2022-06-14 AGENDA 1 PL COMMISSION 9 AM PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
KAAINA S.HULL CLERK OF COMMISSIQ.~4~.~~/(HELEN COX.CHAIR
L 1 ~FRANCIS DEGRACIA.VICE CHAIR
GERALD AKO,MEMBER
DONNA APISA,MEMBER
22 JUN 8 P~1O :22 MELVIN CHIBA.MEMBERLORIOTSUKA.MEMBER
Pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statutes Section 92-3.7,which codified Act 220,SLH 2021,the meetings of
the County of Kaua’i Planning Commission will be conducted as follows:
•The meeting location that will be open to the public with audiovisual connection is:
o Lihu’e Civic Center,Moikeha Building
o Meeting Room 2A-2B
o 4444 Rice Street,LThu’e,Kaua’i,Hawai’i
•In addition to attendance in-person,the public may also attend the meeting by phone using the
“join by phone”telephone number provided on the agenda.
•The public may also attend the meeting through Zoom using link provided on the agenda.
•Also,the meeting will be live streamed and available as an archived meeting after completion at
www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings.Please note that the livestream broadcast does not allow
interaction between the viewer and Planning Commission.Also,video production services or
enhancements of the recorded video will not be available.
•Written testimony may be submitted on any agenda item and submitted to
planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the Kauai County Planning Department
4444 Rice Street.,Ste A473,Lihue,Hawaii 96766.Written testimony received by the Planning
Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be distributed to all Planning
Commissioners prior to the meeting.Any testimony received after this time and up to the start of
the meeting will be summarized by the Clerk of the Commission during the meeting and added to
the record thereafter.
•Oral testimony will be taken during the public comment portions of the meeting in-person at the
public meeting location,by using the ‘join by phone’number,or via Zoom link as an additional
accommodation listed on the agenda.
•All testifier audio and video will be disabled until it is your turn to testify.
•Per the Planning Commission’s and Chairs practice,there is three-minute time limit per
testifier,per agenda item.
•If there are temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify,we may have to move
on to the next person due to time constraints;we appreciate your understanding.
•If the remote telephone connection is lost and cannot be restored within 30 minutes during the
meetings,the Planning Commission will continue all matters and reconvene at the next scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting.
4444 Rice Street,Suite A473•Lihu’e,Hawaii 96766 (808)241-4050 (b)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Agenda 1,Tuesday,June 14,2022
9:00 a.m.or shortly thereafter
Lihu’e Civic Center,Moikeha Building
Meeting Room 2A-2B
4444 Rice Street,Lihu’e, Kaua’i,Hawai’i
To Join by Phone:
US:+1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799
or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 720 707 2699
Webinar ID:891 8643 5052
Participant ID:#
To Join by ZOOM Link:
https://uso6web.zoom.us/i/89186435052
Webcast Link:https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meeti ngs
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.MINUTES of the meeting(s)of the Planning Commission
1.September 28,2021
2.October 12,2021
E.RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
F.HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT.The Planning Commission will accept written testimony for any
agenda item herein.Written testimony indicating your 1)name or pseudonym,and if applicable,
your position/title and organization you are representing,and 2)the agenda item that you are
providing comment on,may be submitted in writing to planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed
to the County of Kaua’i Planning Department,4444 Rice Street,Suite 473,Lihu’e,Hawai’i 96766.
Written testimony received by the Planning Department before 9:00 a.m.on Monday,June 13,
2022,will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting.Written testimony
received after 9:00 a.m.on Monday,June 13,2022,will be summarized by the Clerk of the
Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter.
Oral testimony will be taken during the public comment portion of the meeting in-person at the
public meeting location,by using the ‘join by phone’number, or via Zoom link as an additional
accommodation listed on the agenda.After oral testimony has been taken, members of the public
may watch the meeting via the live stream link found at www.kauai.gov/webcastmeetings.
1.Continued Agency Hearing
a.None for this Meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION —AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 2
2.New Agency Hearing
a.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-4)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-4)to allow
construction of a new tour/administration and repair facility,aircraft hangar and
associated improvements on a parcel located along the makai side of Ahukini Road in
Lihu’e,situated approximately Y2-mile north of the Lihu’e Airport terminal,further
identified as Tax Map Key:3-5-001:008,and affecting a portion of a larger parcel
containing 720.974 acres =Airbourne Aviation,Inc.[Director’s report received
1/25/2022].
1.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
b.AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2001-2)to
allow construction of a boat storage building on a parcel situated at the terminus of
Kukuna Road in Aliomanu,further identified as 5171 Kukuna Road,Tax Map Key:4-9-
005:005,containing a total area of 8.142 acres =Richard Hill.
1.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
c.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-5)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-5)to allow
installation of interpretive signage and associated site improvements at the
Hanapepe Town Park &Playground facility in Hanapepe,along the western side of
Kona Road and immediately adjacent to the Hanapepe Fire Station,further identified
as Tax Map Key:(4)1-9-005:048 and containing a total area of 45,600 square feet =
State of Hawai’i,Department of Transportation.[Director’s report received
1/25/2022].
1.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
3.Continued Public Hearing
a.None for this Meeting
4.New Public Hearing
a.None for this Meeting.
5.All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
G.CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Status Reports
a.None for this Meeting.
2.Director’s Report for Project Scheduled for Agency Hearing
a.None for this Meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION —AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 3
H.GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
1.None for this Meeting.
COMMUNICATION
1.None for this Meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1.Subdivision Committee
a.Consideration and Action on all Subdivision matters listed on the Subdivision
Committee Agenda.
K.UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
1.None for this Meeting.
1.NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
1.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-4)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-4)to allow construction of
a new tour/administration and repair facility,aircraft hangar and associated improvements
on a parcel located along the makai side of Ahukini Road in Lihu’e,situated approximately Y2-
mile north of the Lihu’e Airport terminal,further identified as Tax Map Key:3-5-001:008,and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 720.974 acres =Airbourne Aviation,Inc.
[Director’s report received 1/25/2022].
a.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
2.AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2001-2)to allow
construction of a boat storage building on a parcel situated at the terminus of Kukuna Road
in Aliomanu,further identified as 5171 Kukuna Road,Tax Map Key:4-9-005:005,containing a
total area of 8.142 acres =Richard Hill.
a.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
3.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-5)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-5)to allow installation of
interpretive signage and associated site improvements at the Hanapepe Town Park &
Playground facility in Hanapepe,along the western side of Kona Road and immediately
adjacent to the Hanapepe Fire Station,further identified as Tax Map Key:(4)1-9-005:048 and
containing a total area of 45,600 square feet =State of Hawaii,Department of
Transportation.[Director’s report received 1/25/2022].
a.Director’s Report pertaining to this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION —AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 4
M.EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4),the purpose of this executive
session is to consult with the County’s legal counsel on questions,issues,status and procedural
matters.This consultation involves consideration of the powers,duties,privileges,immunities,and/or
liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to the following matters:
1.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-4)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-4)to allow construction of
a new tour/administration and repair facility,aircraft hangar and associated improvements
on a parcel located along the makai side of Ahukini Road in Lihu’e,situated approximately ‘A-
mile north of the Lihu’e Airport terminal,further identified as Tax Map Key:3-5-001:008,and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 720.974 acres =Airbourne Aviation,Inc.
[Director’s report received 1/25/2022].
2.AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2001-2)to allow
construction of a boat storage building on a parcel situated at the terminus of Kukuna Road
in Aliomanu,further identified as 5171 Kukuna Road,Tax Map Key:4-9-005:005,containing a
total area of 8.142 acres =Richard Hill.
3.CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-5)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-5)to allow installation of
interpretive signage and associated site improvements at the Hanapepe Town Park &
Playground facility in Hanapepe,along the western side of Kona Road and immediately
adjacent to the Hanapepe Fire Station,further identified as Tax Map Key:(4)1-9-005:048 and
containing a total area of 45,600 square feet =State of Hawaii,Department of
Transportation.[Director’s report received 1/25/2022].
4.Preliminary Subdivision Map Approval Pursuant to Kaua’i County Code Chapter 9,Article.
a.Subdivision Application No.5-2022-6
(Kukui’ula Development Company,LLC./
MP Kaua’i HH Development Fund,LLC.)
Kukui’ula Parcel HH Subdivision
Proposed 51-lot Subdivision
TMK:(4)2-6-019:026,029 &031
Köloa,Kaua’i
5.Final Subdivision Map Approval Pursuant to Kaua’i County Code Chapter 9,Article 3.
a.Subdivision Application No.5-2021-1
(Kukui’ula Development Company,LIC.)
Kukui’ula Parcel I Subdivision
Proposed 40-lot Subdivision
TMK:(4)2-6-015:001
KOloa,Kaua’i
N.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Topics for Future Meetings.
