Apisa: I move to accept the agenda as amended.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been moved and seconded, that we approve the amended agenda.
Are there any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. (Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
3
Chair Nogami Streufert: Hearing none. The amended agenda passes. Motion carried. 7:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Mr. Hull: Okay. Next, we have the Meeting Minutes of June 9.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions from the commission members on the
(inaudible) minutes of the meeting of June 9, 2020. Any corrections, any amendments? If not,
could I have a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting, June 9, 2020?
Ms. Otsuka: I move (inaudible). I make a motion to accept the minutes of our meeting on June
9, 2020.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Nogami Streufert: What’s that about? Is it for a - for opposing it or was that a little late
aye?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Six to one, it is approved in any case. It becomes a little difficult with
the zoom because there is a little delay in transmission and receipt of information and going in
and out of, uh, of, uh, audio sometimes creates a bit of a problem. So for the (inaudible) this is
normal for - for a zoom call. Motion carried. 6:1.
Ms. Apisa: I heard an Aye. So I think it was unanimous.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Moving on.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None)
Mr. Hull: Next on the Agenda, there are no Receipt of Items for the record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Hull: Moving on. Hearing and Public Comment. There was a number of testimony that was
received, particularly for the Special Management Area Use Permit for the Hanalei Commercial
4
Inc, Na Pali Brewing Company. The vast majority of that communication was transmitted to the
Commissioners in their packets via supplemental report. However, we did receive additional
testimony that was transmitted yesterday from; one from a Max Graham Esq., this is again
concerning Hanalei Commercial company. We also received testimony from Patricia Sheehan,
Gary Chang, Jason Hines, R. Scott Lindman, and Winston and Larisa Welborn. Those
testimonies were not submitted via the supplemental report in your packets but was received by
the deadline of yesterday. So they were transmitted separately. At this time, for any of the
members of the public that have called in and would like to testify on an agenda item. Now
would be the time we will be moving right into the Agency Hearing, which also is a law for
additional testimony for that brewing company. But is there anybody that has called in not an
applicant, if you’re an applicant, you have the ability to speak during the agenda item. Are there
members of the public that would like to speak on any agenda item at this time? And I’ll give
hold for five seconds for people to speak.
Mr. Carl Imparato: Yes, Carl Imparato. I would like to speak on the public hearing on the
Hanalei Brewery proposal.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Carl that one’s coming right in - right next, if you want to testify right now, it
is open for any agenda item or do you want to wait for the official Agency Hearing for that?
Mr. Carl Imparato: I will wait for the agency hearing, please.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Is there anyone else that has called in, as a member of the public that would like
to testify on any agenda item?
Ms. Alan Tasaka: Alan Tasaka. I sent an email this morning regarding the permitting.
Mr. Hull: Okay. So ma’am that will be transmitted to the planning commissioners. Um, but you
can testify at this point. Again, if you are coming to testify on the Hanalei Brewing Company,
the official Agency Hearing is right next on the agenda but you are free to testify now, or during
that specific agency hearing and you will testify, you have three minutes. Do you want to
testify?
Ms. Tasaka: Um, okay. I will wait.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Okay. Again, and like I said to the other speakers, the agency hearing for the
Hanalei Brewing Company is right next on the agenda, but this is a time for any member of the
public that would like to speak on any agenda item. Is there anyone a member of the public that
would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none.
Continued Agency Hearing
New Agency Hearing
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2020-7, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2020-16, and Use Permit U-2008-13 to allow construction of a new craft brewery building
and associated site improvements including on-site parking, driveway, pedestrian bridge,
private wastewater system, and operation of food trucks, AND Amendments to Special
5
Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-88-4, Use Permit U-88-25, Variance Permit V-88-
6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, as amended, and SMA (U)-2006-1, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2006-1, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1 to
accommodate parking for the proposed development, allow increased land coverage, and
reduction in the number of permitted Employee Housing within the eastern portion of Lot
17, involving parcels situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection,
immediately adjacent to property identified as, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-009:008 & 009, and
containing a total of approx. 14.165 acres = Hanalei Commercial Company, Inc./Na Pali
Brewing Company, LLC. [Director’s Report, SIDR, and attachments to S2DR received
by Commission Clerk 7/28/20.; Addition to Agenda received and hearing deferred
8/11/20; S3DR and S4DR received by Commission Clerk 8/18/20.]
Mr. Hull: We will move on to agenda item (inaudible) Hearing. Therefore, F.2, New Agency
Hearing Special Management area use permit SMA(U)-2020-7 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2020-16 and Use Permit Use Permit U-2020-13 to allow construction of a new craft brewery
building and associated site improvements, including onsite parking, driveway, pedestrian
bridge, private waste water system, and the operation of food trucks and amendments to Special
Management Area Use Permanent SMA(U)-88-4, Use Permit (U)-88-25 Variance Permit V-88-
6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, as amended and SMA (U)-2006-1 Project Development
Use Permit PDU-2006-1 and Class IV Zoning permit Z-IV-2006-1. To accommodate parking
for proposed development, and allow increase land coverage and reduction. And the number of
permitted employee housing with eastern portion of Lot 17, involving parcels situated on the
mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town approximately 550 feet east of the Kuhio
Highway/Aku Road intersection immediately adjacent to property identified as 5-5091 Kuhio
Highway/ Aku Road intersection immediately adjacent to the property, excuse me, as 5-091
Kuhio Highway, Tax Map Key: 5-5-009:008 and 009 and containing a total area of 4.165 acres.
Hanalei Commercial Company Inc. and the Na Pali Brewing Company, LLC are the applicants.
Now, there is a specific Agency Hearing. So for those members of the public that called in that
would like testify. Mr. Imparato, I believe you want to testify in this agenda item.
Mr. Imparato: Yes, thank you, Kaaina. Shall I begin?
Mr. Hull: Yes, Carl, you have three minutes to give testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Imparato: Great. Thank you. Hello Planning Commissioners. My name is Carl Imparato. I
am speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Hanalei and a Community Association.
And as know from our written testimony, we very strongly urge you to deny permits. There are a
number of reasons for our opposition to this project, which includes an alcohol centered retail
business, the food truck-based restaurant like business, a beer brewery, parking lots of those
commercial uses and excessive land coverage, including the food truck land coverage. And all
this is on Open Zone Land. Even though it is very clear that the CZO does not allow any of
these commercial uses, and that these commercial uses are clearly not similar in nature to any
uses that are allowed on open zone land. In addition, these commercial uses are neither
appropriate nor desire for our community, and they would be detrimental to the general welfare
of the community, but we do not even need to address that issue because it uses it pulls and being
allowable uses. I do not need to go into detail on any of the above because that is all in our
6
written testimony, but there is just one more point I would like to make today.
And that’s that allowing these commercial uses to encroach into Hanalei Open Zoning District in
disregard for the CZO listing of allowable uses. That will make it next to impossible to protect
this Open Zoning District and the Hanalei residential and agricultural zone districts that lay just
west of Hanalei’s Commercial District. One by one, commercial project will be proposed for all
of these areas using the same arguments this applicant has made - use the creeping expansion of
clearly commercial uses to non-commercial zoning districts. If the Planning Commission were to
approve this project in the open district today, if you were to say that, the table of allowable uses
in the CZO does not matter. Or if you were to buy the argument that this application’s proposed
commercial uses are similar in nature to those listed in the table of allowable uses you would be
establishing a very bad precedent that I don’t think there’ll be any legitimate grounds, disapprove
future projects. There will be no going back.
So I’ll conclude, by asking you to please keep in mind that not only is the surveyor project for
the proposed location, but also that the approval of this use permit would be very bad for
protecting the integrity of zoning districts throughout the Island. The public revise on both the
CZO and on you; the Planning Commission protect our communities. Please be true to your
duty, to uphold and clear and words that the CZO was plainly specifies the allowable uses in the
different zoning districts, and please uphold the integrity of zoning and Hanalei and throughout
localized communities. I thank you very much for your attention and for allowing us to testify.
Mr. Hull: Thank you, Carl. I believe there is at least one other individual that like to testify on
his agency hearing.
Ms. Alana Tasaka: Hi. So my name is Alana Tasaka and like I said, I did send an email, um
testimony regarding this. And I would rather just read the letter that I had sent this morning. So,
thank you all for your time. So we are the generation family that (inaudible) back from the
nineties, from 1989 from my great-grandparents and sugar plantation, and then transition into
farming rice, and then eventually into Taro out in Hanalei. We are currently situated in Hanalei
right across the Quicksilver, Hanalei liquor store, the Hanalei buildings, and other retail shops
and food trucks. You know, Hanalei has seen its share of growth. I know the advocates
personally and I have nothing against them. I cannot stress enough that they are very kind and
very good-hearted people.
My concerns has really nothing to do with them, however, after much thought I’m close to the
breweries right next door. We reside on the eastern boundary of parcel number nine, and these
are some of the concerns. One of them is a service and consumption of alcohol on the premises
and everything that is associated with that. The noise from the equipment, you know, such as the
refrigeration, the food trucks customers in cars from in the parking lot area, illegal parking and
blocking entrances, blocking entrance into our resident, which already happened. We already see
that now. So, we feel that it will just probably get worse. The smoke and the smell from the food
truck, the waste disposal or the smell from the solid waste, privacy from the upper floor tasting
room and lanai area. Just the increase of traffic and speeding up and down and being exposed to
the evening of brewery light. Then obviously for the changes would come property taxes. So
these concerns from having from having a proposed brewery or bar right next to our home, I do
7
not feel we need another bar or establishment in Hanalei that serves alcohol, especially because it
is right outside my bedroom window, like literally. You know, I do not want to lose what is left
of the peace and quietness we already have. We have the Tahiti Nui and other bars down the
street and they are very loud too, we hear them - to hear them. Once again, thank you for your
time. And if there’s any additional concerns, maybe I can reserve right to address them later.
Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. Is there any other individuals that have called in, that
would like to testify on this Agency Hearing? Seeing none. The Department would recommend,
differing action sorry, deferring action on this Agency Hearing, leaving it open. Given the
amount of testimony that has been submitted as well as, quite honestly, giving the amount of
testimony and some concerns that the Department still has, we’ll be recommending deferring
action on the actual application itself.
The Department would recommended leaving the Agency Hearing open.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Do we hear from the applicant on that?
Mr. Hull: Yes, yeah Max is here.
Mr. Max Graham: Hi, can you see me? Hear me?
Chair Nogami Streufert: We - yes, we can now. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Graham: Okay, good. So I’m Max Graham and I represent the applicants in this matter.
And, and the applicants are Hanalei Commercial, Inc. Whose principal is Gaylord Wilcox and
the Na Pali Brewing Company, LLC whose principles are Katie and Blake Conant. Who are with
me, and you can see them in the background here. And my partner, Ian Jung is with me. If the,
Commission and the Department needs time to consider the new testimony we have no
objection. So.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Is there any discussion by the Commission members? If not, and
we gain a motion to defer (inaudible) please. What specific date are we looking at Kaaina or
Romeo?
Mr. Hull: The Department would ask if you (inaudible).
Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry.
Mr. Hull: Until the next Planning Commission Meeting which is scheduled to be October 13.
Chair Nogami Streufert: October 13.
Mr. Ho: Kaaina, a question, please.
Mr. Hull: Yes?
8
Mr. Ho: Kaaina, are you inviting new testimony? Or you just have a volume of it that you have
not gotten to?
Mr. Hull: No there is some concerns about the, say the employee housing, the overall parking
parameters as well as we did receive a new submittal from the applicant concerning the
(inaudible) clubs. Certainly that we could not view today. Because we just got it today. So
given that we are saying if the Department’s position being that we will be asking for the actual
agenda items to be differed to October 13, that the agency vary also be differed to October 13. So
still allows official testimony from the public, to come.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. I will entertain in a motion to defer to be October 13 meeting.
Ms. Otsuka: I make a motion to defer action on this application for next meeting, which should
be held on October 13, 2020.
Mr. Hull: I am sorry, Commissioner. It is not actually applications. It would be deferral of the
Agency Hearing. We are gone go into the application next.
Ms. Otsuka: I see.
Ms. Apisa: Second. I make (inaudible).
Ms. Otsuka: Should I re-do the motion?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Please.
Ms. Otsuka: I should redo the motion. I make a motion to defer action on this Agency Hearing
until our next meeting, which should be held on October 13, 2020.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s been moved and secondary to defer action on the Agency Hearing
until October 13, 2020. Any discussion? If not, we have a roll call vote, please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call vote. Commissioner Apisa?
Commissioner Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Commissioner Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox.
Commissioner Cox: Aye.
9
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia.
Commissioner DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka.
Commissioner Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes 7:0. Madame Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Continued Agency Hearing
New Agency Hearing (Cont’d)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2020-7, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2020-16, and Use Permit U-2008-13 to allow construction of a new craft brewery building
and associated site improvements including on-site parking, driveway, pedestrian bridge,
private wastewater system, and operation of food trucks, AND Amendments to Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-88-4, Use Permit U-88-25, Variance Permit V-88-
6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, as amended, and SMA (U)-2006-1, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2006-1, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1 to
accommodate parking for the proposed development, allow increased land coverage, and
reduction in the number of permitted Employee Housing within the eastern portion of Lot
17, involving parcels situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection,
immediately adjacent to property identified as, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-009:008 & 009, and
containing a total of approx. 14.165 acres = Hanalei Commercial Company, Inc./Na Pali
Brewing Company, LLC. [Director’s Report, SIDR, and attachments to S2DR received
by Commission Clerk 7/28/20.; Addition to Agenda received and hearing deferred
8/11/20; S3DR and S4DR received by Commission Clerk 8/18/20.]
Mr. Hull: Moving to the next agenda item, which is now per review the actual applications.
Again, the applicant is Hanalei Commercial Company Incorporated, and the Na Pali Brewing
Company, LLC. I will turn it over to Romeo is our planner on this agenda Item.
Staff Planner Romeo: Aloha, Commissioner and fellow Commissioners. So the name of the
applicant again, is Hanalei Commercial Incorporated and Na Pali Brewing LLC. Permit
Application numbers are Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-16, Use Permit (U)-2020-13,
10
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2020-7, also to amend Special Management
Area SMA (U)- 88-4, amend Use Permit 88-25, amend Variance Permit V-88-6, amend Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, and from here on that will be referenced as Master Permit. Also
within this application is still amend Project Development Permit, PDU-2006-1, amend Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2006-1 amend Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1
here respectfully referred to as Master Permit. I mean, I am sorry, 2006 permit. So, the brewery,
which will be located on Tax Map Key: 5-5-009:008 is within the open county zone and is
proposed a two-story brewery.
Mr. Idica read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Idica: So I will hold here if the commissioners have any questions for the applicant or
myself.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions from Commission for the planner?
Okay then I will (inaudible) from the master plan to the 2006 (inaudible). It started out with a
25% land coverage and in the - on the master plan.
Mr. Idica: That is correct.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And 33% on the 2006, and now they are asking for 45%, is that
correct?
Mr. Idica: That is correct madam chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And in that area, do we still require people to have only a 25% land
coverage for other buildings?
Mr. Idica: No, a just to go back. I apologize, but lot 17 is split zoned. The majority of all of the
improvements are happening in county zone open. So all of the improvements, like the increase
of the parking spaces is happening only in county zone open.
Chair Nogami Streufert: (inaudible).
Mr. Idica: So the 25% that they are referring to is within county zone open.
Chair Nogami Streufert: There is something in here that says that, uh, as part of a covered - the
lot coverage, they want to delete 50% of the lot coverage of each of the three employees
residential improvements shall be applied to (inaudible) gross floor space map of 25,000 square
feet. If we were to delete that - if that were to be deleted, does that mean that 100% of the - of the
floor space would be used to get the total lot coverage or zero percent? How does that work?
Mr. Idica: So that they are kind of referring the Hanalei Commercial area where it’s zoned
commercial neighborhood PD. So in order to allow this lot coverage, the applicant is willing to
11
cut down the - the lot coverage on the CN portion of the parcel of lot 17.
Chair Nogami Streufert: What does this mean?
Mr. Idica: So it is kind of like a give and take. So, they’re saying that if you allow the increase
in the open zone on the open area, they will decrease the square footage on the CN portion of the
lot.
Chair Nogami Streufert: No, I think this one says 50% of the lot coverage shall be applied to the
total gross floor space. So that already takes over 50%, whatever. I think that whether three
residences or two residences that would mean something like 25 feet, which would be about
10%. I am sorry. Yeah. About 10% of the total floor space (inaudible) floor space cap. Now, are
we taking this away? So we are now going to add that 2500 square feet or are we taking it away
so that if the whole 5,000 square feet will be - will be attached or will be used - will be applied to
that 25,000 square foot, a total gross floor space. In other words, are we increasing the amount of
space that they are going to have or decreasing the amount of space that they can use?
Mr. Hull: Overall, those also maybe great questions for Max to clarify how he was proposing it
(inaudible). Romeo’s is kind of getting is that under the split zone neighborhood zoning you
have up to 80% (inaudible) now up to 10% lot coverage. They are indeed asking for variance to
go above and beyond the—
Chair Nogami Streufert: You are breaking up. Could you get (inaudible) I am sorry.
Mr. Hull: (Inaudible). This is - is that better?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Hull: Okay, so sorry to go back definitely that questions should be proposed to Max as well,
so he can clarify how he was shaping that in his application. But to Romeo’s point too, is that in
the application you’re looking at overall lot coverage, but on - in the open zoning district, you
only allowed up to 10% on coverage area and in the commercial neighborhood you’re allowed
up to 80%. And so the application is proposing somewhat, you know, reducing a certain amount
in the CN, the commercial neighborhood to make up for it. But in applying the code, we do have
to look at specifically each zoning district. So they are requesting a variance to vary beyond that
10% tap zoning district. But these are also questions, I think that Max can go over. It was a little
bit of clarity as far as some of the history.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And at this point, they are proposing, is this correct Romeo that they
are proposing, that the employee housing will also be used now for retired persons housing that
if you are retired you can also take this as opposed to (inaudible) employee or (inaudible)
employee?
Mr. Idica: That is correct.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So that does not really help our situation with employee housing).
12
Mr. Idica: I mean, like as for adding employee housing, no. But they’re just allowing allowing
people who have worked with Hanalei Commercial Center to have a chance to get employee
housing.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But there is an open-air (inaudible) system or (inaudible)—
Mr. Idica: Aerobic system.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes. Can you explain what that would mean, or what that would look
like and what that impact would be?
Mr. Idica: Aerobic system means that in order for the septic tank to function, it needs oxygen.
So the type of system that is going to be, installed will have oxygen pump in mechanically, with
an enclosed, I guess you could say pump. So there’s no open area where water can seep in.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But will smells resulting it?
Mr. Hull: Not that I know.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any other questions from the Commissioner or to the planner right
now, before we hear from the applicant.
Ms. Tasaka: I am here. I have a quick question. My question would be smells from the solid
waste not the liquid.
Mr. Idica: Well, I am sure that the applicant will do everything necessary to dispose of the solid
waste and make sure there is no, again, foul smells or attractional vermin for that particular, I
guess, solid waste area.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other questions for the planner before we hear from the
applicants? Is the applicant available to present?
Mr. Max Graham: Yes. And this is Max Graham again. So, let me just give you an overview of
the history of the project and that may help you at least to understand the basics of what is there
on the ground now. And then we’ll talk about some of these the questions you have. The project
was actually initially approved in 1988 on what we call lot-17. And lot-17 is a split zone lot
because the western half of the lot is located in the neighborhood commercial, project
development district. And the eastern half of the lot is located in the CCO open district. So you
have open district to the east and that’s on the Hanalei River side. Then on the Ha’ena side, you
have the neighborhood commercial. So in 1988, the applicant at that time, by the way, lot-17 -
the lot we are talking about is a 3.985 acres, almost two acres. So its two acres approximately in
the open two acres in the neighborhood commercial located Mauka of Kuhio Highway. Across
from the Ching Your Center and the line that actually demarks the neighborhood commercial,
and the open, if you - if you made an extension of Aku Road, which is a across the street and is
the road that goes down to the Hanalei Bay, would run as an extension of Apu Road.
13
So that’s where the zoning demarcation is. So what the applicant did was to get permission to
renovate two existing buildings on the site to relocate the old Hanalei school building. And
another second building to construct a new two-story building, as well as two new single-story
buildings to build parking sidewalks, to renovate an old dwelling, which was referred to as the
DAWA house, because he occupants where the DAWA family to construct a sewage treatment
plant for the commercial center. And then, there was a land coverage variance. And the reason
for this is because on the neighborhood commercial side, you have 80%, lot plan coverage
allowed. On the open side, you have 10% land coverage allowed. At the time, what the Planning
Commission decided was that if the applicant would move all the buildings to the Mauka side of
the property, which has been done. Leave the front to each of the property adjacent to Kuhio
Highway in an open grassy area, and then instead of putting parking in front there, the parking
could be put on the open area. I think the theory was that even though there is a certain amount
of land coverage involved in - in parking and driveways, it does not - there are - you do not have
structures standing up that block the view to back to the mountains. So it was kind of an
exchange that seemed to be in a good decision for Hanalei town. It kept that area a lot more
open than it would be if you had all of the parking and all of the commercial buildings on the
commercial zone portion of the property. So that was the starting point.
In 2006, the applicant came back and asked for a further amendment to the permits to allow the
construction of 35 new parking spaces within the opened some portion of lot-17. And 35 new
spaces were needed because by this time, in 2006, well, that’s - what - that’s like, uh, almost 20
years later, the business had grown enough to need additional parking. A part of the building,
the additional parking - the land coverage - under the master permit, the land coverage in the
open district was granted the variance up to 25% land coverage from what would have been 10%
allowed in the open district. Then the land coverage went up to 33 and a third percent. So that’s
what happened in 2006, and that parking was constructed. And two of the three single family
residences were constructed for use by employees. Just briefly, I - okay, so let me just get into
this new permit. So we, now we have the new permit application. One thing that is being asked
is that the condition about employee housing be amended to allow not only current employees,
but also retired employees to occupy the employee housing. And, the Housing Agency - the
Housing Director sent in a letter saying that that actually is consistent with the County’s Policy
of providing, housing, not only for current employees, but for retired employees as well.
Anyway, that is a side issue. With regard to employee housing. There is another lot that is
owned by the Hanalei Commercial. It is on the West side of the shopping center, and that is
where the sewage treatment plant is located. And there’s a home there that is used for employee
housing as well. So just so you understand, there’s one house there that use for employee
housing and two homes constructed on the open zone portion that are used for employee
housing. The old DAWA house has been removed. So the total employee housing available to
the shopping center is three units. (Inaudible) the applicant is the - the employee housing was
not a condition of approval. It was something the applicant asked for. So what he’s saying is
that he’s actually, he’s still willing to do somewhere down the line, a third employee house, but
he’s not ready to do it in the next couple of years. He does not think it really depends on the
economy. And so he wanted to take that off the table for now. But we can talk about that, but I
mean, that - that was the application. So, so now what he wants to do in the new application is to
expand the parking further, and that is by adding a total of 35 additional spaces. Actually, he is
14
going to take out 16 old spaces and rebuild them with this geo grid material. So there’ll be a
total of 51 new spaces, but the increases only 35 and those 35 new spaces will be located further
east on the open portion of the property. And will serve not only the shopping center and not
only the proposed brew hub but the applicant is willing to make that available to the general
public. And, so they can park and walk around the Hanalei area because it appears that parking
is at a premium and the Hanalei core area.
So that is the portion of the improvements on lot-17 are really have to do with the parking and
extension of the sidewalk along Kuhio Highway. To get there’s an (inaudible) or a ditch that
runs through this property mauka to makai, and to get across it, there are culverts or the
driveway and if this is approved, in order to get the sidewalk extended to the end of lot-17, on
the eastern side, up to the proposed brewpub. There will need to be a pedestrian bridge built
across the (inaudible). So the work on the lot-17 is a pedestrian bridge, a sidewalk and extended
driveway and additional parking. Okay. That is the lot-17. Adjacent to lot-17 on the east side is
what we call parcel 9 it is 7,000, seven - I think it’s 7822 square feet. So 7822 square feet. And
it’s entitled to, because it’s in a pre-existing lot pre-existing in place at the time the CZO was
adopted in 1972. The there is a right to build a land coverage up to 3000 square feet. And the -
the applicant and the Conant’s are proposing to build a brewpub or a craft brewery on that site.
And the craft brewery will do two things that the proposal is one, they will in fact brew beer on
the site. Then two, they will be, it will be open for use by patrons. And that’s all that - all that
the Conant’s will serve in that brewpub, as it’s referred to will be beer. They will not be
preparing any food, but they would allow up to from one to three food trucks to park on the
property and to provide food for patrons who want to bring food in.
And by the way, there’s lots of food service areas all around that site. So people can get food
from across the street and get tacos. There is a - there is any number of food opportunities, and
they can bring the food into the brewpub. The, the brewpub would be a two-story building. And
if you look - if you want to see what it looks like, if you - you look at, um, supplement number 2
to the Planning Director Report, there are five exhibits that show the exhibit E1 is the site plan of
the brewpub. E2 is the floor plan interior of the brewpub. E3 shows the proposed parking
improvements on the east side of the adjacent lot 17 together with the outline of the brewpub.
And exhibit E4 is sort of an overview of what the property looks like now, both properties. Then
E5 shows you what the elevations of the brewpub look like. And so the brewpub would have I
want to talk a little bit about the waste disposal system.
All the waste from the brewing of beer and that there’s liquid waste and there is material waste,
would be taken off site, it would all be hauled away. So no of that would be disposed of on site.
The regular wastewater requirement for bathrooms and kitchen would go into an upgraded
wastewater system, which is known as an aerobic system. Romeo described it to you, it is a
system in which, there is a component which is an electric motor that injects oxygen and mixes
up material in the septic system, and the result of that is the fluid that comes out of the system is
much cleaner than a typical septic, what’s called and anaerobic system. Which is what most
people have. So the level of wastewater treatment system is cesspools, which we are trying to
get rid of, septic system which most people have, and the next step up which is actually an
anaerobic system. That system will have to be designed to meet the requirements of the
Department and Health. These are the types of systems that have been suggested for homes in
15
Hanalei because it just creates a cleaner fluid that comes out of a septic tanks. And if everyone in
Hanalei would switch over to this type of system, it would be much better for the environment.
So anyway, that is sort of the overview. Let me talk to you about the 25,000 square feet. To
make sure that the applicant when they initially got there permit in 1988, to make sure that there
was a limit on the amount of floor space and stores on the neighborhood commercial side. The
total floor area of the retail, so retail, restaurant, commercial was limited to 25,000 sq. ft. so that
right now, I think, the last number I saw, there is something like 28,000 sq. ft. retail type floor
area in the shopping center. At the time, in 2006, when the applicant got the approval for the
Employee Housing, the Planning Commission said it would apply one-half of the total floor area
of the Employee Housing as a credit towards the 25,000 sq. ft. retail limitation in the shopping
centers. So that meant that, that applies now, so the two homes each have about 2000 sq. ft. that
is 4000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission’s Condition was that 50% of that 4000 sq. ft. or 2000
sq. ft. would be added on so it would be as if the total gross floor area is now 22,300 sq. ft. And
we are asking that that formal be deleted from Conditions. It does not seem to be necessary. I
cannot actually think of any reason why you would want to have the floor area of an employee
housing being added on to the floor area allowed on the commercial side. All that does is
encouragers the owner to build smaller homes, to decrease the amount of floor area that gets
added on to the commercial side. I do not think it is necessary and we are asking that it gets
deleted.
So that is sort of the overview of the project. But I did want the Conant’s to have an opportunity
to talk about the brewpub itself. So I am going stand up here and Mr. Conant will be talking to
you about the project itself just to give you a description of what the process is like and what the
proposal is.
Mr. Blake Conant: Thanks Max. Good Morning Madame Chairperson and Commission. My
name is Blake Conant. I was born and raised in Wainiha and lived in Hanalei. My wife Katie
and I have returned from the mainland about eight (8) years ago to live and prosper in Hanalei.
We are excited about the opportunity to build a business for our family, but equally excited about
being able to build a business that can offer jobs for people in Hanalei, especially during these
tough times. So what I thought I’d so is take a moment to tell you what we are verse what we are
not. I think Max did a great job in dealing with that but I will just give some details. We are a
local owned company. We are going to be brewing to tap, which means we are not a bar. So
what we are not is we are not a bar, we will not be serving spirits or liquor or anything of that
sort. We will be brewing (Inaudible) for distributions to local restaurants, eateries etc. And more
importantly, we will view our business because of its close proximity to our neighbors as a very
green business.
So one has to understand that when you brew beer obviously the bi-product of that process is
beer, but that it also is the malt and the oats and the yeast and things of that nature. And
knowing the water temperature table as it is in Hanalei, we have made a commitment to the
county as well as the neighbors a long, long time ago, that nothing hits the ground. And that
includes encompassing a process to make sure that there is no smell. So we have stainless steel
vessels that would carry the mash and that mash would be put into totes. They are 4x4 water-
soluble containers and then carted off on a flatbed to two livestock farmers, ones a piggery and
16
ones a cattle farm, nowhere near Hanalei. However, we are currently working on a sidebar, to
see if that mash can be fertilizer for the Kalo industry. So what we take, we would like to tell the
story that we put back as organic fertilizer. We agree in principal with a taro farmer to run a test
bed to see if that waste can be done.
The second part of the business as Max detailed is the human waste aspect and that is where the
aerobic system that Romio and Max detailed. So I wanted you to folks to understand how we
address both sides of the house so to speak. And that’s really important because we don’t want
this to have a negative impact on anyone. We will offer soft acoustic guitar music piped in
music. It will not consist of rock and roll bands or disco music like other establishments in
Hanalei. Our business hours are such not to impact the neighborhood, the residential
neighborhood. What we envision is basically a meeting place where someone could say, “Hey
listen. I want to have a cold beer. Let’s talk story about some place,” and we have the beer. They
can come to the taproom, and enjoy a nice conversation. That is really important that I explain
that part of the business and also to add that we have at this point in time no aspirations of being
a restaurant. Neither (Katie) nor I have any experience being in the restaurant business, nor do
we want to. So we think that engaging the caterers and the – the local food trucks we just
basically double their business and that would be their business and they provide food for our
patrons and it's a wonderful opportunity for them to grow their business alongside of us.
We are excited to work with Gaylord Wilcox. In fact, he is looking at this land for parking
purposes. And if anybody’s driven to Hanalei they’ll know that everybody’s fighting for spots.
Tahiti Nui’s fighting for a spot. Calypso fights for a spot to park their patrons somewhere. And
this benevolence of Mr. Wilcox I think is profound. So we’re excited to work with him. We’re
excited to work with the county and we’re excited to have this visit.
Mr. Graham: Okay thank you Blake. Let me just finish up here with, I just want to comment on
the concern about the open zone. And, that has been actually on the mauka portion of this area
in Hanalei from the from the neighborhood commercial zoning going to the east toward the
Hanalei River so Mauka Kuhio Highway has always been a – a planning concern literally for 35
years. This is pure open zone on this side of the property. If you go further down, I know there
was a concern that other open zone properties could use this as precedent. But if you look at the
open along Kuhio Highway, uh, to the west it’s all open special treatment public or conservation.
So there’s a special treatment overlay that you can use to control further expansion in those
areas. So really, I think you need to focus on the lots.
There is seven lots that are in the open on the Makua side and you need to realize that this open
zone is part of the State Land Use Commission Urban District in Hanalei. So - the State Land
Use Commission has designated the urban district in Hanalei for urban type uses. And the open
zone properties we’re talking about are in the urban zone. Now it is correct that they are also in
the county – oh - excuse me. That they are located in the State Land Use Commercial -
Commission Urban District. And in the county open district. In trying to determine what kinds
of uses are allowed in the open district, the – with the use permit Planning Director can find that,
if you propose a use or structure which is similar in nature to those listed in the CZO open
district section and are appropriate to the district then that can be allowed.
17
And if you look at the open district uses that are allowed with a use permit and remember now
we’re talking about the open in the urban district. It’s not open in the ag district which is a
different situation. So in– with the use permit you could do outdoor recreational concessions,
police and fire facilities, quarries, recreational vehicle parks, religious facilities, organized
recreation camps, home businesses, develop campgrounds, uh, daycare centers. So these are all
something more than residential uses. The open zone is not limited to just residential uses. They
are a number of business and commercial activities that can be allowed if it’s appropriate in the
open zone.
But the real question is whether the proposed use is compatible with other uses in the area. We
have to show compatibility because we are asking for a use permit. So if you look at other uses
in the immediate area Mauka Makai, you’ll see a number of food service stores, professional
offices. There is a liquor store almost across the street, you have bars and restaurants. And you
have activity centers. So there’s nothing unusual about this proposal if you look at it in the
context of what is being allowed on either side of the road in Hanalei and in this area. And if you
just even limit yourself to looking at the – the uses on the Mauka side of the highway there’s
starting at the east side of this row of seven lots there’s a restaurant and an activity center. And
then there’s a, uh, community – I shouldn’t say community but it’s a—
Mr. Conant: Learning and resource center for Ag.
Mr. Graham: It’s a learning and resource center for ag in the Hongwanji Building. Then there
are two residential lots. Then you have the proposed brewery site. So, this it’s not dissimilar at
all to the uses that are being, enjoyed throughout this area. You still have – you are the Planning
Commission. You need to decide whether you think it is appropriate but in context. But, I’m
suggesting that it fits into the uses around this area. And under the – all of the circumstances
would be an appropriate use of this property. And we’d be glad to answer any questions you
might have.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any questions from the commission?
Ms. Cox: So I understand that this is that the plan for the brewery is to have non-acoustic music,
which is wonderful. But there's no provision that would make that necessarily stay that way,
correct? There is nothing in the permitting or the use permit that cannot change to have a
different kind of music. Is that correct?
Mr. Graham: There is nothing in the proposal. There is certainly no reason why the Commission
could not add a condition to address that concern.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Considering that there is so much – that you are asking for so much
land coverage (inaudible) probably one of the wetter spots in all of Hawaii. How do you
anticipate, the runoff, which will result because it will not now leech into the ground with as
much coverage as I believe part of the reason for limiting the amount of coverage is to ensure
that we do not have any flooding or any water standing in the roads or in the area? How does that
work with, uh, this much coverage?
18
Mr. Graham: I have here also Dan Fregeau who is with the Kauai Eco Design and they design
the parking areas so I am going to ask him to respond to that question. We are getting him right
now. But it's going to either be maintained on site or it will go into the Hui.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: But the auwai according to the original – as you are calling it the
original the Master Permit says that the responsibility of the people is not just to maintain it but
it’s also to preserve it. By putting all this runoff or this rainwater or this additional water through
it how do you propose that you’re going to preserve not just to maintain it but also to preserve
the auwai? Isn’t that going to have an impact upon that?
Mr. Graham: I will let Mr. Fregeau go answer that question. My understanding is that it will not
have a substantial impact but understand your concern.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Because if the original request is not – or the original conditions were
to preserve and to (inaudible) but also to preserve it.
Mr. Graham: And that would continue. So yes. That has to be addressed.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Right. And it was also that the drainage would - away from the loi not
towards the loi.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Fregeau (inaudible) but they are asking about would the drainage from the, uh,
construction of the parking lot will go and how - how to preserve the auwai so it's not destroyed
by additional drainage.
Mr. Dan Fregeau: Okay. So—
Mr. Graham: Please introduce yourself.
Mr. Fregeau: Yeah I am Dan Fregeau with Kauai Eco Design. I run a civil engineering
company, here in Princeville. So the drainage on the conceptual hasn’t been completely worked
out. Because at this stage all we have done, is a conceptual plan versus a full grading plan. But
the drainage on the existing part of the parking lot currently drains into the Auwai. So there is –
drain grades there that drain it into the auwai. So one way we could go is to simply duplicate
that on the other side. The other way – the other thing we could look at is some sort of detention
before it gets to the auwai to, you know, protect the Hui further, uh, if that’s deemed to be
required. Keep in mind that all the parking stalls will be grasscrete and so there is a lot of
pervious absorption that is going to take place. So really, the main drainage is going to be from
the hardened dry vial if you will which, you know, is not –is very much - it’s the same as the
other side. Does that kind of answer?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: You are describing what you are going to be doing during construction.
I am more concerned about after construction and after it’s – it – when it is in utilization and how
that’s going to affect it. Because you are going to have cars there and cars are going to provide
19
impermeable space so you are gone have a lot of runoff. It is not going to go immediately into
the ground. But even more than that it's that lo-, uh, Hanalei is very wet. Hanalei has had floods
in the last couple of years. And you’re going to have an aerobic treatment system as well as this
an aerobic – my understanding of aerobic is its above ground. So you are going to have an
aerobic sewage system over what do you call it here, uh, cannot find my notes on that. It's – it's
an aerobic sewage system, yes it is, and treatment system. And you’re – you’re going to have all
of this water – additional water plus the normal water that you already have which is significant
Hanalei gets flooded frequently. What are you going to do about it? How are you going to
(inaudible)?
Mr. Fregeau: Right. As well again as part of the work to be done next with the – to prepare
grading plan. There is not going to be a lot of grading there because the land is flat. So the main
thing it needs to be graded for if you will or prepped for is the dry vial installs. As part of doing
that we would do a drainage report to analyze where all of the, you know, where all of the storm
water would go at two years and 100 year events which is essentially, you know, required. Uh,
and then based on that we need to determine, you know, what we do with that storm water.
Whatever doesn’t get absorbed into the ground? As I said, before one way to approach this is to
drain it into the auwai that is sitting right there. Now I – that is how the other portion of the
parking lot drains. If that were an issue, you know, then another way to go would be to detain the
storm water before it goes into auwai by creating a swale or some kind of detention basin that
would hold the water that would be created, you know, at those storm water levels before it then
goes any further. You are always going to have a situation in Hanalei where – and you know –
you know this where there could be so much water that it completely floods over. Uh, in which
case there is really – I mean there is very little you can do about that. It's, you know, the water
will just have to drain its way out of there just like it does now in a major flood.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: But would the aerobic treatment system make this—
Mr. Fregeau: So—
Chair Nogami-Streufert: A not just difficult but also unhealthy if it were to flood down there.
Mr. Fregeau: Right. So again, what we focused on our – our piece of the project here was the –
the parking lot expansion that is on lot 17. We really did not look at what is happening on parcel
nine, which is where the brewpub is. And the wastewater treatment for that. So I can’t really
speak to that. I think you are bringing up – you are bringing up the point of, you know, what
happens if – what happens if there is a flood and there is wastewater. Well, I mean the same
thing is going to happen that happens generally now with septic systems or cesspools. The
advantage of the aerobic systems is that it, you know, it breaks things down more quickly so that,
20
you know, there is less impact if there’s, you know, if there is a problem. Ultimately that all
analysis that has to be done with respect to that portion of the project.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Questions.
Mr. Conant: This is Blake Conant again. One of the very first things we did was we sat down
with Maka‘ala Ka‘aumoana, this is about three years ago. And the reason why we Katie and I did
that was because we knew she was heading up a project with the attempt to replace all cesspools
in Hanalei – particularly those at vacation rental things. So I said to her I said, Maka’ala, I need
a system, which apparently you have been approved at the state and county level. I want to
replicate that but scale it appropriately.” And so that’s what we’re headed here. Because I call it
the great flood of April a couple three years ago. We need to be cognizant that whatever we do
from a technology standpoint, prepared for that – especially when the entire town of Hanalei was
under 17 inches of water. So it's her system or the system that she had recommended that’s been
approved that we’re replicating and scaling accordingly. And I’m not a septic system expert.
But I can assure you that the folks that are doing it which is, um, Michaelson and Curly Carswell
they understand that and whatever comes out of the other end of it is, um, pretty close to potable
water from what I understand. So that is my longwinded answer for you, ma’am.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions from the Commission members to the
applicant – applicant or any of the participants from the applicant side?
Mr. Ho: I would like to ask perhaps pose a question for Max, please.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Mr. Roy – Mr. Ho.
Mr. Graham: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ho: Max you – you were increasing, uh, parking capacity of, uh, of the (inaudible) and you
have uh, expressed that you are sharing it with the other (inaudible) in the area. Uh, could –
could I suggest that perhaps you, exiting your property that there be some turnoffs there that’ll
take you onto Kuhio Highway that would alleviate some of the backup in the parking area when
you exit this area?
Mr. Graham: Yep. Yep and that is a good suggestion and I think – I’ll let Dan answer that. But
they do plan to have an entrance and an exit so that the traffic can more easily flow through
there.
Mr. Fregeau: Yep. Yeah so, the conceptual design we came up with preserves sort of the current
flow that is in place now for just the smaller parking lot. So what we did is we said okay how
21
can we expand the design with similar flow patterns which is, you know, what our conceptual
shows. In terms of egress/ingress off the highway, you know, that’s subject to further review and
consideration. Uh, one, you know, it would be interesting to see just what the impact is at the
intersection and under various conditions which is something that, you know, we could
undertake, uh, through a traffic impact analysis if needed. Uh, at this point, you know, the
number of parking stalls and incremental parking stalls that are being provided is not, you know,
hugely different from the number of parking stalls that are currently available, the ones across
the street. So it really comes down to you know, it really comes down to whether it’s justified or
it’s desired. But a facility to essentially make the turning onto or off of the highway easier might
be desirable.
Mr. Ho: Could I also ask you, in your parking area would you be able to accommodate a bus to
come into the parking area? Discharge, uh, uh, revenue passengers?
Mr. Fregeau: Yeah that is a good question. Uh, we made the dry (vial) – we had two designs.
We had the design with the minimum dry vial width, another design that was wider. Uh, and we
were thinking about a bus – more really a shuttle. The challenge, we had is that in the Historical
Hawaii Area there are two covered culverts that vehicles go over. And those are pretty narrow.
So we – we did have Mr. Wilcox review those, uh, those culverts through a structural
engineering review and concerned that they are solid enough, they are structurally sound enough
that they could accommodate a shuttle. Uh, on the other hand, you know, they are restrictions in
is there unless you start modifying that – that infrastructure which – which is not desirable
because it is historical. So the answer is it depends on the size of the bus. You know, if it's a – if
it’s a small shuttle it shouldn’t be a problem. But you cannot accommodate a large bus like, you
know, a big tourist type bus. That would never work.
Mr. Ho: Could I suggest would it be, uh, out of line to suggest that perhaps that some of the
front portion of the property you make a turnout there for a bus service to accommodate a bus
service? Is there something like that that, uh, could be accommodated? Or perhaps even, uh, a
public bus service.
Mr. Fregeau: So there is a - there is a currently a public bus stop just past the entry on, uh, the
Hanalei Center just in front of the Hanalei Center property. Uh, I do not know how beneficial if
it would be to duplicate that further down. But we could look at it. There is plenty of room there
but it is not Wilcox land. I mean that land belongs to, uh, the state. And so it’s Kuhio Highway
land. And so it’s something that would have to be worked out with the state. But there’s appears
to be sufficient land there between the edge of pavement let’s say and the property line that
would accommodate some sort of a turnoff there for a bus or other vehicles, uh, who want to get
in and out essentially. I think that is what – is that – is that what you are asking?
22
Mr. Ho: Yes.
Mr. Fregeau: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Also, uh, what is – what is geogrid? You, uh, you, uh, that is going to be the parking lot
area I believe. What is geogrid?
Mr. Fregeau: So the geogrid is – so the dry (vial) in the middle of the parking lot will be solid
concrete just as it is in the existing parking lot. So if you are familiar with that parking lot you’re
going to dry (vial) that’s solid concrete. Now when you go to park your car in the parking stall
there is a grid there – a plastic grid. It has a very, uh, hard plastic grid that – that is laid out in a
matrix and filled with pea gravel. And what that provides is it provides enough structural
stability for the vehicle to, you know, essentially park on it and not create ruts and that sort of
thing. So it's – provides a solid service but because it's a plastic grid that has essentially holes in
it with pea gravel the water can flow through that grid and so it’s not impervious. And the reason
that that’s very beneficial is because again in large floods or large rainfall you want as much of
an area as possible to be pervious versus impervious. That way the water, you know works its
way down into the ground versus surface low, you know, creating other issues.