PLANNING COMMISSION —AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 5
2.The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m.,or
shortly thereafter,on June 28,2022.The Planning Commission anticipates this meeting to be
held in-person at the Lihue Civic Center,Moikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B,4444 Rice
Street,Lihue,Hawaii 96766.The Commission also anticipates providing telephone and a
virtual platform capability for members of the public to testify remotely.The Commission will
announce its intended meeting method via an agenda electronically posted at least six days
prior to the meeting date.
0.ADJOURNMENT
NOTE:IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE,OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A DISABILITY,OR
AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS,PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS &
COMMISSIONS AT (808)241-4917 OR ASEGRETI@KAUAI.GOV AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.REQUESTS MADE
AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO FULFILL YOUR REQUEST.
UPON REQUEST,THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT,BRAILLE,
OR ELECTRONIC COPY.
PLANNING COMMISSION —AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 6
Pursuant to Section 8-27.8 (6)of the Kaua’i County Code (1987),as amended,the following shoreline
setback determinations by the Director are disclosed for purposes of public notification.
June 14,2022
SHORELINE SETBACK DETERMINATIONS
Boat and general storage
addition to existing barn!100
feet setback requirement;
proposed addition
approximately 250 feet or
greater
Application Name of Applicant(s)Property 1.0.Location Development/Reasons
No.(Tax Map Key)
SSD-2022-25 Aubrey Summers 5-8-009:020 Wainiha Rear Master bedroom and
bath addition,Front Lãna’i
addition!The northwest
shoreline within the 500 feet
applicability is accreting.60
feet minimum setback.
Proposed setback 341 feet
SSD-2022-26 BBCP Kukui’ula Infrastructure,2-6-022:020 Köloa Tram road!Required setback
LLC 186 feet from shoreline,
proposed road is
approximately 300 feet away
on a cliff bluff at 150 feet
elevation height.
SSD-2022-27 Jon Kegle 4-9-005:005 ‘Alio ma nu
PLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA 1,JUNE 14,2022 PAGE 7
1
KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 28, 2021
Draft
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by
Chair Apisa at 9:02 a.m., - Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings
The following Commissioners were present:
Ms. Donna Apisa
Ms. Helen Cox
Mr. Gerald Ako
Mr. Melvin Chiba
Mr. Francis DeGracia
Ms. Glenda Nogami-Streufert
Ms. Lori Otsuka
The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaaina Hull,
Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, Romio Idica, and Planning
Commission Secretary Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney – Deputy County
Attorney Laura Barzilai, Office of Boards and Commissions – Administrator- Ellen Ching and
Support Clerk Arleen Kuwamura.
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Apisa: Called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Kaaina Hull: Madam Chair, we have a registered speaker, it's 9:02, if you want
to start the agenda, we're ready to go.
Chair Apisa: Hi, yes. I call the meeting to order. Roll call, please, Kaaina.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madame Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here, and I’m alone.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Here, and I’m alone. D.1.
May 24, 2022
D.1.
June 14, 2022 x
2
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: I’m here and by myself
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Otsuka: Unmute Glenda.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Sorry about that. I’m here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Here and myself.
Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Madame Chair. Seven Present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Hull: Next up would-be Approval of the Agenda. We have one amendment to the agenda and
that is, a one request to the agenda and that is that the New Business for Action for the Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-2 to be reviewed directly after the agency hearing for that subject matter,
and that would be the only request.
Chair Apisa: Do we have a motion to approve the agenda?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I move to…go ahead.
Ms. Otsuka: This is Commissioner Otsuka. I make a motion to accept and approve the agenda with
the amendment as stated.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Seconded.
Chair Apisa: We have a motion to approve the agenda with a second. All in favor? We can do a
voice call for a voice vote. Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Are there any opposed? Hearing none.
Hearing on the modified agenda is approved. Motion carried, 7:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Mr. Hull: Next, we have agenda item D Minutes for the January 21, 2021, minutes.
Ms. Otsuka: This is Commissioner Otsuka. For the record, I would like to make an
amendment to the January 21, 2021, Minutes.
Mr. Ako: Hello? Excuse me, Director Hull, can you hear me?
3
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Mr. Ako: I cannot hear.
Mr. Hull: Mr. Ako, we can here you.
Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: You might have to, let’s see now. So, you
know, again the carrot next to the recording. The little microphone. If you click on the carrot and
you might have to select the speaker. Oh shoots. He cannot hear me.
Mr. Hull: Commissioners, could we please request a 10-minute recess, and we can get in contact
with Commissioner Ako.
Chair Apisa: Good idea, we will.
Mr. Ako: Sorry, I got it. I’m sorry.
Chair Apisa: Erase the 10-minute recess, we will continue. I believe Commissioner Otsuka you
were about to say something.
Ms. Otsuka: Yes. For the record, I would like to make an amendment to the January 21, 2021,
Minutes. On page two, during Roll call my name should be listed. They have Commissioner Cox
on twice because she's popular. I see she answered here twice also.
Chair Apisa: I see she answered here twice also.
Ms. Cox: I didn’t know I had such power. I have a clone.
Mr. Hull: So that need to be a second to the motion.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I moved to accept the amendment.
Chair Apisa: That's a second, I believe Glenda.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay, I am second.
Chair Apisa: Okay. All in favor? We can do a voice vote. Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Any
opposed? Hearing none. So, the minutes are approved as amended with that one change. The
motion carried 7:0.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None)
Mr. Hull: There are no Receipt of Items for the record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Hull: Next, we have Hearings and Public Comment. This is where the Planning Commission
4
accept written testimony, as well as registered speakers to orally or visually testify before the body,
we received 80 written pieces of communication. All pertaining to the Cocoa Palm Status update
later on the agenda. We have one registered speaker. I'll turn it over to Jodi to allow the speaker
into give his or her three minutes of testimony.
Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: Right. First registered speaker is Rick Cooper.
I'm going to allow enable your video and your audio. Mr. Cooper, you might have to unmute
yourself and enable your camera. Mr. Cooper, we can see your name you’re just going to have to,
you can have a choice to enable your video, your camera. Start video, and then also to join your
audio. I think you're still muted, this point. Thank you, you can begin whenever you are ready.
Mr. Rick Cooper: Thank you, to the Commission for inviting us. This is important issue. There
have been as we know 30 years of resort. I remember going there in 1966 with my mother and I
enjoy and appreciate the magic that that place had to offer us, and that it, sustained and the legends
of it as much as anyone. At the same time, I think we need to look at not only the impracticality of
having and building another hotel there, any type of commercial development, especially a hotel.
The time has come and gone for that. There are many leaders in Hawaii, who have joined with a
group that I am participating with the Wailua Nui Hoano Project to bring a community center to
that area. And to involve the community to the part where with we would develop through the
leadership of the Hawaiian people, which is the dominant members of the group excuse me, that
I'm part of. And to develop something for the community and take the property back into
something a little bit more historic that was there when the Queen lived there, and there was, was a
center of the culture of the island. I want to call it the attention to a couple of things. One is that
there has not been a shoreline survey done by the applicants, or the permit holders, or now the
lenders to the Cocoa Palms Hui. We call on that to be to be required. Three weeks about
(unintelligible) there was a, we put 11,000 signatures of people who really cared about that
property. And we, what we are asking you to do as a commission is to step up into your role, and to
fulfill your requirement to do your job, to see that that the regulations, which have not been
adequately enforced upon the developers and the permit holders for that property that that you
should do your due diligence to make sure that they are not given any undue…
Mr. Hull: Three minutes. Madame Chair.
Mr. Cooper: Thank you, that you do your job, we would appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Step up for the people of Kauai and thank you for the hard job that you do.
Thank you. Aloha.
Mr. Hull: Thank you for your testimony. We have no additional we have one more additional
registered speaker however, that individual did contact us which was yesterday afternoon to inform
us that that she would not be able to participate in this in providing testimony this morning. So,
with that, with that we have no further registered speakers and attendees.
Continued Agency Hearing
New Agency Hearing
CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-2) and USE PERMIT (U-2022-2) to allow
renovations to the existing building to convert commercial retail and office spaces into
5
residential units on a parcel in Hanapepe Town, situated on the Makua side of Hanapepe Road,
approximately 550 feet north of the Hanapepe Road/Hana Road intersection, further identified
as 3731 Hanapepe Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-004:015 and containing a total area of 6,808
square feet = Jon & Elizabeth Von Krusensteirn [Director’s Report Received, 9/14/2021.]
Mr. Hull: Moving on to the next agenda item, Agenda Item F.2, New Agency Hearing for Class IV
Zoning Permits Z-IV-2022-2 and Use Permit (U- 2022-2) to allow renovations to existing building
to convert commercial retail office spaces into residential units on a parcel in Hanapepe Town
situated in the mauka side of the Hanapepe Road, approximately 550 feet north of the Hanapepe
Road/Hana Road intersection, further identified as 3731 Hanapepe Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-
004:015 and containing a total area of 6,808 square feet. The applicant is Jon & Elizabeth Von
Krusensteirn. We have received no request for oral testimony on this agenda item and we received
no written testimony concerning this agenda items. So, at this time, the Department would
recommend closing the agency hearing.