Mr. Ho: And any sidewalk that would be build that would made of concrete. Is that correct?
Mr. Fregeau: Conceptually right now the sidewalk that is – that is on the conceptual with extend
the existing sidewalk, which is concrete. Might be wider. I mean that’s – that’s really another
point of discussion. I think the current sidewalk is four feet plus a curb. We could go five feet let
us say. Uh, if we go to the edge of the highway we – we could add a curb. Uh, but yeah it would
be solid concrete. It would be ADA compliant. So that, uh, you know, slope wise it - it conforms.
Then part of the sidewalk would have a bridge to go over the (inaudible), uh, Hoi. And the way
we’re – we conceptualized building this bridge beau we don’t want to mess up the Hoi and - and
with abutments was to do micropyles on each side of the Hoi a distance from the edge. So that
we are not messing around with the bank for the – of the ditch. It's really a ditch. Then that
provides a platform to then put the bridge on top of. The bridge could be concrete or it could be
made out of other materials. We have not really gone that far.
Mr. Ho: So as I understand it it will be geogrid and then, uh, sidewalk. Is there any plan for a
curb or gutter there? I mean or some kind of water displacement?
Mr. Fregeau: Yeah, so in the current conception we do not have drainage improvements. In a –
in the formal grading plan that would be created next we would work through the drainage. So
once we do the drainage calculations then we get to – need to determine, you know, where that
storm water needs to go. It could be directed using curbs or using underground drains with grates
23
that – which is what is on the existing, uh, the existing parking lot on the other side of the Hui.
So we could duplicate that on – on this side. Uh, we could look at some swales, uh, in some areas
where we have some green space available to, you know, do more of a – a landscape type of
treatment with some natural absorption. But yeah we anticipate that as part of the grading plan
submission we would have to go through, you know, full drainage, uh, analysis report. And then
drainage improvements as part of the parking lot. But not necessarily – we didn’t put that into the
conceptual at this point because of course there needs to be other - other decisions made before
that.
Mr. Ho: I take it that your – your – your brewery will have, uh, uh, (inaudible) gutters because
of the high amount of, uh, rainfall in that area. Where would the runoff from, uh, the gutters be –
be, uh, discharged?
Mr. Conant: Hello, this is Blake. Once again, it’s a similar answer. Um, we are in the conceptual
stage right now. Um, Avery Youn’s our architect so between (Katie) and I and – and Avery we
will come up with a very good answer to your question. I do not have a – I do not have an honest
one right now. I – we do not have that far in the design. Um, we will have gutters a- and we will
figure out where that water is going to go but, um, I do not have an answer.
Mr. Ho: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Fregeau: Thank you.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Other, questions from the other commissioners. One of the issues that
has come up in some of the submitted testimony is that, uh, there has not been enough outreach
(inaudible) the community. Can you speak to what kinds of things have been done and to whom
you brought - you have reached out to community?
Mr. Conant: Madame - Madame Chairman I think you are asking is, um, have we gone out and
spoken to the community, um, at all.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Correct.
Mr. Conant: Um, if that is what you are asking we did not do it in an organized fashion at a
community meeting because of COVID and – and a lot of this is conceptual. However, I got on
my horse so to speak and I went door to door. Um, I know a lot of – growing up in Hanalei I
knew a lot of these people so I’ve been socializing this with the town of Hanalei for quite some
time. Um, I do not like to spin people up on things unless I know we have a real positive
direction and was not too recently did we get a positive direction here. So, we’ve been doing it
24
the old fashioned way. Um, if someone would like us to make a presentation I am all over that.
But, um, nothing formal to date because of COVID.
Mr. Conant: Madame Chair.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Conant: We did send the application to Carl Imparato, uh, on behalf of the, uh, Hanalei
Town Ha’ena Community Association in July and we followed up asking if they wanted to
arrange a Zoom meeting to discuss it. And we never were able to – to put that together. But if
you, uh, if you want us to do so and over the next, uh, month we’re happy to, you know, I’ll
reach out again and try to do the work necessary to set up some kind of a video conference at the
least with the Board of Directors just to discuss further the application and their concerns.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Have a que- que- we did have a concern that was raised and do not
want anyone to go out and be unsafe in these times because the – we are (inaudible) and I would
like everybody to be safe. We all want to get through this together. It was just a question to find
out what kind of outreach has already been done.
Mr. Conant: Yeah.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Could you also respond to – a little bit about the, uh, permitted use
permits or permitted uses for open spaces and why you think that this fits it.
Mr. Conant: The open space area is in the as I said in the urban district. And, in the urban
district the county gets to, uh, establish uses and, uh, those uses can include urban type of uses.
And in my reviewing the open district, the uses that are allowed in the open district it appeared to
be in addition to obviously to, uh, residential uses which are permitted without a use permit a
number of uses that involve, um, commercial or income generating, uh, activities as well as just
more intensive use of land. And so I gave as some examples more intensive use of land would be
religious facilities – that’s churches and police and fire facilities. So that is more intensive than a,
uh, a, uh, a residential use. Uh, recreational vehicle parks, outdoor recreational concessions.
Those are commercial uses. Uh, organized recreational camps, commercial use. Um, and daycare
centers that would – that would involve commercial uses. Um, these are all uses in which you
would have people coming from offsite onto the property. So it just appears to be a – a use that
could, uh, that does not seem to be substantially different from the type of other commercial and,
um, and more intensive uses that would be allowed under appropriate circumstances in the open
district. And I think the open district’s concern, uh, especially in the urban – the State Land Use
Commission, uh, urban district, uh, is visual impacts. I think that that seems to be the greatest
concern and in our case there’s a – all of these, uh, lots on the mauka side of the road have a
25
minimum 3000 square foot, uh, land coverage on them. And we will not be exceeding that land
coverage. So the – the structure on the property is not dissimilar to anything you could build on –
any, uh, open lot within that area. So I – I agree with the Planning Director that this appears to be
a use or structure that is similar in nature to other allowed uses in the area. Again, the decision as
to whether you believe it’s appropriate or not you – the Planning Commission has to make. But I
think it's it in your discretion to do so.
Mr. Hull: Yeah and Madame Chair I will just add because I - that was brought up with a couple
of different pieces of testimony that, um, this application is wholly inappropriate to even be
reviewed by the commission. And to what Max is essentially saying it’s ultimately the planning
director makes the decision as to whether or not the use is similar in nature to one that’s listed
being permissible with a use permit. And indeed a religious facility, a daycare center, um, these
type of facilities are higher intensive use, um, as far as social gatherings, a bunch of people
gathering at a particular site, as well as a particular the retail concession aspect speaks to the fact
that concessions are allowed on open zone lands via the use permit. And the brewery is similar –
it's not the same as a concession but it is similar in nature to the commercial aspect of the
concession. Um, so the department – I made the determination that there is a similar aspect to the
brewery as those listed in the use permit section. Then now it goes to the planning commission
for you folks to review to determine that compatibility. Um, and so we received a number of
testimonies, um, concerned about that compatibility and essentially it’s – it's what, um, the
commission is making its way through now in discussing with the applicant, um, and reviewing
the application. Is this appropriate – can it be done compatibly with the shopping area.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I guess what I – outdoor recreation concession that is different from –
from something that looks like a brewery and a – a (inaudible) at some point that could become
that. Um, I could see that there are similarities. There are also significant differences from that.
So I think the (inaudible) reasons for this because how much compatibility – and it is not
compatibility with what is already there. It is compatibility with the uses within that district.
(Inaudible) but are there other concerns or questions from the Commission members.
Ms. Cox: This is, uh, this is a related concern. I am somewhat confused (inaudible) was that if
this is permitted then that is a precedent for a lot of other requests in the open area, uh,
(inaudible) as opposed to (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Yeah. So one, you know I do not think it's a- this would not be in my opinion a case
precedent setting item. Because they are other use permits that have been entertained previously
in the open zoning district that have commercial components to them, that have gathering
components to them, and that is essentially there’s no precedence to anything. It's not like
because a commercial operation comes and opens in a district if you folks were to approve this
one then by default everything thereafter is going to get approved. Uh, I would say not at all,
26
because there is always the precedent that commercial operations have been reviewed in open
zoning districts. What you folks have to do is review each case specifically to the area and to
whether or not it’s – and determine whether it’s going to be compatible with that area. That is the
main thrust of the use permit. What I think one of the testifiers was speaking about as far as the
creeping urban uses into our open and Ag lands. That also say is not quite, um, I would not agree
with that assessment for this application. Because you – the Commission is seen the department
hold a particularly hard line on creeping – proposal from the Ag or open district within the steep
land use agricultural district that have no connection to Ag whatsoever. Um, we’ve been sued a
few times and actually lost one concern – concerning homesteads in our - our attempt to make
sure that a certain amount of revenue is generated from ag, um, uses in conjunction with that
homestead. We – like I said we – we – we’ve pushed the envelope on how much we can prevent
commercial uses creeping into the Ag district. But this open zoning district is not within the state
land use agriculture district. It’s within the state land use urban district. So then I’d say
Commissioner Cox that still goes back to okay, then if there is a determination it is appropriate to
be reviewed at the planning commission level but now then it goes into is this a compatible use.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions from the Commission to anyone? Kaaina
is this (inaudible) the audience or do we have to have them speak at this point or are we done
with that?
Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, to the agency hearing section was for the members of the public to
testify. And at this time not only it’d be inappropriate it would turn into a – a bit of a mess if we
tried to have a conversation in that manner.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Right. (Inaudible).
Ms. Cox: (Inaudible) because I am a little confused about the agency hearing versus the
applicant discussion. So are – are we going to be asked to vote on the application before we hear
the agency hearing which is where the – there could be more testimony? I am just a little
confused on the process. If you could clarify that.
Mr. Hull: So the agency hearing is held specifically separate and apart from the actual agenda
item so that, you know, testimony can go in there as well as potential intervention requests. Um,
the Department requested that you folks defer the agency hearing until October 13 in anticipation
that we are also gone be asking you folks to ultimately defer this application agenda item to
October 13 as well.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: So we are looking right now to defer this action until October 13
meeting (inaudible) after we have more reviewing.
27
Mr. Hull: Yeah that is ultimately – ultimately it is the commission’s choice. If you guys wanted
to take action now you completely can. That is within your authority. I had recommended going
back and (inaudible) the agency if that was to be the case. But like I said we’re recommending
that it be deferred.
Ms. Cox: Okay it makes (inaudible) you would not want to have action on this until you have
had (inaudible).
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Question? Defer (inaudible). Commissioners can we get a vote to, uh,
(inaudible) for this, uh, (inaudible).
Ms. Cox: I am willing (inaudible).
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Helen could you come closer to your mic?
Ms. Cox: (Inaudible).
Higuchi Sayegusa: Where is the music coming from?
Mr. Hull: Helen you (inaudible). Okay Commissioners I have muted everybody. Commissioners
going to make a motion you have to unmute yourself.
Ms. Cox: All right well I tried to make a motion. All right. (Inaudible) we defer action on the
(inaudible).
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. I was not able to hear that but if someone else. Kaaina can you
help us with that?
Mr. Hull: The motion is ultimately to defer the agenda item. I believe Commissioner Cox was
reading the permit numbers, which is not necessary; it can lend itself to clarity. But I believe at
least in her audible section she did make a motion to defer. I think that would be highly
appropriate just to accept that as a motion. (Inaudible). Just need a second for further discussion.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: (Inaudible) we defer this action until the October 13 meeting. Is there
any discussion? If not then (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Madame Chair (inaudible) roll call do you want to go on a ten-minute recess after
this? Because obviously, logging out.
28
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Hull: Logging out will take some time. Okay. Roll call vote on the motion to defer action
until the October 13 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye. Can you hear me?
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Aye. It appears that is unanimously been approved to defer this action
until 10-13-2020. Motion Passes 7:0. At this point, we will take a ten-minute break and be back.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:26 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 11:40 a.m.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after the recess.
Mr. Hull: Want to get started Madame Chair?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Please.
29
Mr. Hull: Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
DeGracia: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Here. All right lets—
Mr. Hull: Seven present, Madame Chair.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Let us restart the – the meeting.
Continued Public Hearing
New Public Hearing
All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
Mr. Hull: Okay we have no New Public Hearings at this point.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Withdrawal of Petition to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director in the Matter of the
Application of Blaine Perrella appealing zoning classification Determination and
Allowable Building Area Determination for Unit B of Kukuna Seaside Estates on land
located in Aliomau, Kawaihau, Puna, Kauai, Hawaii Map Key: (4) 4-9-005:015 0002.
30
Mr. Hull: So moving onto General Business Matters I.1, withdrawal of the petition to appeal the
decision of the Planning Director in the, Matter of the Application of Blaine Perrella appealing
zone classification determination of allowable building area determination for unit B of Kukuna
Seaside Estates on land located in Aliomanu, Kawaihau, Puna, Kauai, Hawaii tax map key
number 4-9-005:015 CPR 0002.
So this is essentially, Mr. Perrella had appealed the determination of the Planning Director
concerning a particular zoning aspect. Since that time, we have come too essentially an
agreement on how to move forward so he is just ultimately withdrawing the petition to appeal the
decision. And so, I’m here for questions if you folks have. Ultimately, we are just asking the
Commissioners to motion to accept the withdrawal.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Is there any discussion? Questions for Kaaina or anyone else?
Ms. Cox: Good job on, getting it resolved.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: If not could I have a motion?
Ms. Otsuka: I make a motion to accept the withdrawal of the petition to appeal decision of the
Planning Director in the matter application of Blaine Perrella in zoning classification
determination and allowable building area determination for unit B of Kukuna Seaside Estates on
land located in Aliomanu, Kawaihau, Puna, Kauai, Hawaii tax map key number 4-9-
0050150002.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded. It has been moved and seconded. We
accept the withdrawal of the petition to appeal the decision of the Planning Director in the matter
of the applicant Blaine Perella. Are we ready for a vote? Let us have a vote on this because we
can tell who is voting in which direction let us do this roll call as much as we can.
Mr. Hull: Roll call vote. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
31
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Sorry Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here. Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes 7:0, Madame Chair.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay.
Applicant’s Request to Amend Condition No.16 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV- 2012-
18, Use Permit U-2012-14, and Special Permit SP-2012-38 to extend the hours of
operation involving the recreational shooting facility= Benjamin Ellsworth (Kauai Eco
Sporting Clays, LLC.).
Mr. Hull: Next on the agenda is General Business I.2, application request to amend Condition
No. 16 of Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2012-18, Use Permit Z-IV-2012-14, Special Permit SP-
2012-38 to extend the hours of operation involving the subject recreational shooting facility
applicant Benjamin Ellsworth of Kauai Eco Sporting Clays, LLC. Dale is the planner on this. I
will turn it over to Dale.
Mr. Cua: Good morning, Chair. Members of the Commission.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Morning.
Mr. Cua: What you have before you is, uh, consideration of applicant’s request to amend
Condition number 16 of the existing permits, uh, to modify the hours of operation. The project
was previously considered through class four zoning permit Z-IV-2012-18, Use permit U-2012-
14. Special permit SP2012-38.
Mr. Cua read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: In order to allow the business to generate income and continue the operation the
applicant is seeking to extend their hours of operation to 10:00 pm. And I’ve attached your I’ve
32
attached a copy of the applicant’s request and it's identified as exhibit C. Therefore, I will – that
pretty much concludes the records report for now. Then maybe we can hear from the applicant.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Is the applicant available?
Mr. Cua: The applicant is online. I think his okay. I think his line is muted right now. Yeah.
Mr. Hull: Ben if you are on, you have to unmute you are I do not think we can unmute him.
Mr. Cua: Oh. Okay.
Mr. Hull: Hold on let me see.
Mr. Cua: It is the 346 number.
Mr. Hull: You know if he is on a phone he may not be able to unmute himself. Ben if you are
listening try hang up and then call back into the line. They should be able to give you a live line.
Looks like he hung up.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I believe we are still waiting for the applicant.
Mr. Hull: Yes, what happened is when there was background feed I muted all the participants.
Um, and what we’re realizing is that if you mute a telephone participant then it – then they call in
via phone he’s unable to unmute himself.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Oh.
Mr. Hull: So he is stuck in the mute. So he’s hung up and he should be calling back in. Give
him a minute or two.
Mr. Cua: Yeah he is trying to call back in. I just got a text from him.
Mr. Hull: Okay here he is. I will let him in.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Is. Mr. Ellsworth in? Is he on the line now?
Mr. Ellsworth: Ben Ellsworth.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Great.
Mr. Hull: Sorry, about that technical confusion there but thanks for calling back in. Do you
want to take over in response, presenting your application and any insights you would like to
lend to the commission? Okay. Ben you are still muted actually. Not sure how we are going to
deal with this.
Woman: Kaaina, can you unmute everyone?
33
Mr. Hull: I can’t Jodi – Jodi are you still on the line?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yes.
Mr. Hull: If so since you set the meeting up can you unmute Ben?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: I cannot. I do not know. Once he calls in he should have been able to
been audible. I did not – I did not mute him again. You can try one more time.
Mr. Cua: He is willing to call me on my phone and then I can put him on speaker if you are okay
with that.
Mr. Hull: Well why do not – why don’t you try that. Have him call your landline Dale and your
landline is probably the loudest speaker – you have speaker on your landline, right?
Mr. Cua: I can put my cell phone next to the laptop.
Mr. Hull: Either way. Whichever works?
Mr. Cua: Okay.
Mr. Hull: Here is Ben.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay you can hear him. Mr. Ellsworth would you like to say anything
about your application.
Mr. Ellsworth: I am sorry. Say one more time.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Would you like to present anything on your application?
Mr. Ellsworth: Yes, thank you. Ben Ellsworth and Jay Brooks from Kauai Eco Sporting Clays
for the record. Just requesting that the hours be amended, um, for the purpose of small caliber
pistol shooting past daylight hours up until 10 o’clock. Um, here to answer any questions that the
Commission might have.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any questions for the applicant from the Commissioners?
Mr. Ho: Yeah, Ben, when will you let the, when will you start shooting? It says daylight hours.
Is that at 8 o’clock in the morning?
Mr. Ellsworth: I am sorry so we currently are operating during daylight hours. The request is to
extend operating hours up until 10:00 pm.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: The question is what time do you start. What time does daylight hours
start?
34
Mr. Ellsworth: Oh. We generally never start earlier than 8:00 am.
Mr. Ho: And what days are you open for this? You want to do this every day seven days a week.
Mr. Ellsworth: We – we opera- we operate seven days a week.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: If this is because of COVID19 and not having visitors how will
keeping it open until 10 o’clock help your business.
Mr. Ellsworth: Generally right now our – our customer base is solely local clientele, many of
which work during the day. Um, that would be available to come out and participate in certain
activities, uh, after, uh, (inaudible) allowing us to operate into the – the evening time.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: How close…Sorry. How close are your nearest neighbors for the
sound?
Mr. Ellsworth: I believe that it’s close to one mile. Um, and for the record we have been, putting
on activities in the evening time on the shotgun side facility for the entire eight years that we
have been in operation. So as far as any possibility of noise complaints and whatnot we’ve never
experienced any problem with that. And the request is to be able to use small caliber handguns,
during this – during the evening time. So we do not anticipate any complaints of noise based on
the previous experience that we have.
Ms. Otsuka: I do not have a question for that. I have a comment to the applicant. I commend the
applicant for taking responsibility for nearby residential areas by using less powerful ammunition
and it helps lower the sound. And also for making necessary adjustments to the lighting
situation. Thank you.
Mr. Ellsworth: Yes, that is correct. So the request is actually to be able to shoot the smallest
caliber 22 caliber which produces the least amount of noise possible.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions?
Ms. Cox: (Inaudible) will not go up at all since you were doing previous, um, evening activities?
Mr. Ellsworth: I am sorry. Say that one more time.
Ms. Cox: Does this mean that the noise level in the evenings will not go up because you are
already doing evening activities?
Mr. Ellsworth: That is correct. For the past eight years, we have conducted, nighttime shoots up
until 10 o’clock on our shotgun facility shooting 12 and 20 gauge shotguns, which produce a
much higher decibel rating than a 22-caliber pistol or rifle.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions? And if there are any complaints about
noise you’re willing to work with the Planning Department to mitigate those problems?
35
Mr. Ellsworth: Correct. I believe that that is actually one of them, um, that that was in the
original use permit, recommendations for the pistol range itself, yes.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not could we have
recommendation of the Planning Department?
Mr. Cua: Sure. Moving onto the recommendation. Based on the foregoing reasons it is hereby
recommended that the applicant’s request to modify Condition No. 16 of class four zoning
permit Z-IV-2012-18, use permit U-2012-14, and special permit SP-2012-38 be approved and
amendment shall read as follows. Uh, condition number 16 – the use of the pistol rifle range
shall terminate by 10:00 pm and be limited to those activities represented by the applicant. The
applicant shall work with the planning department to mitigate any noise impacts generated by the
activities.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Do I have a motion?
Ms. Apisa: I will move to approve the applicant’s request to amend Condition No. 16 of class
four zoning permit Z-IV-2012-18, use permit U-2012-14, and special permit SP-2012 to extend
the hours, um, to 10 o’clock pm.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded. If I could ask a question before we do
this. This will be amendment to the 2019. Is that correct?
Mr. Hull: It would be an amendment to the 2012 Zoning Permits.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Not to the 2019 zoning permit.
Mr. Ellsworth: No. Excuse me, Chair? The 2012 Use Permit, there was no, limitations on that
on timeframe. This would be only a recommendation or a request to amend the 2019 permit, um,
number 16.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: So that would be 2019, which also has it in - in there that would be – is
for an initial temporary period of two years. Next year this would be up for review.
Mr. Ellsworth: Correct.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Do we have – we have a motion to approve the applicant’s
request (inaudible)?
Ms. Cox: (Inaudible). But we may get (inaudible) modified, um, (inaudible). I personally do not
get (inaudible).
36
Mr. Hull: Sorry, Commissioner you are kind of breaking up. I think you might have to speak a
little closer to the speaker or…
Ms. Cox: I am actually hugging the thing. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Hull: Yeah.
Ms. Cox: Okay. So my concern is not with this (inaudible) but (inaudible) comment that
(inaudible) request (inaudible) then that we would have the (inaudible) to look at (inaudible).
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I am having problems hearing but it may be my machine on this side so
if other people have heard it then—
Ms. Otsuka: I could not hear her.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay.
Mr. DeGracia: I could not also.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: So, can we have you (inaudible) Helen?
Ms. Cox: I guess so.
Ms. Otsuka: Helen? Are you basically saying that because this situation is – he wants to amend
it because of COVID you’re concerned that other applicants may use the same reason? Is that
what you were saying?
Ms. Cox: Yeah. I have no problem with that as long as (inaudible).
Ms. Otsuka: Because (inaudible). I believe each – each, uh, case and applicant is different and
will be based on individual.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: (Inaudible) what I could get. You are also wondering whether at the
end of COVID whatever that means that whether this would then be deleted. Is that correct
because we are doing this for COVID but if COVID goes away miraculously then—
Mr. Ellsworth: Chair, if I may.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I cannot – okay. Who’s speaking please? I am sorry.
Mr. Ellsworth: This is Ben Ellsworth. May I make the comment about that? Yes. Originally,
when we applied for the use permit we had no anticipation of using the facility at nighttime.
Now the opportunity has presented itself for the possibility to offer in the evening time provided
that we may want to be able to generate revenue in a further manner. So COVID or no COVID,
the opportunity would be there for us to be able to generate revenue, with the same impact that
we have always created or less impact that we’ve created to the community. Um, so I would not
37
necessarily say that is a primary reason why we are requesting this. Um, the primary reason
would be that it just be one additional way for us to generate revenue.
Ms. Otsuka: What Helen is concerned about I also initially was concerned and like what
happens if COVID ends and he still wants to continue that 10:00 pm. But I feel if no one
complains – if the community doesn’t complain as they have not in eight years I don’t see a
problem with that.
Ms. Cox: I think – I do not see a problem either. But, (inaudible) for additional review.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: And so but as a – as a rule everything that was in the 2019, permit
would also apply for this. So the initial Condition 15 which says that “it is the operation of the
pistol rifle range and combination trap skeet facility shall be temporary for an initial period of
two years only. Additional extensions may be granted for longer periods of time by the Planning
Department provided adverse impacts are not generated that affect the public health, safety, and
welfare as well as the surrounding environment and Conditions of Approval are complied with.”
So that continues on so in a year the Commission could review – or the Planning Department
could review this whether (inaudible ) before that they can also – if they’re any complaints the
Planning Department can work with the applicant to ensure that it is – that problems are
mitigated. Is that correct?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Mr. Ellsworth: Correct.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. So we now have a motion that has been seconded to accept the
applicant’s request to amend Condition 16 of Class four Zoning Permit Z-IV12-2012-18, Use
Permit U-2012-14 and Special Permit SP-2012-38. Although this actually is relevant to the 19
application. Does that have to change anywhere before we do this?
Mr. Hull: No so, the in technical terms it is still the 2012 Use Permit numbers. In 2019, they
amended the 2012 permits to reflect pistol shooting essentially. However, technically it is still
the use of sorry the 2012, Z-IV-2012-18, Use Permit U-2012-14, and Special Permit SP-2012-38
are ultimately the prevailing permits. Therefore, you still would need to amend those. Then
there is no – there is no 2019 I know Chair has been using it and Ben has been using the phrase
the 2019 permits. Technically, there is no 2019 permit. It is a 2012 class four zoning permit that
was amended in 2019 and is being proposed to now be amended in 2020 but this would not be a
2020 permit. Still is technically, um, that still goes 2012 numbers. Sorry to be—
Chair Nogami-Streufert: But it would also mean that it was amended in 2019 would also apply
to this, correct?
Mr. Hull: Correct. Correct.
38
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Got it. All right. So, orders to amend the permits that were
established to – well any discussion for the discussion by the Commission members? If not can
we do a roll call please?
Mr. Hull: Roll call vote. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commission Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passed 7:0, Madame Chairman.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It’s been moved and passed.
COMMUNICATIONS (For Action)
Housing Director Adam Roversi to provide a briefing on Bill NO. 2774 and
matters related to amendments to the County of Kauai Policy.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Next up we have a Communication J. 1, one from Housing Director Adam
Roversi to provide a briefing on Bill No. 2774 and matters related to Amendments to the County
of Kauai Housing Policy. Ultimately this is a request that I think it was initiated by
Commissioner Ho and with the – I discussed it with the Chair would be appropriate to have
39
Adam come (inaudible) articles in the news and Housing Policies definitely germane to our
Zoning Policies and the way Planning functions. So I just want to thank Adam for being here.
Adam give it over to you, my man.
Mr. Adam Roversi: Aloha everyone. Can you hear me okay?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Yes, I think so.
Mr. Roversi: Adam Roversi, the Housing Director. If it is okay with you folks, I will give a
brief summary and then I am happy to answer any questions anyone has. Um, so, uh, really –
quickly, the Housing Agency has many jobs and activities but broadly, we do two things. We
administer about $8 million annually in Rental Assistance Programs and we develop Workforce
Affordable Housing. Our Development Mission is, uh, broadly speaking has two aspects. One,
we directly develop housing projects. Either ourselves or with our nonprofit or for profit
partners using Federal Grant Funding and County Development Funds. Broadly speaking those
direct development projects, um, because of the source of funding broadly speaking serve people
at the very low-income levels in our community – 60% area median income and below.
Our second aspect of our development activity comes from the Housing Policy in that we are
charged with overseeing and administering Workforce or Affordable Housing requirements that
are imposed on private developers who seek to develop market housing on Kauai. So the
Ordinance 860 of the Housing Policy is the statutory to that requires a percentage of any private
development to, uh, be at workforce housing prices and made available to people at workforce
incomes. The current Ordinance 860 was enacted in 2008. Broadly speaking it imposes as a
starting point 30% workforce housing assessment on any private development. They are various
incentives embedded in the current ordinance that allow that 30% initial assessment to drop
down as low as 15% depending on the nature of the project. And currently the current ordinance
requires that when workforce housing units are developed pursuant to this project they have to
remain affordable for a period of 20 years.
It also broadly speaking provides a developer with some options so when a developer comes to
the Housing Agency and want to develop let us say 100 unit subdivision they have several
options to satisfy the requirements of the policy. They can develop actual housing units that they
are required to sell at certain price points. They can provide the county with land in lieu of actual
units on which the County would eventually develop its own housing. Or they can pay a fee in
lieu either of the other two. Again, the county has an agency that would use the funds that would
provide, um, to develop housing ourselves. As I mentioned the current – current Ordinance was
enacted in 2008. Since 2008 and the enactment of this Ordinance it has, um, not resulted in the
direct production of any Workforce or Affordable Housing units. So it is arguable whether the
Housing Policy is to blame for that or economic conditions since 2008 are to blame for that – for
better or worse the housing policy came into effect the same exact year as the mortgage crisis
and the housing market collapsed.
So arguably, you know, there was not much building going on period with or without the
Housing Policy. Rather than dwell on what is to blame, the housing agent – or the County
Council had been endeavoring to make some changes to the Housing Policy for many years.
40
There was a lengthy Housing Policy Task Force that was put together some time ago. It failed to
come up with a consensus of any amendments that could garner the support of the entire task
force so that came to nothing. A second taskforce was put together by Council. That task force
also failed to reach a conclusion but the one thing that they did do was to commission a, uh,
study of our existing policy by a mainland firm that specializes in Inclusionary Zoning Policies.
Now that – that is the Nexus report which is available on the County Housing Agency website.
And that report was charged with studying our policy, comparing it to other policies here in
Hawaii as well as nationally and coming up with some recommendations as to how our housing
policy could be amended to better effectually meet this goal of resulting in, um, some workforce
housing production.
And housing generally based on the last statewide study I don’t remember the date that I goes to.
I want to say 2030 but I could be wrong. Kauai has a deficit of some 4000 dwelling units. So
aside from just needing workforce housing we – we have an obvious affordable housing crisis.
So soon, after I was appointed Director of the Housing Agency I was charged with going through
the Nexus report and coming up with some recommendations to Council. So I am going to go
over the initial recommendations from the Housing Agency. Noting that they have morphed
somewhat since they went to council. And, so we’re talking about a moving target. In fact, the
next Housing Agency Committee Hearing will be tomorrow in which these amendments could
change more. And I’m sure what would happen there. So this is all up to Council at the moment.
But the initial proposals, I’ll go over them quickly.
So the current, Housing Policy defines Workforce Housing at between 80% and 140% of area
median income. So for reference 140% AMI of a three bedroom home on Kauai at 140% AMI
would be today – these numbers change every year – would be $737,000. So the – one of the
recommendations from the Nexus report was that that – that number is too high to be considered
workforce housing. And the recommended reducing our definition of workforce to under 20% of
AMI and - and down to 80%.
The idea being that homes priced at 140% at that $737,000 number were too close to market rate
houses – market rate housing, and that the people who could afford those homes are able to
compete in the market as it is and don’t require government assistance for housing. At least not
as much as the people at the lower income levels. Also they noted that when we ask a developer
to produce workforce housing at those price points that also have 20 year deed restriction,
attached to them that they become difficult to market because they’re so similar in price to the
market rate units, um, they’re difficult, uh, to find buyers who would be willing to accept that
deed restriction when they can buy a market rate unit, uh, at a very similar price point. So our
initial proposed amendment was to change the definition of workforce housing from 80% to
120% and for reference 120% three bedroom unit just for reference would be $624,850.
The second proposed amendment to the policy was to extend the period of affordability that is
attached to a workforce-housing unit that is created from 20 years out to 50 years. The Nexus
analysis concluded that this was much more – well, they – the discussed the national average of
45 years. We selected 50 going slightly above the national average. But, many other
jurisdictions have, um, periods of affordability that extend well beyond that 75 or 99 years. Um,
at 20 years we are already admittedly the most restrictive in Hawaii and the most other counties
are ten years, ten, or 15. We also proposed an amendment to increase the workforce housing
41
assessment for resort-designated areas within the visitor destination area. And the last – last we
were, uh, proposal which has received the most attention in various newspaper articles that you
all might’ve seen is we proposed two, what I refer to as narrowly tailored exemptions from the
workforce housing policy. So, and these grew out of – before I get to the exact exemptions they
grew out of two things.
One of the prime recommendations form the Nexus report was that under the current, um,
housing ordinance it is financially infeasible to develop multifamily housing projects, apartment
style rental units – multifamily outside of the visitor destination areas. So were not talking about
resort condos. We are talking about simply multifamily housing options, um, anywhere else on
Kauai – regular residential, um, housing products. It’s infeasible to develop those under the
current policy because when you – when you impose a workforce housing requirement on a
developer what you are essentially doing is you’re requiring them to subsidize lower priced units
by charging a slightly higher price for your market rate units. But the market on Kauai either for
rentals or for sale units, um, can’t charge a high enough price for a market rate multifamily unit
to offset the subsidy that’s required for the workforce units. So noting that these types of
multifamily projects are the most bang for the buck when we are trying to build, um, affordable
housing for the most people that these apartment styles developments are the way to go at least
for a large part of the population.
The report suggested creating an exemption for apartments. rather than simply create an
exemption for apartments we looked at compared the Nexus report to the general plan and some
of the goals, uh, set forth in the general plan to increase density in our town cores where we
already have infrastructure, transportation, um, employment opportunities, education, healthcare,
et cetera. So we proposed two separate exemptions which are both aimed to satisfy the goals of
the general plan and also to effectuate the development of multifamily apartment style
developments. So one we designated specific Town Core Special Planning Areas as exempt from
the workforce housing assessment. Um, it's not – it's not simply a blanket exemption though. So
a developer would be exempt from the housing policy, in what we have designated so far in the
Lihue Town special planning – the town core special planning area, Koloa, and Kalaheo. But
only if they built to the maximum density allowed on the lot in question. Or in the case of form
based codes at Kalaheo or Koloa to the extent that they build a multifamily project.
So they’re not exempt if they build at below the maximum density that’s allowed. The point
being that we are trying to incentive maximizing in field development, maximizing density in
these town core areas. Which would help reduce traffic, provide additional housing et cetera.
Um, related to – slightly overlapping, slightly different from the special town core areas that
we’re expecting we also provided an exemption, um, on high density lots zone R ten or higher.
Again, provided that the developer has to develop to the maximum density allowed. You don’t
get an exemption on R – on an R 20 lot if you choose to only develop ten units. You’ve got to
develop the maximum number allowed and then you would be exempt from a workforce
housing, um, uh, exaction imposed on your project. As a practical matter, um, while – and this is
for lots that are R ten or higher so R ten to R 20, um, while there are some of these lots scattered
in many town core areas the vast majority of R ten or higher lots on Kauai are all in the greater
Lihue area including parts of Puhi so it's in as a practical matter sort of an expansion of the Lihue
Town Core Special Planning Exemption.
42
And we did some studies of existing multifamily projects in the Lihue Town Core area especially
and reviewing – so the question comes up well if you’re - if you’re going to exempt these
multifamily types of projects, how can you be sure that they’re all going to be in a workforce
price point? Um, we cannot absolutely be sure but we made an educated assumption based on
analysis of all the existing multifamily projects in the greater Lihue area. And the new revised a
half a dozen, maybe seven, uh, multifamily projects we found that all of them were rented at
prices below 100% AMI. Grant it, several of them are older but I think the point being that they
are not serving a luxury housing market - because of their location, they are not. And I want to
point out that not both of these exemptions only apply outside of VDAs. So they – there is no
exemption within a VDA area.
So these types of units – these multi-family units they tend to be smaller, they tend to be they’re
all outside of visitor destination areas as they can’t be TVRs. By their nature we made an
educated assumption that they would by and large once developed, if developed, they would tend
to serve the workforce community on Kauai – on our island whether they’re for sale units as
condos or for rent units we make a presumption that they will generally be at workforce
affordable prices – not luxury condos, um, for absentee owners. Um, because we are not
absolutely sure – we’ve just made an educated guess - we recommended that the council – that
we, uh, the council attach a s- ten year sunset provision to these two exemption provisions.
So Council this will evaporate in ten years. Council will be required to go back and analyze
whether it’s worked. Has it accomplished its goal of developing multifamily projects that are at
affordable prices within these town core areas, which is what the general plan tells us we are
supposed to be doing? If it has worked then they can renew the exemptions. If it has not worked,
it will have expired of its own accord. One modification that Council has made to these initial
recommendations is that they have converted the proposed exemption within the Special
Planning Town Core Areas and the high-density lots to a special assessment. They were not
comfortable with a no strings attached assessment initially.
Instead have essentially imposed a second option for a workforce housing assessment so that in
these specific areas the town cores or high-density lots you are – you can opt to have an
assessment of your project in which all units will have to be at 120% AMI or below. Or, you just
follow the existing assessment provision of 30%. So a developer gets to make a decision based
on their own financial analysis of their project, whether it works out better for them to move
ahead with 30% current scheme or to utilize this new 120% price point for all units for their own
project. Um, I am not sure if the council will keep that or if they – they may revert to our
originally proposed across the board exemption language but that is in council’s hands at this
point and I imagine they’ll discuss it more tomorrow. So that is my summary and happy to, uh,
answer any questions if anyone has any.
Mr. Ho: Adam can you hear me?
Mr. Roversi: I can.
43
Mr. Ho: Yeah, okay. One of the options for developer is he can give you land in lieu of building
the units. Is that correct?
Mr. Roversi: Correct.
Mr. Ho: What if would that included the, infrastructure, if he had (inaudible) road, water,
electrical, sewer?
Mr. Roversi: So that is all a recommendation within the housing policy. It's not an absolute
requirement. That is I guess to leave some negotiating room. But, uh, essentially they – we have
to if they were to propose the land option, um, an appraisal of the land would be required a
review of its appropriateness for housing development, and we definitely take all that
infrastructure into consideration because often that can cost more than the housing development
itself. Um, and then it ultimately has to be approved by both the Housing Director and go to
County Council to have them approve the appropriateness of the land. And that just as an
anecdote, that’s exactly what happened for the current Koa’e project in Koloa. Grant it, um, that
project was a requirement that predated ordinance 860 – the current housing policy. But it was a
sort a pre-ordinance 860, ad hoc requirement that was imposed on the Puuhua development.
And, uh, the county required in addition to the land the installation of electric, sewer, and water
to serve the project so that it would essentially be build- buildable ready, um, for the county
and/or, uh, a county partner to step in and begin to develop a project.
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions?
Ms. Cox: Just a comment. I thought it was pretty well thought out.
Mr. Roversi: Well, I like to think so. But, I think that we’ve gotten a lot of the proposed
amendments h- have both some, uh, some points that are applauded by affordable housing
advocates. They have some points that are applauded by the development community vice versa.
Have some points that made both mad. So since we’re making everybody slightly mad perhaps
we’re doing something right by, uh, by developing a policy that sort of finds a middle ground. At
least that is my hope.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: What are some of the (inaudible) housing?
Mr. Roversi: Sure. Well, I will just talk about some of the extremes. From the developer’s point
of view – some developers do not believe that there should be any such thing as a housing – a
workforce housing assessment. That it is a violation of property rights and we should allow the
free market to do what it does and get out of their way. Uh, so that is sort of an extreme point of
view that we should be reducing all of the, uh, well we - we heard in comments that we should
just strike this entire policy from the county code and have nothing. Um, and then from the
opposite side, um, we’ve had, you know, affordable housing advocates tell us that we’re simply
providing a giveaway to developers, that we should increase the requirements and not decrease
the requirements. Um, a- as a, you know, my job is to produce workforce housing units, support
44
having them be at as low a price as possible and affordable for as long a time as, uh, as long a
time as possible. But as an agency who’s also charged with actually developing houses I have a
very realistic I think understanding of how much it actually costs to do that. And how far you can
push a private developer for extractions from them before they decide that it’s simply not worth
doing business on Kauai or developing housing at all. Um, so as I mentioned the current policy
from 2008 with its 30% assessment and its period of affordability has not resulted in any housing
units being produced. So I would prefer to reduce, uh, this is – so one other thing I did not
mention. As the – and this will get the answer to your question. So as this has evolved through
council and, um, we have had a lot of public testimony. I think there have been four committee
hearings at council. Um, there has been – there has been a housing workshop with a bunch of
stakeholders. There have been numerous community meetings. The housing agency through this
process has recommended also reducing the 30% base assessment to 20%. Uh, and this gets to
your answer your question. So the reason we’ve done that is, um, under the current 30%
assessment scheme as I mentioned we haven’t gotten any workforce housing policy. So I would
rather have a lower percentage of something than 30% of nothing which is what we are
effectively achieving under the current policy. Um, and – and I view this entire thing as, uh, and
– and legislation generally as – as an experiment. I don’t know if it’ll – if reducing the policy to
20% and creating these exemptions I can’t promise that it’s going to result in a, you know,
windfall of workforce housing projects. But, um, I think we need to try something. And if it
doesn’t work we can try something else. But just sticking with the status quo or making it more,
um, difficult, uh, to develop housing is not going to serve our community.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Do you think COVID19 that is happening here will have an impact on
what you are proposing or the positive (inaudible)?
Mr. Roversi: It is hard to – it's hard to know, um, exactly what the long term effects of
COVID19 will – will be. Anecdotally we have – we, um, have heard stories of people with
disposable income coming to Kauai as a place that does not have COVID19. Uh, people who can
work remotely from a computer and, uh, buy houses sight unseen, uh, which is only going to
make our workforce and affordable housing crisis on Kauai worse than it is. Whether those
people will stay here long term after COVID19, uh, passes your guess is as good as mine. Um, at
least in the near term it seems that the local population is relatively stable as far as keeping up
with rent and not falling too behind – far behind with mortgages because so far at least, um, there
has been a decent unemployment and emergency rental assistance response. But as those –
there’s also been an eviction moratorium, but as those, uh, assistance programs wind down if
they’re not renewed or funded I think we could end up with much more of a crisis both through
the local rental and homeowner community, um, for foreclosure and eviction problems. Um, so
that only intensifies the need for affordable housing options. Um, so I – I do not know if I have
answered your question. I think COVID brings up a lot of unknowns.
Mr. Ho: Adam if you, what is the maximum deed restrictions you can put on projects. Someone
develops an apartment unit and uses government money, you know, and then, uh, I mean there
has to be a deed restriction on that for affordable housing. What – what is the maximum here on
Kauai?
45
Mr. Roversi: Well, so the projects that we develop or that we provide direct funding for
generally the County keeps ownership of the land and leases the land to a developer to build an
affordable housing project with federal – various federal subsidies. And we effectively impose a
permanent affordability requirement on those projects through our ground lease. For example.
The Puu Opae Street project that is currently being developed I have to go get the exact
document. But I think it’s a 65 year ground lease. Do not quote me but something close to that.
After which the project reverts to the county so the county would keep it affordable in perpetuity
effectively. The non-county funded programs under the current housing policy have a 20-year
affordability restriction. But the projects that we have direct involvement in effectively stay
affordable forever.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Are there any other questions? If not thank you Adam for coming and,
uh, (inaudible) given (inaudible). I think it has been very informative. And we can make better
(inaudible).
Mr. Roversi: Okay. Thank you for your interest. I appreciate it. We will see what happens at
council tomorrow whether it moves on to final reading or if there is further amendments.
Mr. Ho: Thank you, Adam. Take care.
Ian Jung, Esq., to provide a briefing on Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020 to
develop a mixed use commercial/multifamily residential project containing
spaces for retail, office, and restaurant operations, 62 residential units and
associated improvements on a parcel situated within the Lihue Town Core area
on the corner of Rice Street and Umi Street, further identified as 3016 Umi
Street, Tax Map Key: 3-6-003:010, and containing a total area 1.5313 acres.
Mr. Hull: Commissioners, moving on to Communication 2. Ian Jung, Esquire, to provide a
briefing on class four zoning permit Z-IV-2020 to develop a mixed use commercial multifamily
residential project containing for retail, office, restaurant operations, 62 residential units and
associated improvements on a parcel situated within the Lihue Town Core area on the corner of
Rice Street further identified as 3016 Umi Street, TMK: 3-6-003:010 and containing a total area
of one point five three one acres.
This is also another Commission request that in which Chair Streufert and I were discussing that
she and other Commissioners would like a briefing as far as to what this particular housing
project is. So thank you Ian for submitting the the updated plans of the project being available to
give the Commission briefing, so turn it over to you.
Mr. Jung: Sure. Yeah thanks for the opportunity. I know there was some interest in seeing how
this project works into reality and I think where we are at now is, uh, we just completed our
community outreach pursuant to Conditions 1 and 2. If you take a look at those Conditions 1
and 2 basically we’re asked to go in and do a designer view – I think we can all agree the first
iteration wasn’t the best example of I think what should be the forefront of Lihue Town Core.
So the revised iteration we just went through and met with the Lihue Hui which is a group that
was started – it’s an unassociated, uh, unincorporated association which was started by a few
46
individuals that were heavily involved in Lihue Town Core design plan. That include architect
Palmer Hafdahl, historian Pat Griffin, Lori Ho, and, Dr. Addison Bulosan.
So I met with those individuals to go over the exhibit A document for which is in your packet.
And that was the revised version. I also for cross comparison attached exhibit B that showed
what we originally proposed. If you look at those and I apologize. I have had to apologize so
many times for this. But if you look at the second or third page, um, you can completely
disregard that standup paddle surfer figure on the building side there. I encouraged these guys
not to do motifs and actually one of the comments we got back from the Lihue Hui was hey let’s
look at doing one of the bureau programs that the county and the Rice Street Business
Association are currently undertaking on the County building and a couple of the buildings that
are along Rice Street. So that – that frame of a standup surfer please disregard that. So this new
iteration we have is focuses on a little more articulation of the building where before we had a lot
of massing that we needed to deal with. So we added the balconies. Um, have a little more flavor
to the horizontal articulation. And then the pop out for some of the street windows, um, that also
helps with the vertical articulation. So the idea was to kind of break up the massing, keep the
color consistent with, um, kind of the whites that are currently in use with the old historic county
building as well as if you go further down Rice Street.
The signage down below obviously that will be (inaudible) for some of the retail components
associated with this 63-unit project. Uh, and then we'll also have some – can’t really see
probably on the printed version but if you look really closely you can see some rock wall façade
which I’ve introduced to the developer to look at what we did with the Kauai Museum.
Additionally, they found some pretty similar moss rock wall. It's faux but it looks fairly realistic.
It’s from a company on the big island. So it incorporates some of those features.
The whole thing that was interesting that the design crew came up with is you look at the natural
wood element that is for that initial tower there – the elevator. So that one is kind of a modern
application in the old Lihue Town Core. But the feedback we got they weren’t too concerned
with that modern application. What they – the feedback we got from the historian Pat Griffin was
threefold. Number one, is she wanted some awnings both on the – on the lower floor retail
component as well as the, uh, the third floor. I can pull this out and show you. Are you guys able
to see your exhibits or would you like me to show you? I do not know if you can see that. But
I’ll try and do my best to point to it here. So the awnings that Ms. Griffin was here on the third
floor and kind of break up the massing and do a little more color addition there. And then also on
the lower floor here. Uh, for street coverage, uh, that is before kind of walk along the street we
could have a little more (inaudible) elements.
The other component she had was on the Umi Street parking which is this side here that maybe
pop that out towards inside of the property a little bit to create a stepping effect. But after
discussing that with (inaudible) she realized that the – it’s going to be an affordable housing
project So we’re going to have – there’s some cross elements that come into play with the
construction and when we do that articulating step out if it does increase costs for various frames
and structural components. So I’m not sure – and I sent my comments that I summarized from
our meeting over to her and I’m still awaiting her response. So I’ll pull those formal in a memo
to the Planning Director. Um, so we can look at that. And then her third comment was in the
47
parking if you look on, uh, fourth page in our parking area there is a requirement of Lihue Town
Core which this plan did not include because it was sort of our – we were focused more on the on
how the building looked. But in the parking area we wanted to deal with including some tree
wells for a little more tree involvement and vegetative involvement for the parking area which is
– which is a requirement of Lihue Town Core so we'll focus on that when we have the meeting
with the Planning Director for final designer view to include those vegetative requirements.
Therefore, those essentially were the comments from the group on how the project appears. You
know, certainly this is a work in progress. So we’re going to our next step after we revise the
plan based on the community feedback we’re gone to come up with a plan and bring it over to
the Planning Department to sit down with them to show them and get their approval for design
reviews as a part of the overall project. But it is in progress. The sale has closed so we – the new
owner is underway and the design team is continually working on it. And, you know, I’ve been
on the phone with Adam quite a few times in the past few weeks as we try to evaluate how we
can move forward with the affordable housing project. Because I do not know if any of you
follow, what is going on with the Federal Government but a lot of the LIHTC applications with
is the low income tax housing program all the applications were deferred due to COVID. And it
looks like some of the funding from the State level also may be running dry.
So we’re also looking at alternative forms of how to deal with doing affordable housing getting
affordable housing money to do the project and move forward with, you know, having it be
affordable housing. So there are other options we’re looking at but we’re still going to be
pursuing the LIHTC application in November and then if that doesn’t work out then we can also
apply for the next year which will be in February as well if things stay on track post-COVID.
So that’s the update. If you folks have, any comments on the design package were happy to take
them in and do our best to fold them in when we eventually get back to Planning Department.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Ian it looks like there is now an elevator. Was that always in there?
Mr. Jung: Yeah there was always an elevator. If you look at the original plan, which is on
exhibit B– the elevator, was situated in the – more towards in the middle of the back. Not on the
street front. But the building kind of shifted around to create that elevator on the outside of the
stairwell around it going up to kind of have that – that feature of a corner with the wood if that –
that helps with the description.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Fine. Any questions of Mr. Jung?
Mr. Jung: Let me just note one more thing too that Dr. Bulosan brought up is apparently they’re
working on a concept of allowing, um, these park type events for parks, you know, Parks
Department will allow events in the the old Lihue courtyard. And one of the ideas is we’re going
to have a the Parks Department (inaudible) reverse park unit but keeping that parking out, uh,
during these events and maybe staging food trucks there where the use of the park could be fully
used by participants and have people cross the street to get food and not have to worry about
getting food – food trucks taking up the taking up the old Lihue County Building parking lot
there. So that’s one other option people had which, you know, our client is totally open for. It
will kind of give a nice revival to the – to the old courtyard there. But it is something we’d have
48
to work through because we’re going to have to dedicate as a part of the seizure on the Lihue
Town Core we’re going to have to dedicate a lot of that parking over to the County along with a
portion of the sidewalk as a requirement from the Lihue Town Core design plan. So we’re
working through that with the – the Department of Public Works right now and see what they
would – would want and how it’s potentially gone look from a siting standpoint.
Ms. Otsuka: I understand the exterior white was the color chosen for the start purposes. Offices.
But I know it's just a mockup and a draft but It looks very stuck. (Inaudible) this white a little
more subdued.
Mr. Jung: Okay. You know, the Lihue Town Core plan has a specific color palette of earth tones
that we can work within. So, we’ll definitely note that and work through that with the Planning
Department. We do not have their feedback yet on this plan so I am sure they are listening right
now.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: You have lava rock on the front but not on the side. Is there a reason
for that or is that cost reasons or—?
Mr. Jung: On the lower levels, you know that horizontal clotting.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Right.
Mr. Jung: It is much more cost effective to do that than the rock wall. I think the feature of the
rock wall was more - be more prominent on the Umi and Rice Street corner.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Right.
Mr. Jung: That will be the highlight of the overall project up there.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I was not thinking of an/or I was thinking of an and.
Mr. Jung: Okay. I am taking notes so – okay you are thinking of wrapping the rock wall around
into the parking lot at the southern - southeastern portion.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Whatever areas you have right now that look like concrete block.
Seems to me if you have it look more Hawaiian if you will but the cost is always a factor and we
want this to be affordable so – it is just a thought.
Mr. Jung: Okay.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Thank you for working on this. It looks a lot better than the first
one did.
Mr. Jung: Yeah I would agree.
49
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It also gives the – more privacy it appears because you have those pop
out parts.
Mr. Jung: Correct. I think it does do a good effect of breaking up the massing as well. Um, it,
you know, if you folks have a comment on the color for the balconies too that is always an
option as well to – to help break up the massing. With the black on white, it does help kind of
give a contrasting element to the color palette. But if you have a- another color I’m certainly
open to opinions on it.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: If there, are no other comments or questions thank you very much Ian
for joining us today and giving us this update. It has been very informative. I understand where
you are going with it and, uh, how far you have come. It is great.
Mr. Jung: Yep. And if, you know, the Planning Direct wants to put us back on once we have a
design – the final design package we’re happy to jump on and show that package as well.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: All right. I love the art on your wall.
Mr. Jung: Well thank you.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Moving along. Continue on – thank you and we will see you again I am
sure, Ian.
Mr. Jung: Yeah. I will be on standby here.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay. (Unintelligible). Kaaina you are – you have muted yourself.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Mr. Hull: Sorry about that. All right next on the agenda – and thanks again Ian. Next on the
agenda item K, Committee Reports. I will turn it over to Subdivision Committee Chair Ho to
give the Subdivision Committee Report.
Mr. Ho: Busy morning for us. The Subdivision Map Approval for Kukui’ula’s Development.
They are 14-lot subdivision. Got the map approved for that. All final map approval here.
Kilauea Ohana Plateau, Final Map Approval granted. Matthew Nelson, Stephanie and Katherine
Skow, map approval granted. Kukuiula again, for Final Subdivision granted. Subdivision
Kukuiula Final Map Approval granted.
These are these are Extension Request of AOAO Kulana Condominium Extension to May 22,
2021. McBryde Sugar, an Extension to November 18, 2021. Stephanie Fernandes Extension to
January 22, 21. Finally Robert and Kerrilyn Barros Extension to May 28, 2021. These are for
the Commission acceptance and approval. Thank you.
50
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Questions for Mr. Ho?
Ms. Hull: You know, I just realized and Matt or Jodi might have to jump in to help me with this
but I just realized that one of the Commissioners wanted to recuse himself from one of the
Subdivision actions. And so if we could take the Subdivision Committee’s Report in total with
the exception of the Kilauea Plateau Subdivision and handle - Commissioner Ho handle that
subdivision recommendation for final approval separate from the entire report.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Can I have a motion to accept the report in totality except for the
Kilauea Plateau.
Ms. Apisa: So moved. So moved.
Mr. DeGracia: Seconded.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It’s been moved and seconded that we accept the Subdivision Meeting
Minutes in totality except for the Kilauea Plateau. Any questions? All those in favor? Aye.
(Unanimous voice vote).
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: All those opposed? In that case, it has been moved and accepted.
Motioned Passes 7:0.
Now we need another motion before the Kilauea Plateau Subdivision – Subdivision Report on
Kilauea Plateau.
Mr. Chiba: Madame Chair I do not know if this is the right time or not but I want to report a
conflict of interest with this particular item immediately because I was employed with Gather
Federal Credit Union and would like to declare a conflict of interest. I recuse myself. Thank you.
Mr. Chiba recused himself from this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Apisa: I move that we accept the subdivision committee report and recommendation for the,
um, Kilauea Plateau.
Mr. DeGracia: Second.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It’s been moved an seconded that we accept the Subdivision Report for
the Kilauea Plateau. Any discussion?
51
Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, (inaudible) request for appeal and (inaudible).
Chair Nogami-Streufert: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.
Mr. Hull: Oh sorry. Is this better?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Yes, very much better.
Mr. Hull: Sorry. So just, want to also report that in addition to the Final Map Approval – prior to
the final map approval to note that there was a request for possible intervention and/or appeal of
the Planning Director Decision that was submitted concerning this concerning this final
subdivision application map. Ultimately I under the input of the County Attorney, that request
was denied on the basis of there is no rule to allow for intervention in a Subdivision matter or
even on a Planning Director’s Decision. They, both, you know, the representative, the
landowner, as well as the County Attorney (inaudible) that the opposing landowners still have
the right to exercise right of legal action directly to the courts to oppose this Final Subdivision
that it was inappropriate to be handled at the Planning Commission level. So I just wanted to say
that for the record and for the Commissioners that are voting on that – that request for
intervention was considered, discussed, ultimately acted upon in the Subdivision Meeting.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Thank you. Are we ready to vote? Based upon that information could
we have a roll call vote on this?
Mr. Hull: Roll call vote. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba is recused. Commissioner Cox? Sorry Commissioner Cox I
could not hear.
Ms. Cox: (Inaudible). I am abstaining (Inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Okay we can kind of hear that. Is that an aye, Commissioner or a no?
Ms. Cox: Abstain.
Mr. Hull: Oh, abstain, abstain, okay. Commissioner Cox is abstaining. Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
52
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes 5.1 abstained. Madame Chair.
UNFINISIHED BUSINESS ( For Action)
Mr. Hull: Moving on, there is no Unfinished Business.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Hull: Now moving on there is no further New Business.
For Action - See Agenda F for Project Descriptions
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on October 13, 2020. The Planning Commission anticipates meeting via teleconference but will announce its intended meeting method via agenda electronically posted at least six days prior to the meeting date.
Mr. Hull: With that, we have no further agenda items. Our next, Planning- because of the lack of
applications and we have seen, you know, somewhat of a more robust agenda over the past few
months, there is no meeting anticipated for the second September meeting. So the next
scheduled meeting is for October 13, 2020.
Mr. Ho: Mr. Hull?
Mr. Hull: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ho: Before we go (inaudible). Could – could you, could you explain to us a no vote
(inaudible) position in voting? Could you tell us about (inaudible)?
Mr. Hull: I want to - Jodi correct me if I am wrong but a silent vote runs with the majority I
believe for Planning and Zoning. Jodi (inaudible) Matt?
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Right. According to the Commission rules, a silent vote or abstention
there's (inaudible) abstention in the rules but any – it is a silent vote and a silent vote goes with
the majority.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Okay.
53
Mr. Ho: It is just a prototype for the issue for Ms. Cox.
Mr. Hull: Yeah. It depends on the way that the rules are struck. Some organizations or legislative
bodies the silent vote will just be that – it will not be counted in the majority or in – in, you
know, the minority or it is up to the (inaudible) bodies’ rules. Pursuant to the Planning
Commission Rules, a silent vote is essentially a noncommittal to the position; however, it will
run with the majority.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Nogami Streufert: And with that if there is no – there's no business to be discussed may I
have a motion to adjourn?
Ms. Otsuka: I move to adjourn today’s meeting.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: It has been seconded that we adjourn this meeting until 13 October.
All those in favor?
Group: Aye.
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Chair Nogami-Streufert: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much for being here. It has
been a long meeting but a very (inaudible) one I think so thank you very much for participating.
Chair Nogami Streufert adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
_________________________
Arleen Kuwamura,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of __________ meeting.
1
`
KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 13, 2020
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by
Chair Glenda Nogami Streufert at 9:05 a.m., - Microsoft Teams Audio +1 469-848-0234,
Conference ID: 236 848 0234# The following Commissioners were present:
Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert
Ms. Donna Apisa (Left at 11:53 a.m.)
Mr. Melvin Chiba
Ms. Helen Cox
Mr. Francis DeGracia
Mr. Roy Ho
Ms. Lori Otsuka
The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaaina Hull,
Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, Romeo Idica, and Planning
Commission Secretary Leslie Takasaki; Office of the County Attorney – First Deputy County
Attorney Mahealani Krafft, Deputy County Attorney Denny Cowger; Office of Boards and
Commissions – Administrator Ellen Ching, Support Clerk Arleen Kuwamura
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nogami Streufert: Called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Mr. Kaaina Hull: I do believe everybody who planned on calling in has
called in or logged in. Do you want to start the meeting now?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please. Could we have the roll call?
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madame Chair. Commissioner Apisa? I see her there. Commissioner
Apisa, are you present? I guess she is on the phone. I will go on. Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
2
Ms. Cox: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa, are you present? I believe she is on the phone, but noting that
she is present and on the screen. We will call her. Chair Streufert?
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Here.
Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madame Chair. Seven present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Hull: Madam Chair, you have a quorum. The next order of business is approving the
Agenda. The Department has two recommended changes to the Agenda. One is that the Agency
Hearing Section F, be heard in tandem with Sections L, and M, so that the Agenda discussions
can occur right after the Agency Hearing portions. And we are recommending that General
Business I… General Business I.4., for Ahe Group be moved and be after I.2., Kauai Blue, Inc.
We anticipate it being a relative short discussion so hence the move. So we are recommending
those two changes to the Agenda.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Do I hear a motion to approve the Agenda as amended?
Ms. Cox: I move we change the Agenda; we amend the Agenda as noted.
Mr. Ho: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the modified Agenda.
Is there discussion? If not, all those in favor - let us do this just as a voice vote. All those in
favor? Aye (Unanimous voice vote).
Commissioners: Aye.
3
Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed, "nay.” Motion carried. 7:0. The Agenda has been
approved as modified.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Mr. Hull: There are no minutes to be accepted.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None)
Mr. Hull: Next on the Agenda, there are no Receipt of Items for the record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Hull: We are now into Agenda Item F, Hearings and Public Comment. The Planning
Commission accepts written testimony at least 24 hours in advance to the Agenda. We have
received of number of written testimonies for various Agenda items that I will read onto the
record once we get to those Agenda items. But for anybody or any member of the public - not
the Applicants. Applicants will have time to discuss their Agenda items when they come up.
But is there any member of the public who has called in who would like to testify on any Agenda
item at this time? If so, please state your name. I will hold for five seconds to see if anybody
here is calling in.
Mr. Carl Imparato: Hi. This is Carl Imparato. I would like to speak on the Agenda item for the
Hanalei Commercial, please.
Mr. Hull: Carl, just to check, we will be moving into the specific Agency hearings. Did you
want to speak during that specific Agency hearing?
Mr. Imparato: Correct, during the hearing. Thank you. I—
Mr. Hull: Okay. It - it's - its following right next, but - but this is just in case anybody has to
leave before their Agenda items. Is there anybody else from the members of the public who is
calling in who does not want to wait for their specific Agenda item to come up that would like to
speak on any Agenda item at this time? We will hold for five seconds. Seeing none.
Continued Agency Hearing
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2020-7, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV -
2020-16, and Use Permit U-2020-13 to allow construction of a new craft brewery building
and associated site improvements including on-site parking, driveway, pedestrian bridge,
private wastewater system, and operation of food trucks, AND Amendments to Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-88-4, Use Permit U-88-25, Variance Permit V-88-
6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, as amended, and SMA(U)-2006-1, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2006-1, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1 to
accommodate parking for the proposed development, allow increased land coverage, and
reduction in the number of permitted Employee Housing within the eastern portion of Lot
4
17, involving parcels situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town,
approx. 550 ft. east of the Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection, immediately adjacent to
property identified as 5-5091 Kuhio Highway, Tax Map Keys: (4) 5-5-009:008 & 009, and
containing a total area of 4.165 acres = Hanalei Commercial Company, Inc/Na Pali
Brewing Company, LLC. [Director’s Report, S1DR and attachments to S2DR received by
Commission Clerk 7/28/20; Addition to Agenda received and hearing deferred 8/11/20;
S3DR and S4DR received by Commission Clerk 8/18/20; Second & Third Addition to
Agenda received and hearing continued 9/8/20.]
Mr. Hull: We will move into F.1, Continued Agency Hearing, Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U)-2020-7, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-16 and Use Permit U-2020-13, to
allow construction of a new craft brewery building and associated site improvements, including
onsite parking, driveway-pedestrian bridge, private wastewater system, and operation of food
trucks. And amendments to SMA(U)-88-4, a Use Permit U-88-25, a Variance Permit V-88-6,
and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV -88-30, as amended, and SMA(U)-2006-1, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2006-1, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1, to
accommodate parking for the proposed development, allow increased land coverage, and a
reduction in the number of permitted employee housing within the eastern portion of Lot 17.
This proposal is located 550 feet east of the Kuhio Highway up-the-road intersection
immediately adjacent to the property identified as 5-5091 Kuhio Highway. The Tax Map Keys:
is 5-5-009:008 and 009. The Applicant is the Hanalei Commercial Company, Inc., and Na Pali
Brewing Company LLC.
This is the Agency Hearing portion, so I know Carl was calling in. Carl, did you want to present
your three minutes of your testimony now?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Kaaina before we start- before we start out on this, if I could make a
slight deviation to the Agenda to just introduce our Counsel to the Planning Commission. It is a
new Counsel and I would like people to know who he is because as we continue the discussions
today, this may come up and we want to have, him weigh in on it. So Denny, uh—
Deputy County Attorney Mr. Denny Cowger: Hi, everyone. My name is Denny Cowger. I am
the new Deputy County Attorney for the Planning Commission.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Well welcome to the Commission.
Mr. Cowger: Thank you.
Ms. Apisa: Excuse me, Chair. If I could, I tried to, I intended to unmute myself but I had
actually muted the whole thing so I missed the roll call. I just wanted to make sure you got me
in.
Chair Nogami Streufert: We do have you. Thank you, Donna.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
5
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. So now, we are on the Continued Agency Hearing on the
Special Management Area Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-16, Use Permit U-
2020-13 on the new Craft Brewery building. All right.
Mr. Hull: Yes. And so for those members of the public that called in, I believe Carl Imparato,
you had mentioned that you would like to speak on this Agency hearing?
Mr. Imparato: Yes, please. And I - should I go ahead right now?
Mr. Hull: Go ahead, Carl.
Mr. Imparato: Thank you. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Carl
Imparato. I am speaking on behalf of the Board of or appearing of the Hanalei Hokuala
Community Association. We have submitted some testimony, but it was late, so, I just want to
summarize two very important points. First of all, in supporting the withdrawal of the request
for the permits for the proposed retail development on the open-zone land. We think it's
important to point out that a brewery, alcohol sales, tasting room, food truck, and dining area are
uses that are not even remotely similar in nature to any of the allowable uses in the Open-Zoning
District under CZO Section 8-.24. In that, if the CZO intended that uses of that nature should be
allowable in the Open-Zoning District, the CZO's table of allowable uses would have explicitly
included retail uses in the list, as it does for the residential, resort, commercial, and industry
zoning district, but it does not for the open and agricultural zoning districts. I think that is an
important point to keep in mind as you go forward with this application and future ones. Pardon
me.
Our one major remaining is the Applicant's request to delete Condition 4.e., from its existing
2006 permit. Now the 2006 agreement between the County and the Applicant was that in return
for being allowed to increase parking and place - or housing units on the open-zone portion of
Lot 17, and that would be the County's increasing the allowable lot coverage by almost 6000
square feet. In return for that, the Applicant agreed to reduce the maximum allowable amount of
retail on the commercial-zone portion of the lot by about 2500 square feet. That is Condition 4.e.
Now that was the agreed-upon tradeoff, uh, and if not for that tradeoff, the Applicant would have
been required to locate all the additional parking on the commercially zoned part of the lot. Now
the Applicant wants the County to rewrite the deal by keeping the increased land coverage that it
got in 2006 on the open-zoned portion of the land, but not having to reduce the maximum retail
square footage on the commercial-zoned portion of the land. And we believe that there is no
reason or justification for unconditionally deleting this Condition. It just allows the Applicant to
walk away from the obligation to the 2006 agreement while retaining the benefits of the
agreement.
So we ask that you, the Commission, do not decide on this until you thoroughly understand what
this means. First, what is the current land coverage on the commercially zoned land? Second, if
the Applicant were allowed to delete Condition 4.e., where would the additional 2500-square feet
6
of retail development be located? Finally, unless there would be sufficient public benefit from
the deletion of Condition 4.e., for example, by created a requirement than permission; a
requirement to construct within two years employee housing that is permanently affordable.
Unless there is some public benefit like that, then we believe Condition 4.e., should remain in
force. I thank you for your time and attention and, uh, appreciate the opportunity to speak to
you. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Are there any other members of the public who have called in that would like to speak
on this Agency hear- hearing concerning the Hanalei Commercial Company and the Na Pali
Brewing Company.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Does Robert want to speak or was that just a joining in?
Mr. Hull: I will call for any—
Robert: Just joining in.
Mr. Hull: Okay. Again, one more call. Any members of the public that would like to testify in
this Agency hearing for Hanalei Commercial Company or Na Pali Brewing Company. Seeing
none.
The Department would recommend closing the Agency hearing.
Ms. Apisa: I move we close the Agency Hearing.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second?
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Agency Hearing. Is
there any discussion on that? If not, let us do a rollcall vote on this, please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Yes. Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
7
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: The motion passes. 7:0. Madam Chair.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2020-7, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV -
2020-16, and Use Permit U-2020-13 to allow construction of a new craft brewery building
and associated site improvements including on-site parking, driveway, pedestrian bridge,
private wastewater system, and operation of food trucks, AND Amendments to Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-88-4, Use Permit U-88-25, Variance Permit V-88-
6, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-30, as amended, and SMA(U)-2006-1, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2006-1, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1 to
accommodate parking for the proposed development, allow increased land coverage, and
reduction in the number of permitted Employee Housing within the eastern portion of Lot
17, involving parcels situated on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town,
approx. 550 ft. east of the Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection, immediately adjacent to
property identified as 5-5091 Kuhio Highway, Tax Map Keys: (4) 5-5-009:008 & 009, and
containing a total area of 4.165 acres = Hanalei Commercial Company, Inc/Na Pali
Brewing Company, LLC. [Director’s Report, S1DR and attachments to S2DR received by
Commission Clerk 7/28/20; Addition to Agenda received and hearing deferred 8/11/20;
S3DR and S4DR received by Commission Clerk 8/18/20; Second & Third Addition to
Agenda received and hearing continued 9/8/20.]
Mr. Hull: So as the Commission has amended the Agenda so that the review of the actual
Application will follow immediately after the Agency hearing. We move directly into the actual
review of the Application and Petition. I will turn it over to Romio, who is our Planner for this
particular project.
Staff Planner Mr. Romeo Idica: Good morning, Madam Chair, Fellow Commissioners.
Regarding Class IV Zone Permit Z-IV-2020-16, Use Permit U-2020-13, Special Management
Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-7, to amend Special Management Area SMA(U)-88-4, amend
Use Permit U-88-25, amend Variance Permit V-88-6, amend Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-88-
30, amend Project Development Permit PDU-20 - 2006-1, amend Special Management Area
SMA(U) 2006-1, amend Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2006-1. Applicant, Hanalei Commercial
Na Pali Brew- Brewery.
8
Mr. Idica read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Idica: They are still proposing the installation of new parking spaces, which it's - 35 new
geogrid parking spaces, the installation of hardened surfaces, the driveway, and relocation of the
taro, the kalo field, access. And to construct the two new employee houses that was granted in
previous permits. That is pretty much about it. I can answer some questions or maybe defer to
the Applicant. You guys can question the Applicant on this proposal.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions for the Planner?
Ms. Apisa: Well this is - I would say, well, I you have to do a patch job and, you know go
ahead. We have a board meeting.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I think that is not - she is not responding to this—
Mr. Hull: Okay. Is that—?
Mr. Hull: If I could, Commissioner Apisa – but are there any questions for the Planning
Department concerning the - the Petition?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, I do have one. You said that they have withdrawn their request to
increase lot coverage, and so now, we are back down to 33 1/3%. Is that correct?
Mr. Idica: Yes that is correct, Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So with increasing of either Lot 17 or Lot 9?
Mr. Idica: No.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. And the two new employee housing, that was as originally
planned?
Mr. Idica: They are planning to construct, yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions for the Planner from the Commissioners?
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair, a question, please.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Ho: I believe there is a procedure requesting here that the Applicant has three years to make,
substantial progress on the permit? Yes, no? If the Planning Department determined that no
progress is being made, does that cancel the Permits automatically?
9
Mr. Hull: Let me just dive into that, just a little bit of - quickly there. Previously and for years
now, the County Attorney's position was that unless the Planning Commission takes affirmative
action to nullify the permits or to issue in order to show cause, that the Planning Department on
its own could not nullify these permits. There has been a little bit of a change in the legal
landscape in the recent Watanabe ruling concerning an SMA Permit that had not completed - that
the Court determined had not completed substantial construction. And so the Planning
Department is going through an assessment on all the SMA Permits that have that Condition in it
to discuss with those property owners whether or not it still meets the threshold of substantial
construction. The issue here is, of course, that a large amount of the construction has been
completed years ago as far as the commercial development, the parking lots, and whatnot. So
much of that substantially has been completed. Concerning the, you know, two affordable house
- or two employee housing units, it could apply specifically to that as far as it being nullified
after three years. But, that would take a certain amount of consultation with the County
Attorney's Office should we hit that three-year threshold and substantial construction has not
been completed. Sorry that seems like a waffling answer. It is just we are within a new
somewhat unique legal landscape as far as our recent ruling.
Mr. Ho: To your question, Kaaina how do you determine substantial progress? Do they meet,
let us say, a monetary value on the amount of the Permit? If they make, you know, 3.3 million
and they do a million dollar of the work, is that substantial progress to you or do you have to see
something physically done?
Mr. Hull: Typically and standardly it's the foundational principle applies where if they put in
the infrastructure and set the foundations within the time parameters set, that that would
constitute substantial construction.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are SMA Permits usually - do they usually expire in two years or three
years or is that discretionary?
Mr. Hull: Pursuant to the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations, they expire after
two years unless otherwise set by the Planning Commission. So if the Planning Commission sets
a longer timeframe or a longer time-period, then that longer timeframe set by the Commission
would hold.
Mr. Ho: Kaaina, now for clarifications. If the Applicant cannot meet the three-year deadline,
but comes before, where does he have to go to extend that deadline? Is it from you or from the
Commission?
Mr. Hull: It would be from the Commission. So in exercising prudence and caution, should the
Applicant be coming close to that sunset window of three years, it would be best for the
Applicant to come in to the Commission should they have not completed construction to request
an extension.
10
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a reason why this would be three years as opposed to two
years? Is there something in the plan that would require three years as opposed to two for
substantial construction or substantial improvement?
Mr. Hull: I think that it would have to - we - the Department has no objections to this. This is
in discussions with the Applicant, so that may be a question you may want - the Commission
may want to pose to the Applicant.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. If there, are no other questions, would the Applicant to - for -
makes a statement?
Mr. Max Graham: Yes. This is Max Graham, and I represent the Applicant. And as you know
we, uh, originally had a joint application between Hanalei Commercial, Inc., and Gaylord pre-
uh, Wilcox is the president of that entity and Na Pali Brewing Company, and the members of
that entity were Katie Conant and Blake Conant. The - the, uh, portion of the Application
relating to Na Pali Brewing Company was the construction and development of the brewery on
Parcel 9. That has been withdrawn now. And so, the only issues left are the, um, matters
relating to the additional parking and the construction of the two additional employee housing on
the open portion of Lot 17, which is the lot which is, uh, is the site of the Hanalei Commercial
Center.
So let me just quickly summarize what we are asking for. We are asking, as I just said, that the
request for the brewery be withdrawn and because we do not need the brewery or the extra
parking associated with the brewery, we are, uh, withdrawing the request to increase the land
coverage in the open district. So we'll just be using the current land coverage of 33 1/3%. Uh,
with regarding to parking, the Applicant proposes to construct 35 new improved parking spaces
to the east side of the Auwai, and associated with the new parking will be the extension of the
sidewalk along Kuhio Highway, the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Auwai. If
necessary, the relocation of the taro access road that goes from Kuhio Highway to the mauka
side of the property to the taro fields. The, and we're asking to amend former Condition 4.d., to
allow the employee housing to be used not only for current employees, but also retired
employees. Finally, we are asking that the Condition 4.e., from the 2006 Permit be deleted.
That Condition requires the -that 50% of the land coverage associated with the employee housing
be used to calculate the permissible total gross floor space of the commercial center.
So the total gross floor space in the commercial center limited is limited to 25,000 square feet,
uh, and there has been an exchange of Conditions on - which apply to the open district and which
apply to the commercial district. And all of them - all of that has been associated with the
overall intent of having a commercial center that is located on the mauka side of the Lot 17, with
an open lawn area on the makai side, and that's what you see now at the Hanalei Commercial
Center. So the whole frontage of the property is open. In order to accomplish that, rather than
trying to put parking in the commercial area, the Planning Commission allowed the parking to
11
put on the open side. So that is why you have the increased in - that is why you have the
increase in the land coverage on the - the open side. And in addition, the Applicant has been
trying to construct employee housing, so it - so far we have two employee houses. The
Applicant would like the opportunity to construct an additional two and, at this point we - uh, it's
proposed that they would be located in front of and on the makai side of the two existing
employee houses. Unfortunately having the Condition that says half of the employee housing
land coverage should be allocated against the commercial gross floor area encourages the
developer to make smaller homes for employees to save on the amount that might be assessed on
the total floor area on the commercial side.
So in retrospect, I don't think it makes sense. I think you want to encourage the owner to
develop employee housing that is the same size as normal homes for everyone else. So, for
example, the two current homes have - I think the interior floor area is 2000 square feet, and that
equates to about 2000 square foot land coverage, as well. So in our opinion, it doesn't make
sense to have that restriction. There is still a restriction on total gross floor area on the
commercial side, which will ensure that the shopping center remains primarily the way it looks
now. Just to give you an example, the total land coverage on the commercial side of Lot 17
permitted would be 80%, which equates to about 81,000 square feet, and right now, there is
about 68,000 square feet of land coverage. So it's not exceeding land coverage on the
commercial side. Anyway, so that is the - the reason for the request for the deletion of 4.e.
In terms of the additional time, it's really - it's a matter of the economics of the current, our
current situation with COVID and the owner just feels that he may need additional time to
develop the employee housing and you know, we're hoping that in that 2021 everyone is back to
some kind of normalcy, but we don't know. And, it may not be until 2022 when - when
commercial, activities are - are somewhat similar to what was happening before the, uh, COVID
crisis. So, uh, that's the reason for the request for the extension. The Applicant is willing to
continue to - or is willing to submit annual reports to the Commission to let the Commission
know what's happening in terms of the development of the afford- the employee housing, but
does request that he be granted this additional time to commence substantial progress. And, by
the way, I have with me in this - in my office and Dan Friesho who is the engineer, just in case
you had any - uh, you have any technical questions.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commissioner to the
Applicant? Max, I do have a couple of them. The first one is you said additional - two
additional employee housing. There were originally, I think it's on the 2006 allowed three. So is
this in addition to the three so it's now five as opposed to three what - what is the intent there?
Mr. Graham: The, and I have to apologize. It is a little bit - I have not been clear in - in
describing what is happening there. So when the, uh, commercial center was first approved,
there was an old house…
12
Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct. Which is—
Mr. Graham: The (Inaudible) house.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Graham: And so the proposal was to renovate the (inaudible) house and then build, three
additional employee houses so that—
Chair Nogami Streufert: Two (inaudible).
Mr. Graham: Actually, it was three. If you - if you look through there, it - the idea was to, eh,
build three addition - in add- additional houses and then the (inaudible) house would be a
renovation.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct, the DUWA house was.
Mr. Graham: And so what happened is the (inaudible) house was renovated, but essentially, it
was reconstructed completely. So if you look at the property now, you'll see a brand-new house
where the (inaudible) house was. There is a second house adjacent to it on the sort of along the
mauka boundary. And just to clarify this whole issue where it's specifically saying we want to
build two more homes and the idea is to build them in front of the two existing homes. Just so,
this - 'cause I think it is a little bit confusing as to whether it's three or four. The - the fifth house
is actually not on Lot 17. It is on another lot on the west side of Lot 17, which is owned by the
Applicant, but it has - the - that lot is not part of this application. And there's a house there that
is used there for an employee. But we're not talking about that house. So four employee housing
for on Lot 17 is what is being requested.
Chair Nogami Streufert: That Romio, if I could ask you a question. Was that your
understanding, that to be four as opposed to two additional houses?
Mr. Idica: Yes. I mean, in the beginning there was five because the other was house was located
on Lot 40 - 149. And there were - the (inaudible) house, which was reconstructed and then the
other one, I believe was done - I could be wrong, so I don't want to, like, state the date. But there
are two - there are three houses right now, one of them located on Lot 149. Then when they
construct these other two residence (inaudible) get back a total of five.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any other questions for the Applicant from the Commissioners?
Mr. Ho: I have one, please. Mr. Graham - Mr. Graham, because this employee housing will
become a Condition, we're asking for if you should complete the commercial portion of your
permit and the - and do not do the employee housing, can that be leveraged against your, uh,
Certificate of Occupancy?
Mr. Graham: Um—
13
Mr. Ho: And a copy work against the, uh, Certificate of Occupancy?
Mr. Graham: The employee housing is not a Condition of the Permit. It is a substantive request
by the Applicant. So - so I think of it, my answer is that unless you made it Condition, the fact
that the Applicant failed to complete all of the employee housing, would not affect the status of
the Permit.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Without that Condition, would that also mean that it could be rented
out as for non-employees, also?
Mr. Graham: No. I think that - so I will say no. Just a flat no because what we are requesting is
that those homes be used for employee housing, and we understand that the Condition of
approval by the Planning Commission is that they be used for employee housing and there is a -
that is why we are asking the condition to be amended to allow retired employees. So it is
current or retired employees, employee housing on- only. If the Applicant wanted to rent to
anyone else, the Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission and ask for a
change in that Condition and that approval and certainly if the - to me, that it would be a
violation of the Permit if the Applicant used those homes for non-employee housing purposes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. I have another question, Max. You said right now the
commercial area, it, uh, has an 80% coverage and that would include approximately - the total
would be 81,000 square feet. Right now, you said that there are 68,000 square feet that are
encumbered. That leaves a total of 13,000 square feet. Do you really need that many more
square feet for two employee housing?
Mr. Graham: That is the commercial side, so we do not need - a- actually I do not anticipate on
the commercial side any increase in the, lot coverage.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So if you - if we took up the 50% land coverage for employee housing
in the total, what percentage of the lot would be would be covered would have land coverage,
would be encumbered? If you took out the 50% versus 50%; added, 50%, would be delated from
it.
Mr. Graham: Okay. So let us assume that the homes are -- and I think this is fair -- 2000-square
foot each. The total land coverage for four homes would be 8000 square feet. 50% of that
would be 4000 square feet. So you would have 4000-square foot less total gross floor area on
the commercial side, and that 4000-square feet, if the only way to add that was to add new land
coverage; in other words, a new building that's 4000-square feet. That would be the amount that
the land coverage on the commercial side would be increased by, 4000-square feet, if you did not
have the Condition 4.e. That is the most that could happen there. And what I'm saying is you'd
still be well below the total amount of permitted square footage of land coverage on the
commercial side.
14
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thanks. Any other questions for the Applicant?
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Apisa, I believe you are muted.
Ms. Apisa: Max, how many bedrooms are in these houses? Is it a three-bedroom?
Mr. Freshio: The houses are not designed—
Mr. Graham: Of the existing.
Mr. Freshio: Oh, the existing? I will have to check on that.
Ms. Apisa: I am just curious it is 2000-square feet. I mean, that is a decent-sized house and I
was just curious.
Mr. Graham: I am sorry. I do not have that information handy.
Ms. Apisa: Okay. Yep. That's - that is fine.
Mr. Freshio: I believe that on the County website the houses are listed respectively about - I
want to say 1100 be and like one at around 1000. So they're actually smaller because their
living area is stacked on top of - you know, the parking are underneath. So they are actually not
2000 square-foot homes, but—
Chair Nogami Streufert: The 35 new improved parking that you are including in your - is that
has that been included in the total lot coverage?
Mr. Graham: That - that will be part of the total lot coverage, yes. So we still can't exceed 33
1/3%, so however we do it, we have to make sure we don't exceed that amount, which is we
suggested using the geogrid material for parking because that's it's more porous than you know
asphalt parking and allows a great- uh, more flexibility.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So the new - the 35 new parking spaces and the extended driveway,
sidewalk, pedestrian bridge, and the employee housing will be on the commercial side or on the
others.
Mr. Freshio: No, they will be on the - on the open - on the open side.
Chair Nogami Streufert: On the open side. So including all of this on the open side, what is the
total coverage, land coverage?
Mr. Freshio: It is going to be within the 33 - eh, again, we have not - you know, we - basically
there was a withdrawal. There was a designing place for the brewery. Now that has gone away,
so we need to redesign. But I believe that the the total allowable coverage on the - in the open
district was around 23,800 square feet, and so, and that's based at - on 33.33%, allowable
because that opened an area of 71,000. And so that's what we have to, you know, work with
15
that. And currently, again it's - currently the situation is that there is some existing drive
(inaudible) that was that is, you know, as built, and there's some very, very informal parking
that's been taking place. People are parking past the Auwai anywhere. So we need to do a
redesign, and that redesign will then limit, you know, the coverage in the open district, too,
what's allowable or 23,833 is, you know, the best number I have right now.
Mr. Graham: So again, the short answer is that we cannot exceed the 33 1/13%, land coverage,
which in the open area would amount to 23,800 square feet.
Mr. Freshio: Correct.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But that also is where employee housing is going to be, is that correct;
on the open space?
Mr. Graham: Yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So that is also going to have to be calculated into your - your, uh,
total—
Mr. Graham: Yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: A lot?
Ms. Cox: Yeah, and I want to come back to a statement you had earlier. This is Helen. Um,
because you said that the reason for trying to strike or to withdraw the Condition of 4.e., was so
that the houses could be the same size of other houses. But we just heard that the two houses
that are already on there are quite a bit small than 2000-square feet. So I'm wondering if the
condition for 4.e., remains, I know you haven't done the design yet, but what size housing, do
you imagine would be possible uh - on Lot 17?
Mr. Freshio: Again, it depends on the design. If they were comparable house, both houses,
probably out - that would be at in the area of below 15000. But we also have to consider each
house (inaudible) we've got some (inaudible) and their a- ability to park and so on and so forth.
So - but that is part of the work that needs to be done is to determine what can be fit in there. I
think the point is that the current restriction puts more constrains on the size of housing that
would be possible. And, you know, is that - is that a - is that a good thing to do or not? I mean,
that - that is not my decision. But, you know, what we'd - what we'd like to do is achieve a - a
balance between what the workforce will need on the lot and also continuing to support the
commercial activity, uh, per the original, you know, agreements. Again, I think you also have to
keep in mind that overall, uh, Mr. Wilcox's - has been, you know, ha- this lot is very open, even
on the commercial side compared to, you know, other nearby lots. And so it's not as if there's a
pattern of, you know, we trying to get more coverage out of what's available. I mean, we're just
trying to come up with the right balance between, you know, what should be done on the lot and
- and there's other considerations, as well, on the mauka side with respect to the view plains and
16
so on. And so it's - it's going to all go into the new design process now that we're no longer
focused on the brewery.
Ms. Cox: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any other questions for the - either the Applicant or the Planning
Department?
Ms. Apisa: I guess just a comment. I mean, I am obviously all for housing and comfort. But,
um, my understanding is the - the biggest need for employee housing are one- or two-bedroom,
and so that's reason I had asked how many bedrooms. But then again, it is for retired employees,
also. But, I guess it's just comment. I am curious of how - how large or - of homes are needed
and, um - can…
Mr. Graham: Can, uh—
Mr. Freshio: Can—
Mr. Graham: So I am actually what—
Ms. Apisa: Just a comment
Mr. Freshio: I am sorry. I am actually looking at the website here. So both houses are two
bedrooms currently.