Chair Apisa: Do we have a motion to close the Agency Hearing.
Ms. Cox: I move we close the Agency Hearing.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I second.
Chair Apisa: Okay. All in favor? Again, a voice vote, please. Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Any
opposed? Hearing none. The Agency Hearing is closed. The motion carried 7:0.
Mr. Hull: Thank you, Madame Chair. And with that, we'll go into the actual review and actual item
for the same agenda items. So, I will turn it over to Dale who is our staff planner for this project.
Staff Planner Dale Cua: Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Planning Commission.
With your permission, I'd like to summarize and highlight portions of the Directors Report. Action
required by Planning Commission is consideration of Class IV Zoning and Use Permits to all
conversion of a commercial return retail space into a residential unit.
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: Moving on to the General Plan Designation job designation is Neighborhood Center, the
Neighborhood Center designation is focused on historic town cores and corresponds to existing or
future areas appropriate for accommodating infill development and growth. In this district consists
of the mixed-use core with a cluster of retail and service activity, civic spaces, and primary
destinations along with residential uses. This core era can support and interconnected network of
streets and blocks that encourage multimodal transportation access centers typically comprised of a
mix of detached and attached buildings between one to five stories in height property is covered by
the policies contained in the West Coast Community Plan, and primary access to the project road
which is a company roadway and is wide enough to accommodate to a vehicular traffic. There is an
existing driveway connecting into hundred per bureau that provides Ingress egress to the project
site agency comments are attached to the report and contained in Exhibit A. And for now, this
concludes the Directors Reporting.
6
Chair Apisa: Thank you, Dale. Is there anyone here for the Applicant?
Mr. Jonathan Chun: Good morning, Madame Chair. Jonathan Chun on behalf of the Applicant.
We have reviewed report. We have no comments regarding we agree with his conclusions. We
apologize to the Department for not outlining specifically, how many units are going to be on the
first-floor ground residence. Originally, that was going to be scheduled to be a commercial unit,
but the applicant needed to change his plans at the last minute, because the Fire Department
required some cost prohibitive fire code changes to the building. So, they needed to go back to a
residential, but it is going to be as represented by Dale, it is going to be a two-bedroom, one bath
unit on the front part. Also, for correction or just for the information of the Department that
property is on the Hanapepe sewer system and is receiving a sewer bill for the past for, a while
already, so he is on the sewer. So, there is no issue regarding to septic system or cesspool, it is
sewer line now. But other than that, we are open to any questions to commission might have with
the staff might have in regard to the application. Finally, (Unintelligible) as noted by Dale, we are
looking at the rear parking. There is enough space to go into the backyard, but what I think the
issue of raised by Planning, which is a good one is, if everybody's there the turnaround radius, or
the cars would be tight. So, we're asking the architect to go ahead and to relook at the placement of
the parking lot of the parking stalls and revise really, maybe to opening up more space in regard to
the turnaround area for the cars in the rear. But that can be done. I believe we have a space they just
need to place the parking stalls in a proper area where there's turn around sufficient turn around
radius for the cars to park.
Chair Apisa: Thank you, Jonathan. Commissioners, any questions on the applicant.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I do have a couple. You said that this structure was, the proposed Use has
been submitted to the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission for review, as well as to
cultural practitioners. But it says that you had not received anything back from them. Have you
received anything since then?
Mr. Chun: No, we did not. Just to clarify, we have not gone in front of the Historic Preservation
Commission. I believe the staff has been in contact with the Historic Preservation Commission for
the county. For our, for the cultural practitioners we did talk directly with one person, and she
indicated that they, she did not believe there's any cultural significance practices or resources on
that property. She was aware of where the store was, but she did not have any specific information
herself. She did check with, she said she was checking in with other people, but I have not heard
back from her, that has been about it, a year already. Commissioner.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay.
Mr. Ako: Chair, I have a question for Mr. Chun. When you make reference to an access of bicycle
out there, the reference that is made to customers and tenants. Is that synonymous word that is
being used there or will there be customers?
Mr. Chun: There will only be tenants now, yes, my apologies. The original application was for a
store in the front as required by the Form Based Code. So, there were there would probably more
than likely, there will be no customers per se for a commercial use. The Fire Code requires
7
substantial fire protection walls between commercial and residential uses, which would have been
cost prohibitive, given the older nature of this building.
Mr. Ako: Following up on the parking just for my clarification I guess, you make reference to the
fact that we can provide seven (7) off street parking. Now, how does that work, off street parking?
Are you in control of those parking’s?
Mr. Chun: Yes. The proposed parking plan calls four (4) stalls in the back, in the rear of the
building. And then two (2) on the south or left side facing the building from Hanapepe Road, two
(2) on the left side, and one (1) on the right side of the building. Not within that setback area, the
setback area will be clear for a driveway. So basically, three (3) in front and four (4) in the back.
Mr. Ako: So, the parking is (unintelligible).
Mr. Chun: Yes.
Mr. Ako: I guess the only other question I had was you know the fact about the difference about
whether you hooked up to a sewer or not. Does that have to be a change that's made in one of the
reports. Maybe that is for Kaaina or…
Mr. Hull: My apologies, Commissioner Ako. I was focusing on different or having a little bit of a
technical glitch. What was the question again?
Mr. Ako: I think there's a discrepancy in terms of whether the property is hooked up to the sewage
system or not. Yeah, but apparently it is up to a sewer system. If it is, will that require a change in I
guess maybe, one of the (unintelligible).
Mr. Hull: I don't believe, but Dale can jump in, but I don't believe we got the response back from
or comments back from the Wastewater Division and Public Works. But during the renovations
they've been asked to go through the building permit process, and generally you know, just overall
speaking. Generally, review on infrastructure for things like wastewater and water are resolved by
those respective agencies doing building permit. For the agencies that don't sign off on building
permit, we generally pay a little bit more attention too to try to have those requirements put in so
like DOT transportation or DLNR or State Historic Preservation Division that comments, you
know, kind of requesting upgrades or whatnot. We will pay particular close attention to those
because they don't sign off on the building permit, but should the Planning Commission approve
this action today, or at some other point. The applicant still has to run it through the building
permit process to ensure that the meet, among other things are Wastewater requirements.
Mr. Ako: Thank you.
Chair Apisa: I was curious what the Fire Department requirement was, but I believe you answered
that, that there was a protective commercial and residential, is that all or was there anything else?
Mr. Chun: No, that was the most. Thank you, for that question, that was the most onerous
requirement. The fire code does require specific firewalls, both walls and floors and ceilings and in
this case, it would have been the ceiling between a commercial and residential unit. And in this
8
case, because it was abutting on the walls and the ceiling, the ceiling would have to have fire
resistant in the wall. And I can't remember what the hour was, but the architect and the contract
came back to the client indicated that was extremely cost prohibitive to retrofit an older building
like that to meet the fire code compliance between residential and commercial.
Chair Apisa: Thank you. Any further questions.
Ms. Cox: I think it's just a comment that I think it's important to note that it is clear, that the fire
code for residential is being followed. So, it was just the difference between commercial and
residential. Is that correct, Jonathan?
Mr. Chun: Yes, the residential code, we are going to be in compliance with the residential firewall
requirements between residential units.
Ms. Cox: Thank you.
Chair Apisa: Questions? Hearing none, I believe we could move to the planner’s recommendation.
Mr. Cua: Sure, I'm Commissioners there's a total of 11 Conditions for the application. Would you
like me to read them for the record?
Chair Apisa: Yes, I think that would be good. Thank you.