Ms. Apisa: And they are—
Mr. Freshio: They are not large houses.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And they are about 1100 square feet you said, is that correct?
Mr. Freshio: That is what the County records show. I mean, you know, we have not gone on
there and back there or checked anything. But right now one bedroom - one house is two
bedrooms, one bath. The other house is two bedrooms, two baths. So they are, you know,
relatively, small houses, but they're - they're single fam- single-family residential homes. So,
you know, I think - and there's - there are constraints on that lot in terms of, you know, where
you can put these additional houses. So it's not if you're going to be able to put, you know, a
3000-square foot house there, either. Probably looking at, you know, comparable housing so
what's already there once you factor in the garages, which will be probably underneath, the - it -
you know, based on the current design, which is also suitable in a flood zone, and so and so
forth.
Chair Nogami Streufert: That - if that is the case, then is it necessary to delete 4.e.
Mr. Graham: It is not going to kill the project, if that is what you mean. I would - you know, we
are asking. It would be better for the Applicant if we could, but any way, and by the way, I
17
apologize. Now that I - I just got on the website, too, the tax, and see that, uh - that, yeah, the
homes are smaller, actually than I thought. I thought they were 2000-square feet.
Mr. Freshio: Let me make a comment, and this goes to, I think, a something that was said by
Collin Brotto, which is a fair comment, which is I think he pointed out there has to be some
benefit to the community to make this - to delete this Condition. Uh… Well Mr. Wilcox is
(inaudible) that will - that will improve safety along Kuhio Highway, you know, for everyone.
And anybody that's been to Hanalei, you know, walking around Hanalei, that could be - well it -
right now it's not a problem because there's no traffic, but when there's a traffic you know, you
got to watch out. So I think having a sidewalk along the, you know, the mauka side there of the
highway is a benefit to the community and it is going to make everything safe, as well. So again,
that is going to use up coverage on in the open zone. And so, you know, one could argue that the
relief from restriction of the coverage as it relates to the commercial side is - is sort of offset by
Mr. Wilcox using up his coverage to do a public sidewalk and pedestrian bridge, which isn't
inexpensive. I mean, that's - that would be my comment.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Donna, you are muted.
Ms. Apisa: Sidewalks are very much needed in Hanalei, so I acknowledge that.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other questions? Okay. Do I have a motion to approve,
either to modify, to add Conditions, or to deny this?
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair, please?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please.
Mr. Ho: As a matter of for consideration by the other Commissioners, would making the
employee housing a Condition of the Permit be in order.
Chair Nogami Streufert: If you would like to add that as a Condition, that could be done. And
does that include retired employees or only current employees?
Mr. Ho: No, I would like that verbiage in there; retired or current employees.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Is that all?
Mr. Ho: Any of the commissioners have any comment on that or request. The reason is
because I am looking at a letter from Adam Roversi, it said that because there was nothing
(inaudible) on the prior agreements, he say he has no leverage to input employee housing or his
comment on it. I am seeking comments from the other Commissioners on this idea.
Ms. Apisa: So, Roy, just to clarify, you want to be sure that they are specifically employee
housing and not just general housing?
18
Mr. Ho: Yes, employee housing for either current or retired employees.
Mr. Hull: I can - if I can just add a clarifying comment. I do not want, you know, any stifle any
conversations, especially on Commissioner Ho's, position. But just as a clarifying comment, to
go a little bit back, originally their request for this housing is because it's in the open district and
they didn't have the density. So they were - the Applicant requested to have additional housing
for the specific purposes of housing employees of the commercial operation. And so, what
they're requesting now is that they still be allowed to continue to house employees on these
additional densities that were granted previous, in addition to these employees, retirees, as well.
So in the event that the Commission takes action in the affirmative of these - of these - of this
request, should the Applicant try to house anybody that is not either an employee or retiree of the
center. The Department would issue a Violation Notice as far as issuing cease and desist as well
as fines because that would be a violation of the Permits. And to go to Adam's point, I think
Director Roversi for the Housing Agency doesn't have specific leverage pertaining to this
because the application was approved was before the Housing Ordinance. So the way that the
housing ordinance is set up is that the - a certain percentage of proposed housing - if you propose
more than ten units, a certain percentage of that has to meet the thresholds for affordable
housing, um, requirements. And so indeed this particular project does not apply, one, because it
was approved prior to the housing ordinance being adopted and then, two, it doesn't even have
the threshold of ten. But to go back, they are essentially - because they are asking for that
additional density, under the Conditions that it be for employees and now retirees, any alteration
of that, would be a violation of their Permit.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But it - if it were to be put in as a Condition?
Mr. Hull: No, currently.
Ms. Cox: So Kaaina, I have a question that, um, which I think I misunderstood what Roy was
saying originally and I understand what he's seeing now, but what about could - could they
develop the - because if we got rid of the Condition of 4.e, that means they can develop more on
the commercial side and the - right? Could - can they develop more on the commercial side
without ever doing the employee housing? Because I thought that is what Roy was, trying to get
at was that in order to do the commercial stuff, you have to do the housing. But may- but I don't
- that's not what he was saying. But I'm just wondering is that true, that you could do the
commercial without the housing?
Mr. Ho: No. Kaaina, you are correct on your interpretation of what I said.
Ms. Cox: Oh, okay. Okay. Because that is the real question for me. I would hate to see the
commercial part develop without the housing ever, yeah. And I just wondered if that's possibly
what's happening.
19
Mr. Hull: Yeah, as far as they stay within that 33% threshold of lot coverage, overall for the lot
of record, they could, correct.
Ms. Cox: And in that case I kind of support Roy's, idea. I do not know if - I do not know how
the wording should be, but that idea that, you know, if the commercial is going to be developed,
then the housing has to come in.
Mr. Hull: Before that—
Ms. Otsuka: I have a question.
Mr. Hull: Well, I am sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Otsuka.
Ms. Otsuka: Is there - will there ever be a scenario with any employee or any retired employee is
not interested in a home and now the Applicant is…would like to fill the home in? How do they
do it without, uh, then a violation? Should something be written to protect the Applicant if no
employees were interested?
Mr. Hull: Yes. If no employees were interested, the Applicants' hands would essentially be tied
because they cannot rent or provide to anybody aside from an employee or retiree. But they
could come back to the Planning to Commission, say, to change that requirement whereby they
are allowed to open it up to a different level or category of tenants.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Now that whatever…Permits that we issue now run with the land?
They do not run with the current owner of the land.
Mr. Hull: Correct. The land use entitlements run with the property and not the - the owner.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So anyone who buys this, should this property be sold, if we put this
stipulation in there, it would not be - it would not be enforceable?
Mr. Hull: As far as the affordable housing? Or, I'm sorry. The employee-housing requirement?
Ms. Cox: Yes.
Mr. Hull: That is correct. I would have to say you - you're going to want - if the Commission is
entertaining looking at that as a specific condition as opposed to an entitlement because right
now it's entitlement that they enjoy to further develop the open portion of this property for
employee housing purposes. If the Commission wants to somewhat apply it no longer as an
entitlement, but an actual Condition or requirement, you - you're going to have to - I think it's -
it's prudent to ask the Applicant if they are willing to accept that as a Condition.
Chair Nogami Streufert: How would you word it if you were - and this is just a - I am just
putting it out there? How do you word - how would it be worded if one were to say that housing
20
or residence or houses can only be built for employees or retirees? If housing is to be built, it
should be for employees or retirees. Is there a way to do that?
Mr. Hull: Theres a way to craft it, but again I would, uh, recommend that the Commission ask
the Applicant as to whether or not they are willing to accept that as a Condition. Because this
does lend itself to, you know, whether or not there is a legal analysis as far as proportional nexus
or requiring that housing pursuant to the proposal that Applicant has before you. Right? So
from the Affordable Housing Ordinance, they, it would have to go through a - what we've seen in
houses, they have to go through a proportional nexus study to demonstrate that the proposal
warrants and the measures of requiring certain amounts of housing is in proportional, has a
proportional nexus to the proposal at hand. And so requiring free housing as opposed to entitling
free housing is - is a proportional nexus that is going to have to happen should the Applicant be
unwilling to accept that.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other discussion? And to the Applicant, if something
like that were to be proposed, how would you feel?
Mr. Graham: The 2006 Permit approval contains Condition 4.d. Now we are - we will forget
about 4.e., 4.d., 4.d, says that the employee residences shall not be used for any use or purpose
other than employee housing, so it's already a Condition. And that those Conditions and the
approvals were incorporated into a land development agreement between the Applicant and the
County, which was recorded. So we're already subject to that Condition.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Does that also include the next - the additional houses that you are
looking at here?
Mr. Graham: Yes, it is all the - it is all the houses.
Mr. Ho: Max. Max, to be fair, that Condition 4.d, reads both current and retired employees to be
to be occupants of your housing? It would also cover the two additional units you propose to
build.
Mr. Graham: Yes. And - and remember, I'm - we're asking that 4.d, be amended to include
retired employees, so there would be a change and I would have to file then an additional an
amended land belt and agreement that incorporated that change into the restrictions on the
project. And because this recorded and because it's a - a condition of zoning approvals, it runs
with the land and applies to any future owners of the property. So there's no way that a future
owner could take those homes and suddenly decide to use them as market housing, not unless the
owner came back to the Planning Commission and asked for a change. So I think the County is
already protected.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I think that was…it - it would be to a—
Ms. Cox: It seems to me.
21
Chair Nogami Streufert: No problem. I am sorry. Helen is that one?
Ms. Cox: Yeah. It seems to me you are right, that the County is protected in terms of having the
employee housing. My question, can you speak to the idea of developing the additional retail
space on the commercial side without ever doing the housing? Because it seems that, the way
this is written right now, that could happen; because it does not say you have to do the housing.
It is right now it is an opportunity to do the housing. But we've given you permission to extend
the commercial. Can you speak to that a little bit? Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Graham: Yes. And you are correct, that the - because the employee housing is not a
Condition of approval, theoretically the Applicant could develop the remaining total floor area
that's left. And I think there's about -- I don't know -- 3000-, 4000-, square feet that could be
developed. So that could be developed and it is possible that the new - that the Applicant would
never do the employee housing. They are not linked and yes, you are correct. The Applicant has
been operating in good faith and has been doing things that he would not otherwise be required
to do, including providing employee housing and would prefer not to have Conditions - you
know, further Conditions that link the employee housing construction to future development.
But your analysis is correct, that he - that it could be - the remaining gross floor area could be
constructed even if the employee housing, the additional two units, were not.
Ms. Cox: And because this runs with the land, if the ownership changes, then that - the new
person who might not be acting in quite as good a faith could develop it?
Mr. Graham: Yes, they could. There is not much left to be developed, but, yes, they could.
Ms. Cox: Thank you, Max.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Any other questions or discussion?
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Ho: I believe Helen has it correct. Okay. She is looking at it through the same pair of
glasses that I am wearing. That's - that's - that's - what do - what do I call it? That is the fear that
I have; that we have no leverage to come back against someone who decides to proceed and not
fulfill its obligation. And, I don't know if you would call it leverage, but, yes, I certainly would
call it leverage. The County, too, have a way of saying that Conditions were imposed, you
agreed to it, and it should be lived up to it.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So if I understand this correctly, you want to you trade development,
commercial development, to having the employee housing. Is that correct?
Mr. Ho: Yes.
22
Mr. Graham: Could - could I - could I just mention something?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, that is fine.
Mr. Graham: Uh, so the - the approval to construct up to 25,000-square feet of gross floor area is
part of a prior approval. There was no Condition linking that approval to the employee housing.
I think that is a right that the Applicant presently has. That is the agreement. I do not think you
can now change that agreement from the County's point of view and say, "Okay. Now we've
decided that you can't really build that all up unless you do employee housing." You can
Condition the construction of the parking, the new parking, on the building of employee housing,
but I do not think you can go back in time and put a new Condition on, uh, prior approvals.
Ms. Cox: That may be true, Max. I'm sure you understand it better than I do, but can you
explain it then what 4.e, because I thought 4.e, kind of related to this because there was a
agreement to swap getting some additional building ability on the commercial instead of the
housing. And now if we don't say you have to do the housing, then they still get that additional,
land or that additional building allowance. Is that correct?
Mr. Graham: Well if you leave 4.e, the way it is right now.
Ms. Cox: Yeah.
Mr. Graham: Okay. So you just leave it the way it is—
Ms. Cox: But—
Mr. Graham: Right - right now.
Ms. Cox: But that - you are asking to delete, it, right?
Mr. Graham: I am.
Ms. Cox: So I'm just trying to say if you delete it, doesn't that mean that what has happened is
that the allowance for building remains, but - and the way - the reason you got that allowance
was because of the employee housing and now we're not - now the employee housing is no
longer linked. I may be misunderstanding, but I am just trying to understand what it is, how - by
getting rid of 4.e, have you not gotten rid of you are not getting rid of one-half it. You are still
getting the gain, but—
Mr. Graham: That is correct
Ms. Cox: That is what I was just trying to understand.
Mr. Graham: Yeah, that is correct. So—
23
Ms. Cox: Okay.
Mr. Graham: Getting rid of 4.e, means that the owner gets the gain of being able to build out the
gross floor area and a there is no penalty for building employee housing and there is no link
between the two. But you're correct.
Ms. Cox: Okay.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other comments or questions? If I could ask Ka can a -
can a Condition be, put together that would tie more growth or more commercial growth to
housing for employee housing or employee or retiree housing?
Mr. Hull: One can. But if the Commission is looking at down that, I would strongly urge you
folks to consult with the attorney's office. Because, again, I have to attend to that proportional
nexus standard unless the Applicant is willing to take it and move the project along. That is why
I was kind of pushing the Commission to ask if Applicant is willing to accept that. But from a
proportional nexus standpoint, it would be akin to - and Max is kind of addressing it. The project
has been previously entitled and constructed (inaudible). Now if you look at this additional, say,
3000-square feet of commercial space and parking area. If a brand-new permit was spun out for
a separate property, in which they are proposing 3000-square feet of commercial space, a parking
lot, and the Planning Commission proposed to Condition it that two affordable employee-
housing units be constructed in tandem with that as a requirement? There would be considerable
legal objections. And so that's why I'm saying if Max and his team are willing to accept that as a
Condition, then I think we can. But if the Commission would like to if Max - you guys are
stressing concern and objection, then I'd have to turn to you folks to say you really need to
consult with an attorney as to whether or not this is meets the muster of the constitutional taking
precedent.
Ms. Cox: So I'm just - like our the options at the moment would be to either have Max and the
Applicant agreeable to this linking or we could leave in we - our proposal could accept
everything that has that is being requested except that we leave in 4.e?
Mr. Hull: Correct. That think that would be an appropriate course of action. I do not think
there's any - and I'll leave it to Denny, too, to chime in as far as if 4.e, is left alone, if there's a
legal concern there.
Mr. Cowger: Yes, I agree with that, Kaaina. I think that is my understanding, as well. We
cannot really go back in time and stop what has already been approved.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. And the 4.d, where it says employee housing, that would still -
that would still follow through? Is that correct- still apply for any ones?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
24
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. So are we ready to…would you like to have more time to
discuss this or would you like some time to discuss the attorney or to - or are you ready to make
a motion?
Ms. Cox: I am ready to make a motion, but I am going to need help with the wording. I would
like to move that we accept the Applicant's withdrawal of and all their Conditions, which
includes the withdrawal of the brewery, and all the other Conditions except the removal of 4.e,
and I would like to move that we - the motion would include that we do not delete 4.e. Sorry. I
do not know how to word that.
Mr. Hull: I believe that that would work. I think, Ms. Cox, if you would rephrase that instead of
"accept" to "approve" as requested and recommended by the Department with the exception that
Condition 4.e, be left-in.
Ms. Cox: Okay. I, move that we approve the request as requested except - with the exception
that 4.e, remain in.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: There is - there has been a motion to approve the amended,
Application plus with the exception of Condition 4.d.
Mr. Ho: e., e.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Or any discussion?
Mr. Ho: No.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry. 4. e.
Mr. Ho: 4.e.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I am sorry. 4.e. Sorry. 4.e. Is it…
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair. Madam Chair? Uh—
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Ho: I know. I know we have - we have discussed it maybe just a little late in the game.
Kaaina uh – Kaaina we—
Mr. Hull: Yeah.
Mr. Ho: Could you read 4.e, for us?
Mr. Hull: Hold on one second. 4. e, reads - 4 - Condition 4 reads, "Applicants shall incorporate
into the deed for the subject property the following." And going down to 4.e, it states, "50% of
25
the lot coverage of each of the three employee residential improvements shall be applied towards
the total gross floor space at - of 25,000 square feet."
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any other discussion?
Mr. Hull: If there is no further discussion, I - it may be appropriate to ask the Applicant if they
are willing to accept the - the motion as recommended or as stated.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Max?
Mr. Gaylord Wilcox: Hello?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Mr. Gaylord Wilcox: May I speak?
Mr. Hull: Yeah.
Mr. Gaylord Wilcox: This is Gaylord Wilcox. Yeah, we will accept it. I will accept, but it is
disincentive to do employee housing, so I do not know if I will be building any employee
housing, but I will certainly accept it.
Ms. Cox: Are we allowed to ask questions of you, Gaylord, because I would like to ask why it is
a disincentive given the size of the existing houses now? Because I certainly do not think that is
the intent is to disincentize employee housing. Can you speak to that, please?
Mr. Wilcox: Yes, because it brings down the total gross floor space that is allowed. And, you
know, that was allowed from the beginning, and already that's about - I'd say if - if I wanted to
maximize the floor space on the lot and put all the parking on the commercial side, I could easily
double that amount, put two stories, put one big two-story building. Use 80% of the lot. So, you
know, 25,000 square feet is already a - not that much. And I just don't think, you know, the fact
that we're doing some housing on the next thing, housing which the Planning Department was
going to deny in 2006. I was on the way to the Planning Commission meeting, and that was the
day the dam broke. And I hadn't found out. Really, I was trying to work with the Planner to get
him to interpret the Zoning Code to say that, yes, you - in that situation you can actually more on
a house. Then I found out that was not gone be the interpretation, so that the hearing was sort of
and I said, "Max, I need some help. I don't know how to, you know, do this" and Max was able
to figure out how to get approval for these houses. Then, of course, you put this 50% lot
coverage thing on it. Now what am I going to do? Say no, I do not want to accept that? I - I'll
just forget the housing?" No. I said, "Okay." That is it. I did - but here I am before the
Commission again and I do not think it is fair that the housing should have any effect on the
26
25,000-square feet that I am allowed. And so we're asking for it. And if you're going to say, uh,
you know, this Condition, you're going to keep that Condition? No. The Condition will be there,
but it will be a disincentive. I will have to consider and treat people in the future. We will have
to consider whether they want to build any more housing.
Ms. Cox: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But as it stands now, it has not to change what is already there? I
think you are reading it from the amendment here. It does not change what was already in 2006.
Are we ready for the vote or?
Ms. Apisa: Kaaina can I order - can I withdraw my second- I do understand that and I - I know
our dire need for housing and I think the developer has been very responsible. He is incentivized
to do the housing no matter what because his employees in the area need housing and a - it is
certainly he is incentivized to build the housing in order to provide housing to get employees.
So, I mean, there is a natural incentive and incentive for him - for him to do the housing without
that requirement. So I do not know. If it is appropriate, I would would like my second and kind
of start over with allowing that 4.e, in there.
Mr. Hull: I think, Commission Apisa and…
Ms. Apisa: Or else we could just vote on it and see where it goes.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, that's yeah, I think it will - two options, either taking the vote or if
Commissioner Apisa withdraws her second, essentially whether or no Commissioner Cox would
want to withdraw her motion if she wants to let the motion stand, if another Commissioner is
willing to - the second option.
Ms. Apisa: Or could we amend the motion?
Chair Nogami Streufert: That was a - for the...
Ms. Apisa: It would probably be cleaner or to withdraw or it vote it.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Or vote it, yeah.
Ms. Cox: I think it probably makes more sense to withdraw it and then to restate the motion the
way we want it. And I guess, I you know for me, this is a case where we have to trust, a
respected member of our community who has done well in the past, getting employee housing
and just, I guess, hope that the land doesn't end up at some other - I mean, I just -it's - to me it's -
it's sad because the employee housing is really, really important. And, but if the Applicant is
feeling disincentized to build employee housing if we have this motion the way it stands now,
then I guess I withdraw my motion.
27
Ms. Apisa: My understanding is that in the disincentive comes in the fact of that - part of the
square footage. I think he will still build it. It just limits his square footage. That is my
understanding.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Let us remember the rights to this go with the land and not with the
owner.
Ms. Cox: Yes, and that is what concerns me. Because if we knew that this housing was going to
be built in the next little bit, then probably we are okay, but there is nothing' saying' that it is
going to happen. And Donna, I maybe I misunderstood, but I understood there to be a
disincentive to build house- employee housing at all if we do this. I thought that is what I heard.
Mr. Hull: Yeah. If I could just chime in a little bit. I mean, the Department has no objections to
the motion now as it was phrased, but to what the Applicant was saying. The Department would
say some insight as far as, you know, watching the development industry and housing in
particular on Kaua'i for the past 10, 15 years. If the builder/property owner has to pick where the
three - where the 5000 square feet is going to get divvied up, if he has to choose between housing
units or commercial space and it's an either/or scenario, in almost all scenarios they're going to
choose the commercial space.
So I think, you know, as much as you folks have faith in the particular Applicant today, I would
have very - from the Department's perspective, we would have very you know, little anticipation
of the housing being built if the developer has to choose between commercial and housing. It is
very similar to what you are watching at the County Council in which the requirement was 30%
of ten units and you know everybody expected the developer to be able to readily and easily
build that 30%. What you are seeing has happened for the past ten years is developers are
saying, "I'm not going to build that then" and then saying, "I can pencil it out." And so I think
what we're seeing here is what's the developer going to choose between and - and like - like I
said, the Department has no objections to it moving this ball forward; however, we would not
expect the housing to be built, quite honestly.
Chair Nogami Streufert: But deleting 4.d, or 4.e, I am sorry; I am getting these two mixed up.
Deleting 4.d – e, does not mean that he is going to build any housing or employee housing,
anyway? It’s not a requirement. It's, if you will, an entitlement that he is able to should he want
to, but he could still build those 5000 square-feet commercial with an even after we - it - further
delete - can still do the commercial and not do the housing? Is that correct?
Mr. Hull: That is correct, Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Helen, would you like to restate a motion or it was a good
enough?
28
Ms. Cox: Yeah, I guess I am really torn on this. But, actually, I would rather have somebody
else state the motion and I will think about how I want to vote.
Ms. Apisa: I think if I remember how you did it so well, Helen, I move that we approve the
developer's request as stated because that would include the 4.e, withdrawal. Right? Kaaina? If
we just approve it as requested?
Chair Nogami Streufert: So it has to approve the Planning Director's report, essentially, is how
without no - things - no additional with no additional (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Ms. Apisa: Right.
Ms. Apisa: We approve the Director's Report as submitted.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second?
Mr. DeGracia: Seconded.
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any further
discussion before we move onto the vote?
Ms. Cox: Yeah, I do not know. At this time, Kaaina, I guess I want to know whether this is or
report - maybe it is our attorney that I am a- I'm asking is it okay if we ask the owner whether his
intent is to build the housing or not? I mean, obviously that is a gentleman's agreement. Now he
could say yes today and then not do it, but I am wondering if it is even okay to - to ask about
that.
Mr. Hull: I believe that unless Denny has objections, I believe that would be an appropriate
question.
Cowger: Yeah, it would be appropriate. As you said, it's kind of like an agreement, so…
Ms. Cox: Exactly, You know, this is a community that is based on relationship to a certain
extent and therefore I would - I would, uh - I would actually like to hear a response.
Cowger: Okay.
Mr. Wilcox: Sure. I do hope to build more but based on cash flow at the center right now, there
would not be any money to build it. So the other factor, of course, is demand and do have
demand. I would like to build one right away, but I do not have the cash flow to do it. So that's
my answer. Um, um, hopefully do it someday, but I do not know when.
29
Ms. Cox: Thank you.
Mr. Ho: At…Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please.
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair, I am very glad that the Commission had an opportunity to discuss this
and see both sides of the coin. Right now, it's going to come down to whether we trust the
Applicant. I do. Or whether we trust Max Graham. I do. So let us move on to the vote.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions? Then we will do a rollcall vote.
Ms. Apisa: Can I ask one more question?
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right.
Ms. Apisa: I am (inaudible). So the motion on the floor right now I keep - he can build the
housing, but he doesn't have to do right away, at any point he could? Is that right, Kaaina?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Base any - I mean, this is just about the 25 - the 50% coverage? Okay.
This is… so are we ready for the vote. Kaaina, if you would - before we take the vote, please
state what exactly it is we are doing so we are all clear as to what it is we are doing here.
Mr. Hull: The motion is to approve as recommended in the Planning Director's Report and that
is essentially accepting the withdrawal of the brewery and associated improvements with it;
however, approval of the expansion of the parking facilities, to 30 units. Sorry. Or keeping
within 33% of overall lot coverage. As well as the pedestrian bridge and sidewalk improvement,
as well as additional employee housing that can also be utilized for retirees.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Is that clear?
Ms. Cox: And - well, no, because Kaaina, I think you forgot the removal of the 4.e.
Mr. Hull: Right. I am and inclusive that the housing units would not count towards the overall
25,000-square feet allotment for commercial space. Okay.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is that everyone? All right. Let us have a rollcall vote, please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba.
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
30
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: No.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes. 6 aye’s: 1 nay. Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Madam Chair, could we take a ten-minute break?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
Ms. Cox: Okay. Yeah.
Mr. Graham: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Mr. Wilcox: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All righty. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Okay. For all those that have called in…we are going to take a ten-minute break. It is
10:35, so we will be returning at 10:45. Please do not hang up. Just leave your lines live;
otherwise it creates a - a fair amount of technical disturbance. So we will be returning at 10:45
a.m.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:47 a.m.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order after the recess.
31
Mr. Hull: I cannot see everybody, so I am not quite sure. So we can do the rollcall. Okay. Roll
call. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba? Commissioner Chiba? Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Here.
Mr. Hull: Actually, you have a quorum, 6:0. But do you want to wait or keep moving?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Could we, could someone call Mr. Chiba and see whether we could -
he would like to join us?
Mr. Hull: Hold on one second. I will try to call.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Let us wait one minute while we, uh, try to contact Mr. Chiba. Okay.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba, are you online now?
Mr. Chiba: Yes, I am. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Okay. We have a full quorum, Seven, Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Great.
New Agency Hearing
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2021-1, Class IV Zoning
Permit Z-IV -2021-3, and Use Permit U-2021-2 to allow operation of a retail
32
facility, conduct agriculture tours & host community events, and associated
site improvements that include an unimproved parking area on parcels situated
on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town, approx. 900ft. east of
the Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection, further identified as 5-5067 Kuhio
Highway, Tax Map Keys: (4) 5-5099:013 & 5-4003:001 (Por.) and affecting a
a total area of 13.54 acres = Laird Superfood, Inc.[Director’s Report received
by Commission Clerk 9/22/20.
Mr. Hull: Moving on to the next Agenda item, Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2021-1, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2021-3, and Use Permit U-2021-2, to allow
operation of a retail facility, conduct agriculture tours, and host community events and associated
site improvements that include an unimproved parking area on parcels situation on the mauka
side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town, approximately 900 feet east of the Kuhio Highway-
Aku Road intersection, further identified as 5-5067 Kuhio Highway, Tax Map 5-5-009:013 and
5-4-003:001, and affecting a total of 13.54 acres.
The applicant is Laird Superfoods, Incorporated. This is the Agency Hearing portion, so is there
anyone who had called in, a member of the public that would like to testify on this Agenda item?
Mr. Carl Imparato: Yes. Carl Imparato.
Mr. Hull: Okay, Carl. Go ahead.
Mr. Imparato: Okay. It should be brief. Uh, my name is Carl Imparato. I am speaking on
behalf of Hanalei-to-Ha’ena Community Association Board of Directors. I just want to, uh, No.
1, to say that we appreciate that the Applicant is going to be meeting with the Board and the
community to clarify its proposal, and therefore we also urge that the Commission, uh, defer to
November as the Applicant's spirit as they have requested. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Thank you, Carl.
Mr. Imparato: Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Is there anyone else from the public who has called in, is participating, and would like
to testify on this Agenda item for the Laird Superfoods, Incorporated, and Application?
Ms. Aleia Asaka: Hi. My name is Aleia Asaka and I sent a letter in yesterday, um, and I do not
mind reading the letter if given the chance.
Mr. Hull: Yes, ma'am, you can feel free to read the letter and speak. You have - you have three
minutes.
Ms. Asaka: Okay. Thank you. Now?
Mr. Hull: Yeah. Yeah.
33
Ms. Asaka: Okay. I am going to apologize 'cause there is a neighbor that has a shredder on and,
um, and trimming trees, so if you cannot hear me. Um, I know, like, a lot - Planning
Commission Members, uh, thank you for your time and please consider my thoughts and
testimony before you make any decisions on this matter. Um, to give you some insight, we are
located on Parcel 10, three doors from Parcel 13, which is the home on G next to the formerly
proposed, uh, Na Pali Craft Brewery. Um, but I - in Hanalei we already have two very well
established community centers, Hale Halawai 'Ohana O Hanalei and Waipahu. Both of these
locations are equipped to serve and handle the community's needs. They allow for community
meetings and events, such as the - the surf and ocean education films, outdoor movie nights, the
live entertainment. And as requested on the Application is a learning and resource center for
cultural, historical, and agricultural preservation. Um, and then regarding the live entertainment
part, we already have live music in the center of Hanalei, which is surrounded by the shops and
eateries.
and then I - I would like to address the growth of the - the growth of the acai palms. So from an
agricultural standpoint, Hanalei has been taro, rice, and then back to taro. Um, I'm not against
agricultural. Uh, I am a fourth-generation farmer. In fact, I believe we need to go back to
agricultural to help our community, maybe not so much more tourist. Uh, what I'm against is
having these Acai palms in Hanalei and then the introduction of this plant that is native to South
America. We don't know impact of this to our ecosystem. What happens when it floods and the
berry seeds float way, when the birds eat the berries and they move the seeds? Will the property
then become a problem? You know, furthermore, I believe that the acai palm, um, they will
attract the parkeet bird population, and we surely don't need them in Hanalei. I do have a
suggestions. Let's say the acai palms have been proven to be safe and won't spread like the
obelia tree, um, why not utilize the old sugar plantation land? It seems we have these things are
open and they have irrigation, something that the Hanalei farmers struggle with. Um, as for the
retail presentation, uh, the LSF brand is found everywhere. I don't see the need for another retail
shop that is located in an area that is not designated for it. Uh, for some of these - for these
reasons, I believe you should deny the Application. And, once again, thank you for your time
and I'd like to reserve the right to submit additional concerns if any arise. So thank you for
listening to me.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hull: Again, this is an Agency hearing. Are there any other members of the public that have
called in that would like to testify on this Application for the Laird Superfood, Incorporated?
Seeing none, Madam Chairman, and the Applicant has conveyed to the Department that they
intend to defer - request to defer all this item as, I believe the first speaker, Mr. Imparato
referenced that they will be meeting with them. So given that, the Department would actually
ask that the Agency hearing be deferred to November - excuse me. November 10th.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Do we have a motion to defer this or would you like to discuss this?
Would the Commission like to discuss this before?
Mr. Hull: Oh, so sorry. It's because we kind of smashed the Agency hearing and the review of
it, so we're just asking that the Agency Hearing be deferred. Is - should you take action on the
34
Agency hearing, then we'll move right into the actual Planning Department's Report, as well as
discussion with the Applicant. I would also be asking for a deferral on that one.
Ms. Otsuka: Okay. And so the motion now is to defer? Is that correct?
Mr. Hull: The Department is requesting that, but it's ultimately up to the Commission.
Ms. Otsuka: I would like to make a motion to defer this Agency Hearing of today to November
10, 2020, our next Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Cox: I'll second that motion.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded that we defer the Special Management
Area Use Permit 20- 2021-1, Class IV Zoning Permit, Z-IV-20213, and Use Permit U-2021-2, to
allow operation of a retail facility, conduct agricultural tours, and host community events and
associated site improvements that include an unimproved parking area on parcels situation on the
mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei town. It's the Laird Superfood. Do we have any
discussion? If not, could we have a rollcall vote, please? And I'm sorry that we're doing the
rollcall votes, but because it's very difficult. We can't see people. We don't know and it's not
always easy to distinguish how many "ayes" there are. Let's do a - a rollcall vote.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
35
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: The motion passes. 7:0. Madam Chair.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2021-1, Class IV Zoning
Permit Z-IV -2021-3, and Use Permit U-2021-2 to allow operation of a retail
facility, conduct agriculture tours & host community events, and associated
site improvements that include an unimproved parking area on parcels situated
on the mauka side of Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town, approx. 900ft. east of
the Kuhio Highway/Aku Road intersection, further identified as 5-5067 Kuhio
Highway, Tax Map Keys: (4) 5-5099:013 & 5-4003:001 (Por.) and affecting a
a total area of 13.54 acres = Laird Superfood, Inc.[Director’s Report received
by Commission Clerk 9/22/20.
Mr. Hull: So now we will go directly into the actual Agenda item itself, um, for the Special
Management Area Use Permit 2021-1, Class IV Zoning Permit 2021-3 and Use Permit and
2021-2. Uh, this is again for Laird Superfoods, Incorporated. Romio is the Department Planner
on this, so I'll turn this over to him for a brief overview. It is going to be, also, if folks have any
questions of the Applicant. As I stated earlier, the Applicant has conveyed to us that they'd like
additional time and deferral so they can meet with community members. So, Romio, I'll turn it
over to you, sir.
Staff Planner Mr. Romeo Idica: Good morning again, Madam Chair and Planning Comissioners.
So this is consideration for a Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2021-3 and Use Permit U-2021-
2, Special Mangement Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2021-1 for Laird Superfoods, or LSF.
Mr. Idica read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Idica: On Parcel 1 right now it's vacant, uh, adjacent to taro fields. W- but in the past it was
used for taro, coffee, and rice and also pasturing. LSF is proposing to use the - the Parcel 1 as
ecotours to showcase the LSF products and also continue the agricultural uses. LSF is proposing
to plant banana trees, papaya trees, coconut, asai, tumeric, cane, citrus, lemon and oranges and
also lettuce, uh, on Parcel 1. And that's pretty much about. That just kind of wraps it up. There
is no other developments; again, only of the parking lot and the driveway. Other than that, it is
all strictly use-orientated. Okay. Any questions for myself or the Applicant?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are there any questions the Planning Department?
Ms. Otsuka: Is it - is it being currently being used now, the Mission House?
Mr. Idica: To my understanding, no.
Ms. Otsuka: Thank you.
36
Chair Nogami Streufert: To the - uh, for the farm tours, there's something about a 13.4 acres
that's gonna be used for the farm tours?
Mr. Idica: Yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Is that the driveway, parking, and is there a building for the
farm tour or how is that going to be
Mr. Idica: No.
Mr. Idica: There's no other developments within Parcel 1. The total lot area for Parcel 1 is…
Well done. It's 719 acress. So LSF is only using a portion of it, which will consist of 13.4 acres.
Chair Nogami Streufert: So that's about 2 percent?
Mr. Idica: Yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Do we know what happens if the two - the, uh - if you have a - a loss
of, uh - of this acreage, four - 13.4 acreage, for drainage? Or is that a concern? 'Cause Hanalei
always seems to flood.
Mr. Idica: Right now, this particular area is within the wetland, so as far as extreme runoff, it'll
pretty much stay on property.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And the con- the, flooding of that, the, uh seeds from the acia trees
could - or palms could go to - is that reasonable?
Mr. Idica: Well right now we're looking at the agricultural use of the property. As far as the
effects of the acai berries actually falling and floating downstream, that I would probably have to
defer to the Applicant and have them answer if they have any mitigations regarding this type of
planting.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Alright, okay. Any other questions for the, uh, Planner? All right. If
not, could we have the Applicant?
Mr. Ian Jung: Good morning Chair - Chairperson and Members of the Commission. This is Ian
Jung on behalf of Applicant Laird Superfoods, Incorporated. Um, just to represent what the
Planning Director said and the Planner, we are asking for a deferment on this matter. Uh, we've
been engaged with the Hanalei-Hokuaka Community Association, uh, Board to try and rectify
some of the issues that they've, uh, raised. We recently got Ms. Asaka's letter and I spoke with
her yesterday and I think she raises some valid points about the issue with the acai berry. We
have been working with the NRCS to develop an Ag. plan, uh, but we are kind of reshifting how
we're gonna sort through that Ag. plan so we can, uh, create more of a food forest rather than
introduce species that aren't too common here in Hawaii. So I think some valid concerns have
been raised the community and we're adjusting to, uh, deal with those concerns.
37
So what we've set up now is we're gonna try and schedule another community meeting out there
in Hanalei to try and address some of these concerns with the immediate neighbors, as well as
the Hanalei-Hokuaka Community Association. So I've been in contact with those folks, uh, to
relocate some of the proposed uses and locations of those uses that are part of the site plan that is
in Exhibit B-1. So we anticipate moving forward. We will submit a revised site plan, as well as
a revised ag plan to deal with the adjustments that we're contemplating right now. So just by
way of background, uh, Laird Superfood was cofounded by Mr. Laird Hamilton, who was raised
here on Kaua'i. Um, the idea of - of the project was to kind of showcase what the Laird
Superfood products are with the Leno, which is a two brick, some coconuts, um, the citrus
elements that are all used in the products. Um, the idea was to create a s- a more of a three-acre,
um, ag component that showcases these product, um, as well as a food forest that would be in the
background. Uh, but all these uses, obviuosly, are allowable on ag land. Um, our request for the
Use Permit and SMA Permit is more tailored to the ecotours that were gonna take place on, uh,
Parcel 1, as well as the - the commercial component that was gonna go into Parcel 13, which is
the existing Mission House. And I - I think if you read through our Application, the history of
the Mission House is, um, interesting and by way of the fact that it was located to Hanalei in
1986; was a, uh, realty office and then converted into a bed and breakfast vacation rental, uh, and
then now, uh, vacant, but has this entitlement for a learning and resource center for ag,
educational opportunties, and those cultural opportunities.
So the premises of the project is an adaptive reuse of the, uh, existing building, but we need to
work further with the community and to kind of refine that use to try and cordone off how much
square footage we can allocate for the sale of the Laird Superfood Products, as well as how we're
gonna strategize on the art gallery component and then also the Class III, which I personally
framed as the learning resource center, but the idea is to kind of convert it into a little bit of a
museum down there. So, uh, we're working through that right now with the community, and
that's why we're asking for a deferral on that. And I'll save, uh, your folks' time and then for the
presentation at the upcoming meeting on how we're gonna, uh, revise our exhibits to show you
what we're, uh, reinventing on the project as compared to what our submittal was. But I'm happy
to answer any questions if you have now; uh, otherwise we'd be happy to, uh, repropose the
project back on November 10 once we get a little more feedback and concensus on certain
issues.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I guess I do
have a question on the Mission House.
Mr. Jung: Yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It is his- it has been determined to be historic. So what parts of it are
you planning on keeping for the historic of it and - and what parts will be revi- or, uh,
reconstructed or - or revised to - for your purposes?
Mr. Jung: Yeah. So the structure will remain intact with no alterations at all to the - either the
exterior or the interior. Um, the idea that we have is, um, probably to set up some shelving unit
as well, uh, some countertops, which will be essentially fixtures in the building, so we're not
38
gonna structually alter the building at all. Uh, there is - the history on - on the building was it
was on the National and State Registeries, uh, while it was located in Kapaa. But once - once
relocated, um, the building itself was the his- was historic, but the location of the existing
property now and the current TMK that it sits, was not put on the Registry. So although the
structure is historic by virute of the nature of it being over 50 years old, it's not on the Registry.
But we don't intend to make any, uh, significant alterations to it, let alone, you know, minor
alterations to it other the adaptive reuse, some paint, countertops, and, possible shelving to show
case the products.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Commissioners, are there any other questions or? If not, are
we ready to take action on this, to defer this, or to take action on it?
Ms. Cox: I move that we defer this to the November 10, meeting so that we get an accurate
updated plan and here from the Applicant at that time.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second?
Mr. Chiba: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded that we defer this until the November 11
- or the - I'm sorry. November 10 meeting. Any discussion? If not, can we have a rollcall vote,
please?
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commisioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
39
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passed. 7:0. Madam Chair.
Mr. Jung: Okay. Thank you, Commissions. I look forward to November 10.
Chair Nogami Streufert: We will. And the—
New Agency Hearing (Cont.)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2021-2, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV -
2021-4, and Use Permit U-2021-3 to allow installation of a stature of King Kaumuali’I
within the Russian Fort Elizabeth State Historic Park in Waimea, along the makai side of
Kaumuali’I Highway, approx. 800 ft. east of Waimea Town, further identified as Tax Map
Key: (4)-1-7-005:003, and containing a total area of 17.26 acres = Friends of King
Kaumuali’i. [Director’s Report received by Commission Clerk 9/22/20.]
Mr. Hull: Next we have up for the Agency Hearing, Special Mangement Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2021-2, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2021-4, and Use Permit U-2021-3, to allow
installation of a - a statute of King Kamuali′I within the the Russian Ford Elizabeth State Histork
Park in Waimea along the makai side of Kauuali'i Highway, approximately 800 feast of Waimea
Town, further identified as Tax Map Key 1-7-005:003 and containing a total are of 17.26 acres.
The Applicant is Friends of King Kaumuli'i. And this is the Agency hearing part, so for the
members of the public who have called in, are there are any members of the public that have
called in that would like to testify for this Agency hearing? Seeing none, the Department the
Department would recommend that the Agency hearing be closed on this particular item.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Could we have a motion to close to hear- the Agency hearing?
Ms. Apisa: I move to close the agency hearing.
Ms. Cox: I second that.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's moved and seconded to close the Agency Hearing. Any
discussion? Let’s do a voice vote on this one. All those in favor of closing the Agency Hearing?
Say, “aye”. (Unanimous voice vote) It is very difficult. Any opposed? (None) It’s been moved
and passed. Motion carried 7:0.
Chair Streufert announced that the Agency Hearing in closed
Mr. Hull: Okay. Moving on the actual Agenda item, so again we're on Special Management
Area SMA(U)-2021-2, the Class IV Zoning Permit 2021-4 and Use Permit 2021-3, and this
40
Applicant for Friends of King Kaumuali′i. Dale is our Planner, so I'll turn it over to Dale for his
report on this Agenda item.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the Planning
Commission. At this time I'll summarize the Director's Report. Actions required, consideration
of Class IV Zoning Permit, Use Permit, and Special Management Area Use Permit to allow
construction and installation of a cultural display statute and associated site improvements. the
State Land Use Designation for the proprety is agricultural; however, the, um, shoreline area is
within the Conservation District.
Mr. Cua read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: Agency comments have been attached to the Director's Report, as well, as subsequent,
um, supplement - supplemental reports. And that's pretty much concludes the Director's Report
for this Application.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Are there any questions for the Planner? This is in the State
Park, so do we - does this have to be ADA-complaint? I can't - I'm sorry. Your—
Mr. Cua: Yes, it would. Yes, it would.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And is this ADA-compliant then?
Ms. Asaka: Yes, it would be designed as such.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any questions for the Planner? If not, would the Applicant - is there an
Applicant here?
Mr. Hull: Sorry, ladies. Aletha and Maureen, ah, I believe you folks are still muted, so you have
to press the, uh, unmute button on the screen. If you just toggle the mouse, it should come up
with a microphone that you can click on to unmute yourself. So if you toggle your mouse, just
move it around the screen, on the bottom a bar should come up, one that has a camera image and
one that has a microphone image, and there should be like a bar between the microphone. If you
just click that microphone, it should umute you.
Ms. Aletha Kaohi: Okay. I'm now - can you hear me now? Oh, thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Give your name before you start, please?
41
Ms. Kaohi: I'm Aletha. I'm Aletha Kawelukawahinehololioolimaloa Goodwin Kaohi. Okay.
Before I begin, I want to a- you allow me to share my Hawaiian heritage and why the statute
should be at this very historic site. I was born to William (inaudible) Goodwin and Margaret
(inaudible). I was told I was born 25 hours short of the summer solstice. And the Kaumuali'i
platform is about the moon and the summer solstice, the design. My father was a very
knowledgeable man because he was raised by his great-grandpar- by his grandparents, my great-
grandparents. My great-grandmother was a kahuna anaana, Black Magic. But she was the
deflector of the sorcery. My great-grandfather was a Keeper of the Waters, ((Foreign Language
Spoken 00:35:55)). These waters were used to wash the eyes of the children that were in my
grandmother's Kahuna class. What they needed to do is they were able to hear, to see, and to
feel, and if that did not happen, then these children were returned to their parents.
Hawaii was changing very rapidly when my father was born in 1819. There was unrest in
Hawaii, and a few years later, Queen Lili'uokalini was dethroned and all of the Kahuna’s had to
go underground. I grew up in a home that was cluttered with artifacts, portraits of my ancestors
on the wall. I lived the culture. Even though I shared for 38 years as a public librarian, where I
could find books on Hawaii, the knowledge that I gained as a child with my father was far more
richer. I'm the seventh child of eight children and was told that I was chosen from a very young
age to follow the footsteps of my father.
One of the things that happened, in 1978 when Waimea had this great big 1978 big bicentennial
of Cook's arrival, my father decided to - to show all of his artifacts, which had been documented
by the Bishop Museum. These were artifacts from his grandparents. They were ancient. There
were poi pounders, all kinds of tools. When he exhibited, he would have it insured by the
Lloyd's of London. That was the only insurance company that would insure it. But when he
brought it home, he would put it into an old shack with 1 x 12 walls, and there it was. It was
safe. One day he drove - rode his bicycle down. He lived a mile and a half away from me. In a
very soft voice he said, "Someone broke into the sh- into the shed and 90% of my artifacts are
gone." I saw my papa age, and for two years he was very quiet. We reported it to the police
Department. How do you find stones? How do you identify them? There's no numbers on
them.
And again one day he came to me and he said, "You're gonna take a sabbatical. You're going to
take time so that you can learn how to listen." Folks, I didn't know how to listen. I would hear,
but I did not know how to listen. I was granted a sabbatical and spent a year with him. It took
me four months before I knew how to listen. You listen with every other part of your senses;
your eyes, your ears, your guts, and you're covered with chicken skin when you know you have
the answer. "Why, Papa? Why am I chosen to do this?" And he said, "When my artifacts were
stolen, I was in my late 80s. Death is going to take all of the knowledge that I have." "But,
Papa, you said once that when you visited your grandmother as she was dying, she said to you
42
that she was going to take all of the teaching, all of the knowledge with her because Hawaii was
changing and no one would understand the true and deep Hawaiian culture?" "This is why I've
asked you to be with me for a year. A Tapa has been lifted and all of the knowedge that I
learned from my great - from my grandmother has been restored and I will pass it on to you if
you learn how to listen." Papa died at the age of 94.
But I recall one day when I went with him or many times fishing along the coastline below the
Fort, and he would have me stand below the kai- high water tideline. Sugar cane was all around,
surrounded the Fort. And on the wall of the Fort, "No trespassing. Keep out." But Papa slipped
away from me and slipped into the - into the walls of the Fort. "Papa, what is inside of that fort,"
I said to him. "Memories of Papa Noi." That was the first I heard "Papa Noi". It is customary in
our family after supper we gather for ohana to fully to sing, to have stories. Mama would read a
Biblical story and Papa would tell us how he grew up, his hi- hunting and fishing expedition. As
a guide for Bishop Museum, who published "The Archeology of Kaua'i", my father was the
guide. So at one of these ohana, I said, "Papa, who is Papa Noi?" "Papa Noi is Kaumuali'i."
"Huh?"
And this what he shared. The ruling families of Kauai were the highest Tabu on the Hawaiian
Island and Kaumuali′i was born in 1778 to Holoholoku Heiau in Wailua, to Kamaka hele a high-
ranking chiefess and Kaeo `o kalani. Kaumuali′i was carefully raised by his mother due to his
birth, the highest-ranking at Pa'ula'ula. He rose in stature and governed with fairness, kindness,
and aloha. His kingdom included Kaua'i, Ni-ihau, Lehua ka'ula and Nihoa. Recognizing the
value of trade, he learned English and welcomed all, include the missionaries who arrived in
1820. Kamehameha’s quest to conquor Kaui'i and Niihau in 1796 and 1804 failed, and turning
to a different (inaudible) of building his military force, Kaumuali′i declined all overtures. In
1810 Kaumuali'I succeded Kaua'i and the Niihau to Kamehamea. Uniting the island under under
Kamehameha I. Kaumuali′i, he chose peace, not war, to spare his people the horrors of war. He
remained as ruler of Kaua'i. And (inaudible) King, it is for peaceful rule, no more war.
Kaumuali′i returned to Kaua'i and ruled until 1821, when he was kidnapped by the Liho liho
Kamehameha II. In 1822, Kaumuali’i visited Nihoa and returned to Kaua'i and built pa- in a -
in a - his home, which he named Ni'hiau. He died in May of 26, 1824, buried at Waine'e
Cemetary, La'haina, Maui, beloved of his people now and then.
Many in the past have tried to honor Kauai's last independent king. About 25 years ago Edie Ba
andman and Barbara Bennett, who is still around, formed the Friends of King Kaumuali′i. Their
mission was to build a statute in Hawai'i or at the Hawai'i Community College. After several
years of parades, fundraising, the organization was defunct. In 1912, Barbara Bennett brings to
meet me Lee Croft, a professor and author of "Arm Wrestling with Kaumual'i". As I fell through
the pages, I saw a painting of a malu, a ruler. And I asked Lee Croft, "Is this Kaumuali′i?" And
he asked me, "Why do you ask?" I was experiencing chicken skin big time, from the feet to the
43
head, from the head to the feet. Because there were no paintings of the king or portraits. Well
there were two, one at the museum and one at Cocoa Palms. But I didn't get chicken skin from
those. I was inspired by a Brook Parker's painting. So Barbara Bennett and I reactived the
Friends of King Kaumuali′i. I visited a class, fourth graders, and I asked, "Can any of you tell
me who is King Kaumuali′i?" After stammering, scratching their head, "Highway 50." Oh,
there's a school in Haunamalu. The Friends of King Kaumuali'i then launched an awareness
program in partnership with Bill Arakaki, Kaua'i School Superintendent. We distributed 18 x 24
posters of Parker's painting and a historical timeline to all public schools via classrooms, home
school, and charter schools. Kaua'i Hindu Monestery did the printing and donated thousands of
8 x 12 and thousands of cards. What else did we do for awareness? Poster contests for the
children, new musical compositions, storytelling, and war, and ho’o lualea and all the songs
about the king. The Friends of King Kaumuali'i firmly believe they are guided by Ke akua not
by and Kupuna, and A mae aumakua. We are excited that the eight-foot statute will be leaving
California in two weeks from the foundary. This statute of Kauai's beloved king is a symbol of
peace. Mahalo nui for listening and understanding that Kaumuali'i's return to Hawaii only with
you, your approval, that that statute will be erected at Pa`ula`ula, the wild compound. The
((Foreign Language Spoken 00:50:51)) will remain with best regards. President of the Friends of
King Kaumuali'i and a sixth generation of King Kaumuali'i. Mahalo nui and blessings to all of
you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms. Maureen Fudale: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I've learned a lot from what you said about Kaua'i and Kaumuali'i and
I'm very thankful for that information. Are there—
Ms. Fudale: I have—
Chair Nogami Streufert: Are - I'm sorry.
Ms. Fudale: I am here, Maureen Fodale if there are any questions.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Good to have you. Are there any questions from the Commission to
the, Petitioner? I have one question about this. The statute of Kaumuali′is going to be facing
Ni'ihau. How did you come up with the determination of which - how we was going to facing?
Ms. Fudale: Okay. Well it, uh, there's - there, um, `Olelo No`eau, that refer to Kaua'i as the
place where the sun sets. Okay? And it actually sets over Ni'ihau in the west. So not just about
44
Kaua'i, but anything that is written about (inaudible), it's referring to that setting place. So
actually it's pivoted, but it's - it's also, pointed toward a solstice and the design of the pā is
aligned with the solistices, as well. So it's wanting to encompass the whole of Kaua'i and with the
whole Islands at his back and in reference to that standing over many, many, many generations,
hundreds of years of being the place where the sun sets.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the, uh, other
Commissioners? All right. At this point, Kaainawhat are our options?
Mr. Hull: The Department is ready for action. We are commending approval for this. There
was one outstanding issue previuosly brought up concerning, um, whether or not the site had, uh,
gone through its 343 review as both State as it was historically-properties need to get an
environmental assessment analysis, and we have confirmed with the State that this project does
qualify for an exemption from that analysis and that exemption has been provided. So that was
the one last outlying concern that the Department. So the Department is recommending approval
on the proposal and we are ready for action. However, of course, we defer to the Commission if
you folks have any other questions or concerns about the project.
Ms. Apisa: I'll just make a comment, uh, I - I don't think I have to make a disclosure but, you
know, I'm very much support of that and then I've actually been a contributor to, uh, Friends of
King Kaumuali'i, so I just like make that.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Ms. Cox: I'd like a motion that we approve this and I want to thank you for the wonderful
presentation to give us a full context. Thank you to Aletha.
Ms. Otsuka: Second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we approve, the, uh,
Kaumuali'i statute, uh, Application. Is there any discussion? If not, we can - could we have a
rollcall vote, please, on this?
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commisioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
45
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commisioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner, uh - Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Oh, sorry. Co- uh, Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes. 7:0. Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Motion passed and congratulations.
Ms. Fudale: Thank you so much. Mahalo,
Ms. Kaohi: Mahalo and blessings to all of you. Join us when we have the public dedication.
You are certainly welcome. Mahalo, Ke Akua.
Chair Nogami Streufert: We would love do that. Thank you.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Continued Public Hearing
New Public Hearing
All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports
46
Director’s Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing.
2020 Annual Status Report for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2005-08,
Project Development Use Permit P.D U-2002-26, Use Permit U-2005-25, Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30, Tax Map Keys: (4) 3-5-001:027 (Por.), 168, 169, 171
(Por.), 172 (Por.), 175, and 176= Kauai Lagoons LLC & Mori Golf (Kauai) LLC.
Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, we are moving on to and - General Business I.1. This is the 2020
Annual Status report for Special Management Area Use Permit SM(U)-2005-08, Project
Development Use Permit P.D. U-2005-26, Use Permit U-2005-25, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2005-30. This is for Tax Map Keys 3-5-001:027, uh, as well as 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, and
176. And the applicant Kaua'i - Kaua'i Lagoons LLC and MORI Golf LLC. Again, this isn't an
application for a Use Permit. This is a Status report. And it's really our error. Somewhere in the
teleconferencing scenario we inadvertently placed these two Agenda - this Agenda item under
the next - under General Business when it should have actually been placed under the Consent
Calendar Status Report. So it's not generally reviewed unless a Commissioner wants to take one
of those out for specific discussion. But it's in here for General Business, so, you know, if any of
the Commissioners have any questions or concern, Dale, myself, or the Applicant can go over
them. But not seeing with any, we would just open it up for comments or concerns that the
Commission may have concerning the Status Report.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Correct. This is for this is the 2020 Annual Status Report for Special
Management Area Use Permit 2005-08, et cetera, for Kaua'i Lagoons LLC and MORI Golf LLC.
Are there any questions or - is the Applicant on - or is the Kaua'i Lagoons also in attendance?
Mr. Gary Siracusa: Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. This is Gary Siracusa,
Director of Construction at Hokuala, representing Applicant.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there either questions for either - or for the Applicant? Or
not Applicant. For the Annual Status Report, uh, representative? If I could make a suggestion
on this and I'm not - not a - it's a comment. These Permits were issued in 2005, a 15-year
timeframe. And we have on many of these we have, that they be complied with. And my
question is when will this project be com- when - when is it antipicated that the project will be
completed?
Mr. Siracusa: Chair, this is Gary Siracusa. Uh, we have ongoing discussions with the Planning
Department. The current developer of the project purchased the 450 acres from MORI and VIC,
uh, back in 2015. And so the current Developer, Kaua'i Lagoons has continued with
development since that time; completed the Timbers Kaua'i Ocean Club and residences in 2018
and currently has projects in for Permit, as well.
47
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there any anticipated completion date for the entire project?
Mr. Siracusa: Currently some of that is in discussion, again, with the Planning Department in
order to complete the basic entitlement Conditions and also, uh, we've, as previous discussion
and, uh, another development that's brought up, the, uh, the impacts of COVID on some of this
development, uh, have created somewhat of a murky crystalball as we go forward. But, again,
we're still in discussion, as well, as with other agencies on meeting all of our Conditions of
approval.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any questions or comments from the rest of co- Commission
members? If I could make a suggestion and I think this is more for the Planning Department
than for the Applicant, the Annual Status Report generally reflects everything that's been done
from the time that the Permit was issued to the present day. There's really very - it's very
difficult to determine what has been done in the last year. Since this is an annual report it should
be from 2019 to 2020, what's been done. In the future, could that be added that there would be
information on what has been done from 2020 to 2021, knowing full well that there are effects of
COVID on plans, but that we have some idea as to - since this is an annual report, an Annual
Status Report, we know what the status is- in that year as opposed to the year prior?
Mr. Hull: Yeah, Madam Chair, I think, the Department can work with all forthcoming or
upcoming applica- Applicants that have Status Reports before the Commission to ensure that
there's a breakdown on the year-by-year analysis in which place - in which those improvements
or investments have taken place.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I think that would be helpful to identify how much work has been done.
And I'm sure work has been done each year, but it's just a question of trying to figure this out and
since everything is - it will be complied with or is under consideration or it is in planning, would
be good to know or what stage.
Mr. Hull: Absolutely.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Then do we have a motion to receive? If there's no other
discussion or if there are no other questions, could we have a motion to receive?
Ms. Cox: I move…Yeah, I will move that we receive the Annual Status Report from the Kaua'i
Lagoons LLC.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second?
Mr. DeGracia: I second it.
48
Chair Nogami Streufert: A second that we receive the receive the 2020 Annual Status Report for
Kauai Lagoons LLC and MORI Golf LLC. Any further discussion? If not, can we have a - I
think we can do this with - by voice vote. All those in favor of closing the Agency Hearing?
Say, “Aye”. (Unanimous voice vote) It is very difficult. Any opposed? (None) It has been
moved and passed. Motion carried 7:0.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed? It's been passed. Accept the Annual Status
Report for Kaua'i Lagoons LLC.
2020 Annual Status Report for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2007-13,
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2007-29, Project Development Use Permit P.D.U-2007-25,
Tax Map Keys: (4) 2-8-015:043, 044, & 082; 2-8-016:003, 004, Kauai Poipu, = Kauai Blue,
Inc. (formerly SVO Pacific, Inc. & VSE Pacific, Inc.).
Mr. Hull: Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to the second Status Report, it’s Agenda Item
I, General Business I.2, 2020 Annual Status Report and Progress Report for Special Management
Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2007-13, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2007-29 and Project
Development Use Permit Use P.D.U-2007-25, Tax Map Keys 2-8-015:043, as well 044, 008 and
2-8-016:003, as well as 004. The locaton is in Poipu, Kauai, and the Applicant is Kaua'I Blue,
Incorporated. Again, this was another oversight on my part this this is a Status Report and
should have been on the Consent Calendar. I apologize for that oversight on the Department's,
side. But, it is ultimately up for discussion should any of the Commissioners have concern. Of
course, I think nothing, Chair Streufert's request that all future Status Reports include a timeline
as far as when the improvements or investments were made, we will also follow up with this
Applicant at the - should they - when they when they provide the next Status Repot to make sure
that's included. Um, but if - and then the Department will just stand by that and - and - what we
submitted, um, unless the Commissioner or Commissioners have questions or concerns they'd
like to discuss.
Ms. Apisa: Could I just interrupt a point. I'm going to recuse myself from the meeting. I think
we're almost done. Thank you.
Ms. Apisa left the meeting room at 11:53 a.m.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Thank you. Okay. Are they any questions- is the Kaua'i
Blue in attendance?
Mr. Hull: So, Dale, is the whole group - representative online?
Mr. Cua: They're being represented by Max's firm. I believe the submittal was prepared by Mr.
Belles.
49
Chair Nogami Streufert: So they're not attendance? Is this - this correct?
Mr. Cua: Mr. Belles is right here.
Mr. Michael Belles: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning
Commission. For the record, I'm Michael Belles here on behalf of Kaua'i Blue. I apologize for
the delay. I was not indifferent or ignoring you. I just was having difficulty getting on the
system here.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commissioner to Mr. Belles or
to our Planner on the Status Report? If not, could I have a motion to receive the report?
Ms. Cox: I move that we receive the report from the Annual 2020 Report from Kaua'i Blue, Inc.
Otsuka: I second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's moved and seconded that we accept - or that we receive the 2020
Status and Progress Report from Kaua'i Blue. Is there any discussion, any further discussion? If
not, this will be another voice vote. All those in favor?
Commissioners: Aye.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed? It's been approved. Motioned Carried 6:0.
Mr. Belles: Thank you very much.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It has been been received. Not approved.
Mr. Belles: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right.
Request to Amend Special management Area use4 Permit SMA(U)-2005-4, Project
Development Use Permit P. D. U- 2005-7, and Class IV-2005-7, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-
010-062, CPRs 0001-0075, Port Allen, Kauai = Ahe Group.
Mr. Hull: The next we're moving into as the Agenda was amended to I(4), Request to Amend
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2005-04, Project Development Use Permit P.D. U-2005-
7, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-7, Tax Map Key 2-1-010-062, CPR Unit 00001-0075.
And the locaton is in Port Allen, Kaua'i. The applicant is AHE Group. While a Status Report
50
was included in this, there is actually an actual request to amend the Special Management Area
Permit. I will turn it over to Dale for the Director’s Report. So at this time I'll turn it over to
Dale, who was our Planner for this project.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good morning, Commissioners. Yeah, just briefly summarizing the
Director's Report, is required. It's considerations of Applicant's request to amend Condition 9 of
the Special Management Area, Project Development Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit to
allow a completion of the project.
Mr. Cua read the Project Description and Use, Additional Findings, and Preliminary
Evaluation sections of the Director’s Report for the record (on file with the Planning
Department).
Mr. Cua: Since its approval in 2005, the single-family residential development has been
completed through Subdivision Applicaton No. S-2005-1 and it received, uh, final subdivision
approval on September 28, 2006. So what you have you before you is the Applicant's request to
amend Condition No. 9 to allow a time extension to complete the project. And that pretty much
summarizes the Director's Report.
Mr. Hull: Chair. You're muted, Chair. Yes, it's like—
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yeah. The completion date of February 22, 20- 2022?
Mr. Cua: Right.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Was that, that was not in their.
Mr. Cua: No, it was just I proposal date and, you know, it's subject to discussion. I just basically
choose the anniversary date. I think the Applicant mentioned that they could conceivably
complete the project by the end of 2021. So, I mean, it's just now up for discussion.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Are there any questions to the Planner? If not, is the Applicant
available?
Mr. Maeva: Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. My
name is Makani Maeva, and I'm the president of the Ahe Group, and we are available for any
questions that you may have.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is the completion date of February 22, 2022, it's kind of interesting.
It's 02-02-2022. It's very good. Okay. Is that a something that is acceptable to you?
51
Mr. Maeva: That is, yes.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Makani - Makini, are you the sole developer of this project. Do you have partners; like
in partnership in with the County in any way or Habitat for Humanity?
Mr. Maeva: At this point in time we are the sole developer. I will not preclude us from
partnering. We've had, as you mentioned, a successful relationship with Habitat and we've had a
previous succesful relationship with other nonprofit. We are trying to evaluate this effort. Of
course, some you may know that Aha Group really focuses on affordable housing, affordable
rental. We are talking with the County about the perfect structure for this. There may be a home
ownership opportunity. So as we move forward, we may, we may, um, bring a partner who will
help us to advance either the - uh, to advance our affordable goal. So - but at this time, Aha
Group is exploring this opportunity to acquire this parcel and, um - and we have a structure that
we know we could move forward and build. So just now, just us.
Mr. Ho: And you're offering this - uh, the property as sole ownership? It's not a rental or
affordable housing units?
Mr. Maeva: I'm sorry? Could you repeat your question? I'm not sure I understand it.
Mr. Ho: You're offering this proprety to buyers who want sole ownership of it? It's not a - a
lease or a rental agreement?
Mr. Maeva: We haven't decided exactly our ultimate structure. We're working with the County
Housing Department and trying to understand if they have some other goals. As you know, we
do primarily rental housing for those who make then 60% of AMI and we have a tax credit
financing structure and that's the way we've been able to produce rental units over the past few
years on Kaua'i. There may be an opportunity here to do both that in addition another four-step
option. At this in point in time we haven't - we haven't committed to the ultimate use, but we do
know that it will be affordable housing.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Any other questions? If not, are we, uh, ready tomove on this? Uh,
Kaainais that one of the options, that we can accept this and move on or?
Mr. Hull: The Department is recommending approval of the Director's Report with the
recommended extention to 2022. However - and if you folks are ready to take action, that is one
option. You guys can look also look at if you have other concerns, then looking at Department
or the Applicant addressing them. But if there's no further concerns, the Department is
recommending action today, for the extension.
52
Chair Nogami Streufert: Commissioners, would you like to move on from this today or would
you like more time to consider this?
Mr. Ho: I move that we grant extension to February 22, 2022, Aha Group - uh, to the Aha
Group.
Ms. Cox: I'd second that.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It’s b een moved and seconded to grant the recommendation of the
Planning Board and extend the completion date to Feburary 22, 2022. Is there any discussion?
Let's do this by a rollcall vote, please?
Mr. Hull: Roll call on motion to approve as recommended. Commissioner Apisa? Oh, I
apologize. Commissioner Apisa is absent. Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commisioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Streufert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes. 6:0. Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Congratulations. The Aha Group has been, uh - the deadline has been
extended to February 22, 2022.
53
Ms. Maeve: Thank you very much, Madame.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Have a good day.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation regarding Contested Case CC-2017-4
Contested Case re Petition to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director’s Decision Related
to the Notice of Violation and Order to pay Fines for the Operation of an Illegal Transient
Accommodation Use for Property Situated in Haena, Kauai, Hawaii, indentified TMK (4)
5-8-005:005 containing 26,092 sq. ft. = Patricia D. McConnell, Petitioner. [Deferred
5/12/20, Oral Arguments date set for 10/13/20 on 8/11/20.]
Petitioner’s Exceptions to Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation of Contested
Case: Request for Oral Argument; Certificate of Service for Case No. CC-2017-4, TMK (4)
5-8-005:005 = Patricia D. McConnell, Petitioner. [Deferred 5/12/20, Oral Arguments date
set for 10/13/20.]
Mr. Hull: As we move into the next Agenda item, this is a concerning a case that the
Department is a party to. So I'm going to hand over the Agenda over to Denny and I'll sit with
my representations, for this particular Agenda item.
Mr. Cowger: Thank you, Chair. Hello, everyone. My name is Denny Cowger and I'm the
Deputy County Attorney for the Planning Commissioner, as you heard earlier. We're now
moving onto General Business Item 1.I. 3, of today's Agenda. The Hearing Officer's Report and
Recommendation regarding Contested Case CC-2017-4, a Contested Case re Petition to Appeal
Decision of Planning Director's Decision Related to the Notice of Violation and Order to Pay
fines for the Operation of an Illegal Transient Accomodation Use for Property Siutated in Haena,
Kauai, identified as by Kaua'i Tax Map Key: 5-8-005:005, containing, 26,092 square feet. Uh,
the Petitioner is Patricia D. McConnell. And today we'll be having oral arguments with this
matter, uh, and I will turn it over to the Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you.
Mr. Ho: Uh—
Chair Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry.
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes, please.
Mr. Ho: Before we continue, I would like make a motion that we go into executive session,
please?
54
Chair Nogami Streufert: Do I have a second on that? This is to confer with our attorney or our
counsel on some of the legal aspects of the case or just listening to the case? Is that correct?
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor adjourning to an
executive session to consult with our counsel? All in favor?
Commissioners: Aye.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All those opposed? Then we will go into executive session for 20
minutes and we also have a ten-minute - or a five-minute break with that and we will reconvene
at about 12:30. Motion has passed 6:0. We will adjourn to Executive Session.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And we'll back in at about 12:30 p.m. or a little after 12:30 p.m.
The Commission moved into Executive Session at 12:12 p.m.
The Commission returned to Open Session at 12:46 p.m.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Call the meeting back to order.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is the Petitioner also on?
Ms. Joanna Zeigler: Hi. Yes, I represent the Petitioner, Patricia McConnell.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. And are there any intervenor are - also on this call?
Ms. Zeigler: There were no intervenors in this matter.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. All right. Then if we can get started. All right. The
Commissioner has received the Petitioner's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and
Recommendation on the pe- on the Contested Case of the Petition to Appeal Decision of the
Planning Director's Decision Related to the Notice of Violation and the Order to Pay Fines for
the Operation of an Illegal Transient Accomodation for Property Sitatuion in Haena, Kuaa'i,
Hawaii, by Kauai TMK: (4) 5-8-005:005, containing 26,096 square feet. Patricia D. McConnell
is the Petitioner? Is that correct? Is that where we are? Just to make sure we're all on the same
case. And we have a Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument. The Commissioner granted the
Request for Oral Argument and we will proceed with that today. The way that we will proceed
is we will first hear from the Petitioner, second from the Planning Department or the counsel for
the Planning Department, and finally it's - since there are no intervenors, we will not have to
worry about that. Each party will have ten minutes to present their - uh, their oral arguments. I
will then allow brief closing or rebuttal arguments by the Petitioner for five minutes. Once these
closing arguments are complete, the proceedings shall stand submitted for a decision by the
Commission. The Commission will then render its decision after oral arguments. They can
adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation, reverse or modify the recommendation of the
Hearing Officer based on its determination, or refer the matter to the Hearings Officer to reopen
55
the docket and take further evidence or such disposition of the case that is necessary under this -
under the strict circumstances. Excuse me. Are there any questions?
Ms. Zeigler: Not from me.
Deputy County Attorney Mr. Chris Donahoe: Not from me, Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right not then, Counsel for the Petitioner, please state your name
for the record?
Ms. Zeigler: Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Joanna Zeigler and I represent Petitioner, uh, Patricia McConnell.
Chair Nogami Streufert: And Counsel for the Department, please.
Mr. Donahue: Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commission. Deputy County Attorney
Chris Donahoe on behalf of the Planning Department.
Chair Nogami Streufert: In that case we can start with the Counsel for the Petitioner. Your time
will start. You have ten minutes.
Ms. Zeigler: Thank you, Chairperson and the Commission, for reserving, uh, time this afternoon
for oral argument on this matter. Um, we appreciate, uh, you taking the time to listen, uh, and
just and sort of analyze the summary of the case and - and where it stands with the Hearing
Officer's Report and the exceptions that were submitted by, um, the Petitioner. Um, and in this
case, the oral argument is - is just that. It's to look at what did the Hearing Officer recommend
and take that in context of the exceptions that were submitted, and only the Petitioner in this case
submitted exceptions to the Hearing Officer Report. Um, and just along those same lines, I'd
request that the Planning Commission disregard some written testimony that I believe was
submitted that we received late yesterday evening by a commmunity member, at least to the
extent that it is permitted to additional evidence, uh, with regard to this contested case. The
evidentiary area is closed. Uh, each of the parties have submitted, uh, their evidence. There was
a contested case hearing closing arguments, and then a Report and Recommendation from the
Hearing Officer.
So because, uh, the evidentiary portion of this contested cas is closed, I would, uh, request that
no further evidence be submitted. So what is this case about? Um, it's actually really very
simple, although the Hearing Officer Report and Recommendation, uh, is seemingly quite
complex. Uh, this case is about a homestay and whether or not, um, the Notice of Violation, um,
was appropriately submitted to, um, the Petitioner in this case. Um, uh, the Notice of Violation,
uh, ri- uh, sorry. The Notice of Violation addressed one alleged violation of the homestay
ordinance. And so any reference to other sections of the ordinance; in particular, the transient
vacation rental section, uh, should be disregarded. There's a lot of sort of side conversation from
the Planning Department in its, uh, submissions and by the Hearing Officer regarding transient
vacation rentals, but this is not a TVR case. This is about a homestay, whether or not, uh, the
Petitioner, uh, could use her home as a homestay.
56
So why was Petitioner's homestay illegal? Well Petitioner purchased her property in 2004 and
then she began renting a room in her home in 2005 on a short-term basis. But prior to renting,
um, that room, Petitioner went to the Planning Department and asked what type of permit she
would need to lawfully do so, and the Planning Department informed her that she needed to
obtain a GET and TAT tax license, which she did. And this is reflected in the Hearing Officer's
Finding of Fact 4. The Hearing Officer, in fact, found that the only thing that Petitioner needed
to lawfully rent a room in her home on a short-term basis was these, uh, two tax licenses, and she
did obtain these. In 2005 homestays were not regulated under the Kauai County Code and
TVRs, for that matter, were not regulated, either. Neither of which were addressed, either. Um,
neither of which were addressed in the Kauai County Code. It wasn't until 2016 that the Kauai
County Code finally, uh, passed an ordinance which addressed, uh, home stays, and that was,
um, now codified as CZO 8-18.1, and this is the alleged violation that was mentioned, uh, in the
Notice of Violation submitted to Petitioner. However, because Petitioner lawfully utilized her
home as a homestay prior to the passage of this ordinance, her home or her use as a homestay
was grandfathered in as a nonconforming use, and that's specified in Kauai, Statute HRS 46-4
and in the CZO, uh, 13.2, uh, both of which say that if a use is in progress prior to the passage of
a later ordinance, that use is grandfathered in. Um, and the Hearing Officer actually also found
this. It's not 100% clear. It - there is a lot of writing around this, but the Hearing Officer
analyzes that this use was a noncomforming use and, uh, concludes that she, in fact, did have a
nonconforming use in Conclusion of Law 15.
And that is where the Hearing Officer should have ended his analysis, that the use was
nonconforming and therefore the Notice of Violation should be dismised. But rather than doing
so, the Hearing Officer went on to analyze, uh, the fact that there was a momentary lapse in the
use of her homestay, um, use, between April of 2018 and April 2019. Um, however, this
conclusion is misleading because, as probably every in k- on Kauai knows, uh, during that period
of time the emergency - uh, the Mayor's Emergency Rule No. 1 was in effect and, uh, stated that
no short-term rentals in the area in which, uh, Petitioner's property is located, uh, were allowed.
And so it wasn't that Petitioner ceased use of her property during that period, it was that, uh, the
Mayor's Emergency Rule No. 1 prohibited it. So even setting that aside, the fact that she did not
cease the use the Officer Officer should not have analyzed, uh, facts after the Notice of Violation
was, um, submitted. The Notice of Violation is sort of the snapshot in time in which, uh, the
Planning Department is saying, "Petitioner, you have violated the homestay ordinance." Um,
subsequent facts are not relevant as to whether that Notice of Violation, uh, should be enacted.
And so the - that is where - that is the major problem with the Hearing Officer's Report. He
should not - he should have stopped at nonconforming use and not gone into analysis of whether
that use had ceased later. Um, and - and not - the - those facts of the 2018 to 2019 road closure
on Kuhio Highway are just wholly irrelevant to whether, um, a use in 2017 was lawful or not.
So because Petitioner had a nonconforming use, um, the Notice of Violation should be
dismissed. Uh, and because the Hearing Officer does conclude this, but it is not as clear,
Petitioner, uh, would encourage the Planning Commission to look at the Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law that Petitioner submitted to the Hearing Officer because I think it is
a clear and conscise and logical path to, um, resolve this - this, um, contested case fairly and
reasonable. Um, and lastly, I just, uh, state the obvious; that, uh, Petitioner agrees with the
57
Hearing Officer's, um, conclusion that no fine should be imposed, um, in this case, and that's
based on the reasoning that Petitioner submitted in her brief and the reasoning that the Hearing
Officer included in the, uh, exception. Or, excuse me. In the Report and Recommendaton. Uh,
so with that, I will just conclude that because Petitioner had a nonconforming use, uh, the Notice
of Violation should be dimissed and no fines imposed. And I will wait to respond to the
Planning Department. Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I'm sorry. I was muted.
Mr. Donahoe: Oh.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Counsel for the Department.
Mr. Donahoe: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commission. Uh, there - there are
- and did - did the Commission receive and did, um, Ms. Zeigler, did you receive the, uh, the
amendments to the calendar, to the exhibits, the two - uh, second, third, fourth, and fifth with all
that information, uh, the statutes that the Planning Department submitted further testimony?
Ms. Zeigler: I saw something, but I thought that it was from the community member. I didn't
see that there was Planning Department testimony. Um, to the extent that those attachments
were Planning Department testimony, I would object to further, uh, testimony. There was a
contested case. The Planning Department had, um, ample opportunity to present and all
arguments to the Hearing Officer and, uh, at this point the - the subject matter of oral argument is
with regard to the Hearing Officer Report and Recommendation and then the - the exceptions
that Petitioner submitted. And, furthermore, the Planning Department did not submit any, uh,
exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendation, um, and therefore has waived
any - any and all objections.
Mr. Donahoe: Yeah. Well the purpose of the - my testimony today was to put forth clarification
on the Department's position with regard to the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendation.
And there's several reasons why the Petitioner's proprety does not qualify as a legal
noncomforming use and why the use of that subject property as a homestay should be
terminated. One, Petitioner admitted to running a homestay operation since 2005. Petitioner's
property falls outside the Visitor Destination Area. Petitioner has never had a Homestay Use
Permit. So under Ordinance 864, which was approved on March 7, 2008, which true, it would
apply to transit - transit vacation rentals, but it made it very clear that homestays are presently
regulated through the Use Permit process.
So under the CZO under 8-2.2(d)(4), no building structure, no use, activity, or development shall
be undertaken or established without first obtaining the permits required by this Chapter. And
under Section 8-2.24(f)(6), requiring Use Permits, it includes dormitories, guests, and boarding
houses, but not hotels and motels, which includes the Petitioner's, uh, property. So – and a Use
Permit is specifically required under the CZO under 8-3.2(b), which states that "No person shall
undertake any or carry on any activity for use for which a Use Permit is required without first
obtaining a Use Permit." So the Petitioner never - has never obtained a Homestay Use Permit,
never applied for one in 2005, not prior to passage of 864, which specifically states that
58
"Homestays are directed by the, uh, Use Permit qualifications." Then you have Ordinance 1002,
which was adopted in - on June 3, 2016, which amended Section 8-18.1(b), which prohibits
homestay operations outside the VDA. So prior to the enactment, the - the - so prior to this.
So prior to the enactment of Odinance 1002, Petitioner's homestay was not even ever a lawful
use because she was opreating with the Use Permit required under KCC 8-3.2. So no - which
states, "No person shall undertake an activity without first obtaining a Use Permit." That was
never done. Um, so after passage of Ordinance 1002, because it was outed - because which
specifically prohibited operation of a homestays outside the VDA, she could never at that point
obtain a Use Permit. And she - and - and to this day still hasn't. And so it's the Department's
position that it's never been a legal, a legal nonconforming use because she's never had the Use
Permit which was required under prior to 864, after passage of 864, and after passage of
Ordinance 1002. Um, Article 18 does not contain a nonconforming use provision, so to the
extent that somehow even if you argue, uh, Petitioner's position that prior to Ordinance 1012,
KC- KCC 18-13.2 could grandfather prior homestay uses. Um, Petitioner again still failed to
prove she was continously operating the valid homestay. The records shows that that and there
was evidence on the record that it was being advertised as a dwelling, that she is the owner and
was not even staying in. So that would have been had it been even a nonconforming use, it was
still in violation of 18-18.1(a)(3).
And so it was contingent upon her getting a Use Permit and to this date never - never got a Use
Permit. So that's what dictates here. And so when it's - when 8-18.1(b) states, “homestay
operations were prohibited outside the visita- Visitor Destination Area,” there could be no
grandfathering on a homestead use because it had to have been a lawful use and it wasn't a lawful
use because there was e- never any Use Permit applied for and received. Um, let's see. There's
one more thing. The - and, oh, okay. So since the regulated by Use Permits, the Planning
Department would agree that the termination of this use should be affirmed because it's not - it's
not a law- legal as Petitioner argues. It's not a legal nonconforming use.
And so even after passage of - of 1002 she can't now apply for the Use Permit because since
homestays are prohibited and can't be grandfathered in, it's - it's never going to be and never
should be a valid non-conforming use. So with these clarifications in mind, it's the Department's
position that the Planning Commission affirm the Hearing Officer Recommendation to affirm the
Notice of Violation, ordering the Petitioner to cease and desist the homestay operation at the
subject property. And it's also requested that the Planning commerc- uh, Commission allow the -
or - or affirm the recommendation to remand the decision of the Planning Director so that the
Planning Director can be given the opportunity to comply with the requirements of 8-3.5(b)(2)
and notify the Petitioner that the Order would become final 30 days after the day of the delivery.
And with that, thank you, Commission.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay. Counsel for the Petitioner, you have your chance for rebuttal
for five minutes. Your time starts now.
Ms. Zeigler: Thank you. The Planning Department characterizes their argument today as
clarification. However, it's really an after-the-fact argument. The Planning Department
submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, a Prehearing Statement. There was a
59
Contested Case Hearing. And it wasn't until closing arguments that the Planning Department did
mention this Use Permit argument. So we went through the entire process and Use Permit was
never brought up; not in the Motion for Summary Judgment and not in their Prehearing
Statement. There was testimony by a Planning Department Officer, Bambi Emayo, who testifed
that homestay operators could obtain a Use Permit. But the same Planning Department Officer
also stated that prior to the passage of Ordinance 1002 there was no reference in the Kauai
County Code to homestay and there was, uh, no definition of homestay and there was no way for
a person to know that homestay were regulated.
So although this general catch-all Use Permit has always been in the Code, it was not clear in
reading the Code that it applied to homestays. And the Planning Department had ample
opportunity to present evidence as to why that portion of the code applied to Petitioner, but it did
not. And so now, after the entire Contested Case Hearing and after a Hearing Officer's Report
and Recommendation, the Planning Department is coming back with this after-the-fact
argument, um, which shou- should be disregarded because it was not presented earlier. Um, and
- and that's also enforced by the fact that the Hearing Officer specifically found that the only,
requirement that Petitioner had to comply with was to obtain a GET and TAT tax license in the
Finding of Fact 4, and the Planning Department did not object to this finding. So with that, I'll
just go back to the fact that the Petitioner operated the homestay use prior to the passage of the
Ordinance.
And the Planning Department is correct, that the ordinance that addresses homestays is unlike
the ordinances that addresses transient vacation rentals where an operator has to obtain the
Nonconfirming Use Certificate. It doesn't have that specific requirement. But that's just like
any other ordinance or any other noncomforming is. I think Transient Vacation Rentals are the
only use that requires that nonconforming use certificate. No other noncomforming use does,
even outside of the realm of vacation rentals. So this is just like any other nonconforming use. It
was in effect prior to the passage of an ordinance and therefore it's grandfathered in and is able to
continue, pursuant to, HRS 46-4 and the CZO 18 or - excuse me. Yes. 18-13.2. Um, so that
with, uh, I would just request that the Planning Commission uphold the - the, um, Hearing
Officer's recommendation not to impose a fine, but to vacate the decision that the Petitioner must
cease and desist her noncomforming use. Thank you.
Mr. Cowger: I'm sorry, Chair. I can't hear. You're - you may be muted again.
Ms. Otsuka: Glenda, you're on mute.
Chair Nogami Streufert: I am on mute. I'm sorry. At this point we will get into the
Commission will get into deliberations and we thank you both for your closing arguments, as
well as the rebuttal. Okay. So—
Ms. Zeigler: Thank you as well. And thanks for the opportunity to, uh, present via video. It's
very convenient and I appreciate that.
Mr. Donahoe: Yes. Thank you, Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It was - it was
convenient. Thank you.
60
Chair Nogami Streufert: Convenient, but it's not quite real time with this. At this point, uh, is
there a motion - before we get into, uh, discussion of this, I think we need a motion before we get
into the discussion phase of it. So is there a motion to either adopt the recommendation of the
Hearing Officer, reverse or modify the recommendation of the hearing officer, or refer the matter
back to the Hearing Officer to reopen the docket and take further evidence or such disposition of
the case that is necessary under the circumstances? Is there a motion.
Mr. Ho: Madam Chair? Madam Chair.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Commissioner Ho.
Mr. Ho: I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt and the Report and Recommendaton
as provided by the Hearing Officer and to affirm the decision of the Planning Director. I would
also like to add that if he deems fines to be levied, it would be at his discretion.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It would be a modification. I don't think - you can either adopt it or to
modify.
Ms. Otsuka: Do does Commissioner Ho have to repeat his motion?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Right, to either adopt it or to modify it or either adoption
recommendation of the Hearing Officer is or you add a modificaton.
Mr. Ho: My motion would be to - that the Planning Commission adopt the Report and
Recommendation as provided for by the Hearings Officers and to affirm the decision of the
Planning Director.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you. I the motion to affirm the decision of the Planning
Director. Is there a second?
Ms. Cox: Just a pont of clarification. So the- if we are adopting it, we are also adopting
reversing in part to assess fines.
Chair Nogami Streufert: That's correct. That is the entire report.
Ms. Cox: Right. Thank you.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Unless, Counsel Denny, if you would like to correct me at any point, I
would stand corrected for anything.
Mr. Cowger: Okay. That is correct.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. So it's been moved. Do I have a second on that?
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
61
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the recommendation of the
Hearing Officer - Hearings Officer and to affirm the decision of the Planning Director. Is there
any discussion? If not, are we ready for a vote?
Ms. Cox: I - this may be just a - not necessary. But the wording of the report if we're adopting it
says that it will reverse in part the decision of the Planning Director in regards to the fines. So
I'm just - if we say we're adopting the report and we're affirming the Project Director - or the
Planning Department's Decision, that doesn't sound like we're adopting the reverse in part, the
decision of the Planning Director to assess fine. It's a wording issue. And maybe it isn't an
issue, but it seemed a little confusing to me.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It is to - right now it is to adopt the Planning -the Hearings Officer's
recommendations as written.
Ms. Cox: Okay. And I think we have to stop there rather than saying then to affirm the Project -
the Planning Director's. Because, in fact, the report didn't accept all of the Planning Director's.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Okay.
Ms. Cox: Yeah.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Stand corrected.
Ms. Cox: Thank you. Yeah. Thanks.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Does that meet the Counsel - our Cousel's recommendatons, also?
Mr. Cowger: It - it's - yes, it's fine.
Chair Nogami Streufert: All right. Is there any more discussion. Okay. This is to adopt the
recommendaton of the Hearings Officers' (inaudible). If there are no more discussions, then
could we have a rollcall vote?
Mr. Cowger: Sure. I'll do the roll call, Madam Chair. Rollcall. Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here. Oh, aye.
Mr. Cowger: Commissioner Degracia?
Ms. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Cowger: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
62
Mr. Cowger: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Cowger: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Cowger: Chair Strefert?