Mr. Cua: Okay. Based on the foregoing evaluation conclusion. It is hereby recommended that the
proposed development, involving the conversion of the commercial retail space into a residential
unit to Class IV Zoning Permits Z-IV-2022-2 and Use Permit U-2022-2 be approved, with the
following Conditions, 1. The project, and its amenities shall be constructed and operated as
represented. Any changes to the subject buildings and or operations shall be reviewed by the
Department to determine whether Planning Commission review and action is required. 2. As
represented the applicant shall provide a total of seven (7) off street parking stalls and
accommodations for bicycle parking and storage for the project. However, applicant is made aware
that the Planning Director may increase vehicle and bicycle parking requirements, when particular
uses or locations of current areas where unusual traffic congestion or conditions exists or are
projected. 3. At the time of building permit application, and environmental impact assessment fee
of $1,000 shall be paid pursuant (unintelligible) of the Kauai County Code. 4. Prior to building
permit application, the applicant shall resolve the following infrastructure requirements to the set to
the satisfaction of the respective agency, and shall submit corresponding communication to the
Planning Department that addresses these matters, Subsection a. wastewater treatment
for the project through the State Department of Health and the County Department of Public Works
and Subsection b. (unintelligible) drainage requirements for the project to the County Department
of Public Works Engineering Division. Condition 5. In order to minimize adverse effects on the
Federal listed threatened species the Newell’s Shearwater and other seabirds, all external lighting
shall be only having the following type, downward facing shielded lights, any spotlights in upward
or spotlighting of structures landscaping, or the ocean shall be prohibited. 6. The applicant shall
comply with the fire code requirements as imposed by the County Fire Department. Drainage flood
requirements for the Department of Public Works Engineering Division, Wastewater Departments
for the State Department of Health, and the archeological historical requirements of the State
9
Historic Preservation Division. 7. Prior to operation occupancy of the proposed residential unit that
confirmation of compliance with the requirements from all reviewing agencies shall be provided to
the Planning Department. 8. Applicant shall develop and utilize best management practices during
all phases of development in order to minimize erosion, dust, and sedimentation impacts of the
project to abutting properties. 9. Applicant shall implement to the possible sustainable building
techniques and operational methods for the project, such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design, LEED standards or other or another comparable state approved, nationally
recognized, and consensus based guideline standard or system, and strategies, which may include
what is not limited to, recycling, natural lighting, extensive landscaping, solar panels, low energy
fixtures, low energy lighting, and other similar methods and techniques. All such proposals shall
be reflected on the plan subject submitted for a building permit review. 10. Applicant is advised
that prior to construction and were used additional government agent agency conditions may be
imposed. There shall be the applicant’s responsibility to resolve those conditions with their
respective agency. And 11. Planning Commission reserves the right to add or delete conditions of
approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts this project may create or revoke the
permit through proper procedures should conditions of approval be violated, or adverse impacts be
created that cannot be properly addressed. That concludes the Department's recommendations for
the project.
Chair Apisa: Thank you very much, Dale. Any commissioners have any further comments or
questions of the applicant, or the planner? Hearing none, would someone like to make a motion.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I moved to approve the Class IV Zoning Permits Z-IV-2022-2 and Use
Permit U-2022-2.
Ms. Cox: I second emotion.
Chair Apisa: Is there a second? Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter? Hearing none.
Call for a roll call vote please, Kaaina.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: 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 Otsuka?
10
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion Passes 7:0, Madame Chair.
Continued Public Hearing
Mr. Hull: Moving next, we have no Continued Public Hearings.
New Public Hearing
Mr. Hull: Next, we have no New Public Hearing.
All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports
2021 status report regarding Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-8, Project Development Use
Permit PDU-2015-7, Variance Permit V-2015-1 and Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2015-6 at TAX Map Key 4-1-033:004 (por.), 005, 007, 011, and 017 and 4-1-
005:014 and 017 (the “permits”), with approval conditions as set forth in letter dated
December 31, 2018 from the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai (the “Conditions”)
with Coco Palms Hui LLC, as Applicant (“Applicant”).
Mr. Hull: So, we're on to Item G, Consent Calendar. A consent calendar is generally just
automatically approved or excuse me, its automatically received, unless a commissioner, or the
Commission would like to make a motion to remove this status report concerning
Coco Palms and put it on the communication section of the agenda to receive the report.
So, the applicants are here to give a presentation but that was just a status update.
In order to get that presentation, we need a motion to remove off the consent calendar place in the
communication section of the agenda.
Chair Apisa: Do we have such a motion to move it off the consent calendar and place it on the
communication portion.
Ms. Cox: I need clarification, Kaaina. So, if we want to discuss the status report or conditions,
then we would remove it from the consent communications that correct?
11
Mr. Hull: Correct, as well as to even receive the presentation. The applicant has logged in and is
prepared to provide a presentation, but in order for it even to be presented or discussed it needs to
be placed on the communication of section of the agenda. Status reports happening for several
projects and generally, the Commission just asks or only receives it if it has certain questions. But
generally, status portions are just to accepted it and that's the case here. But I have a feeling that
the Commission wants to get the presentation and discuss it, so in order to do so, we just need a
motion to move this Consent Calendar agenda items status report to the communication section of
the agenda.
Ms. Cox: In that case, I make a motion to move this Status Report Agenda Item from just the
Consent Calendar to the Communications.
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Apisa: All in favor? Aye. Voice call, please. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed.
Hearing none. Motion carried 7:0.
COMMUNICATIONS
2021 status report regarding Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-8, Project Development Use
Permit PDU-2015-7, Variance Permit V-2015-1 and Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2015-6 at TAX Map Key 4-1-033:004 (por.), 005, 007, 011, and 017 and 4-1-
005:014 and 017 (the “permits”), with approval conditions as set forth in letter dated
December 31, 2018 from the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai (the “Conditions”)
with Coco Palms Hui LLC, as Applicant (“Applicant”).
Chair Apisa: It is the 2021 Status Report regarding Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-8, Project
Development Use Permit PDU-2015- 7, Variance Permit V-2015-1, and Special Management Area
Use Permit A (U)-2015-6 is moved to our Communications.
Mr. Hull: Thank you, Madame Chair, and members of the Commission. So, with that, just as a
reminder, your Packet does have 80 letters pertaining to this agenda item. Before I turn it over to
the applicant folks to give their status update and answer any questions you folks out.
Just as a reminder to the Commission, as well as to the members of the public that may be viewing
this meeting. We received a considerable amount of testimony, asking that the Commission, take
action in some form or another to modify or revoke the permits. The Commission does have the
authority to modify and revoke any permits that were previously issue and Planning Commission.
But to be clear, this is a status report, update. You can ask questions and it may lead the
commission to look at possibly modifying conditions or the permits, but it'll have to be further
agenda is to do so. What we have today, is just a status report for the, for the Commission and the
applicant to kind of go over and review, but any further actions would necessitate an actual general
business item, general business item agenda for this particular matter. That's just for clarification.
With that, I'll turn it over to I believe, Chad and Leaf are here to kind of give this update from there.
Chad, I believe you guys can unmute and turn on your video capabilities when you're ready.
Chair Apisa: And Kaaina, thank you very much for clarifying that, because I think there was a lot
of, not clarity about it so thank you.
12
Mr. Chad DeCoursey: Hi Commission, I'm Chad DeCoursey representative of PCG. Leif Erickson
is there on the islands, and he'll be taking most of our presentation.
Mr. Leif Erickson: Awesome. Thank you, Chad. Thank you, Commissioners for your time this
morning. Like Chad said my name is Leif Ericson I'm over here on Oahu. Awesome that we have
this technology that we can keep things moving along, so thank you, thank you so much for your
time, to allow us to provide this update on the progress of the Cocoa Palms Project. So, we
represent Private Capital Group, PCG. We represent the lenders that made the original loan to
Cocoa Palms Hui, LLC, in 2016, to finance the acquisition and the initial demolition of the
property. I've been assigned to just work on this project during the transition of ownership from
previous ownership to the lenders, as this foreclosure process comes to completion. PCG is nearing
the conclusion of the foreclosure process. The court did a point a commissioner, who took the
property through the pre closure process and advertise the foreclosure sale. The Commissioner held
in an auction, this year. In July, around the 20th believe is the 26th, and the confirmation hearing
was just held about a week ago, September 18. So according to our local and local Hawaii Council,
the next steps will be for the judge to issue an order confirming the sale, and then approximately 35
days later, PCG nominees should close on the property, transferring the ownership, out of Coco
Palms, Hui, LLC, into a new entity.
Previously, Stillwater provided you recent updates on the Coco Palms Project. And provided the
required June 30 updated permit condition status report. And we felt as representatives from PCG
on behalf of our potential buyer that we would present those to you at this time. We just want you
to be aware that all the previous owners and principals, with Coco palms Hui, LLC, and the project
and had no involvement with the property for several years now, and aren't involved at all moving
forward as this, as we move forward with the project now. Just an update on some of the ongoing
maintenance. We've worked hard to progress and keep the property nearest to the highway clear
and managed the vegetation there. We've also been working very closely with the DLNR and the
police to create an execute a plan to remove additional the breeze, the junk cars on the mauka side
of the property, along with just clearing large portions of the property to make it easier to patrol,
and obviously prevent trespassers from illegally occupying the property.
So, our buyers the potential buyers have put up, significant capital and escrow and funding to pay
for the process to receive approval on all the permits for the project, and the potential buyers
familiar. We've made it very apparent to them, of the conditions that need to be met, that are
required to comply with the project and also, they are familiar with the affordable housing
condition as well. This year we've made some significant progress. Thanks to our architect there
on the island, Ron Agor, the architect who's been working on the project and updating both of us
here at PCG, and the buyer regarding the status of each permit. Chad does have a permit matrix
available. If there was, if there's time, we could, we can present that to you now, and Ron Agor can
share any additional information. Along with that, just so that you can see the progress that we've
made over, you know this this year and in moving things forward.
Mr. DeCoursey: For the Commissioners, please let me know if I need to zoom in or if you can see
that screen?
Chair Apisa: Visible to me. Thank you. Okay.
13
Mr. Ron Agor: Okay. Should I chime in?
Mr. DeCoursey: That would be great, Ron.
Mr. Agor: Okay, could you go to page two first.
Mr. DeCoursey: Sure.
Mr. Agor: I'd like to mention that the Cultural Center site, which is mauka of the Kukui Grove
concerns 4 building permits. And we found out earlier in the year, that the site, did not have a water
meter. Coco Palms was providing a line from the Coco Palms Resorts site to the cultural center. So,
we applied for a water meter in early January, and again, we submitted in May, and as of today, we
have not heard from the Water Department. So, there's no anticipation of when we're going to get
the water meter for those for permits, and we may resort to going back to the old way of running a
water line from the, from the resort to the cultural center. I'd like to talk about the 25 permits, that
are on the hotel site and Seashell Restaurant. If we can go to page one. As of July, off the 25
permits on the hotel site and the Seashell Restaurant. We've had 18 permits approved after that
date. And as far as the Department of Water is concerned, they had signed off on 21 permits. And
the Sewer Department had signed up on 18 permits. 22, I'm sorry, 22 permits. In July, the
Department of Water and Sewer had raised a couple of issues that they were concerned with. I met
with the Department of Water, and we resolve the issues that they had in terms of what they needed
from us to proceed. And we had submitted those documents to them, and they're under review now.
And the Sewer Department also had some new concerns. I met with Don and Troy from
Wastewater and County Engineers Office, and we had discussed their concerns, and we feel like it's
their concerns is not a showstopper and we're working through it, to come up with a language of
conditions of approval for the sewer. So, those are the major issues that we're having with
receiving all the permits. We have, we have basically 7 permits left on the hotel sites to complete
the process and get final approval, and I anticipate hopefully getting this done within 30 days. So
that's the conclusion of my updated status for the permits.
Mr. DeCoursey: Thank you, Ron. Thank you, Commissioners. Do you have any questions that we
can address for you?
Chair Apisa: Hearing any?
Ms. Cox: I have. Donna, I'm just a little confused about what we are, how we do things. So, I
think I need a little more clarification from Kaaina. First, I want to thank you for your report your
status you know, update Leif that was very helpful. But I know one of the conditions, originally,
which we reported on in your report and which also the Directors Report mentioned, was that was
condition 26 which is that the right to add or delete conditions of approval to address things that
haven't been looked at, you know, unforeseen impacts. And I think we have some of those with
climate change, and with shoreline setback etc. So I don't know, Kaaina, this is do we raise those
now or is this is what you mean about we accept the status report and then we put that on an
agenda? I just don't want to miss the opportunity to recognize there are some issues we need to
discuss.
14
Mr. Hull: No. Thank you, Commissioner Cox. It’s an absolutely appropriate time to discuss, you
know, the status report that was given by the applicant. And you, the commission certainly can
discuss the concerns it may have, or each individual Commissioner may have with conditions as
they stand or because I think you're like you're getting at, what could be perceived as out of date
conditions, and have that conversation with the applicants. Should a commissioner or the
commission want to modify a condition. You're certainly free to ask the applicant if they're willing
to accept a modified condition under a proposal parameter. But ultimately, if the commission
wants to take action, modify the to modify the permits, then it needs to be agendized as the, as
either a modification to the permits, or a revocation of the permits, quite honestly and, you know,
there's some questions you may want to ask your legal counsel on this. But right, like if, if you
were to, you know convey to the applicant that and this is just an example, I’m not saying it should
be. Just as example, the Commission feels, it may be appropriate to try to use something that
outlandish. “It needs to provide you know, daycare for Wailua.” Right. If the applicant says, “oh,
yes, we are willing to provide daycare.” Then, you know, it could be agendized for modifications of
permits go relatively smoothly. However, the applicant objection says, “no, we feel that it’s an
unproportionally Nexus to the permits as they were granted.” Then, more than likely it's going to
legal proceedings under a contested case, to essentially vet out whether or not to vet out the Nexus
and allow the applicant to exercise their legal authority to object to that condition. So, that is not
too convoluted, Laura might be able to get in a bit more with you, but absolutely feel free to have
discussions with the applicant. And if you're looking at possible amendments to the conditions,
having that discussion with them. It's just that the actual amendments itself must be scheduled in a
separate agenda item.
Ms. Cox: I see. Okay, thank you. I think that clarifies it. At least it knows I can go ahead with
concerns because I do have a couple of concerns that came up from our testimony that we received.
One of them is the shoreline survey and the SM a permit, that we're not I guess that there was an
exemption but that was an earlier applicant, and that that has never been done. That's one of my
concerns and another concern is the Terry Lily's letter about the, and I'm wondering because we
have a fish and wildlife report but it's from 2015, which was you know, quite a long time ago so
again that perhaps is outdated. And then my third concern, is that climate change the impact of
climate change, which this is a property that certainly is facing going to face that, already is facing
and in the Wailua area.
Mr. DeCoursey: Thank you for the thoughts. I'm not sure if there's a specific response at this time.
I would thank you for pointing out condition 26. I would just clarify that our understanding is that
the subsequent changes to this project as proposed by the applicant is kind of what triggers
additional condition. So, if we make changes, then I think it's fully within the meaning of that
section 26, that additional conditions could arise. However, I'm not certain that we would agree that
additional conditions can be imposed. I think similar to what Kaaina has talked about.
Ms. Cox: So Kaaina, I guess one of my questions is, I guess it is a question then to you. What
about Theresa Chico's letter requiring the shoreline survey and applying for the SM a permit. Is this
a case of if we want to make that amendment, then that we have to agenda is that is that or can you
explain why we're not doing that, why we're not insisting that that happened.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, so thanks, Commissioner Cox. Under the status update its just receiving the
status, but as we're bringing up in as was previously discussed, you know, if there are concerns that
15
a commissioner, or commissioners may have about the conditions. And, you know, the surrounding
environment that has evolved since the conditions were originally imposed. You can completely
have that conversation, to go into why it wasn't required and at the onset of these problems back in
2015? My standing is that both the Planning Director and Department in consultation with the
county attorneys at the time, had to review the application under the Iniki Ordinance. Which at that
time, basically, allowed for proposed structures that had been uses that have been damaged in the
Iniki event. It allowed them to be put back in the place that they originally were, however, it
necessitated getting the full gamut of permit requirements that were in place in 1993 when the
event occurred. So, the Department at the time, saw that there definitely was Use permit process, a
Cass IV permit process, and an SMA permit process in 1993, that would have been applied to this
proposal when it happened.
There was no shoreline setback ordinance though, back in 1993. So, the in the records there
actually is an application for trying set back shoreline determination, that actually has the applicant
signature on or the representative signature on it, but ultimately, that was never acted upon, because
it was determined, I guess, in 2015, because there was no shoreline setback ordinance, it cannot
apply the shoreline setback ordinance retro actively on or within the Iniki ordinance paradigm, if
you will. So, at that time, it was not required of them to do the shoreline survey. And so, you know,
I think, excuse me. If it would absolutely in the best interest of the landowner with building permits
to be aware of the impacts of coastal erosion and sea level rise, particularly passive flooding, as is
projected to happen on this property. Just overall for the structures wellbeing so they move
forward. But as a requirement the permits never installed that back in 2015. If the Commission
would like to make that a requirement and amend the proposal existing conditions of approval to
necessitate a showing setback survey be done. And ultimately say, you know, the structures be
moved outside of the setback of any of the proposed structures within the setback. That can be
proposed and acted upon. But, if the applicants object to that. More than likely, it would have to go
through a petition for revocation proceedings or to modify the permits under a contest to keep
hearing.
Ms. Cox: Well, I for one would like to it to be a requirement. I don't know how other
Commissioners feel, but there it's very clear to me that this is an area that has, we know from all the
studies that this is an area, and we also know from just looking outside. If when you drive by, that
this is an area that has real potential for problems with sea level rise and erosion.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, just a point of clarification right now. As I recall, Mr. Eric and saying
that the sale hasn't closed yet. Is that correct? So, are we talking to the correct people?
Ms. Cox: That's a good question.
Mr. Erickson: So, so yeah, you know, we have a, there's a potential buyer. And that's what we've
been working on for the past three years is to close those permits, because the purchaser can’t buy
the property or close on the property, till all those permits are in place. And that's been our process
as we've been going through this for years now trying to work that all out and get all the permits, up
to date and approved by you guys and by each of the authorities to move forward with the sale.
16
Chair Apisa: A point of clarification. And I think if the question may be the limbo status of PCG
having titled, but I think that's just a matter of processing through the courts, in essence, they are
the owner. Is that correct?
Mr. DeCoursey: So as of the current date, we're not the PCG or the lenders are not the owners on
title. It's still held in Coco Palms Hui, and so, it's still pending via the, I mean we need the courts
final order approving the confirmation hearing. And then it's approximately 35 days to close. Once
that closing has happened, then then title will officially transfer to the lenders who then hope to
close with a potential buyer.