Chair Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Cowger: Motion passes to adopt the Commissioner - Hearing Officer's Report and
Recommendation passes. 6:0.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Thank you for the Counsel for both the Petitioner, as well as for the
Department.
Ms. Zeigler: Yeah.
Mr. Donahoe: Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Thanks, Denny.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Yes.
COMMUNICATIONS (For Action)
Mr. Hull: Moving right along, we have no Communications for Actions.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Mr. Hull: For the rest of the Agenda, we actuall have no subdivision committee reports at this
time, Madam Chair.
UNFINISIHED BUSINESS ( For Action)
Mr. Hull: Moving on, there is no Unfinished Business.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Hull: Now moving on there is no further New Business.
For Action - See Agenda F for Project Descriptions
63
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on November 10, 2020. The Planning Commission anticipates meeting via teleconference but will announce its intended meeting method via agenda electronically posted at least six days prior to the meeting date.
Mr. Hull: So we move into Announcements, Topics for Future Meetings. we have a few, the
next meeting is on November 10 and we have a few Use Permits pertaining to that, but if there's
any additional topics that Commissioners would like the Department to bring forward, um, we
can do so right now or we can contact the Department on the site, as well.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there any - are there any topics that the Commissioner would like to
add to the November agenda? If not, with no other business, could I have a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Cox: I move we adjourn.
Chair Nogami Streufert: Is there a second?
Ms Otsuka: I second. I second.
Chair Nogami Streufert: It's moved and seconded to adjourn. Do I rollcall vote. All those in
favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion Passed 6:0. The meeting is
adjourned. Thank you very much.
Chair Nogami Streufert adjourned the meeting at 1:17 p.m.
64
Respectfully submitted by:
_________________________
Arleen Kuwamura,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of __________ meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR
JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR
MICHAEIA.DAHIL16,MANAGING DIRECTOR
July6,2021
RE:ZoningAmendmentZA-2021-4
LThu'eSugarMillsite
TMKs:(4)3-8-004:007 &3-8-005:009
Applicant:County of Kaua'i
Proiect Description
The proposed legislation amends Chapter 10,Artide 5A,Kaua'i County Code 1987,as amended,
thereby rezoning the LIhu'e Sugar Mill site from its existing use,"Industrial,"into the Special
Use District -LThu'e Town Core,and to incorporate the LThu'e Sugar Mill site into the LThu'e
Town Core Urban Design District,Special Planning Area "D"("SPA-D"),also known as the "Rice
Street Neighborhood Design District."
Attachments
1)A draft bill for an ordinance relating to the proposed legislation.
2)A map showing the proposed amendment to Zoning Map ZM-LI-400 Special Planning
Area "D"("SPA-D"),also known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood Design District."
3)A notice that an agency hearing with a public hearing and an opportunity for public
testimony relating to the proposed legislation will be held on August10,2021.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Kenneth Estes of my staff
at 808.241.4050.
KA'XlNA S.'TlflLL^
Director of Planning
4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LFhu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4050 (b)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
G.'fctf.
AU6 1 O 2021
ORDINANCE N0.BILL N0.
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10,
KAUA'I COUNTY CODE 1987,AS AMENDED.
('CountY_ofKaya'i Planning DeBartment,ZA-2021-4)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA'I,STATE OF
HAWAI'I:
SECTION 1.Purpose:The County ofKaua'i adopted the first General Plan in 1971
(updated in 1984,2000 and 2018).Subsequently,the County ofKaua'i adopted the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ("CZO")in 1972.Since its adoption,the County ofKaua'i
has approved several amendments to specific provisions ofthe CZO.
The purpose ofthis Ordinance is to amend the Lihue Town Core Urban Design District
ofthe Kaua'i County Code,1987,as amended,thereby rezoning what is currently the Lihue
Sugar Mill site from its existing use,"Industrial,"iato the Special Use District -Lihue Town
Core,and to incorporate the Lihue Sugar Mill site into the Lihue Town Core Urban Design
District,Special Plaiming Area "D"("SPA-D"),also known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood
Design District."
The Subject Property,hereinafter referred to as "Lihue Mill site"is located near the center of
downtown,Lihu'e,Kaua i,Hawai'i,and is shown on the Location Map attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
The Council finds that the property referred to herein as the Lihue Mill site is all that
certain parcel ofland (being portion(s)ofthe land(s)described in and covered by Royal Patent
Grant Number 188,Apana 1 to Wm.L.Lee,Royal Patent Number 4478,Land Commission
Award Number 7713,Apana 2,Part 1 to V.Kamamalu)situate,lying and being at Kalapaki,
Nawiliwili,Liliu'e,Island and County ofKaua'i,State ofHawai'i,being Lot 3 and containing an
area of 11.108 acres,more or less and all ofthe certain parcel ofland (being portion(s)ofthe
land(s)described in and covered by Royal Patent Number 4478,Land Commission award 7713,
Apaaa 2,Part 2,to V.Kamamalu and Royal Patent Grant Number 188:1 to W.L.Lee)situate,
lying and being at Nawiliwili,Lihu'e (Puna),Island and County ofKaua'i,State ofHawai'i,
being Lot 2 and containing an area of 2.713 acres,more or less,being the portion ofLihue
Plantation Company,Limited Mill site;and as delineated by metes and bounds descriptions in
Attachment B.
The Council further finds that the Lihue Mill site contains approximately 13.793 total
acres and is located on two (2)separate TMK parcels,identified as:
PARCEL FIRST (LOT 3)is (are)covered by Tax Key:(4)3-8-004:007.
PARCEL SECOND (LOT 2)is (are)covered by Tax Key:(4)3-8-005:009.
The Council finds that the lack ofaffordable housing is a serious issue facing Kaua'i
residents.
The Council finds that the Lihue Towii Core Urban Design PIan ("LTCUDP")was
adopted by the County ofKaua'i in March 2010.According to the LTCUDP,"Lihue is Kaua'i's
administrative,business,and transportation center,".
The Council finds that the Lihue Mill site is located in the corridor between the Kukui
Grove Mall and the Rice Street District.Ifthe Subject Property is incorporated into the Lihue
Town Core,SPA-D,potential residents would have walking/cycling access to essential services
in both downtown Lihu'e and the Kukui Grove areas.
The Council also finds that the Lihue Mill site is located withing walking/cycling
distance to the Special Plaiming Area "D"(SPA-D),also known as the "Rice Street
Neighborhood Design District"as defined at Sec.10-5A.7 ofthe Lihue Town Core Urban
Design District.
The Council finds that this Zoning Amendment is necessary in order to allow for the
development ofthe Subject Property to its fullest potential in the Lihue Town Core (R-40),
pursuant to Sec.10-5A.7(A)(1-20)Special Planning Area "D"(SPA-D).
According to the Kaua'i County General Plan (2018),Kaua'i is far short ofthe housing
needed to keep up with population growth and to make housing affbrdable for working families.
There is a serious shortage ofworkforce housing on Kaua i.According to the Kaua'i General
PIan,approximately 9,000 housing units are needed by 2035.See:Kaua'i General Plan,p.39.
The Council finds that incorporating the Subject Property into the Lihue Town Core
fulfills one ofthe goals ofthe Kaua'i General Plan,namely potential creation ofinfill housing
Infill housing is described in the Kaua'i General Plan as "housing located within existing
communities can expand our housing inventory without consuming precious open space."
The Council finds that amending the zoning ofthe Lihue Mill site to incorporate it into
the Lihue Town Core is also consistent with the 2015 Lihue Community Plan.
The Council finds that the location ofthe Lihue Mill site is ideal for infill or workforce
housing.The location between Rice Street and Kukui Grove Center,if developed,will lessen the
growth ofresidential sprawl while providing residents with walking access to businesses,
govemmental services,and potentialjobs.The Kaua'i General Plan encourages infill housing as
an altemative to sprawl.
The Council finds that,as stated in the General Plan,"the altemative to sprawl focuses
new development in existing town centers in order to leverage existing physical and social
infrastructure while preserving vital open spaces.The rezoning ofthe Lihue Mill site into the
Lihue Town Core,SPA "D"would serve to foster town centers that support infill housing and
mixed use environments.Such infill areas would include the major employment centers ofLihue
and Koloa."
The Council finds that including the subject Property in the "Lihue Town Core"will help
meet the goals for infill housing contained in the Kaua'i General Plan.
The Council finds that according to tbe General PIan:
"INFILL HOUSING:
Infill development,or housing located within existing
communities,can expand our housing inventory without
consuming precious open space.It may be less expensive than
"greenfield"development because it utilizes existing infrastmcture
and services.Infill housing has the potential to play an important
role in meeting future housing needs,but only if the zoning,
infrastructure,and built enviromnent can support higher density
communities.It should also be appropriately scaled to the character
of individual towns.
The Council also finds that,consistent with the General Plan,rezoning the Lihue Mill site
into the Lihue Town Core,SPA-D,with the potential for "multiple-family dwellings not to
exceed R-40 density"will result in "adapting planning and zoning requirements in a manner that
will stimulate private investment in new or renovated structures."
The Council finds that the current landowner has consented to this zoning amendment.
The puqiose ofthis bill is to amend the Kauai County Code,Section 10.5A to designate
the Lihue Mill site within the Lihue Town Core,Special Planning Area "D"(SPA-D),also
known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood Design District."
SECTION 2.Ifany provision ofthis Ordinance or application thereofto any person,
persons,or circumstances is held invalid,the invalidity does not affect the other provisions or
applications ofthis Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application,and to this end,the provisions ofthis Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 3.Ordinance material to be repealed is bracketed.New ordinance material is
underscored.When revising,compiling,or printing this Ordinance for inclusion in the Kaua'i
County Code 1987,as amended,the brackets,bracketed material,and underscoring shall not be
included.
SECTION 4.This Ordinance shall take effect upon approval.The requirements ofthis
Ordinance shall not affect any application which has been approved by the Commission prior to
the effective date ofthis Ordinance,unless there is a subsequent approval required prior to a
building pemiit,in which case,that subsequent application shall be subject to the relevant
requirements ofthis Ordinance,excluding subdivisions which have received tentative approval
prior to the approval date ofthis Ordinance.
DATE OF INTRODUCTION:XXX,2021,LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i.
Introduced by:
Map Showing Proposed Amendment to Zoning Map ZM-
SPA-D:Rice Street Neighborhood
Proposed Amendment to SPA-D (Lihue Mill Area)
Ll-400 Special Planning Area (SPA)"D"Also Known As the "Rice Street Neighborhood"
SPA-E:Kuhio Highway Neighborhood SPA-G:Civic Center Neighborhood
SPA-F:Akahi/Elua/Umi Streets Neighborhoods
^T^.*SA^:^V_./
*-»...-*>^fe^,.^
r-hl -^l -lTll
su&aE6ro'@*-"r1^'
Anwit
v>J9SS!S«S5'f
iffnmR-ZOmcriicttoCBpirtrict by COUKCH-*-fl-7fl nrt.Wb.fll-4.7»
@ ^irm )tr<lfitR-aaD:imainKt>iSt>;ilb>COUNCIL 4-4-7 •Ot d.flt m-T-Tt
AmtiidaitlrBinOim,n-aoaR-4/»T-POtllT>tlfiiMDIinrldB|UWUeiL T-U-7*OnLNIa.nl-II-TB
l3l Antn»il(n)m ff-4/ST-f [Hthia «>!t-iODItlncflNCOUHCILft^[»--«OTd.Nii.Pt«-ia-7B
irS-7aanlNa.l>M-23-Ta
ilB-BlbifCOUNCIL
lOrf.Na.PlieS.M
hMifl-4 tllfricf *oB><°U»ritft»eoUHCIL4^.aJ<tolNhfll-®-8(
SCALE !N FE?T
ZOO 400 600 BOO
^ll-tlAI
.saoft.•-**-n
n-ZODilfrtehtoCB Bittritttf WUWCIL i-r?-U OrdUBntt Na.»13
itliB Uevllan nl th.LI)II)»Owlm>i!U"t Pl<"ti»COUfK;*.It-29-0 LIHyE-KAPAIA
PLANMINQ DEPAR.TAIEAJT
COUNT"OF <AUai
ttnATUh CTrIHIS UAPttd:
?AN PfeAWtWG WANT T)CMl^£3»\Onj.No.PUa».a
nsriWTuna
ACKF 1954 AS AF<ENO£0
ft>m T'^OOGH y UrteAN PfeAWtWG G
tMLugOSIW-SfS.HOME FINflNCE A3EI
flSIONS i}F iECTIL'N TO'.3F rh
LE G EN D
ZONING DISTRICTS
GH3
[Bl]
@L]
6Ea
t-I
EH]
[EQ
[EQ
CT3
C£3
BESIDENTIAL DISTBICT
i.t •-"•'•""ri-t i i.ii .<-.T-.-.
1.1 ...nl,—.(1-4 ||.»••-^.,un,
RESflRT DISTRIC7
"-..'iS?"E"]"."23?
CONNERCIAL DISTRICT
nEiiiiittlia
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
AGRICUITURE BISTRICT
OPEN DISTRICT
SPECIAITREATMENTDISTRICL
ttUlttt;1KTIIK ftT-tj
ttEiic:n>ttiitti |n-f]
SPECIAL PIANNING AREA EE3
PROJECT DISTRICT Ou
STATE UNBUSE DISTRICTS
mu wiun |U 1 MBtanu Mfivi j_A]
nuL»rii(n j R ]taimntmi iBixn ]—g—|
AOOPTEO SY COUNTY OF KAUAI
Atlopttd i-t?.-Tt ,»yPLANNIN6 COMMISSION
^^i.U.1i^i~^^
Chdtfftwiti P^onniB^CwnmiBiK>n
Adopt.il 1-is-ll hy COUNTV COUNCIL <9ill Matt41
%^rij-/s^—ac
EMCTM Ot ftdiFBiK*Wi>.[64 iEftnilivt Oiott 9-1-72)
AOOPTEO 8Y COUHTY OF KAUAt
(LJMUE OEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Chairfliiin|Pt!»Slng CoiruiiBfion
A{i[B<nnd il^9-[7.,b»EXECUTIVfi '•^tANC^.
Matlf ''
Aflapttd )l-ls-^.,S)L.COUNTY/jAu/iCr.^<—_s^^v"~O^tm'Iii)r<)iif(ii|/
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR
JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR
MICHAELA.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by Consideration ofa Bill for an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 10,
Planning Commission:Kaua'i County Code (1987),As Amended.
Permit Application Nos.Zoning Amendment ZA-2021-4
Name of Applicant(s)COUNTY OF KAUA'[PLANNING DEPARTMENT
II.PERMIT INFORMATION
III.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
IV.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE
The proposed bill for an ordinance is being intiated by the County ofKaua'i Planning
Department and is hereby submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
The purpose ofthis legislation (Bill No.to be determined)is to amend the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance,located at Chapter 10 ofTitle IV ofthe Kaua'i County Code,1987,as
amended,thereby rezoning what is currently the Lihue Sugar Mill site from its existing use,
^.4.^...!
AU6 1 O 2021
AMENDMENTS
Zoning Amendment Pursuant to KCC Section 8-3.4(a),as amended,a Zoning
Amendment is necessary when changing the text whenever
the public necessity and convenience and the general
welfare require an amendment.
General Plan Amendment
Community Plan
Amendment
State Land Use District
Amendment
KCC Section 8-3.4
Public Hearing Date:August 10,2021
Date of Publication:July09,2021
Date of Director's Report:August 10,2021
"Industrial,into the Special Use District -Lihue Town Core,as defined in the General
PIan 2018 Update.p.1,and to,accordingly replace zoning Map 400 ivith the zoning Map
401 to reflect the incorporation ofthe Lihue Sugar Mill site into the Lihue Tovvn Core
Urban Design District,Special Planning Area "D"("SPA-D"),also known as the "Rice
Street Neighborhood Design District."
Please refer to the attached proposed draft bill (Exhibit A)for further details.
V.APPLICANT'S REASON'S/JUSTIFICATION
1)Addressing Kaua'i's Housing Crisis
Presently,the island ofKaua'i is facing a housing shortage to accommodate local
residents and future population growth.In an effort to address these issues,the County
has taken proactive measures to increase the inventory of housing opportunities across
the island.In the LThu'e District,plans and policies developed for the area have
reinforced the "smart growth"planning principles that are necessary to achieve a
balance between LIhu'e as the urban center ofthe island and Kauai's predominantly
rural character.
Through "smart growth"planning principles the concept of'infill development"is the
basis for addressing the housing shortage and future population growth in the LThu'e
District.Infill development focuses on new development within existing town centers
in order to preserve vital open spaces and minimize urban sprawl.
2)Implementation ofthe Kaua'i County 2018 General PIan
The proposed legislation implements the goals and policies outlined in the 2018
General Plan by providing the zoning framework to support housing,mixed-use
development,and walkable communities.
3)Implementation ofthe 2015 LIhu e Community Plan
The proposed legislation implements the vision,policy objectives,and guiding
principles outlined in the 2015 LThu e Community Plan by utilizing existing open space
and using smart-growth principles to redevelop a former mill site within the LThu'e
Town Core to provide housing,mixed-use development,and walkable communities.
VI.FINDINGS
1.LIhu'e Town Core Urban DesignPlan 2009
A.The 2009 LIhu e Town Core Urban Design Plan builds upon the policies set by the
2000 General Plan and provided direction for updating the LThu'e Development
Plan (now updated to the 2015 LThu e Community Plan)and Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance.It guides development by describing an overall vision specific to
the town core that covers urban design standards.
2 1 Page
ZA-202I-4 Director's Report
County ofKaiia'i,Planning Department
Augustl 0,2021
1)Chaptcr 1.0,Section 1.3 entitled "Project Site"specifies:
o The five main project neighborhoods that are the focus ot this plan are:
•Rice Street Neighborhood
*Kiihio Highway Neighborhood
•'Akahi/Elua/'Umi Streets Neighborhood
•LThu'e Civic Center and the adjacent public facilities
•OId LThu'e Mill site and Haleko Road
2.Chapter 10,Article 5A.LThu e Town Core Urban Design District Ordinance ofthe K.CC
A.Section 10-5A.1 entitled "Title,Purpose and General Provisions."reads:
"(b)Nature ofthe LThu'e Town Core Urban Design District Ordinance.This
Article supplements Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 ofthe Kaua'i County Code by
regulating use and development standards within the LThu'e Town Core area.
This Article also provides the necessary framework and guidelines to direct
future development and improvements..."
B.Section 10-5A.6 entitled "Special Planning Area,Designation and Procedures."
specifies:
"(a)Designation ofSpecial Planning Areas "D,""E,""F"and "G".The boundaries
ofthe following neighborhood design districts are hereby adopted as
described in Chapter 5 ofthe LThu'e Town Core Urban Design Plan of 2009
and shall be referred to as follows:
(1)Special Planning Area "D,"which shall also be known as the "Rice
Street Neighborhood Design District"and be designated as "SPA-D"on
Zoning Maps."...
C.Section 10-5A.7 entitled "Special Planning Area "D""Rice Street Neighborhood
Design District"-Uses,Standards and Guidelines"specifies:
1)Generally Permitted Uses and Structures in SPA-D:
•Accessory uses and structures;
•Art galleries and sales;
•Churches and temples;
•Clubs,lodges and community centers (private);
•Commercial indoor amusement and recreation facilities;
•Convenience store and neighborhood grocery stores with a twenty thousand
(20,000)square foot building footprint or smaller;
•Home businesses;
•Hotels and motels not to exceed RR-10 density;
•Household services;
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
Couniy ofKaua'i,Planning Department
Augusl 10,2021
3|Page
•Light Manutacturing,such as handicrafts and garment fabrication;
*Minor Food Processing,such as cracked seedsjellies candies,and ice cream
with a twenty thousand (20,000)square foot building tootprint or smaller;
•Museums,libraries and public services;
•Offices and professional buildings;
•Parking garages/structures;
•Personal services,such as barber and beauty shops,salons,laundromats,shoe
repair shops,etc.;
•Public offices and buildings;
•Public parks and monuments;
*Restaurants and food services;
"Retail sales and shops with twenty thousand (20,000)square foot building
footprint or less;
•Multi-family dwellings not to exceed R-40 density;
•Single family dwellings;
*Schools and daycare centers.
2)Uses and Structures Requiring a Use Permit in SPA-D:
•Adult family boarding,group living and care homes;
•Animal hospital;
•Automobile repair,storage and gasoline sales;
•Bars,nightclubs,and carbarets;
•Botanical and zoological gardens;
•Communication facilities;
"Construction material storage;
•Convenience stores and grocery stores over twenty thousand (20,000)square
foot building footprint;
•Food processing and packaging (other than what is permitted above);
•Hotels and motels not to exceed RR-20;
•Light manufacturing (other than what is permitted above);
*Outdoor private amusement and recreational facilities;
•Public and private utilities and facilities;
•Research and development (including laboratory/medical research);
•Retail sales over twenty thousand (20,000)square foot building footprint;
•Warehouse,self-storage facilities.
VII.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
[n reviewing the proposed legislation,the following items are taken into consideration:
1.Kaua'i County 2018 General Plan
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
County ot'K.aua'i-Plaiining Departmcnt
Aiigust 10,2021
4 1 P age
A.The 2018 General Plan sets forth a vision,goals,and policies to guide future growth
on Kaua'i.The proposed legislation is consistent with the overall vision and
policies outlined in the 2018 General Plan.
1)The 2018 General Plan defines "Infill Development"as:
"Infill Development means building within existing communities.Infill
development can expand housing inventory without consuming open space"
Section 1.3 entitled "Vision and Goals"specifies:
1)Goal #1:A Sustainable Island
•The proposed legislation supports Goal #1 to develop Kaua'i
responsibly to meet the needs of current and future generations by
concentrating growth around an existing center and preserving
important resources such as vital open spaces and agricultural lands.
2)Goal #4:An Equitable Place,with Opportunity For All
•The proposed legislation supports Goal #4 to establish Kaua'i as an
equitable place with opportunity for all by providing adequate
housing opportunities and increasing access to public transit as well
as employment options for residents.
Section 1.4 entitled "Policies to Guide Growth"identify the following policies:
1)Policy #1:Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character
•The proposed legislation preserves the island's rural character by
directing new growth within existing towns.Prioritizing infill
development and encouraging compact,walkable communities ensures
that open space and agricultural areas are protected.
2)Policy #2:Provide Local Housing
•The proposed legislation will provide local housing by increasing the
overall supply ofhomes to alleviate Kaua'i's housing shortage.
3)Policy #4:Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods
•The proposed legislation will contribute towards a safe,walkable,and
mixed-use community design that is conducive for a healthy lifestyle.
Creating neighborhoods where it is safe and convenient to walk,bike,or
take transit allows residents to increase physical activity on a daily basis,
thereby reducing health risks.Designing in this manner improves access
to education,jobs,and services for those who are unable to drive and
reduces the cost of transportation for families.
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
County ofKaua'i,Planning Dupanment
August 10,2021
5|Page
4)Policy #10:Help Business Thrive
•The proposed legislation vvill provide the framework to create a high
density mixed residential and commercial use environment,thereby
generating and sustaining economic activity for neighborhood-serving
businesses.
Section 2.0 Future Land Use,Subsection 2.2 entitled "Land Use Designations"
specifies:
1)Figure 5-5 LThu'e Land Use Map shows the LThu'e Sugar Mill site within the
boundaries designated as "Neighborhood Center".
•Section 2.2 (4.Neighborhood Center)states:
Neighborhood Center is a new designation focused on historic town
cores and corresponds to existing or future areas appropriate for
accommodating infill development and grow^h.Centers consist ofa
mixed-use core with a cluster ofretail activity,civic spaces and primary
destinations,along with residential uses..."
Section 3.0 Actions by Sector,Subsection Sector II,entitled "Housing"specifies:
1)[nfill Development or Housing Objective:To support mixed use,higher density,
and walkable development in existing towns.
2)Decentralized development or residential sprawl onto agricultural and open-
zoned lands erodes Kauai's rural character and town centers.Expansion ofthis
type ofdevelopment will run counter to an environmentally and fiscally
sustainable future.
3)Infill development,the altemative to urban sprawl focuses on new development
in existing towns in order to leverage existing physical and social infrastructure
while preserving vital open space.This fosters town centers that support infill
housing and mixed use environments.
2.2015 LIhu'e Community PIan
A.The 2015 LThu'e Community Plan serves as a guide for all development within the
LThu'e Planning District.The plan translates community input into policies that
shape the future ofthe Lihu'e District.It also transforms the visions.goals and
policies outlined in the General plan into specific actions through implementing
policy objectives and guiding principles.The proposed legislation is consistent with
the overall policy objectives and guiding principles outlined in the 2015 LIhu'e
Community Plan.
6 1 P age
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
County oftCaua'i,Planning Department
Augustl 0,2021
Section 2.3 entitled "Policy Objectives for the District specifies:
1)Concentrate Development within a 10-minute walking radius ofthe existing
communities ofLThu'e,Puhi,and Hanama'ulu.
•This will discourage development and sprawl that depends on the
automobile as the primary means oftransportation,and facilitate the
goals ofwalkability,sustainability,and revitalization.
2)Renew and revitalize the LThu'e Town Core as walkable,well-landscaped,
attractive hub with Rice Street as a central destination.
•This can be accomplished through design guidelines,incentivizing infill
development for increased density,and implementing revitalization
initiatives to create reasons and places for the community to gather.
3)Introduce and implement smart growth principles to foster walkable,compact,
and connected communities within the LThu e District.
•Smart Growth Principles include:
a.A Range ofhousing opportunities
b.Walkable neighborhoods
c.Distinctive,attractive communities
d.Community CoIIaboration
e.Predictable,fair,and cost effective development decisions
f.Mixed land uses
g.Preservation of open space,farmland,natural beauty,and critical
environmental areas
h.A variety oftransportation choices
i.Development directed to existing communities
j.Compact building design
4)Define and uphold community character through Special Planning Areas and
design standards.
•The LThu'e Community Plan seeks to implement the aspects ofplace-
making using Special Planning Areas and associated design standards.
5)Provide housing opportunities that will be accessible to Kauai s growing
population in all market sectors.
•Revitalization ofthe Llhu'e Town Core will enhance employment
opportunities.Encouraging higher density and mixed use residential
creates an opportunity for increased business activity as well as
workforce housing.
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
CounLy ofKaua'i,Pltinning Departmcnt
Au.aust 10,2021
7|Page
6)Preserve agriculture,open space,and preservation uses throughout the majority
ofthc district.
•Concentrating future development around existing urban centers as
proposed in the LThue Community Plan will help preserve those lands
presently under agricultural and open space use.
7)[nsure that public infrastructure and amenities are incorporated into development
plans.
•The LThu'e Community Plan describes existing public areas that require
improvements to support recommended development.
•Section 4.4.1 entitled "Areas ofChange in LIhu'e"states the former
LThu'e Sugar Mill site has potential for redevelopment as a destination
and extension ofthe Town Core with high density mixed residential and
commercial uses.
VIII.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings and evaluation,it is hereby concluded that the proposed
amendment to Chapter 10 ofthe KCC that rezones what is currently the Lihue Sugar Mill
site from its existing use,"Industrial,"into the Special Use District -Lihue Town Core,as
defined in the General Plan 2018 Update.p.1,and to,accordingly replace zoning Map 400
with the zoning Map 401 to reflect the incorporation ofthe Lihue Sugar Mill site into the
Lihue Town Core Urban Design District,Special Planning Area "D"("SPA-D"),also
known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood Design District"is reasonable and appropriate to
achieve the policies set forth by the 2018 Kaua'i General Plan,2015 LIhu'e Community
Plan and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,Chapter 8 ofthe Kaua'i County Code,as
amended.
IX.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the evaluation and explanations above,it is recommended that Zoning
Amendment ZA-2021-4 be approved.
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
Counly ofKaua'i,Planning Department
August 10,2021
8|Page
/•
^ENNETH A.ESTES
Planner
Approved-ii!;Recomns b Commission:
By
S~'TH-?LL
Director ofPlanning
Date:^I-L^^-^
ZA-2021-4 Director's Report
County ofK.aua'i,Planning Depanment
Augusd 0,2021
9 1 Pa ge
ORDINANCE N0.BILL N0.
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10,
KAUA'I COUNTY CODE 1987,AS AMENDED.
(County ofK.aua'i Planning Department,ZA-2021-4)
BE IT OR.DAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA-1,STATE OF
HAWAI-I:
SECTION 1.Purpose:The County ofKaua'i adopted the first General Plan in 1971
(updated in 1984,2000 and 2018).Subsequently,the County ofKaua'i adopted the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ("CZO")in 1972.Since its adoption,the County ofKaua'i
has approved several amendments to specific provisions ot the CZO.
The purpose ofthis Ordinance is to amend the Lihue Town Core Urban Design District
ofthe Kaua'i County Code,1987,as amended,thereby rezoning what is currently the Lihue
Sugar Mill site from its existing use,"Industrial,"into the Special Use District -Lihue Town
Core,and to incorporate the Lihue Sugar Mill site into the Lihue Town Core Urban Design
District,Special Planning Area "D"("SPA-D"),also known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood
Design District."
The Subject Property,hereinafter referred to as "Lihue Mill site"is located near the
center ofdowntown,LThu'e,ICaua'i,Hawai'i,and is shown on the Location Map attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
The Council finds that the property referred to herein as the Lihue Mill site is allthat
certain parcel ofland (being portion(s)ofthe land(s)described in and covered by Royal Patent
Grant Number 188,Apana 1 to Wm.L.Lee,Royal Patent Number 4478,Land Commission
Award Number 7713,Apana 2,Part 1 to V.Kamamalu)situate,lying and being at Kalapaki,
Nawiliwili,Lihu'e,Island and County ofKaua'i,State ofHawai'i,being Lot 3 and containing an
area of 11.108 acres,more or less and all of the certain parcel of land (being portion(s)of the
land(s)described in and covered by Royal Patent Number 4478,Land Commission award 7713,
Apana 2,Part 2,to V.Kamamalu and Royal Patent Grant Number 188:1 to W.L.Lee)situate,
lying and being at Nawiliwili,Lihu'e (Puna),Island and County ofKaua'i,State ofHawai'i,
being Lot 2 and containing an area of 2.713 acres,more or less,being the portion ofLihue
Plantation Company,Limited Mill site;and as delineated by metes and bounds descriptions in
Attachment B.
The Council further finds that the Lihue Mill site contains approximately 13.793 total
acres and is located on two (2)separate TMK parcels,identified as:
PARCEL FIRST (LOT 3)is (are)covered by Tax Key:(4)3-8-004:007.
PARCEL SECOND (LOT 2)is (are)covered by Tax Key:(4)3-8-005:009.
The Council tmds that the lack ofattordable housing is a serious issue facin;
residents.
Kaua'i
The Council finds that the Lihue Town Core Urban Design PIan ("'LTCUDP")was
adopted by the County ofKaua'i in March 2010.According to the LTCUDP,"Lihue is Kaua'i's
administrative,business,and transportation center,".
The Council finds that the Lihue Mill site is located in the corridor between the Kukui
Grove Mall and the Rice Street District.Ifthe Subject Property is incorporated into the Lihue
Town Core,SPA-D,potential residents would have walking/cycling access to essential services
in both downtown LThu'e and the Kukui Grove areas.
The Council also finds that the Lihue Mill site is located withing walking/cycling
distance to the Special Planning Area "D"(SPA-D),also known as the "Rice Street
Neighborhood Design District"as defined at Sec.10-5A.7 ofthe Lihue Town Core Urban
Design District.
The Council finds that this Zoning Amendment is necessary in order to allow for the
development ofthe Subject Property to its fullest potential in the Lihue Town Core (R-40),
pursuant to Sec.10-5A.7(A)(1-20)Special Planning Area "D"(SPA-D).
According to the Kaua'i County General Plan (2018),Kaua'i is far short ofthe housing
needed to keep up with population growth and to make housing affordable for working families.
There is a serious shortage ofworkforce housing on Kaua'i.According to the Kaua'i General
Plan,approximately 9,000 housing units are needed by 2035.See:Kaua'i General Plan,p.39.
The Council finds that incorporating the Subject Property into the Lihue Town Core
fulfills one ofthe goals ofthe Kaua'i General Plan,namely potential creation ofinfill housing.
Infill housing is described in the Kaua'i General Plan as "housing located within existing
communities can expand our housing inventory without consuming precious open space."
The Council finds that amending the zoning ofthe Lihue Mill site to incorporate it into
the Lihue Town Core is also consistent with the 2015 Lihue Community Plan.
The Council finds that the location ofthe Lihue Mill site is ideal for infill or worktbrce
housing.The location between Rice Street and Kukui Grove Center,ifdeveloped,will lessen the
growth ofresidential sprawl while providing residents vvith walking access to businesses,
govemmental services,and potentialjobs.The Kaua'i General Plan encourages infill housing as
an alternative to sprawl.
The Council finds that,as stated in the General Plan,"the altemative to sprawl focuses
new development in existing town centers in order to leverage existing physical and social
infrastructure while preserving vital open spaces.The rezoning ofthe Lihue Mill site into the
Lihue Town Core,SPA "D"would serve to foster town centers that support infill housing and
mixed use environments.Such infill areas would include the major employment centers ofLihue
and Koloa.'
The Council finds that including the subject Property in the "Lihue Town Core"vvill help
meet the goals for infill housing contained in the Kaua'i General Plan.
The Council finds that according to the General Plan:
"1NF1LL HOUSING:
Infill development,or housing located within existing
communities,can expand our housing inventory vvithout
consuming precious open space.It may be less expensive than"greenfield development because it utilizes existing infrastructure
and services.Infill housing has the potential to play an important
role in meeting future housing needs,but only if the zoning,
infrastructure,and built environment can support higher density
communities.It should also be appropriately scaled to the character
of individual towns.
The Council also finds that,consistent with the General Plan,rezoning the Lihue Mill site
into the Lihue Town Core,SPA-D,with the potential for "multiple-family dwellings not to
exceed R-40 density"will result in "adapting planning and zoning requirements in a manner that
will stimulate private investment in new or renovated structures."
The Council finds that the current landowner has consented to this zoning amendment.
The purpose ofthis bill is to amend the Kauai County Code,Section 10.5A to designate
the Lihue Mill site within the Lihue Town Core,Special Planning Area "D"(SPA-D),also
known as the "Rice Street Neighborhood Design District."
SECTION 2.Ifany provision ofthis Ordinance or application thereofto any person,
persons,or circumstances is held invalid,the invalidity does not affect the other provisions or
applications ofthis Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application,and to this end,the provisions ofthis Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 3.Ordinance material to be repealed is bracketed.New ordinance material is
underscored.When revising,compiling,or printing this Ordinance for inclusion in the Kaua'i
County Code 1987,as amended,the brackets,bracketed material,and underscoring shall not be
included.
SECTION 4.This Ordinance shall take ef'fect upon approval.The requirements ofthis
Ordinance shall not aftect any application which has been approved by the Commission prior to
the effective date ofthis Ordinance,unless there is a subsequent approval required prior to a
building permit,in which case,that subsequent application shall be subject to the relevant
requirements ofthis Ordinance.exclliding subdivisions which have received tentative approval
prior to the approval date ot this Ordinance.
DATE OF INTRODUCTION:XXX,2021.LThu'e.Kaua-i.Havvai'i.
Introduced by:
Map Showing Proposed Amendment to Zoninfl Nlap ZM-LI-400 Special Planning Area (SPA)"D"Also Known As the "Rice Street Neighborhood"
j^j SPA-D;Rice Street Neighborhood Blfc^SPA-E:Kuhio Highway Neighborhood BBI'SPA-G:civic Center Neighborhood
Proposed Amendment to SPA-D (Lihue Mill Area)BSI:SPA-F:Akahi/Elua/Umi Streets Neighborhoods
^S^UH^E-KAPAIA
PLAhHINB OEPAR.TMENT
t-1
@ ^^^•^"^»-«'>""'na^"^-""-^^_in^^^s&s'E«8 BSSraEihiKS,—-'—"~\—"^fyK-
@ * Jfrifn-«-un+r"iit«-«(it»nnhHiwicii.uasatfr*"*"'-!"-"
PtAhKHfl CltlUtT ^HOW
HOK fiHAM^AOCNCV.uaiocn
*UOK \
L E G E N D
ZONING DISTRICTS
[££]
E33
LE»3
BESIDENTIAL BISTBICT-—ss ••——
[^n i.,..-.-.
-ES ,.„.—.-
RESOBT DIS1BICT
CON»EBCI»LDISTRICT
[<Z<3
E3
INDUSTMtL DISTMCT
•6BBIITUIE USTIICT ^
OPEN DISTIICT LQ
SfECI»lTIIEATNE«TDISmCL
nnui:•niw ItlTTj
tnu:intttKU fii-in
CTECrL PtANNING ARU EE3
PBOIEC1 DISTMCT Su
CTAIEUUIIIUSEDICTIICTS
—•mn|un u—miuainI S~~\
WKUali m •umiiimB rc~]
AOOPTEP BY COUNTY OF KALUi
l^Flunui><CwMluftt
^!itf-"/u-^_
AOQPTCD BYCOUNTV OP Kt.UAI
[UMUE OEVELOPMENT nj>N)•~^^Z3SSCC^h$^*V*f^t-'^.—
UiUniuii/taiy^Qinndln
—•eS£S^S~
"af •'
Uoctri H-K-n ,'/—..&7^./"
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 • Honolulu, Hawaii • 96826 • (808) 946-2277
10125-02
July 1, 2021
Mr. Ka‘āina Hull, Director
County of Kaua‘i Planning Department
4444 Rice Street, Suite 473
Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766
Attention: Mr. Dale Cua, Chief Regulatory Planner
Subject: 2021 Annual Report for Hōkūala Resort
(formerly Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort)
Second and Third Amendments to
Special Management Area SMA (U)-2005-8
Project Development Use Permit U-2005-26
Use Permit U-2005-25
And
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30
Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i
Dear Mr. Hull:
In accordance with Condition No. 28 of the Second and Third Amendments to Special Management Area
SMA (U)-2005-8, Project Development Use Permit U-2005-26, Use Permit U-2005-25, and Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30 for the Hōkūala Resort (formerly Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort), of which
approvals were granted by the County of Kaua‘i Planning Commission on August 11, 2009 and January
12, 2010, respectively, we hereby submit this report on the progress and status of compliance of the
conditions of the subject permits. Copies of the subject permit approval letters from the County Planning
Department dated August 12, 2009 and January 13, 2010, respectively, are attached for your reference.
The following subdivisions have been undertaken in the development of the Hōkūala Resort:
Kalanipu‘u Subdivision (Subdivision No. S-2007-22) – This subdivision implemented the
required boundary adjustments for the Kalanipu‘u condominium development at the former
Fashion Landing area. Final subdivision approval was granted by the Planning Commission
on February 26, 2008.
Large Lot Subdivision (Subdivision No. S-2008-2) – This subdivision implemented the
required boundary adjustments for various areas in the Hōkūala Resort. Final subdivision
approval was granted by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2008, and recertified by
the County on September 23, 2008 and December 9, 2008.
Single-Family Subdivisions 1 and 4 (Subdivision No. S-2008-24) – This subdivision
subdivided a portion of the planned single-family residential lots within the Hōkūala Resort,
and adjusted other lot lines to facilitate the future development of the Resort. Final
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 2
July 1, 2021
subdivision approval was granted by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2008, and
recertified by the County on December 9, 2008.
Single-Family Subdivisions 2 and 3 (Subdivision No. S-2009-06) – This subdivision
subdivided a portion of the planned single-family residential lots within the Hōkūala Resort,
and adjusted other lot lines to facilitate the future development of the Resort. Final
subdivision approval was granted by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2009.
Affordable Housing (Kamāmalu) Subdivision (Subdivision No. S-2010-03) – This
subdivision subdivided a 759 square-foot sliver of land from the Hōkūala Resort’s affordable
housing parcel to accommodate roadway improvements undertaken by the Applicant along
Haoa Street in conjunction with that development. Final subdivision approval was granted by
the Planning Commission on January 26, 2010.
Revised Large Lot Subdivision (Subdivision No. S-2010-11) – This subdivision allows for
various boundary adjustments necessary to accommodate the planned master plan revisions
of the Hōkūala Resort approved through the Resort’s Second and Third Amendments to
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2005-8, Project Development Use Permit U-
2005-26, Use Permit U-2005-25, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30 approved by the
County Planning Commission on August 11, 2009 and January 12, 2010, respectively. Final
subdivision approval was granted by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2010, and
recertified by the County on January 11, 2011.
Revised Subdivision 700-710 (Subdivision No. S-2019-11) – This subdivision reconsolidated
the planned single-family residential lots within the Hōkūala Resort, and subdivided the land
to facilitate future development as low-density townhomes. Other lot lines were also adjusted
in conformance with the existing RR-10/RR-20 designation of the site. Final subdivision
approval was granted by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2019.
Lot Consolidation of Parcels 9C and 9D (Under Review) – This subdivision consolidated
Parcels 9C and 9D to allow for the development of one 4-story building with a total of 72
units, less than the previously proposed 90 units between the two properties. A preliminary
subdivision map and subdivision application was submitted to the Planning Department on
October 6, 2020 and is currently under review.
Subdivision of Lot 8 (Under Review) – This subdivision allows for the boundary adjustments
necessary to subdivide the property according to the existing RR-10 and RR-20 designation
of the site. A preliminary subdivision map and subdivision application was submitted to the
Planning Department on April 12, 2021 and is currently under review.
Construction of the 78-unit Kalanipu‘u development has been completed, with units currently occupied
by residents and time share owners. The Fitness Center and Activities Room within the nearby former
Fashion Landing commercial center were completed in January 2012 and October 2012, respectively, for
the residents and guests of the Kalanipu‘u development.
In August 2008, building permit approvals were granted by the County for the 14-unit Inn on the Cliffs
and 28-unit Ritz Carlton Club developments at the site of the former Inn on the Cliffs and Artisans
Landing areas. Substantial construction of the structures for the Inn on the Cliffs development and Ritz
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 3
July 1, 2021
Carlton Club development has occurred. In February 2008 and April 2008, foundation permit plans and
building permit plans were submitted, respectively, for the Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes Building
“A” located adjacent to and mauka of the Inn on the Cliffs site, of which the foundation permit approval
was granted by the County in September 2008.
In August 2008, building permit plans were submitted to the County for the Marriott Vacation Club
International Timeshare Project – Phase I located within a portion of the existing vacant land area
adjacent to and makai of the lagoons and the second bridge of Ho‘olaule‘a Way. These plans were
subsequently rescinded by the Applicant.
Construction of a public recreation/picnic shelter and shower facility near Running Waters Beach, just
mauka of the planned public lateral shoreline access, and a public recreation/picnic shelter, shower and
restroom facility farther west and mauka of the planned public lateral shoreline access, were completed in
September 2009. Both of these public recreation facilities are available for public use.
The 31-unit multi-family affordable housing development, identified as the Kamāmalu Condominium,
within the western portion of the Hōkūala Resort property at the corner of Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial
Highway (formerly Kapule Highway) and Haoa Street, was completed in February 2010, which fulfilled
the affordable housing requirement for Hōkūala. The associated roadway improvements at the adjacent
Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Haoa Street intersection were also completed in February 2010 and
accepted by the County, and subsequently dedicated to the County by the Applicant.
It is noted that the Applicant has appointed and delegated to Timbers Kaua‘i Management, LLC
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Applicant”) the responsibility of being the development
manager for the resort project and, as such, will be responsible for the day to day management and
operation of the resort and will be the entity assigned the task of providing all necessary information to
the County including annual reports as well as ensuring compliance with the applicable conditions of all
relevant permits and entitlements for the resort project. Consequently, the Applicant intends to fully
cooperate with the County in developing the Hōkūala Resort property pursuant to law and in accordance
with all applicable entitlements and permits relative to the property and as may be amended from time to
time with the approval of the County.