Chair Apisa: But the court has confirmed the foreclosure auction sale, correct?
Mr. DeCoursey: The hearing has been held, the official order confirming the sale has not been
entered by the judge. A draft is circulating among the parties currently
Chair Apisa: I think it’s all a logistics issue primarily.
Mr. DeCoursey: That's correct.
Chair Apisa: So today, we're talking to PCG, who is in process of obtaining title likely within the
next month or shortly thereafter?
Mr. DeCoursey: That's our hope.
Chair Apisa: Expectation.
Mr. DeCoursey: Expectation, yes. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Ako: Madam Chair, I have a question.
Chair Apisa: Yes?
Mr. Ako: Following up on that. So, if for some reason this Commission decides that an SMA
assessment needs to be done. Is it just a matter of timing, in terms of who needs to do the
assessment? And before the 35 days then this group will do it after the sale is sealed and closed
(unintelligible), because it has been done before the sale is actually closed. Does that also depend
upon when the commission again, are able to make this a requirement? What is the timing of this?
Mr. Hull: For, I think, for the, and just a minor correction, Commissioner Ako. They did an SMA
Assessment, Special Management Assessment, and got the SMA Permits. In with Commissioner
Cox was talking about, was the shoreline setback determination, which is very, you know they
function in tandem with each other just as a separate process. The shoreline setback determination
would necessitate a try and set back survey, which takes anywhere from six (6) to eight (8) months
to do. Because you not only survey the shoreline, but the applicant would also have to go through a
public hearing process with the state for them to accept that determination of where the shoreline is.
So that's just a six (6) to eight (8) process by itself. But then we can ask the applicants if they're
open to it. If they consent to it, it could take six (6) to eight (8) months. If they don't consent to it,
17
it could be a fairly lengthy process. Because more than likely if they object to it, you will have to
go into some form of contested case hearing process to determine whether or not the condition
would be amended. And then the average time, for conduct the case here in right now, is one to
two years now.
Mr. Ako: If the sale does go through without the shoreline setback. Let's assume that something
does happen, that is somebody gets hurt within the process of whatever theorize reasons might be.
At that point in time, is there any liability that the County could possibly encounter knowing the
fact that, you know, this sale went through, it went through the Planning Commission, there was no
shoreline step back, and knowingly (unintelligible).
Mr. Hull: I would have to defer that to legal counsel for that question, Commissioner Ako.
Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai: Hi Laura, County Attorney's Office. Commissioner Ako,
your question is whether, could you please restate your question.
Mr. Ako: Yeah, you know if there is no assessment that is shoreline assessment that is done. Say
down the road, water comes into the project, and somebody gets hurt in there, is there a possibility
that the county now become liable, because they have approved the (unintelligible) of shoreline
setback.
Ms. Barzilai: I think the preliminary answer is that we are not faced with that immediately and at
such time, as that may happen in the future. Once the high watermark is rising, the state will step
into attach the land at that point, and I believe that a seawall probably will be constructed to
alleviate that problem. So would probably be a state function. Yeah, prevent any liability to the
county.
Mr. Hull: Yeah. And just to say, as far Ms. Barzilai’s comment. There's always questions about sea
level rise, and flooding impacts. And so, to kind of parse it out, rightly, you have concerns about
passive flooding or highway brought up, and that's where water moves into an
area and then moves back out. And then you have actual coastal erosion, where, you know, the
ocean is marching mauka, and as coastal erosion happens, that land is in perpetuity underwater,
right. So, if coastal erosion is impacting this area, right, like the County of Kauai, as well as many
State Policies have strong prohibitions on seawall construction for private property owners because
of the nuisance issue, that its nuisance issues that it creates for other property owners with coastal
erosion being pushed somewhere else. What the state is going through right now, as well as the
county, is assessing those assets that may need for the greater good of the public to be shoreline or
sea walled up to preserve that access or that resource. This is one particular area that the state has to
assess, whether or not it moves the highway, as sea level rise happens and as possible coastal
erosion marches further inland areas, whether or not this is an area that is projected to be impacted
and if so, will they move the highway, or will it be this be deemed a public asset that needs to be
essentially armored. And, you know, that's, that's just the fact of the matter is in this project, the
Coco Palms Project sits behind this state asset that may or may not be armored in the future. I
know it doesn't fully answer your question, Commissioner Ako. It's just I'm just trying to paint the
picture (unintelligible).
18
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Ako. Laura Barzilai, County Attorney's Office, again, it is a new
speculative toward the future, but I think at the point where it will become a danger, the party
would have to remove whichever structure was in danger or hazard.
Mr. Ako: I think I will tend to agree with Commissioner Cox on this, because I think you know,
you look back to like 2015, I mean we probably were talking about climate change at that time, but
I don't think it's as prevalent as it is today. And, you know, during that time, so many things have
changed. It may have been dealt with at that pointed time, but maybe today is (unintelligible)
change of time, I mean so many things there's changed and not only to the climate change, but to
traffic and population on the island. So, I think that is something that we should thinking about
myself (unintelligible).
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Kaaina, I'm a little confused at this point. So, what are options right now?
Mr. Hull: Really with a status update. You only have two options as far as the actual action on the
agenda item, and that's to receive it, or to defer it for further discussion at a later time, because
you'd like additional information from the applicant. If there is a desire by the Commission to
amend the permits. I think you may want to ask the applicant, what their position is on a proposed
amendment. Because if the applicant is open to a proposed amendment, then like I said that can be
resolved relatively quickly. But if the applicant objects to it. Then it would necessarily be resolved
by scheduling a future meeting to have it on general business matter for modification. But if they
object to it. Then we would also still have to end the commission still wants to pursue will have to
agenda is it a future meeting for the motion to actually made for an action on the item, but it would
get pushed into a contest hearing. And more than likely, I am going to imagine that the applicant is
going to exercise their right to contest the case here.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: So, should we wait until the Title is cleared, so we know exactly who we're
dealing with before we do anything? Or do we assume that the people who are representing it now,
are the ones that we will be dealing with in the future?
Ms. Cox: It sounded like the permit, if they, before it gets transferred all the permits have to be
done, it seems like we have to do something now. Rather than I mean, I have the same questions
you do Glenda, but I am also confused, because it sounded like the permits, have to be completed.
I mean, yeah, I guess I'm just confused about when it is approved.
Chair Apisa: My understanding and correct me if this is wrong. We're talking about two different
transfers here. We have the foreclosure sale, which is pending the court approving the
confirmation hearing. And that's a transfer it's a guess technically not a sale, that's a foreclosure
transfer to the lender. And after that there's a pending sale. So, I believe, any action taken goes with
the land. And so, we could take action and technically it would be Coco Palm Hui, which would
transfer to PCG in 30 days or whenever when the court confirms it. But would that, Laura, is that a
correct understanding?
Ms. Barzilai: It is Madam Chair. But today, our Director Hall described what the commission is
faced with as a narrow action in either accepting or deferring the report. And then, any subsequent
discussion under Chapter 12 of the Commission rules for modification of the conditions, should
happen after today's meeting so that we can bring it back on to the agenda. How that works with
19
the timing, of the new owner or buyer stepping in I'm not sure, but it would have to happen in a
two-stage process.
Ms. Cox: So, to clarify my understanding. What we would do is either accept or not accept the
status report today. And then we would, if we have concerns, then that would be agendized at
another time, and we would work on it. Because I know, I have a number of them, you know, one
of them is the climate change, but I have other concerns, but we haven't had a chance to discuss
them. So, we would discuss them after another meeting. Correct?
Mr. Hull: No. You absolutely feel free, Commissioner, to discuss them and I'm looking at the
applicants’ representatives (unintelligible) you want to discuss them and have that conversation
with them today. As far as taking action to amend the permits, indeed, as myself and Ms. Barzilai
saying, “you can't amend the permits right now, pursuant to our rules for a status update, but it can
be agendized is further for a proposed amendment or modification, on general business item. But I
would say, feel free to have and why Chad and Leif are here is to answer questions, concerns,
issues with the Commissioners as they may have, as they pertain to the permits.
Ms. Cox: And we should do that before we accept or reject the Status Report? Because to me that
that's two different things. There's the Status Report is what it is, they responded to everything,
which seems different to me than our concerns about the fact that we're in a different place now.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, I mean, you could hold back as a commission and not have the points with them. I
think, in lining up that some of some conditions or concerns or actions that either you or any other
Commissioner are thinking about pursuing. If they're going to, you know, it's a bit easier I think if,
like I said earlier, if the applicant is willing to address these conditions and make amendments to
the conditions that they feel are acceptable, then it can be resolved relatively quickly. But if there
are proposed conditions that they are objectionable to, like I said, and the commission decides to
pursue it. That is a one (1) to two (2) year process in contested case hearing proceedings. So
(unintelligible).