Minor revisions to the product mix, while not increasing the total density of the project, are being
implemented. The revisions essentially are very similar to earlier approved versions of the master-
planned project and were determined to be in compliance with issued permits and related council
planning measures by Departmental Determination DD-2017-7 issued by the Planning Department on
September 6, 2016, a copy of which is attached. Further revision of the product mix, without increasing
the total density of the project, is currently being considered. A summary of the revisions is provided
below.
There was a reduction in the number of units at the Inn on the Cliffs (from 22 to 14 units) and the Ritz
Carlton Club (from 37 units to 28 units). These two areas are currently referred to as Parcel 9A -
Building A and Parcel 9B - Building B, respectively, for permit purposes. The former Ritz Carlton
Townhomes (hereinafter Parcel 9A – Townhomes) remains at 5 units. Construction of Parcel 9A -
Building A and Parcel 9B - Building B has been completed and the structures were opened on June 1,
2018. Design plans for building permit approval for the Parcel 9A – Townhomes were resubmitted to the
County and approved on July 27, 2017. Construction of Parcel 9A – Townhomes has been completed
with units currently occupied by residents.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 4
July 1, 2021
The former Condominium/Timeshare (now referred to as Parcel 8 – Boutique Hotel) property located
adjacent to the Kaua‘i Marriott Resort and Beach Club (now operating independently, and hereinafter
referred to, as the Royal Sonesta Kaua‘i Resort and Marriott’s Kaua‘i Beach Club) was previously
reduced from 193 units to 175 units. Following consultation with Planning Department staff, however,
the count was subsequently increased to 210 hotel units with a corresponding reduction at Lot 9E and a
net effect of no change to the total density of the project. A building permit application for the 210 hotel
units is currently under review by the Planning Department. Subdivision 7, which was envisioned as 11
single family residential lots, has evolved to a low-density townhomes development with 36 units. The
36-unit townhome development is now named Ninini Point Residences. A building permit application for
12 of the 36 units is currently under review by the Planning Department. Parcel 9E – Hotel and
Condominiums (now referred to as a Boutique Hotel) changed from 291 to 263 units. Plans for both the
Parcel 8 - Boutique Hotel and the Ninini Point Residences have been submitted and are under review.
Previous revisions to the density of various single family residential subdivisions resulted in a net
decrease of 11 units. Subdivision 1 remained at 10 units and Subdivision 4 remained at 24 units. Nine
(9) units were added to Subdivision 1A, and 9 units were deleted from Subdivision 2. Eleven (11) units
were deleted from Subdivision 3. Thus, the total units at the single-family subdivisions were decreased
from 54 units to 43 units. Further revisions to the density of the single-family subdivisions would bring
Subdivision 1 to 24 units and Subdivision 1A to 18 units while Subdivision 4 would remain at 24 units.
There are no plans currently to develop Subdivisions 2 and 3. The bonds for both of the residential
subdivisions have been left to expire with the approval and concurrence of the County of Kauaʻi Planning
Director.
The net result of the minor adjustments to the density of individual developments is no change to the
overall approved density for the resort. A summary of the density allocation is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Density Allocation for Hōkūala Resort
Parcel Current
Unit Count
(per DD-2017-7)
Revised Unit
Count Status
Parcel 9A – Bldg A
(formerly Inn on the Cliffs) 14 14 Completed
Parcel 9B – Bldg B
(formerly Makalii Bldg A) 28 28 Completed
Parcel 9A – Townhomes 5 5 Completed
Parcel 8 – Boutique Hotel
(Silverwest) 175 210 Proposed / Under
Review
Ocean Course, Central
Operations, Future Golf
Expansion
-- -- Proposed
Shops at Hōkūala -- -- Completed
Ninini Point Residences 48 36 Proposed / Under
Review
Parcel 9E – Boutique Hotel 291 263 Proposed
Subdivision 1 10 24 Proposed
Subdivision 1A 9 18 Proposed
Subdivision 2 -- -- No longer proposed
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 5
July 1, 2021
Table 1. Density Allocation for Hōkūala Resort
Parcel Current
Unit Count
(per DD-2017-7)
Revised Unit
Count Status
Subdivision 3 -- -- No longer proposed
Subdivision 4 24 24 Proposed
Parcels 9C and 9D – Hotel Villa 90
(52 and 38
respectively)
72 Proposed
Kalanipuʻu 78 78 Completed
TOTAL 772 772
The existing commercial center located at the former Fashion Landing (hereinafter Commercial Complex)
is planned to be repaired and refurbished. SMA III permit approval for improvements to the Commercial
Complex was issued on April 24, 2018.
The existing status of conditions from the August 11, 2009 and January 12, 2010 permit approvals is as
follows:
1. The maximum building height for the proposed condominium, timeshare, multi-family, and hotel
units buildings in Project Areas “B” and “D” approved in 2005 and Project Area “B” of the
proposed amendments (Page 0.01 Volume II) shall not exceed four (4) stories or forty (40) feet
from the ground line measured at each point along the building to the highest wall plate line,
whichever is less. Gables and roof height shall not exceed one-half (1/2) the wall height or
fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less.
The maximum building height for structures in Project Area “C” (Page 4, Volume II) as
approved in 2005 shall be as follows:
a. The maximum building height for the proposed “Inn on the Cliffs” buildings shall not exceed
three stories or 45 feet as measured from the ground line at each point along the building to
the highest point of the roof of the building.
b. The Ritz Carlton Club units shall have a three- to four-story design with a maximum building
height of 55 feet as measured from the ground line at each point along the building to the
highest point of the roof of the building.
c. The maximum building height for the Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes Building A shall
not exceed two (2) stories in design with a maximum building height of 35 feet as measured
from the ground line at each point along the building to the highest point of the roof of the
building.
The single-family residential developments within Project Area “F” of the 2008 amended permits
and Project Areas “A” and “C” of the proposed amendments shall comply with all applicable
residential development standards of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 6
July 1, 2021
Design plans initiated by the Applicant for the various phases of development within the Hōkūala
Resort are acknowledged.
Construction of the 78-unit multi-family Kalanipu‘u development, consisting of three buildings,
has been completed. The maximum building height for the Kalanipu‘u condominium buildings is
39 feet, 6 inches from the ground line measured at each point along the buildings to the highest
wall plate line, which is less than the 40-foot height limit. The roof height is 9 feet, 5 inches,
which is less than one-half (1/2) the wall height or 15 feet.
For the previously approved 14-unit multi-family Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs) and
the 28-unit multi-family Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) in Project Area “C”, building
permit approvals have been obtained and substantial construction of the structures has occurred.
Subsequent to receiving Departmental Determination DD-2017-7, the Applicant reactivated
building permit applications for the structures in Project Area “C” that envisioned a general
reduction in overall density from what was approved in the Third amendment to the SMA Permit.
Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs) was reduced from 22 units to 14 units and Parcel 9B -
Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) was reduced from 37 units to 28 units. Parcel 9A - Townhomes
(formerly Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes) remained at 5 units. The building permits were
approved on July 27, 2017 and construction of Parcel 9A – Building A and Parcel 9B – Building
B has been completed and construction of the five (5) Parcel 9A – Townhomes has also been
completed.
As depicted on the approved building permit plans, the 14 condominium time share units within
Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs) were developed within the overall existing building
footprint and the two level building height approved for this development in the 2005 SMA
Permit. The maximum building height for the Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs building)
is 45 feet from the ground line measured at each point along the building to the highest point of
the roof of the building. The 28 condominium/time share units within Parcel 9B - Building B
(Ritz Carlton Club) were developed within the overall existing building footprint and the four
level building height approved for this development in the 2005 SMA Permit. Consistent with the
building permit plans, the maximum building height for Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton
Club) is 55 feet from the ground line measured at each point along the building to the highest
point of the roof of the building.
As depicted on building permit plans submitted by the Applicant to the County of Kaua‘i on April
27, 2016, the maximum building height for the Parcel 9A - Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Residence
Townhomes) Building A in Project Area “C” is no more than 35 feet from the ground line
measured at each point along the building to the highest point of the roof of the building.
The single-family residential developments within Single-Family Subdivisions 1, 1A and 4 are
intended to comply with the applicable residential development standards of the County’s
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). The Applicant noted that no building will be more
than two (2) stories above and one (1) story below from the finished grade at the main entry, over
20 feet measured from the finished grade at the main entry to the highest exterior wall plate line,
and over 30 feet to the highest point of the roof measured from the finished grade at the main
entry.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 7
July 1, 2021
The Applicant shall also follow the proposed architectural design guidelines that establish
building design, roof design, building materials, and earth tone color schemes as shown on the
pages 16, 26 and 44 of Volume II of the 2005 application, on pages A.00, E.00 and F.00 of
Volume II of the 2008 amended permits, and on pages A.00, B.00 and D.00 of the proposed
amendments.
The Applicant submitted design plans to the County for building permit approval for the Parcel
9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs), Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton Club), Parcel 9A –
Townhomes (the Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes Building A), and the Parcel 8 - Boutique
Hotel (Marriott Vacation Club International Timeshare Project – Phase I), and the design of the
constructed Kalanipu‘u condominiums and the 31-unit Kamāmalu Condominium affordable
housing development which are in conformance with this condition. As previously indicated,
based on the approved adjustments to the Hōkūala Resort’s master plan associated with the
density approved in the Third Amendment to the SMA Permit, the Applicant submitted amended
design plans to the County for building permit approval subsequent to receiving approval from
the Planning Department for the adjusted 14-unit Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the Cliffs)
development and the 28-unit Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) development. The
building permits were approved by the County on July 27, 2017 and Parcel 9A – Building A and
Parcel 9B – Building B were developed accordingly.
The maximum building height for the Kamāmalu Condominium development is 27 feet from the
ground line measured at each point along the building to the highest wall plate line, which is less
than the 40-foot height limit. The roof height is 8 feet, 1 inch, which is less than one-half (1/2)
the wall height or 15 feet.
The single-family residential dwelling units to be developed within the Single-Family
Subdivisions are intended to follow the proposed architectural design guidelines as shown on
page F.00 of Volume II of the Amended SMA Permit and page A.00 of the Second Amended
SMA Permit. Dwelling construction and lot landscaping is intended to be undertaken by the
individual lot owners in accordance with the established design guidelines. The general
appearance of the individual properties, such as architectural design criteria and landscaping
requirements, will be controlled through design guidelines for the development and approved by
the Resort Developer.
The building design, color scheme samples, and landscape plans for the remaining phases of the
project are under review by the Applicant and will be submitted to the Planning Department at the
time of building permit application for the respective developments.
As represented, the maximum building height for the proposed Golf Club House facility on TMK:
3-5-001: por. 173 shall not exceed 35 feet from finished grade at the main entrance of the
building to the highest point of the roof.
As part of the Resort’s revised master plan under the Applicant, the proposed new golf clubhouse
was proposed to be relocated and integrated within the Commercial Complex (former Fashion
Landing). Although the location is in the General Commercial (CG) District which allows a
maximum height limit of 50 feet, the golf clubhouse was proposed to not exceed 35 feet in height.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 8
July 1, 2021
The Applicant has decided to forgo construction of a new golf clubhouse and has decided to keep
the existing golf pro shop and cart barn in its existing location within the Parcel 8 - Boutique
Hotel development.
3. The applicant shall provide building design, color scheme samples, and landscape plans for each
phase of the project for the review and approval of the Planning Department at the time of
Building Permit and/or Subdivision Permit Application. The Applicant is encouraged to
incorporate the use of native plants that are common to the area or endemic, indigenous, or
Polynesian introduced in the landscape plans for each phase of the development.
The landscape plan shall also include landscaping and/or landscape berm(s) along Haoa Street
and Kapule Highway to address visual impacts of the project and to help minimize noise impacts
from the highway to the residential project.
The building designs, color scheme samples and landscape plans for the 78-unit Kalanipu‘u
condominium development which has been built, the 22-unit Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the
Cliffs) development, the 37-unit Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) development, and the
completed 31-unit Kamāmalu Condominium affordable housing project were approved by the
County Planning Department as part of the respective building permit approval process. As
previously indicated, based on the approved adjustments to the Hōkūala Resort’s master plan
associated with the density approved in the Third Amendment to the SMA Permit, the Applicant
submitted amended design plans to the County for building permit approval subsequent to
receiving administrative approval for the adjusted 14-unit Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on the
Cliffs) development and the 28-unit Parcel 9B - Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) development.
The Applicant worked closely with the County Planning Department on the building designs,
color scheme samples and landscape plans to ensure consistency with the intent of the existing
permits. The building permit was approved on July 27, 2017 and Parcel 9A – Building A and
Parcel 9B – Building B were developed accordingly and, as a result, the Planning Department
reviewed and approved all such plans.
As part of the building permit process for the 5-unit Parcel 9A – Townhomes (Ritz Carlton
Residence Town Homes) and the Parcel 8 – Boutique Hotel (Marriott Vacation Club International
Timeshare Project – Phase I), the respective building designs, color scheme samples and
landscape plans were submitted to the County for review and approval. As noted previously, the
building permits for the 5-unit Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes building were rescinded by
the Applicant. The Applicant reactivated the building permit applications for the 5-unit 9A –
Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes) on April 27, 2016. The building permits
were approved on July 27, 2017 and construction of Parcel 9A – Townhomes has been
completed.
As previously indicated, dwelling construction and lot landscaping of the single-family residential
lots are intended to be undertaken by the individual lot owners in accordance with the established
design guidelines. The general appearance of the individual properties, such as architectural
design criteria and landscaping requirements, will be controlled through design guidelines for the
development and approved by the Resort Developer. It is intended that the individual lot owners
will provide building design, color scheme samples and landscape plans for their respective
proposed dwelling units to the Planning Department for review and approval at the time of
building permit application for the respective lots.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 9
July 1, 2021
The building design, color scheme samples, and landscape plans for the remaining phases of the
project are under review by the Applicant and will be submitted to the Planning Department at the
time of building permit application for the respective developments.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the required setback distance to property lines for all of the
buildings as approved by adjusting the building location or configuration and/or conducting
boundary adjustments through the Subdivision process to obtain the land area with the adjacent
lands to meet the required setback distances to the respective property line(s).
Implementation of the required boundary adjustments for the Kalanipuʻu condominiums located
in the Fashion Landing Commercial area was achieved through its final subdivision which was
approved by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2008 (Kalanipu‘u Subdivision (S-2007-
22). The required boundary adjustments in other areas of the Hōkūala Resort were achieved
through the Large Lot Subdivision (S-2008-2), of which approval was granted by the Planning
Commission on September 9, 2008 and recertified by the County on September 23, 2008 and
December 9, 2008. The Revised Large Lot Subdivision (S-2010-11) and Subdivision 700-710
(S-2019-11) also allowed for various boundary adjustments necessary to accommodate the
planned master plan revisions of the Resort which have been approved through the Second and
Third Amendments to Special Management Area SMA (U)-2005-8, Project Development Use
Permit U-2005-26, Use Permit U-2005-25, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30 for the
Hōkūala Resort, of which approvals were granted by the Planning Commission on August 11,
2009 and January 12, 2010, respectively.
5. As required under Condition No. 2 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, the Applicant shall provide
documentation of the restriction on density in the subject property(ies) within Open District into
the deeds of the affected property prior to building permit issuance for any development proposed
in the amended area.
Documentation of the restriction on density within the Open District lands of the Hōkūala Resort
is included in the Declaration of Deed Restriction Concerning Density in the Open District Zone
of Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort dated December 18, 2007 and recorded in the State Bureau of
Conveyances on December 31, 2007 as Document No. 2007-223761 and Land Court Document
No. 871,637.
6. As represented by the applicant and as recommended by the State Department of Transportation,
the Applicant shall prepare a revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) for the Kaua‘i
Lagoons Resort development that also includes the County’s proposed Vidinha Stadium
Expansion project. The Applicant shall resolve with the State Department of Transportation
(DOT) the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement which would address the specific
improvements to be provided as set forth in the letter from the DOT dated May 22, 2008 and July
15, 2009.
The Applicant had submitted to the DOT a revised TIAR for the Hōkūala Resort development
that also includes the County’s proposed Vidinha Stadium Expansion project. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was submitted by the Applicant to the DOT Highways Division on November
20, 2008 which identifies specific proposed roadway improvements and associated funding and
construction consideration in association with the Hōkūala Resort development. The MOA
includes specific improvements to be designed, permitted, funded, and constructed at the Kauaʻi
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 10
July 1, 2021
Veterans Memorial Highway/Rice Street intersection, the Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial
Highway/Ninini Point Street/Hoolako Street (Vidinha Stadium Access Road) intersection, and the
Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Haoa Street/Halau Street intersection. Based on review
comments, the Applicant had submitted revised versions of the MOA to the DOT Highways
Division which addresses the comments. In consideration of the ongoing MOA discussions
between the DOT and the Applicant, by letter dated May 18, 2010 in regard to the preliminary
Revised Large Lot Subdivision (S-2010-11), the DOT indicated that the Applicant appears to be
in accordance with the various land use permits that have been approved for the Hōkūala Resort,
and expects the Applicant will continue working with the DOT Highways Division to develop the
MOA. The Applicant intends to continue to engage in ongoing discussions, as per the draft
MOA, with the DOT Highways Division toward seeking resolution and ultimately execution of
the MOA.
Anticipating the execution of the MOA, and in consultation with the DOT, the Applicant worked
on the design phase for the Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Rice Street intersection
improvements. DOT approval of the conceptual design for the Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial
Highway/Rice Street intersection improvements was received on October 22, 2010, and the
construction drawings were being reviewed by DOT. DOT approval of the final construction
drawings for the Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Ninini Point Street/Hoolako Street
(Vidinha Stadium Access Road) intersection improvements was received on July 8, 2011.
Because of the time involved since the 2011 approval, DOT requested a resubmittal of the plans
for the Kāpule Highway/Ninini Point Street/Ho‘olako Street (Vidinha Stadium Access Road)
intersection improvements. Plans were resubmitted to DOT on March 28, 2016 and to DPW on
April 21, 2016. DOT approved the plans on October 20, 2016. Construction of the
improvements at the Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Haoa Street/Halau Street intersection
was completed in February 2010 and accepted by the County, and subsequently dedicated to the
County by the Applicant. The road improvements were wholly contained within the County’s
Haoa Street.
As also represented, the Applicant shall provide a primary vehicular access to the resort project
from Kapule Highway to lessen the traffic impacts of the project at both the Rice Street/Kapule
Highway intersection and at the existing entrance to the project along Rice Street. The
improvements that are needed at the Kapule Highway entrance shall be resolved with the State
Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Works. The Applicant shall submit
a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Report to the Department of Transportation indicating
that the Kapule Highway entrance shall serve as primary access to the project.
A supplemental traffic analysis dated September 2005 was conducted by the Applicant to address
the Ninini Point Street Access and submitted as part of the Zoning Amendment application and
Environmental Assessment for the Hōkūala Resort development in November 2005. In
accordance with the recommendations of the supplemental traffic analysis, the Applicant
proposed primary vehicular access to the Hōkūala Resort development from Kaua‘i Veterans
Memorial Highway at the Ninini Point Street intersection which will lessen the impacts at the
existing vehicular access to the Resort along Rice Street. Anticipating the execution of the MOA,
and in consultation with the DOT, DOT approval of the final construction drawings for the
Kaua‘i Veterans Memorial Highway/Ninini Point Street/Hoolako Street (Vidinha Stadium Access
Road) intersection improvements was received on July 8, 2011. As noted previously, DOT
requested a resubmittal of the plans for the Kaua‘i Veterans Memorial Highway/Ninini Point
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 11
July 1, 2021
Street/Ho‘olako Street (Vidinha Stadium Access Road) intersection improvements. Plans were
resubmitted to DOT on March 28, 2016 and to DPW on April 21, 2016. DOT approved the plans
on October 20, 2016.
As further represented, the Applicant shall extend the right turn lane on Haoa Street at the
intersection of Haoa and Kapule Highway and also provide a left turn “pocket” on Haoa Street
at the entrance to the affordable housing project on TMK: 3-5-001: 165.
In conjunction with the development of the Kamāmalu Condominium affordable housing project,
the Applicant has constructed the extension of the right-turn lane on Haoa Street at the
intersection of Haoa and Kaua‘i Veterans Memorial Highway, and provided two left-turn pockets
on Haoa Street at the two entrances to the affordable housing development. Construction of these
improvements was completed in February 2010 and accepted by the County, and subsequently
dedicated to the County by the Applicant.
In addition, the Applicant shall consult with the DOT Airports Division on the possibility of
utilizing the “Airport Road”, situated to the north of the project site and along the western
boundary of the Airport Facility, to provide direct access from the Airport Facility to the resort
property for vans and/or shuttle buses.
The Applicant initiated discussion with the DOT Airports Division regarding use of the Airport
Road to provide direct access from Līhu‘e Airport to the Hōkūala Resort for vans/shuttle buses.
Approval was granted, and the Royal Sonesta Kaua‘i Resort, Marriott’s Kaua‘i Beach Club, and
Hōkūala Resort use the access road for their shuttle buses and vans.
In order to coordinate the requirements specified in the above, the applicant shall prepare a
working plan providing a schedule covering the preparation of construction plans and
construction timetables for the various roadway improvements, subject to the review and
approval Public Works Departments, the State Department of Transportation, and Planning
Department at time of Building Permit Application and/or Subdivision Application for projects
that are granted subject permits.
The Applicant has been in discussions with the DOT Highways Division regarding the schedule
of the preparation of construction plans and construction timetables for the various roadway
improvements in conjunction with the Hōkūala Resort development. The Applicant is in the
process of reviewing the construction plans and proposes the following tentative schedule of
improvements:
Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Rice Street Intersection
Planning: Completed, subject to review by Applicant
MOA Process: Initiated in November 2008 with anticipated completion in
November 2021
Design: Completed for a signalized intersection
Agency Approvals: Initiated in August 2012 with anticipated completion in July
2022
Land Acquisition: Initiated in August 2012 with anticipated completion in March
2023
Anticipated Construction: March 2023 to March 2024
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 12
July 1, 2021
Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Ninini Point Access Intersection
Planning: Completed, however, plans were resubmitted to DOT on March 28, 2016
Design: Completed, however, plans were resubmitted to DOT on March 28, 2016
Agency Approvals: Initiated in May 2012 and completed in February 2017
Anticipated Construction: October 2022 to October 2023
The Applicant will submit a working plan providing a schedule covering the preparation of
construction plans and construction timetables for the various roadway improvements to the DOT
following consummation of the MOA for the specific roadway improvements to be provided in
conjunction with the Hōkūala Resort development.
The Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway/Haoa Street intersection improvements were completed
by the Applicant in February 2010 in conjunction with the Kamāmalu Condominium affordable
housing project. The intersection improvements were accepted by the County, and subsequently
dedicated to the County by the Applicant.
7. As recommended by the Department of Public Works, Wastewater Division, the Applicant shall
resolve the following requirements with the Department of Public Works:
a. The STP Effluent Agreement dated August 14, 2001, as amended by Amendment to
Agreement Regarding STP Effluent dated March 27, 2009 between Kaua‘i Lagoons LLC and
the County of Kaua‘i shall remain in effect.
b. The said agreement, as amended, reserves the Applicant with 290,000 gallons per day of
treatment capacity at the Līhu‘e Wastewater Treatment Plant for its development up to
twenty-one (21) years from the date of the amended agreement.
c. The applicant shall meet with the Department of Public Works to negotiate an agreement for
sewer capacity exceeding 290,000 gallons per day.
d. The amended agreement stipulates that the County shall provide, and the applicant shall
accept, up to 1.5 million gallons per 24 hour day (MGD) of R-1 quality treated effluent. If
this condition cannot be met the applicant shall meet with the Department of Public Works to
negotiate an agreement to dispose any of the unused effluent that remains from the 1.5 MGD
discharged from the County’s Līhu‘e Wastewater Treatment Plant.
e. All sewer improvements required for the development shall be designed and constructed to
County standards.
Should the sewer capacity for additional development on the property exceed 290,000 gallons per
day, the Applicant acknowledges that it shall be subject to any applicable waiting or priority list
established by the County of Kaua‘i for such service.
The major provisions of the STP Effluent Agreement, as amended, in particular the transfer of
lands to the County of Kaua‘i, have been completed. In accordance with covenant no. 5 of the
STP Effluent Agreement, as amended, the Applicant shall dedicate, and the County shall accept,
the existing Hōkūala Resort injection well after it has been upgraded. The upgrade of the existing
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 13
July 1, 2021
injection well has been completed. Dedication documents were approved by the County Council
on April 9, 2014. Documents have been executed and were recorded on May 21, 2014.
The Applicant has completed construction of the R-1 filtration and disinfection system upgrade at
the Līhu‘e Wastewater Treatment Plant. The upgrade to R-1 quality water enables the use of high
quality reclaimed water for all irrigation needs for the Hōkūala Resort’s golf courses and
landscaping for the resort and residential common areas. Dedication documents were approved
by the County Council on April 9, 2014. Documents have been executed and recorded on May
21, 2014.
8. The Applicant shall comply with Condition No. 6 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, and with the
requirements of the Kaua‘i Lagoons Affordable Housing Amended Agreement, dated February
18, 2005. Amendment of the subject permits is approved for the development of 31 leasehold
affordable housing units on TMK: 3-5-001: 165.
As part of the Zoning Amendment approved by the County Council in September 2006 for the
Hōkūala Resort (Ordinance No. PM-2006-383), the Kaua‘i Lagoons Affordable Housing
Amended Agreement, effective February 18, 2005, was executed. In accordance with the
Affordable Housing Amended Agreement, a total of 113 affordable housing units have been
developed in conjunction with the Hōkūala Resort development which fully satisfy the
requirements. Eighty-two (82) of these units have been built on an approximately 6.7-acre parcel
identified as TMK: (4) 4-3-001: 14 within the Waipouli area. The remaining 31 affordable
housing units, identified as the Kamāmalu Condominium, have been built within the western
portion of the Hōkūala Resort property at the corner of Kauaʻi Veterans Memorial Highway and
Haoa Street on a 2.1-acre parcel identified as TMK: (4) 3-5-001: 165.
The Amended Agreement was amended by a Second Amended Agreement with an effective date
of February 18, 2005, and which was executed on December 11, 15, 17, and 18, 2008. The
Second Amended Agreement extended the completion date of the 82 affordable housing units at
the Waipouli site from February 18, 2009 to June 18, 2009.
The Second Amended Agreement was further amended by a Third Amended Agreement with an
effective date of February 18, 2005, and which was executed on May 18, 22 and 29, 2009 and
June 4, 2009. The Third Amended Agreement further extended the completion date of the 82
affordable housing units at the Waipouli site from June 18, 2009 to August 17, 2009.
The Third Amended Agreement was further amended by a Fourth Amended Agreement dated
July 6, 2010, with an effective date of February 18, 2005. The Fourth Amended Agreement
allows the remaining 29 unsold units of the 31-unit Kamāmalu Condominium to be offered for
sale in fee simple, instead of being sold as 99-year leasehold units, and defines the manner and
timing under which such fee simple units would be offered for sale.
The Fourth Amended Agreement was further amended by a Fifth Amended Agreement dated and
effective November 10, 2010. The Fifth Amended Agreement allows the remaining 41 units at
the Waipouli site to be rented at market rental rates, without income restrictions on renters.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 14
July 1, 2021
9. Applicant shall continue to allow public access over and across all existing public vehicular and
pedestrian public accesses on the subject property. The Applicant shall provide the
improvements shown on the Applicants updated Public Access Plan as represented on Figure 9,
Volume I. The improvements shall include recreational shelters, shower and restroom facilities,
a minimum of 10 public parking stalls at the eastern edge of the Fashion Landing area, and a
minimum of 10 public parking stalls at the western end of the project near Kukii Point. The
Applicant shall also provide a lateral pedestrian public access beginning from the Fashion
Landing area to the former “Inn on the Cliffs” area and on to Kukii Point.
Existing public vehicular and pedestrian access will be maintained throughout the Hōkūala
Resort. As part of Zoning Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, as amended by Zoning Ordinance No.
PM-2009-394, a revised Roadway and Public Access Plan dated August 2006 was incorporated
as part of the approval. In accordance with this condition and Condition No. 7 of Zoning
Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, as amended by Zoning Ordinance No. PM-2009-394, a public
lateral shoreline access between the former Inn on the Cliffs and former Fashion Landing, and
public restrooms and shower facilities at the former Fashion Landing commercial area (beneath
the restaurant) is provided within the Hōkūala Resort. A Grant of Pedestrian Access Easement
document for the public lateral shoreline access located between the former Inn on the Cliffs and
the former Fashion Landing area, between Kaua‘i Lagoons, LLC and MORI Golf (Kaua‘i), LLC
(Grantor) and the County of Kaua‘i (Grantee) was executed and recorded in the Bureau of
Conveyances as Document No. Doc A-44710562 on March 29, 2012.
Also in accordance with this condition and Condition No. 7 of Zoning Ordinance No. PM-2006-
383, as amended by Zoning Ordinance No. PM-2009-294, the Applicant has completed
construction of a public recreation/picnic shelter and shower facility near Running Waters Beach,
just mauka of the planned public lateral shoreline access, and a public recreation/picnic shelter,
shower and restroom facility further west and mauka of the planned public lateral shoreline
access. Both of these public recreation facilities are available for public use. A total of 20 public
beach parking stalls are also provided, including ten (10) stalls at the end of Kalapaki Circle and
Pali Kai Cottages, and ten (10) stalls within the former Fashion Landing commercial area.
10. In order to comply with Condition No. 8 of Ord. No. PM-2006-383, all deeds or instruments
transferring interest in the subject property, or in the structures or improvements therein,
easements running in favor of the State of Hawai‘i, the Land Use Commission, and the County of
Kaua‘i shall indemnify and hold the State of Hawai‘i and Land Use Commission and the County
of Kaua‘i, harmless from any complaints or claims due to noise, odor, dust, mosquitoes, and
other nuisances and problems emanating from the operation of the Līhu‘e Airport, the Līhu‘e
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and specifically for the 31-unit affordable housing site, the
operation of Līhu‘e Industrial Subdivision II.
A master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort
recorded in the State Bureau of Conveyances on March 14, 2008 as Document No. 2008-040613
and on March 18, 2008 as Document No. 3723797 includes the provision of assumption of
release, waiver and indemnity by each owner of the parcels or units within the Resort resulting
from various potential conditions within and adjacent to the Resort.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 15
July 1, 2021
11. Pursuant to Condition No. 9 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, no residential, condominium, or
hotel units shall be constructed within areas greater than the 60 DNL noise contour of the Līhu‘e
Airport; provided, however, that such uses may be permitted within the 60 to 65 DNL noise
contours, if there is an accompanying mitigation of interior noise to the 45 DNL noise level.
Accessory uses and structures including garages and carports not used for human habitation or
occupancy may be placed within the area greater than the 65 DNL noise contours.
Development completed within the Hōkūala Resort has been constructed within areas greater than
the 60 DNL noise contour of the Līhu‘e Airport or within the 60 to 65 DNL noise contours with
mitigation of interior noise to the 45 DNL noise level. All remaining development will be
constructed pursuant to this condition. The design guidelines for the remaining developments
will be specific in referencing this requirement for interior noise mitigation as needed. For all
remaining residential development located between the 60 to 65 DNL noise contours, design
guidelines will be established which would set forth the various door, window and exterior
building envelope treatment measures to be followed in the construction of the units to achieve an
interior noise level of 45 DNL.
12. The Applicant shall comply with any height restriction to be set by the State of Hawai‘i pursuant
to specifications established in the FAA regulations for aviation easement purposes along the
perimeter of the Līhu‘e airport runways. An aviation easement in a form prescribed by the State
Department of Transportation shall be granted to the State of Hawai‘i by the Applicant, to cover
the entirety of the Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort Property owned by the Applicant.
Acknowledged and will be complied with. The Applicant has granted to the State DOT, Airports
Division a Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement dated October 14, 2008, and recorded in the
State Bureau of Conveyances as Document No. 2008-162922 pertaining to the operations of the
adjacent Līhu‘e Airport. The Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement was amended by
Amendment to 2008 Avigation Easement and Supplemental Grant of Avigation and Noise
Easement dated April 9, 2010, and recorded in the State Bureau of Conveyances as Document
No. 2010-050288.
13. If historic/cultural remains such as archaeological artifacts, charcoal deposits or human burials
are found during construction, the Applicant shall stop work in the immediate area, and shall
contact the State Historic Preservation Division SHPD at 742-7033, and the Planning
Department, to determine appropriate action.
Acknowledged. In the event that any archaeological sites, significant cultural deposits, or human
skeletal remains are found during construction activities, all work will immediately cease pending
consultation with the SHPD. The treatment of any remains or artifacts will be in accordance with
procedures obtained by the Kaua‘i/Ni‘ihau Islands Burial Council and the State Historic
Preservation Division.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 16
July 1, 2021
14. In order to minimize adverse impacts on Federally Listed Threatened Species, such as Newell’s
Shearwater and other seabirds, any external lighting used in the project shall be only of the
following types: shielded lights, cut-off luminaries, or indirect lighting. Spotlights aimed upward
or spotlighting of structures and landscaping on the project site shall be prohibited. The
Applicant is advised that this condition shall also apply to the proposed single family lot
subdivisions and the affordable housing project at the intersection of Haoa Street and Kapule
Highway.
All exterior lighting within the Hōkūala Resort has been and will continue to be designed in full
compliance with mitigation requirements to protect threatened and endangered species. Any
external lighting planned for the project will be shielded or of the cut-off luminaire or indirect
lighting types, and/or directed downward. The use of spotlights aimed upward or spotlighting of
structures and landscaping within the Hōkūala Resort will be prohibited. An audit of the lighting
at Hōkūala Resort is performed annually by a biological consultant to determine if any particular
lighting or lit areas within the resort development could inadvertently attract fledglings overflying
the resort during the seabird season. If so, steps are immediately be taken to re-design, re-
configure or eliminate any potential light attraction sources that may be responsible. The audit is
part of the mitigation measures outlined in the Habitat Conservation Plan (2012) for the resort as
approved by the State DLNR and USFWS.
15. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements established by the Department of Public Works,
County of Kaua‘i, regarding drainage and erosion control, in order to minimize any adverse
impact on Kalapaki Bay and adjoining off shore waters.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit coverage has been
obtained for the Hōkūala Resort. All active projects with open NPDES Construction Permits
have been renewed under the new State of Hawaii DOH NPDES General Permit that expires on
February 8, 2024. Any new projects seeking a grading permit from the County of Kauaʻi DPW
will submit a NPDES permit application to DOH for General Permit coverage of the project, if
necessary.
An updated Master Drainage Study was prepared in May 2010 (initial Master Drainage Study
dated August 2007, revised November 2007, May 2008, September 2008, January 2009, August
2009, and March 2010) for the Hōkūala Resort development and submitted to the DPW for
review and approval. To accommodate the projected increase in runoff volume, a total of seven
(7) detention basins will be provided throughout the Hōkūala Resort development, with lesser
runoff to be diverted into the Resort’s existing lagoons. With the addition of the proposed
detention basins and use of the existing lagoons, the flow rates and drainage patterns will be kept
to pre-development levels, and runoff generated by the Hōkūala Resort will not adversely affect
the adjacent properties and down-gradient areas.
16. In accordance with Section 9-2.8 of the KCC, the requirements relating to “Parks and
Playgrounds” are applicable to the project and shall be resolved at the time of Subdivision
and/or prior to building permit approval.
Payment in the amount of $383,152.62 for the park dedication fee for the Kalanipu‘u
condominium development was made to the Planning Department on December 4, 2007.
Payment in the amount of $58,051 and $100,427 for the park dedication fees for the Parcel 9A –
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 17
July 1, 2021
Building A (Inn on the Cliffs) and Parcel 9B – Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) developments,
respectively, was made to the Planning Department on July 24, 2008. Payment in the amount of
$200,838.01 for the park dedication fee for the Single-Family Subdivisions 1 and 4 development
was made to the Planning Department on December 3, 2008. Payment in the amount of $121,478
for the park dedication fee for the Single Family Subdivisions 2 and 3 development was made to
the Planning Department on April 23, 2009. Payments in the amounts of $75,334 and $1,169,980
for the park dedication fee for the Revised Large Lot Subdivision were made to the Planning
Department on July 27, 2010 and September 17, 2010, respectively. Payment in the amount of
$20,574.00 for the park dedication fee for Parcel 9A – Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Townhomes)
was made to the Planning Department on February 1, 2017.
Payment of the applicable park dedication fees for the remaining various Resort developments
will be made prior to building permit approval for the respective developments.
17. In accordance with Section 11A-2.2 of the KCC, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department an Environmental Impact Assessment Fees (EIA) for the project. The EIA fee for the
Multi-family unit project is based on $1,000 per unit and is due prior to building permit
approval. The EIA fees for the single family residential project are due prior to Subdivision
permit approval.
Payment in the amount of $78,000 for the EIA fee for the Kalanipu‘u condominium development
was made to the Planning Department on August 6, 2007. Payment in the amount of $14,000 for
the EIA fee for the Parcel A – Building A (Inn on the Cliffs) development and $28,000 for the
EIA fee for the Parcel 9B – Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) were made to the Planning
Department on February 11, 2008. Payment in the amount of $5,000 for the EIA fee for the 5-
unit Parcel 9A – Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes) was made to the Planning
Department on July 29, 2008. Payment in the amount of $15,000 for the EIA fee for the Single-
Family Subdivisions 1 and 4 was made to the Planning Department on September 30, 2008.
Payment in the amount of $8,000 for the EIA fee for the Single-Family Subdivisions 2 and 3 was
made to the Planning Department on January 16, 2009. Payment in the amount of $7,000 for the
EIA fee for the Revised Large Lot Subdivision was made to the Planning Department on July 14,
2010.
In accordance with Chapter 11A, Environmental Impact Assessment on Land Development,
Article 2. Application, Section 11A-2.1 Exemptions (4), of the Kaua‘i County Code, as amended,
payment of the applicable EIA fees for the 31-unit Kamāmalu Condominium affordable housing
project is exempt since it is a privately-developed, low-cost housing project financed entirely by
private funds and the sales prices are in accordance with standards established by the County
Housing Agency.
Payment of the applicable EIA fees for the remaining various Resort developments will be made
prior to building permit approval for the respective developments.
18. The applicant shall continue to make available 200 hundred off-street parking stalls within the
Project Area “D” for Kaua‘i Marriott Resort and Beach Club.
The 200 parking stalls are incorporated in the revised Hōkūala Resort plan for the existing
parking lot within the R-20 zoned area near the main entrance of the Resort.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 18
July 1, 2021
19. As contained in Condition No. 18 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, substantial construction of
125 hotel or resort/residential units shall be completed within two (2) years from the effective
date of the Ordinance. Substantial construction of an additional 125 units shall be completed
within seven (7) years from the effective date of the Ordinance (total of two-hundred fifty (250)
units), and the remainder of the 750 units (or five hundred (500) units) shall be completed within
twelve (12) years from the effective date of the Ordinance. Substantial construction, as used
herein, shall mean the laying of foundations. If substantial construction is not completed within
this time frame, the Planning Commission may initiate proceedings to review the provisions of
the zoning designations for the property, including, but not limited to additional infrastructure
requirements.
Relative to the 125 resort-residential units within the Hōkūala Resort that must be completed
within two years from the effective date of the Ordinance, construction of the 78-unit Kalanipu‘u
development has been completed, with units currently occupied by residents and time share
owners. Substantial construction of the structures for the 14-unit Parcel 9A - Building A (Inn on
the Cliffs) development, the 28-unit Parcel 9B - Building B (formerly Ritz Carlton Club
building), and the 5-unit Parcel 9A - Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes Building
“A”) has been completed.
Of the additional 125 units that must be substantially complete within seven years after the
effective date of the Ordinance, foundation plans at Lot 8 have been submitted to the County on
April 14, 2016 and approved on October 4, 2016. The permit was issued on October 5, 2016.
The laying of foundations has been completed. Building permits are currently under review for
full construction of a 210-unit hotel development at Parcel 8 and for 12 of the 36 units proposed
at the Ninini Point Residences.
The timing of substantial construction of the remaining balance of the units is acknowledged and
will be complied with.
20. As stated in Condition No. 19 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383:
“Pursuant to Chapter 4 (“Developing Jobs & Business”), Section 4.5.2 (“Supporting Business
and Jobs for Kaua‘i Residents – Implementing Actions”) of the Kaua‘i General Plan (November
2000):
“(c) In granting zoning and permits for new resorts and other business, the County shall seek
commitments that businesses will actively recruit and train Kaua‘i residents to fill new jobs. To
this end, the Applicant shall seek to actively recruit and train Kaua‘i residents to fill new jobs.
To accomplish this, the applicant may cooperate with, and utilize, whatever government training
programs and Kaua‘i Community College curricula which may be available so that Kaua‘i
residents may be trained to fill such newly-generated jobs. The Applicant may also work to
actively recruit Kaua‘i residents to participate in such job training programs and curricula.”
Hiring practices for completed properties are consistent with the condition. The Applicant will
continue to comply with this condition for future properties as well.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 19
July 1, 2021
21. In accordance with Condition No. 20 of Ordinance No. PM-2006-383, “to the extent possible
within the confines of union requirements and applicable legal prohibitions against
discrimination in employment, the Applicant shall seek to hire Kaua‘i contractors as long as they
are reasonably competitive with other contractors, and shall seek to employ residents of Kaua‘i
in temporary construction and permanent resort related jobs. It is recognized that the Applicant
may have to employ non-Kaua‘i residents for particular skilled jobs where no qualified Kaua‘i
resident possesses such skills. For the purposes of this condition, the Council shall relieve the
Applicant of this requirement if the Applicant is subjected to anti-competitive restraints on trade
or other monopolistic practices”.
Hiring practices for construction projects undertaken to date are consistent with the condition.
The Applicant will continue to comply with this condition for future construction projects.
22. The Applicant shall consider the application of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) standards and strategies wherever feasible for sustainable site, utilities and building
development.
The Hōkūala Resort development proposes to incorporate the application of Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and strategies, to the extent deemed economically
feasible, to achieve sustainable site, utilities and building development. The following green
principles and strategies being implemented within the Resort development include the following:
Sustainable Sites:
Control storm water runoff on-site. The project’s design will reuse the majority of the
storm water volume generated for non-potable uses. Storm water runoff will be
captured and returned to the lagoons or retained on-site.
Develop an erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting the construction activity
pollution prevention criteria. This would include reducing pollution from construction
activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust
generation.
Reduce the roof heat island effect by using Energy Star compliant, high-reflectance
and low emissivity roofing at flat roof areas.
Minimize light pollution by designing exterior lighting to reduce fixture lumens
emitted at an angle of 90 degrees or higher from nadir (straight down).
Promote alternative transportation by providing secure bicycle storage and locker room
facilities.
Provide pedestrian linkages within the Resort development and to Island-wide public
transportation.
Water Efficiency:
Achieve water and energy savings by selectively deleting cooling towers and utilizing
the Resort development’s lagoons as a heat sink in lieu of typical heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 20
July 1, 2021
Design for low irrigation water usage and utilize non-potable water for landscape
irrigation. The project’s irrigation will utilize water from the Resort’s lagoons, on-site
wells, and R-1 quality recycled wastewater effluent from the County’s Līhu‘e WWTP.
Potable water for irrigation of the project’s landscaping will be minimized or
eliminated.
Reduce potable water usage through use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures.
Energy and Atmosphere:
Assess building energy demand and perform fundamental building commissioning.
Reduce energy demand through specification of efficient lighting fixtures and LED
lamping, and mechanical equipment. Specify Energy Star rated appliances that will
reduce electric consumption. Use high performance glazing to achieve an increased
level of performance and reduction in energy use.
Energy consumption reduction through design modeling.
Incorporate refrigerants that do not utilize ozone depleting chemicals such as Chloro-
fluoro-carbons (CFCs).
Indoor Environmental Quality:
Design HVAC systems to monitor air delivery.
Propose low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) materials, such as adhesive and
sealants, paints and coating, and carpet systems.
Require a construction management plan for the proper storage, installation and
maintenance of HVAC systems to minimize particulate and organic contaminants.
Implement an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan during pre-occupancy
phases that protects the HVAC system during construction, controls pollutant sources
and interrupts contamination pathways.
Design indoor spaces such as janitor closets and copying rooms with separate
ventilating systems to control indoor pollutant sources.
Provide lighting control systems that reduce light usage and sensors for day lighting
to reduce energy consumption.
Provide building occupants with options for thermal comfort and control.
Design spaces with views to the exterior and options for natural ventilation.
Innovation and Design Process:
Create and implement a Green education program to share green strategies with Resort
employees and guests through graphic stations and self-guided tours.
Provide a post-occupancy ongoing pest management program with an emphasis on
effective use of Green pesticides and techniques.
Implement a green housekeeping program.
Consider carbon neutral building products.
Incorporate use of low VOC furniture.
Incorporate use of LED lighting.
Implement the joint Federal-State Habitat Conservation Plan in accordance with the
requirements of Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, and Section
195D, HRS.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 21
July 1, 2021
Waste Stream Diversion:
During construction, develop a solid waste management plan to segregate and store
materials for recycling (paper, wood, cardboard, glass, metals, and plastics) and
minimize construction, demolition and land clearing debris from disposal in the
County’s landfill.
Reuse concrete from the demolition of existing buildings and other infrastructure
within the Resort development as non-expansive granular fill in areas deemed
appropriate for such reuse.
Utilize locally-produced materials such as aggregate and concrete wherever feasible
and applicable.
Incorporate waste diversion and reduction facilities into the design of the project and
encourage recycling of materials at the project during the operations phase. Implement
a solid waste management plan to provide for recycling of cardboard, aluminum, glass,
plastic, and green waste, and participation in the State’s “high five” program.
Incorporate recycling and waste collection facilities at each development area within
the Resort development. Employ composting of all greenwaste on-site for the project’s
golf course and landscaped areas.
23. The Applicant shall seek to establish and designate emergency shelters within the Resort which
would be available for use during natural disasters.
An Emergency Action Plan (Revised April 2019) has been prepared for the Resort and provides
information regarding emergency plans and procedures during natural disasters; see Appendix A
and Figure 1: Emergency Shelter Map included herein.
24. As recommended by the Department of Water, the applicant shall resolve the following with the
Department of Water (DOW):
a. Submit detailed water demand calculations along with proposed water meter size. Water
demand calculations should include fixture count and water meter sizing worksheets. These
calculations shall include but not be limited to domestic, irrigation and other applicable
water demands of this project along with the proposed water meter size. If the existing water
meters will be used to provide water service to this development, water demand calculations
will be required for the existing and proposed uses and shall include the existing and
proposed unit counts. The Water Department’s comments may change depending on the
approved water demand calculations.
b. Prepare and receive DOW’s approval of construction drawings for necessary water system
facilities and construct said facilities. These facilities shall include but not be limited to:
1. The domestic service connection and fire service connection, if applicable
2. The interior plumbing plans with the appropriate backflow prevention device, if
applicable,
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 22
July 1, 2021
3. Additional source facilities for this area. The applicant may wait until others (including the
DOW) to construct additional source for this area. The DOW is in the process of
obtaining additional source for this area. Grove Farm is constructing a Surface Water
Treatment Plant, which will provide additional water capacity for the Līhu‘e Area. Upon
completion of this SWTP the DOW will reassess their water situation in the Līhu‘e area.
4. Additional storage facilities of this area. The applicant may wait until others (including
DOW) to construct additional storage for this area.
c. Pay the applicable charges in effect at the time payment is made to the Water Department.
At the present time, these charges shall include:
1. The Facilities Reserve Charge (FRC) of either $4,600 per unit or the facilities reserve
charge as determined by the approved water meter size, whichever amount is larger.
The Applicant previously noted that an existing 4-inch water meter would continue to serve the
Hōkūala Resort development and would be used to supply water to various existing, planned and
proposed projects within the initial phase of development, including the Kalanipu‘u
condominiums, the 31-unit affordable housing development, one public recreation/picnic shelter,
the planned golf clubhouse at the former Fashion Landing, the planned 34 single-family
residential lots in the Single-Family Subdivisions 1 and 4, and fitness center at the former Fashion
Landing complex.
The Applicant also previously noted that two (2) existing 6-inch water meters shared between the
Kaua‘i Marriott Resort and Beach Club, the Hōkūala Resort, and the nearby Pali Kai Homes,
would be used to supply water to other planned and proposed projects within the development,
including the Parcel 9A – Building A (Inn on the Cliffs), the 5-unit Parcel 9A – Townhomes (Ritz
Carlton Residence Town Homes building), the Parcel 9B – Building B (Ritz Carlton Club
Makali‘i Building “A”), the planned 20 single-family residential lots in Single-Family
Subdivisions 2 and 3, a portion of the planned Marriott Vacation Club International Timeshare
Project – Phase I, the proposed 11 single-family residential lots in Single-Family Subdivision 7,
one public recreation/picnic shelter, the planned central operations building with a
marketplace/café, the planned landscape maintenance facility, a future spa for the Kaua‘i Marriott
Resort and Beach Club, and the Kaua‘i Marriott Resort and Beach Club renovations.
Pursuant to the County Department of Water (DOW) approval, the Applicant envisioned that a
new 8-inch water meter would be installed at the existing 4-inch water meter location to supply
water for the remainder of the Hōkūala Resort development, including the planned Marriott
Vacation Club International Timeshare Project – Phase 2, the planned Makali‘i Buildings B and
C, the proposed Marriott Vacation Club International Timeshare Project – Sequel 2, the planned
restaurant at the former Fashion Landing complex, and a proposed greeter station (Ninini Point
Street).
A Water Study Report (January 2005, Revised July 24, 2007) was prepared for the Hōkūala
Resort which includes water demand calculations for existing and proposed uses for domestic and
irrigation demands. The Water Study Report was approved by the DOW by letter dated August
23, 2007. Subsequently, an Updated Water Study Report (May 2008) was prepared to allocate
the residual capacity of the two (2) 6-inch water meters and to update the fixture unit counts for
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 23
July 1, 2021
the Resort development. The Updated Water Study Report was submitted to the DOW on May 6,
2008 for review and approval. Based on comments from the DOW, an Updated Water Study
Report (Revised July 16, 2008) was submitted and conditionally approved by the DOW by letter
dated August 22, 2008. Based on subsequent comments from the DOW, a Final Updated Water
Study Report (Revised November 25, 2008) was approved by the DOW by letter dated December
1, 2008. Based on the Hōkūala Resort’s revised 772-unit density master plan, an Updated Water
Study Report (Revised March 2010) was prepared and approved by the DOW by letter dated June
9, 2010. Subsequently, an Updated Water Study Report (Revised June 2011) was prepared to
reflect the revised building schedule for the fitness center at the former Fashion Landing
complex, and was approved by the DOW by letter dated June 24, 2011.
Currently, there is adequate source and storage for the proposed and planned Resort
developments that will obtain water from the existing 4-inch water meter, which was recently
upgraded by the County to an 8-inch meter, and the two (2) existing 6-inch water meters. The
Applicant will be coordinating with the DOW regarding additional source and storage
requirements for the remainder of the Hōkūala Resort development.
Timbers Resorts has submitted a revised water master plan for Hōkūala dated November 9, 2015
to the County of Kaua‘i DOW. The Plan was subsequently revised and resubmitted on June 14,
2016. Pursuant to comments received from DOW, the Plan was updated and a current version
dated September 2020 is under review by DOW.
Adequate on-site fire protection will be provided.
Payment in the amount of $73,600 for the Facilities Reserve Charge (FRC) for the Kalanipu‘u
condominiums was made to the DOW on November 27, 2007 as part of the building permit
process for that development. Payment in the amount of $64,400 for the Parcel 9A – Building A
(Inn on the Cliffs) and in the amount of $128,800 for the first building of the Parcel 9B –
Building B (Ritz Carlton Club) was made to the DOW on April 23, 2008 as part of the building
permit process for the respective developments. Payment in the amount of $23,000 for the Parcel
9A – Townhomes (Ritz Carlton Residence Town Homes Building A) was made to the DOW on
July 29, 2008. Payment in the amount of $161,000 for the FRC for the Single-Family
Subdivisions 1 and 4 was made to the DOW on October 23, 2008. Payment in the amount of
$92,000 for the FRC for the Single-Family Subdivisions 2 and 3 was made to the DOW on
October 23, 2008. Payment in the amount of $59,800 for the FRC for the Revised Large Lot
Subdivision was made to the DOW on July 14, 2010.
Payment for the applicable FRC for the remaining Resort developments will be made prior to the
respective building permit approvals at rates prevailing at the time.
25. The applicant shall resolve and comply with applicable conditions or requirements as
recommended by the State Health Department, County Fire Department, County Public Works
Department, County Department of Public Works Building Division, County Department of
Water, United States Postal Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State Department of
Transportation.
All agency conditions or requirements have been or will be resolved and complied with by the
Applicant.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 24
July 1, 2021
26. The Planning Commission reserves the authority to impose additional conditions, modify or
delete conditions stated herein, or revoke the subject permits through proper procedures should
the applicant fail to comply with the conditions of approval.
Acknowledged.
27. Due to the phasing of the overall master plan, the applicant is advised that additional
government agency conditions may be imposed, including but not limited to, procedural
requirements and processes for the overall resort master plan to be implemented under the
subject permits. Actions proposed by the Applicant are subject to the rules and regulations
deemed applicable at that time. It shall be the applicant’s responsibility to resolve those
conditions and processes with the respective approving authorities.
Acknowledged.
28. The Applicant shall provide an annual report to the Planning Commission, which shall be
submitted to the Planning Department 30 days prior to the annual anniversary date of approval
of the amendments considered herein. The annual report shall include the progress and status of
the project and compliance with all conditions of approval. An annual report shall be provided
until project completion and compliance with all conditions of approval.
The Applicant has complied with this condition requirement and acknowledges the requirements
for compliance in the future.
29. Details of the design of the proposed bus stop with a bench and shelter to be constructed/installed
by the Applicant, at no cost to the County of Kaua‘i, at the location recommended by the County
Transportation Agency near the main entryway to the Kaua‘i Lagoons Resort shall be resolved
by the Applicant with the County Transportation Agency, Planning Department and Department
of Public Works prior to construction plan approval of the Resort’s planned central operations
facility.
Acknowledged and will be complied with. The development of the earliest Hōkūala Resort
projects and facilities that would result in additional employees is anticipated to occur by June
2023. Provision of the County bus stop will not be required until additional Hōkūala Resort
projects and facilities are developed prompting the necessary demand to warrant its construction.
Details of the proposed bus stop and shelter will be resolved with the Planning Department and
Department of Public Works at that time prior to future construction plan approval.
30. The Applicant shall provide sidewalks along the Resort Drive and Lagoon Drive and in view of
the requirements for sidewalks for RR-10, RR-20 and R-20 multi-family residential districts, the
Applicant shall resolve with the Planning Department and Building Division, detailed location of
sidewalk or pedestrian path improvements and design that are interconnected with the proposed
public shoreline access, including but not limited to, segments of the Nawiliwili-Ahukini Bike and
Pedestrian Path improvements proposed to be provided on lands owned by the Applicant.
Through the Revised Large Lot Subdivision (S-2010-11), a modification of the requirement was
granted to allow the approximately 1,050 linear-foot long segment of Road Lot E (Ala ‘Oli Way)
located east of its intersection with Holokāwelu Way to be exempt from the requirements relative
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 25
July 1, 2021
to the provision of curbs, gutters and sidewalks as set forth in Section 9-2.3 (e) (3) of the
Subdivision Ordinance of the Kaua‘i County Code of Ordinances, as amended. This segment of
Road Lot E is a dead-end street which will serve eight (8) adjacent single-family residential lots
which are part of the Revised Large Lot Subdivision. Road Lot E will be privately owned and
maintained.
In lieu of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, the shoulders of this segment of Road Lot E consist of a
10-foot wide grassed swale along the mauka side of the road pavement, and a 12-foot wide
grassed swale along the makai side of the road pavement. The provision of grassed swales is
intended to impart a more natural, rural character to the adjacent single-family subdivision,
similar to that of the Hōkūala Resort’s Single-Family Subdivisions 1 and 4 (S-2008-24) and
Single-Family Subdivisions 2 and 3 (S-2009-06) which were approved by the Planning
Commission on December 9, 2008 and May 12, 2009, respectively. The grassed swales are also
intended to promote sustainable sites by providing increased pervious surface areas to control
storm water runoff.
All other improvements to this segment of Road Lot E have been developed to existing County
standards. The remaining western segment of Road Lot E of approximately 850 linear feet has
been developed to existing County standards, including the provision of curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
An updated Roadway and Public Access Plan which was included as part of the Second
Amendment to the SMA (U)-2005-8, Project Development Use Permit U-2005-26, Use Permit U-
2005-25, and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30 approved by the County Planning
Commission on August 11, 2009 depicts existing and proposed public access throughout the
Resort, including the planned public lateral shoreline access between the Parcel 9A – Building A
(Inn on the Cliffs) and Commercial Complex (Fashion Landing). The Applicant has coordinated
with the County DPW Building Division regarding integration of segments of the County’s
proposed Nawiliwili-Ahukini Shared-Use Path improvements within the Resort and is currently
discussing options with DPW. The Applicant is committed to maintaining ongoing coordination
with the DPW Building Division in working out details of the shared-use path improvements and
associated easement locations within the Hōkūala Resort as the planning and design phases of the
shared-use path project progresses by the County.
This condition will be complied with for the remainder of the Resort development
31. As recommended by the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Management Division, the
Applicant shall prepare a solid waste management plan (SWMP) with a section detailing a “job-
site recycling and waste reduction system” for demolition and construction activities and a
separate section detailing the recycling and waste reduction system for operations phase
activities. The SWMP shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval, prior to commencement of demolition and construction activities for each respective
component of the project.
A construction phase SWMP was developed and implemented for each of the construction phases
previously underway within the Resort, and will be updated and implemented for all future
phases of activity.
10125-02
Letter to Mr. Ka‘āina Hull
Page 26
July 1, 2021
The Applicant has prepared a SWMP for the operations phase activities of the Hōkūala Resort,
which was approved by the County DPW Solid Waste Division by memorandum dated January 7,
2009. The SWMP provides for recycling of cardboard, metal, glass, paper, plastic, and green
waste, as well as participation in the State’s “HI-5” program. The Applicant also prepared an
updated SWMP for the operations phase activities to include the additional 22-unit density
approved through Zoning Ordinance No. PM-2009-394. The updated SWMP was approved by
the County DPW Solid Waste Division by memorandum dated October 27, 2010.
32. A dedication deed executed by Kaua‘i Development LLC in a form approved by the Office of the
County Attorney for TMK 3-5-1: 102 shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to any
further building permits approved by the Department.
The Dedication Deed from Kaua‘i Development, LLC to the County of Kaua‘i, effective May 5,
2010, conveying the parcel identified as TMK: (4) 3-5-001: 102, was recorded in the State
Bureau of Conveyances as Document No. 2010-061330.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (808) 946-2277.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Candilasa
Planner
Cc: Gary Siracusa, Hōkūala Resort
Michael Belles, Belles Graham LLP
Enclosures
APPENDIX A:
EMERGENCY ACTION
PLAN
May 18, 2018
Revised April 2019
Revised June 2021
2
GENERAL SAFETY
Everyone is responsible for the safety and security of the guests and associates.
To focus on Safety and Security of our workplace, here are a few tips to
remember while on the job.
If it doesn’t look right and/or it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t right – report it!
SEE SOMETHING…SAY SOMETHING!! When that situation arises,
immediately notify your supervisor or call the Loss Prevention Officer to follow
up.
Loss Prevention:
• Report suspicious individuals or any unusual activities you
observe.
• Report any person that gives you false information.
• Report any person in a place on property that is restricted.
• Report any person acting suspicious – loitering in guest room
areas.
• Report any person on property after hours – not here as a guest or
customer of the Food & Beverage facilities.
• Report any person asking for room numbers or names of guests of
the Resort.
• Report any person(s) or vehicle(s) in the parking areas that do not
appear to be a guest or associate of the Resort.
• Report items or boxes left out in the open or unattended.
Safety:
• Floor not clean or with spilled debris – clean up, or if unable report
it.
• Know the location(s) of the nearest Fire Extinguisher(s) in your
work area - if one is missing, report it.
• Report immediately any equipment broken or not working properly.
• Report immediately any item or situation that may cause injury to
an associate or guest.
3
CRIME IN PROGRESS
Do not attempt to apprehend or interfere with the criminal except in the
case of self-protection.
Do not resist – do as the person says – give up the money immediately.
As soon as it is safe to do so go to the nearest phone and call 911.
Tell the Dispatcher you are reporting a ROBBERY/CRIME in progress.
Tell the Dispatcher you name and location.
Tell the Dispatcher what has taken place.
Notify the Dispatcher if anyone is injured.
Let the Dispatcher hang up first.
Notify your Supervisor or Manager on Duty immediately
Stay in the area to assist the emergency response team.
When it is safe to do so, get a good description of the criminal and note
the following:
• Height
• Weight
• Sex
• Color – skin, Eyes, Hair
• Age
• Clothing
• Method and direction of travel
If there is a vehicle involved note the license plate number, make, model
and color and any outstanding characteristics.
Help secure the area where the incident took place, so the Police may
obtain evidence of the crime.
Refrain from speaking to anyone other than Resort Management, Loss
Prevention, and Police Officer’s regarding the incident.
4
SMOKE OR FIRE
If you see fire of smell smoke, immediately go to the nearest telephone
and CALL 911, then call Loss Prevention at (808) 977-0039 (TKAU) or (808)
855-8008 (HCA).
• Tell the KPD dispatcher your name and location.
• Tell the KPD dispatcher the location of the fire or smoke.
• Let the KPD dispatcher hang up first.
• Notify Loss Prevention, immediately thereafter.
• Close all windows and doors and secure the area to keep the
fire from spreading.
• If it is safe for you to do so, extinguish the fire with the nearest Fire
Extinguisher if you have been trained.
• If it is safe for you to do so, stay in the area to assist in directing
the fire response team.
Follow the directions of the Response Team and assist when asked to do so.
5
BLOOD BORNE PATHOGENS
The following actions are to be taken in the event you discover human
body fluids in the course of your work.
Human Body Fluids – blood, feces, urine, vomit, etc.
• Clear all other employees or guests away from the area
around the body fluids.
• Do not touch the fluids in any way.
• Cover the fluids if possible.
• Notify your supervisor and call (808) 855-8008 for Loss
Prevention.
• Tell the Officer your name and location.
• Tell the Officer what has been found.
• Be sure to include if anyone is injured or ill.
• Let the Officer hang up first.
• Stay in the area to assist the response team.
The area will be cleaned by Housekeeping and Loss Prevention under
Loss Prevention's Supervision.
6
BOMB THREAT
Bomb threats usually occur by telephone, not directed to an individual,
but rather to the person who first receives the call. Should you be the one to
receive the bomb threat call do the following:
· Concentrate on listening
· Background noises
· Accents
· Male or female
· Young or old etc.
Look for the caller ID read out on the phone if possible. Keep the caller on the
call as long as possible.
Questions to ask the caller:
• When is the bomb going to explode?
• Where is the bomb?
• What does it look like?
• What kind of bomb is it?
• What will cause it to explode?
• Where are you calling from?
• What is your address?
• What is your name?
Do not hang up the phone.
Immediately go to another phone or line and call Loss Prevention Officer (808)
855-8008.
• Tell the Officer your name and location.
• Tell the Officer you have just received a bomb threat call.
• Stay in the area until the Officer arrives
• Follow the directions of the Loss Prevention Officer.
Assist as directed by your supervisor or the Loss Prevention Officer.
7
GUEST/EMPLOYEE DISTURBANCES
Any disturbances includes Workplace Violence, Domestic Disputes and/or an
Active Shooter situation.
When receiving a complaint or witnessing a disturbance caused by a guest,
Customer, or an employee, immediately go to the nearest telephone and call for
a Loss Prevention Officer (808) 855-8008.
If the situation deems necessary, call 911 immediately.
• Tell the Dispatcher/Officer your name and location.
• Tell the Dispatcher/Officer the location of the disturbance.
• Tell the Dispatcher/Officer the type of disturbance.
• Tell the Dispatcher/Officer who requested assistance, if other than
yourself.
• Tell the Dispatcher/Officer if anyone is injured.
• Let the Dispatcher/Officer hang up first
Return to the area if it is safe for you to do so to guide the Response Team to
the incident area.
Assist if asked to do so by your Supervisor, Manager on Duty and/or Loss
Prevention Officer.
Refrain from speaking to anyone other than Resort Management, Loss
Prevention, and Police Officers regarding the incident.
8
GUEST/EMPLOYEE INJURY OR ILLNESS
Immediately report all injuries or illnesses to you supervisor, regardless how
minor the injury/illness, and call the Loss Prevention Officer (808) 855-8008.
• Tell the Officer your name and location.
• Tell the Officer who is injured and the nature of the injury.
• Answer all questions asked by the Loss Prevention Officer.
• Follow the instructions given by the Loss Prevention Officer.
• Let the Loss Prevention Officer hang up first.
After you call for help, return to the victim. If necessary, administer First Aid
and/or CPR if you have been trained.
Follow the instructions of the Loss Prevention Officer and assist if asked to do
so.
9
ACTIVE SHOOTER
CODE FOR ACTIVE SHOOTER – Code BLUE
BE INFORMED:
· If you see something unusual, SAY something
· Be aware of environment
MAKE A PLAN:
· Make a plan with your co-workers, and ensure everyone knows what
they would do, if confronted with an active shooter.
· Look for the two nearest exits anywhere you go and have an escape path
in mind & identify places you could hide.
DURING:
· RUN and escape if possible
- Getting away from the shooter or shooters is the TOP priority
- Leave your belongings behind and get away
- Help others escape, if possible, but evacuate regardless of whether
others agree to follow.
- Warn and prevent individuals from entering an area where the active
shooter may be.
- Call 911 when you are safe, and describe shooter, location, and
weapon.
· HIDE, if escape is not possible
- Get out of shooter’s view and stay quiet
- Silence all electronic devices and make sure they won’t vibrate.
- Lock and clock doors, close blinds, and turn off lights.
- Don’t hide in groups, spread out along walls or hide separately to make
it more difficult for the shooter.
- Try to communicate with police silently. Use text message or social
media to tag your location.
- Stay in place until Law Enforcement gives you the all clear.
- Your hiding place should be out of the shooter’s view and provide
protection if shots are fired in your direction.
· FIGHT as an absolute last resort
- Commit to your actions and act as aggressively as possible against
the shooter.
10
- Recruit others to ambush the shooter with makeshift weapons, such
chairs, fire extinguishers, scissors, books etc.
- Create an ambush plan.
- Be prepared to cause severe and lethal injury to the shooter.
- Throw items and improvise weapons to distract and disarm the
shooter.
AFTER INCIDENT AND ALL CLEAR IS GIVEN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE):
· LE will treat everyone as a suspect.
· Keep hands visible and empty.
· Know that LE’s first task is to end the incident and they may have to
pass injured along the way.
· LE Officers may be armed with rifles, shotguns and/or handguns and
may use pepper spray or tear gas to control the situation.
· LE officers will be shouting commands and may push individuals to the
ground for their safety.
· Follow LE instructions and evacuate in the direction they come from,
unless otherwise instructed.
· Take care of yourself first and then you may be able to help the wounded
before first responders arrive.
· If the injured are in immediate danger, help get them to safety.
· While you wait for the first responder to arrive, provide first aid.
- Apply direct pressure to wounds and use tourniquets if you have
been trained to do so.
- Turn wounded people onto their sides if they are unconscious
and keep them warm.
· Consider seeking professional help for you and your family to cope with
the long-term effects of the trauma.
11
MISSILE ATTACK
Once you receive notice of a missile NEED TO SEEK SHELTER IMMEDIATELY.
If you’re indoors: Stay indoors well away from the windows.
If you’re outdoors: Seek immediate shelter in a building preferably a concrete
structure.
SHELTER IN PLACE:
· Remain sheltered until you are told it is safe to leave or two weeks (14
days) have passed.
· You may be advised that it is safe to leave your shelter for short periods
of time to locate food, water and medical care.
· Electrical, water and other utilities may be severely disrupted or
unavailable.
· Listen to local radio stations for official information (if available)
· Note that cell phone, television radio and internet services may be
severely disrupted or unavailable.
12
HURRICANE EMERGENCY PLAN & PROCEDURES
HURRICANE TERMINOLOGY:
· TROPICAL STORM WATCH is an announcement that tropical storm
conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the
specified coastal and inland areas within 48 hours.
· TROPICAL STORM WARNING is an announcement that hurricane
conditions (sustained winds of 74 mph or greater) are possible in the
specified coastal and inland areas within 48 hours; the timing of the alert
is to allow for emergency preparedness activity purposes.
· HURRICANE WARNING is an announcement that hurricane conditions
(sustained winds of 74 mph or greater) are expected in the specified
coastal and inland areas within 36 hours; the timing of the alert is to
allow for emergency preparedness activity purposes. Residents within an
area covered by a hurricane warning can expect to experience strong
winds, torrential rain, power outages and thunderstorms.
Whenever a tropical cyclone (a tropical depression, tropical storm or hurricane)
has formed in the Pacific, Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) issues
tropical cyclone advisory products at least every 6 hours at 5 am, 11 am, 5 pm,
and 11 pm HST. When coastal tropical storm or hurricane watches or warnings
are in effect, the CPHC issue Tropical Cyclone Public Advisories every 3 hours.
The informational products are available on www.weather.gov.cphc, on TV,
radio and cell phones, the National Weather Service (www.nws.noaa.gov.com)
and NOAA Weather Radio.
HURRICANE WATCH
Property action upon issuance of a hurricane watch advisory:
General Manager:
· A meeting will be held with staff members to review the Hurricane
emergency plan. The General Manager (or designee) will advise all staff
members on updates and assignments.
13
· The General Manager will authorize an internal letter of notification to
guests regarding the hurricane threat and the Resort preparations for the
storm.
· The Loss Prevention department will monitor all communications and
relay pertinent information to the command team.
Staff Members:
· Upon notification by the General Manager (or designee) of an
approaching storm, the emergency team staff members will report to the
executive meeting room for updates, assignments confirmation, and
review of the hurricane emergency plan.
Associates:
· Associates will be briefed by their department heads and instructed as to
continuance of their respective duties.
Guests:
· A letter of notification will be generated and forwarded to all guests from
the general manager’s office regarding the approaching storm and where
the nearest designated shelter is located. The letter will include a graphic
representation to the nearest shelter, a checklist of the provisions a guest
may need during the storm, and where the property will post
informational updates regarding the approaching storm.
Engineering:
· The Director of Engineering will plan and assess for all major utility
shutdowns, if necessary.
· Prepare the property for protection of flying debris.
· Secure any loose items within the resort.
· Make necessary arrangements for any needed emergency supplies.
· Inspect emergency back-up and portable generators for operation and
adequate fuel supply.
Loss Prevention:
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will monitor the storm
advisories issued by the National Weather Service or other Emergency
Management Agency and communicate all information directly to the
general manager and emergency response team.
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will maintain communications
with local authorities regarding emergency services, road closures, or
possible need for evacuation.
14
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will inspect all Fire Alarm
systems for proper operation.
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will assist in assembling all
emergency supplies (first aid, AED, flashlights, portable radios, etc.) and
deliver them to the designated project command center.
Front Desk:
· Provide the resort command center with a list of guests in residence, any
expected arrivals, departure dates of guests in residence, and available
rooms. The list shall be updated at least twice daily.
· Will assist in notifying guests of the latest weather updates.
· Coordinate issuing letters from the General Manager of the approaching
storm.
· Assist guests wanting to check out with their transportation needs.
· Prepare the front desk for shutdown and protection of equipment and
records in a secured area.
· Coordinate with the Bell staff to secure all equipment and luggage.
Property Operations:
· The property operations manager will coordinate the preparation of
emergency supplies such as bottled water, toilet paper, sanitary and
hygiene supplies, etc.
· Coordinate with engineering department to assure that all lanai furniture
is secured inside the rooms.
Food and Beverage Manager:
· Prepare an inventory of non-perishable food, bottled water, other
beverages and disposable items (plastic plates, utensils, cups, etc).
· Endeavor to purchase an additional bottled water supply if necessary.
· Coordinate with kitchen staff for securing of the kitchen and shutdown of
equipment, gas lines and other utilities when deemed necessary by the
storm approach.
· Move all non-perishable food items, disposable items, and bottled
water/beverages to a secured and safe area when deemed necessary by
the approaching storm.
· Work with the Executive Chef to prepare a food plan for guests and
associates on property during the storm.
Controller & IT:
· The Controller will coordinate the securing of all bank and financial
records.
15
· Coordinate back-up of all servers.
Human Resources:
· The Director of Human Resources will coordinate the storing of all
records in a safe location.
· Assist in communicating with associates ensuring information flow
regarding current status of the approaching storm, reporting to work,
etc.
Sales & Marketing:
· The Director of Sales will communicate to staff, clients and groups
regarding status of the approaching storm.
· Assist groups and sales clients with any requests for early check-out and
coordinate with the Front Desk.
· Assure that all important documents are properly stored and safe.
HURRICANE WARNING
Property action upon issuance of a hurricane warning advisory:
General Manager:
· The General Manager will locate to the Command Center to receive and
consider all incoming information and consult with the command team.
· The General Manager will make a determination as to the need for calling
back any staff members that are not on duty.
· The General Manager will determine when each department will close
down and when associates need to be released.
Engineering:
· The Director of Engineering will shut down all major utilities not in use,
such as pool pumps, gas lines, etc.
Loss Prevention:
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will continue to monitor the
storm advisories and communicate all information to the General
Manager and command team.
· The Loss Prevention responsible associate will communicate with the
local Civil Defense and other emergency management agencies for
updates and information on the storm.
· Coordinate with other departments and assure that all emergency
supplies are ready and in proper working order.
16
· Conduct a complete inspection of the property, confirm that all
guestrooms, storage rooms, safe areas, etc., are secured and no
unauthorized personnel are on property.
· Assist with evacuation as needed.
Front Desk:
· The Guest Service Manager will monitor and assist with guest inquiries
regarding the storm and other needs that arise.
· Make shuttle arrangements and coordinate with guests regarding their
transportation needs.
· Assist with the evacuation as needed.
· Guest Service Manager will shut down all non-essential equipment and
secure all cash banks in their assigned safety deposit boxes.
· Assist with evacuation as needed.
Housekeeping:
· Fill and store available containers with potable water.
· Secure and store additional toiletries for emergency condition personnel
staying at the property.
Food & Beverage:
· The Director of Food and Beverage will coordinate the closing of all
outlets.
· Assure that the cash banks are secured and a back-up report is
prepared and uploaded to the server.
· Secure all furniture and equipment prior to the storm arrival (minimum
of 12 hours prior to the storm).
· Confirm with the Executive Chef that all portable stoves, extra gas tanks,
etc. are properly secured and stored, and that all fixed equipment is shut
down.
· The Executive Chef will prepare food (sandwiches, packaged foods, etc.)
for any guests remaining on property and associates & distribute as
safety permits during the storm.
Controller:
· The Controller will coordinate the closing of the accounting department.
· Assure that all cash banks are secured.
· Confirm that all pertinent information is stored in a safe room or
uploaded to the server.
· Assist with the evacuation as needed.
17
Systems Manager:
· The Systems Manager will assure that a total system back-up is
completed.
· The Systems Manager will assure that all computers, printers and other
equipment is shutdown.
· IT shall run full network back-ups for all systems.
· IT shall set-up a rapid response program in the command center.
· IT shall shut down servers when directed and cover equipment in plastic
sheeting.
Human Resources:
· The Director of Human Resources will confirm the safe storage of all
records and documents.
· Assist with providing information to all associates.
· Assist associates in need of counseling due to the storm.
Sales & Marketing:
· The Director of Sales and Marketing with staff will communicate with
groups and sales clients and evacuation as needed.
· The Director of Sales and Marketing will coordinate the safe storage of all
records and documents and closing of the sales office.
· Assist with the evacuation as needed.
EVACUATION
The determination to evacuate the Property is the responsibility of the
General Manager or designated associate.
· In the case of an evacuation, emergency team members will sweep each
residence floor and building to verify that guests have either left the
resort property or are informed of the evacuation process.
· Emergency response staff will update guests on property regarding the
storm status, plans for evacuation and available designated Kauai
emergency shelters. The response team will coordinate with the various
departments to arrange transportation for guests desiring evacuation to
a general hurricane emergency shelter.
· Kauai Emergency Management Agency (KEMA) has identified
Hurricane Evacuation/General Population Centers as facilities that
provide increased protection from high winds to the public. Printed
maps to the proximate emergency shelters are available to all
18
guests. Guests unable to evacuate will utilize the second and third floors
of Maliula building as a shelter in place area.
· Loss Prevention and Engineering personnel will conduct patrols of the
property and secure all areas in anticipation of the approaching storm.
· A designated staff member will act as liaison with guests seeking KEMA
shelter and pass on information and answer questions.
AFTERMATH
Upon receiving clearance from Kauai Emergency Management Agency or
other authority that the storm has passed and that local authorities have
authorized travel.
General Manager:
· The General Manager and the management team will perform a property
assessment of the property prior to allowing guests to return to the
property following evacuation.
· The General Manager will notify the guests that have sheltered off
property in a KEMA evacuation center of the KEMA update and clearance
to return to the property and assist with transportation.
Engineering:
· The Director of Engineering in conjunction with Loss Prevention will
assess the damages to the property and complete a report for the General
Manager and management team.
· Assure that all emergency power is functioning properly.
· Coordinate interim repairs necessary to maintain primary operations of
the property.
· Complete a report of all damages and estimate cost of damages for
insurance purposes.
Loss Prevention:
· The Loss Prevention designated associate with the department team will
assess damages to the property and prepare to secure the perimeter as
needed.
· Complete a damage report and identify areas that are secured to the
General Manager.
· The Loss Prevention designated associate and department team will
document all necessary information and prepare a photographic report
for insurance purposes.
· Assure that all emergency supplies are readily available and distributed.
19
Front Desk:
· The Rooms Manager and team will assess any damages to the Front
Desk and complete a report to the General Manager.
· Assist guests as needed with information, travel needs and
transportation.
Culinary:
· The Executive Chef will plan and prepare food for the guests and
associates after the storm has passed until property outlets have
resumed normal operations.
· The Food and Beverage Director and the Executive Chef will assess all
damages to the kitchen and property outlets and file a report with Loss
Prevention.
Human Resources:
· The Director of Human Resources will attempt to make contact with
associates about continuing operations and their need to report for duty.
· Prepare a report fort the General Manager as to associates that may have
been displaced, are unable to report for work at this time, and verify their
welfare.
· Assist in all associate inquiries.
Sales & Marketing:
· The Director of Sales along with the department team will assist any
groups and sales clients that remained in house with their travel,
transportation, or other needs.
· The Director of Public Relations or the General Manager will handle any
media inquiry.
Systems Manager and IT:
· The Systems Manager and IT will assist and coordinate with all other
departments.
· Inspect and secure all equipment and prepare a report for the General
Manager documenting all damages for insurance purposes.
· Work to re-establish communications and systems as available after the
storm.
20
TSUNAMI EMERGENY PLAN & PROCEDURES
The Kauai Emergency Management Agency will issue bulletins regarding
Tsunami alerts. One a siren alert sounds, take all precautionary measures.
Staff Members:
· In the event of a tsunami warning, all staff members will report to the
executive boardroom command center for assignments and review of
procedures to be followed.
Loss Prevention:
· Prepare first aid supplies and emergency equipment as necessary.
· Monitor tsunami conditions on NOAA, KEMA and other agencies as
appropriate and inform the command team of status and recommended
actions to implement.
· Assist the Engineering Department with their duties.
· Assist with evacuation.
· Log all actions and events during the emergency.
Engineering:
· Shutdown all equipment and confirm all doors are properly secured.
· Shutdown all electrical service, elevators and utilities.
· Assist in evacuation as possible.
Guest Services:
· Secure all cash banks, folios and reports.
· Prepare all list of all in-house guests for the General Manager and the
command team.
· Assist with guest inquiry and coordinate command center directives.
Housekeeping:
· Secure all residences and assure that all lanai furniture is placed within
the rooms.
· Assist with securing all public area furniture.
· Prepare emergency supplies.
Finance & Accounting:
· Secure all cash bank.
· Back-up all servers and shutdown all equipment.
21
Culinary:
· Prepare dry goods and bottled water supply for transport to a designated
emergency shelter.
· Secure and shutdown equipment for all property outlets.
Human Resources:
· Assist with associate inquiries.
· Secure all records and information.
EVACUATION
· Should the General Manager order an evacuation of the property due to
the recommendation from Kauai Emergency Management Agency, the
following plan will be put into effect.
· In the event that time is of the essence due to the speed of the wave and
area where it originated, Loss Prevention shall determine what area falls
within the danger zone and identify the proximate safe zone area.
· Once the order has been given to evacuate the property, staff will assist
in the evacuation of guests.
· Designated staff will be assigned to specific buildings and floors to notify
all guests of an emergency condition requiring immediate evacuation. All
team members will deliver a consistent message establish by
management that will address personal medication, identification, etc.,
and meet in the lobby area for direction to transport and the nearest safe
area zone.
· At the designated safe zone, a designated team will meet guests and take
a head count. The team will provide updated information as available.
Staff will provide bottled water and packaged foods.
· Upon notification from KEMA that the alert has passed, command team
members will make a check of the property to assure it is safe for guests
to return. If the area is deemed unsafe, the command team will assist the
guests in making travel or other hotel accommodations as needed.
RETURN TO PROPERTY
An evaluation of the property will be done to assure safety of the premises prior
to the return of any guests.
Loss Prevention:
· A safe evaluation of the property will be made and submitted to the
General Manager.
22
Engineering:
· Inspect the property to confirm that all utility lines and connections are
safe and in good working order.
· In coordination with Loss Prevention, provide a written assessment of
any damages to the General Manager.
Food & Beverage:
· Inspect and assess damages to property outlets, main kitchen &
equipment and submit a written report to the General Manager.
· If possible, arrange food service for guests and associates on property.
Guest Services & Accounting:
· Assess any damages and file a written report to the General Manager.
· Assist guests with checkout, transportation, and other services as may
be requested.
· Assist with transactions that may require cash or other accounting
support.
· IT shall assess all equipment and infrastructure for damage and provide
a written report to the General Manager.
Finance & Accounting:
· Assess all equipment and systems for damage, notify IT personnel, and
file a written report to the General Manager.
· Assist Guest Services/Front Desk with guest transactions.
NOTE:
· No information regarding the property, guests or incidents shall be
released to the media. Refer ALL inquiry to the Executive Offices.
Evacuation Location areas by type of event:
FIRE – Grassy area north of Maliula (old Construction office site)
HURRICANE - Evacuation is situational (refer to Hurricane Emergency Plan)
TSUNAMI – Higher ground, possibly (refer to Tsunami Emergency Plan)
EARTHQUAKE/BOMB THREAT –
23
ACTIVE SHOOTER (CODE: “BLUE”)
If you’re indoors:
- Shelter in place. Lock your doors.
- Do not unlock door unless person can answer the code
If you’re outdoors:
- RUN and escape if possible
When ordered to evacuate do the following:
• Remain Calm!
• Go immediately to the designated evacuation area assigned – do
not go elsewhere.
• Cashiers – Secure your cash drawer and immediately go to the
evacuation area.
• Use the evacuation route given to you at the time you are ordered
to evacuate
• Assist the Response Team in the evacuation of guests when asked
to do so.
• Be sure to swipe in at the beginning of your shift – the time clock
report is used for roll call at the designated evacuation area.
• Never use elevators during a fire evacuation – direct guests and
fellow associates into the stairwells.
EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBERS
KPD Dispatch 911 (Emergencies) (808) 241-1711 (non-
emergencies)
Loss Prevention (808) 241-6063 (808) 855-8008 (HCA)
(808) 977-0039 (TKAU)
Eric Cucchi (808) 241-6044 (970) 471-9108
Sr. Project Manager ecucchi@timbersresorts.com
Sean Burpee (970) 531-5189
General Manager sburpee@timberskauai.com
David Nagao (808) 241-6045 (808) 652-9857
Association Director dnagao@hokualakauai.com
Colette Nagao (808) 652-0065
Front Desk manager cnagao@hokualakauai.com
Dean A. Pigao (808) 241-6062 (808) 855-8007
Loss Prevention Manager dpigao@hokualakauai.com
Jennifer Tone (808) 241-6064 (808) 645-1437
HR Manager akuo@hokualakauai.com
24
Gary Siracusa (808) 241-6072 (808) 639-1917
Director of Construction gsiracusa@hokaualakauai.com
Rey Tacsiat (808) 241-6056 (808) 651-0687
Golf Superintendent rtacsiat@hokualakauai.com
Kellie Hines (808) 241-6091 (808) 346-1877
Golf Pro khines@hokualakauai.com
Debbie Edgerton (808) 241-6081 (970) 846-2819
VP of Sales & Marketing dedgerton@hokualakauai.com
1:15,600²0 650 1,300325 Feet
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
KAUAI HIGH SCHOOL
KAUAI WAR MEMORIAL CONVENTION HALL
WILCOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
KAUAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE
!HŌKŪALA - TIMBERS RESORT
TIMBERS EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN
FIGURE 1: EMERGENCY SHELTER MAP
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1<E:
APPLICANT:
Annual Status Rcport 2021
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2005-08
Project Development Use Permit P.D.U-2005-26
Use Permit U-2005-25
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30
TaxMapKcy:(4)3-5-001:027(Por.),168,169,171 (Por.),172 (Por.),
175 and 176
HOK-UALA RESORT
(fonneriy Kaua'i Lagoons LLC.&MORI Golf(Kaua'i)LLC.)
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject permits were approved by the Planning Commission on August 11,2009 to allow
implementation ofa revised master site plan involving multiple resort and residential projects
throughout the subject property.Thc development includes condominium/timeshare units,
several support facilities and uscs,approximately 1,098 off-strcet parking stalls,and on-site
infrastructure improvements.
Condition No.28 ofthe permits requires the Applicant to submit an annual report to the Plannin^
Commission to report the progress ofthe project until it's completed and it reads:
28.The Applicant shall provide an annual report to the Planning Commission,
which shall be submilted to the Planning Departmenl 30 days prior to the
annual anniversary dale ofapproval ofthe amendmenls considered herein.
The annual report shall include the progress and status oflhe project and
compliance with all condilions of approval.An annual report shall be
provided unlil project completion and compliance with all conditions of
approval."
APPLICANT'S REOUEST
In accordance with Condition No.28,the Applicant is providing its annual status report for 2021
(refer to Attachment).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission accepts the Applicant's 2021 Annual Status Report
dated July 19,202 1.Additionally,the Applicant is advised that all applicable conditions of
approval,including the provision ofannual status report as required by Condition No.28,shall
remain in effect.
tt-1.a.i
AU6 1 O 2021
By f/^i^_,
Dale A.Cua
Planner
Approved and rccommendcd to Commission:
La'aina S.Hull
Director of Planning
Date:^^tjvA
SMA(U)-2005-8,PDU-2005.26,U-2005-25,Z-IV.2005-30;2021 Annual Statu;Rpt
HoltQola Resort
07.27,2021
-2-