Ms. Cox: I'm going to bring the elephant in the room. I'm going to mention him, because clearly
there are a whole lot of people on this island who would like to revoke these permits. Right? So, if
that is something where we want to have a discussion and about revoking permits for reasons of
climate change or traffic or all the things that Gerald also mentioned that have changed since these
were originally brought forward. May not, I mean Chad and Leif. Okay, I guess I can ask, you
know, are you interested in revoking these having us revoke these permits?
Mr. DeCoursey: I can speak to that one, Commissioner Cox. So, it's straightforward at this time
we're not interested in having the permits revoked. I don't think that's in the best interest of our
constituents.
Ms. Cox: Thank you.
Mr. Hull: Yes, so to that question Commissioner Cox. If say you as commissioner or as the
Commissioners as a whole, wants to look at as Condition No. 27 always puts the applicant on
notice of the Commission's authority to modify our vote the permits after they've been issued.
20
Then essentially the commission will issue an order to show cause, which initiate the revocation
proceedings. And like I said, again, that would end up in as Chad has just stated, that they would
not you know, consent or agree with such a proposal. So, then I would just go into a contest to
keep hearing proceedings.
Chair Apisa: As a follow up question which, you know, the baby elephant, would the applicant be
agreeable to the, as discussed, the Shoreline Study.
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair, could you repeat that, please.
Chair Apisa: Yes. Would the applicant be receptive or agreeable to doing the Shoreline Setback
Study, as was discussed earlier today?
Mr. DeCoursey: I know we are not currently looking to add additional work to our list of work to
accomplish with the permits. We certainly be open to discussions about what that might entail and
how it could be completed.
Chair Apisa: Thank you. Any other elephants to follow?
Ms. Cox: Minor elephants. Would the applicant be willing to have an updated report from Fish
and Wildlife, since the last one was done in 2015, because there was a concern about native birds.
Mr. DeCoursey: I think I'd have a similar answer to that Commissioner Cox, that we're not
currently looking to add to our list of permits to comply with. But we're open to discuss how that
could fit in with the plans of our timing and our lenders.
Ms. Cox: I have another question for you Chad or Leif, and that is in the, should have looked at the
number of the condition, but it was about the traffic. There were two of them, and what you had
agreed to was to run a shuttle for 18 months, both to take guests to Wailua Beach, but then also to
other destinations within Kapaa. Again, I'm not sure we're asking the right people, I'm still totally
confused about how this whole thing works. But one of my concerns is 18 months? I mean after 18
months we got a traffic problem. So, you know, is, the applicant willing to forever have a shuttle
taking the guests to the beach and around (unintelligible)?
Mr. DeCoursey: I believe I'd have to gather more information on that specific Condition, and I
apologize, I believe to the commissioners. I believe I mistakenly said permits when I meant
conditions from the commission.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Let me ask a quick question. If this goes to, if we were to add conditions or
want to add conditions. And this were to go to a contested case, and it takes two years or more to
get before we get a decision. What happens to that property in the meantime? And oh, by the way,
since it hasn't closed yet, or the title hasn't transferred yet, who’s responsible for that period of
time?
Mr. DeCoursey: So, I think I can address both of those questions. Currently, Coco Palms Hui,
who he is still managed by Stillwater. And, to my knowledge, all operations property maintenance,
those things. I believe are continuing as they've been for the last couple of years. Following the
21
transfer of title PCG would mean to assume those responsibilities. As to your first question
regarding what happens to the property in the meantime? It's likely to sit as we, as the lenders are
unlikely to be able to sell it. If additional conditions are about are imposed on the property, and
whether there's capital to maintain and you know, handle all the ongoing costs of holding that
property that remains to be seen.
Mr. Ako: Chair I have a question. (unintelligible) I apologize for it. But I think I go back to the fact
that you know back in 1992, you know, before the hurricane came, traffic was one situation at that
time. At this, you know, 2015, you know, that has changed. Until today, it’s even changing up
again, in terms of the traffic. And you know, you sit in that traffic, and you begin to understand,
and I assure you know, how bad that traffic is there. As far as I understand, I don't know if there's
any plans about how you relieve the traffic there with or without the resort. Yeah, I mean the traffic
is bad already I think with the resort, you're going to assume that there is going to be impact. And
know what has been done already by the traffic impact assessment report by the traffic.
The traffic is there, what will come in resort comes into the mix there? And I also know that there
is another impact assessment report that is going to be done one year afterwards. But again, my
question is if the traffic gets even worse, you may share a cost in terms of trying to alleviate the
traffic that’s there. But I guess my question becomes, so what the cost is, there is no solution. And
there is impact. And I think the people of the island, especially on the Kapaa side coming in. I mean
they bear the brunt of the burden are coming in it. So, I guess my question becomes, before this
goes up and before we get into the possibility of traffic even getting worse with no solutions.
Maybe there is a solution before this? I don't know if there is one or not. We don't even know how
to fix that traffic there (unintelligible) first. And if you had any thoughts on it.
Mr. Erickson: Great questions, Commissioner. Great concerns. I mean I totally understand what
you guys are thinking about, I live on Kamehameha Highway on the North Shore of Oahu. And this
last July beaches were, it was just me and the family, maybe a couple of neighbors, no cars, you
know, wonderful thing. And over the last year, it's, it's just completely increased yeah, tourists are
coming back. You know businesses are open, traffic is, in order for me to pull out just get my
daughter around the block to school. It takes me a few minutes longer I mean; I totally understand
your concerns totally do. However, I wish that life was perfect. You know, I wish I wish we could
come up to a solution with every problem today, but I found in my experiences in life. Like, that's
why we have these meetings. That's why we have community that comes together and says, hey,
look, we've got maybe we need some more employment maybe there's opportunity for more jobs,
what's going to be the cost that comes with that? It's going to come an increase in population. It's
going to come with an increase of traffic. It's going to come with a possible increase of maybe
some crime, I mean we hope not, that's not what we're trying to attract.
But that's what this meeting is all about is that we come together as a community, as a commission.
And, and we solve those problems and I wish, I wish we could fix all the problems today, but I
honestly don't. We can fix him today and come up with a solution. But just like since 2015 to now,
those conditions are going to change, and we're going to have to fix another come up with another
solution, because there's going to be another problem. And I'm not, you know, I'm not just trying to
just say that to hey, let's push this thing through and just go for it. But at the same time, I mean
that's what human beings are all about. We're here to grow you know, at a sustainable rate, and take
on the challenges that come with opportunity. There's always a risk involved with opportunity so as
we move forward. I mean that's our goal. I mean, yeah, we hope that's the buyers, you know,
22
position is same thing. I think we all want it to be a win, win situation. I mean that's our hope and
our goal is it that it benefits everybody, you know, it's there's always those that are going to look at
and say oh they're just wanting to make a million bucks and then they're out of there. But we must
look at the opportunity cost I think so, yeah, sorry I don't have a perfect answer but that's what
that's what human beings are for. We're here to come up with solutions and when that problem
arrives, whether it be today, or whether it be in five years or ten years there will be another problem
for us to come up with a solution with.
Mr. Ako: I would wish to that I had a solution for you which obviously I don’t. But I think you
know, that has become a very focused issue right now, because on Kauai we've already seen that
happen on the North Shore with the 2018 flood that we had there, that you know, it was just out of
control already. And then after the flood, and then the rehabilitation up there, they've seen
something can be done. You know to make this place, and just knowing the amount of testimony
that comes in, you know, that is against and trying to get this point, I guess my next question would
be, have you folks been meeting with the community, community leaders to see? Maybe they
might have some solutions but I'm not even sure whether you met or not, that might be my
question.
Mr. Agor: Chad, this is Ron Agor. Can I chime in on this subject?
Mr. DeCoursey: Sure, yes that's fine.
Mr. Agor: Yeah, you know, I'm a longtime community member of Kauai. And I was very pleased
at the then Planning Director proposing the pilot program of shuttling. And I thought to myself,
that, that could be the solution for our overall Island. It's a pilot program where we would run a
shuttle to pick up people at the airport, bring it in to the hotel, back and forth, and would have
shuttles picking them to the beach, shuttle picking them here and there. And after 18 months. It
proves that it works, and I am confident it's going to prove that it works. Then maybe the island,
could mandate the rest of the hotels to fall in line. And if you want to come to Kauai, you’re going
to visit Kauai with shuttles. You know, so I'm very excited about this pilot program.
I really am. I'm in my younger days. I used to see the tour companies on this mount limousine like
that had 12 to 14 tourist and dozens of them will take them up to Kokee, would take them to the
west side, I mean, the north shore you know, and I'd like to see this pilot program tested. And I feel
it could be a long-term solution to help with the traffic.
Ms. Cox: Ron, I totally appreciate what you said, and what Leif said, and Gerald. I guess my
concern is, shouldn't we test a pilot program with what we are, we already have a whole bunch of
hotels, and we already have a whole bunch of tourists. And we could shuttle them around without
adding and I know right now, the island citizens are feeling the residents are feeling like we're
making decisions primarily for tourists, rather than for the people who live here. And if we're
going to make the decisions for the people who live here, then we could try a shuttle with the
people at the tourists we already have rather than adding all those rooms and then doing a shuttle.
And I understand Leif, what you're saying about there are opportunities with employment that
would happen with this, but I think the island is just right now feeling like, that's not that having
more development for hotels for tourists is not the way to move forward at this point.
23
Mr. Agor: Well, the shuttle program is mandated right now, you know, and upon the completion of
the hotel, it can go into immediate effect. And attempt to now go to the other hotels and mandate
them to do something without any tests so to speak results. It's going to be a challenge.
Ms. Cox: Yes, it is. But I know there are people who are already working on it. You know, we
didn't have the shuttle that went out to Ke’e beach, you know, a couple of years ago, and that was
not mandated that was people getting together and realizing that we had to do something.
Mr. Agor: Does it work?
Ms. Cox: I think, yes, it does. It's not perfect, it's certainly not perfect.
Mr. Agor: I feel comfortable that the shuttle program, Coco Palms will work.
Ms. Cox: Yeah, I know, I agree with you Ron, that it will work. But it's doing it, it's adding a
whole bunch of rooms and tourists first and then adding a shuttle for them, rather than managing
the tourists we already have through shuttles.
Mr. Agor: It's bringing back the room from its former days.
Ms. Cox: Right. And I understand that's also bringing back, but it's bringing it back again, adding
a whole bunch of rooms and tourists, rather than dealing with what we have now. And I just think
the island, the testimony we heard suggests that people feel like we've got enough development
right now, tourist development. And this is not the appropriate time or the appropriate place to add
more if I could.
Mr. Agor: (Unintelligible).
Chair Apisa: This… I'm sorry.
Mr. DeCoursey: No, go ahead.
Chair Apisa: I'm sorry. Well, I don't want to break up the conversation. I was going to suggest a
10-minute break so everybody could get their thoughts and their questions and answers together but
go ahead with your response.
Mr. DeCoursey: I would just humbly point out that we are doing our best to comply with the
conditions that were put upon this project when the permits were issued. We are doing our best to
hold up to our end of the bargain and to comply with everything that's been asked of us to this
point, we continue and plan to do that moving forward. We are open to sell the property, if there are
other interested buyers, please bring them to the table. You know, we represent lenders who find
us. What we believed was an exciting project and we still see the vision of it. If that vision has
changed and there's another buyer willing to come in and support a new vision. Please put us in
touch we're open to whatever solution that works best for the island that still acknowledges the
money and time and effort that's been put in today.
Ms. Cox: I appreciate that.
24
Chair Apisa: And again, just to remind everyone that you know, we are working on the 2015
permits, and have been approved and are in progress. So, we just need to be sure we follow legal
channels here. Could everybody agree, if we could take a 10-minute break, and everybody could
kind of get your thoughts together and any questions further questions, everybody okay with that?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I agree.
Mr. Ako: I agree.
Ms. Cox: I agree, and I'm sorry if I have overstated my concerns. I would hope to hear from other
commissioners. I know Gerald and I have done a lot of talking but it would, I don't know that I
have a sense of what the other commissioner’s think. So, I would appreciate that, thank.
Chair Apisa: No, and I think it's good to express and put all the elephants on the table so.
Ms. Cox: The poor table.
Chair Apisa: All right, so 10-minute break. We will be back at 10:45. Thank you.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 10:34 a.m.
The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:47 a.m.
Chair Apisa: Call the meeting back to order after the recess.
Mr. Hull: Okay, everybody here. You want to take. Roll Call?
Chair Apisa: Yes, I would like to proceed with the roll call please.
Mr. Hull: Okay roll call, Madame Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here, I'm here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioners Otsuka.
25
Ms. Otsuka: I'm here, and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Streufert: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Here and thank you. Seven Present.
I guess as we go back into session here. I would like to just remind everybody that these permits are
moving forward since 2015, and we're not here today to talk about not moving forward, and
subsequently we can talk about modifications, but from a legal standpoint. Just want to, you know,
keep that on track. So, anyone have their thoughts together further questions you would like to ask?
I thought…
Ms. Cox: I was really hoping other commissioners would want to speak, but since I seem to be the
one who's speaking. First, I just want to thank Leif and Chad very much for giving us the Status
Report and being willing to discuss with us our concerns. I think perhaps our best approach would
be for the commission, to consult with legal counsel subsequent to this meeting, to determine
whether we might want to take approach the Director for modifications on the permits according to
Chapter 12 of our rules. What I'm not sure of, again, because I guess I'm a slow learner, but I'm not
sure whether that still means we should be taking motion and either accepting or not accepting the
Status Report. I'm happy to make a motion to accept the Status Report. If what we're doing here is
simply saying, “yeah we got it and we're, you know, thanks for the status report” but I don't know if
that's the appropriate thing to do if we might make modifications.
Ms. Barzilai: Madam Chair, it's Laura. I think, again, we have two separate issues we have the
either acceptance or deferral of the report. And then we have a subsequent discussion of any
powers and duties under Chapter 12 of the rules. So, my opinion would be that today, it is
appropriate for you to entertain a motion to either accept or defer the report.
Chair Apisa: I guess just my closing comment or for now. You know, we were talking about
traffic, and I don't know what effect it will have hopefully, it will be good. But there is, I know 20
years ago, there were initiated talk about adding the third lane from Haleilio Road to Kuamoo
Road, and that is finally happening. That does slow traffic down a little bit more right now, and
hopefully, that will improve traffic, but I remember that was a condition from 20 years ago, that is
now happening.
And, and the other comment would be, I hear a lot of testimony to make it a park, and I would you
know like a follow up proposal of some individual or organization to have a plan in place to
purchase the land to bring it up to the standards for a park. A big concern of mine is the ongoing
maintenance, because I don't think anyone is going to expect the user fee. And because I was
involved with the, I think it was two developers ago, about 20 years ago, I was very heavily
involved with Coc Palms I'm very familiar with it. You've got a sewer issue traffic. You've got to
bring back and restore the historical lagoons, you've got the largest and oldest Coconut Grove in the
state there, on leased state land. It's made up of many, many parcels and, and it's not going to be a
light load to maintain it. So, I mean, I would like to hear some practical solutions of how to make
26
that happen if that is the way to go. And I supported it. I think that would be a wonderful thing I
would support it, but I need to hear a plan of how to make that happen. So those are just
commenting not for any questions or anything but just an observation.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, Kaaina, at this point, it appears that with the two actions. One of them is
to get, we do have a status report, it is a report. We can either accept or not. But that is their Status
Report, that’s why we are here to either accept it or not. The second part of it is that there are a lot
of community concerns, some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible, others that may
include just modifications to some of the conditions. So how do we do the second part of it, which
is that we would like to have more of a public discussion on this issue? If we will do accept the
report the status report as it is, and then yet, leave it open for discussion with the community. And
with the developers for a later time.
Chair Apisa: Laura, can you give us guidance on the consequences action to accept or differ.
Ms. Barzilai: I don't think that there are any consequences in connection with what, Commissioner
Streufert was talking about, about what sort of future action can be proposed. I mean today, it's
technically a ministerial act of accepting or deferring the report for further information. I don't think
that you can reject the report unless you have grounds to believe that there is something false in the
report or it's based on faulty information. About the type of community meetings that,
Commissioner Streufert is talking about. I think this would have to come from informal discussions
with the applicant as to whether they are open to doing that I don't read that as a condition of the
permit for us to undertake that at this time. But we can explore I can explore with the
commissioners their powers, rights, and duties under Chapter 12, if they would like to, subsequent
to this meeting in connection with modification of the permits. Those would be the options at this
time.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Let me be clear that for everyone out there, I'm not suggesting any
modifications right now. I'm asking for a little more time to explore what some of the issues are
because there has been a lot of a concern that has been brought up by the community, but not
necessarily a lot of solutions. And it's not necessarily the developer’s responsibility nor is that the
County's responsibility alone. I think we all share something in this. The question is, how to best
move forward? But at this point, since we are just looking at a status report. It appears that I, I will
move to accept the status report.
Ms. Cox: I will second that.
Chair Apisa: Is there any further discussion on the motion on the floor to approve the current status
report?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: To accept it. I'm not approving it, to accept this.
Chair Apisa: All right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, is there, the motion on the floor is to accept
the current status report, any discussion or questions on that motion on the floor.
Mr. Hull: I have a question. Madame Chair, of Commissioner Streufert the motion maker, if you
will. Commissioner Streufert, and we could have this discussion offline. But being that was made
27
the during the meeting, your desire to have further engagement on concerns and issues, I guess, the
Department would need direction, as far as what you would want to see happen in the future. I
mean, if you have specific questions or concerns that came in from public testimony about the site,
then indeed, now this is kind of the time to ask, either the applicant or myself as representative of
Department if were able to any of these concerns and issues with a few if you feel them valid to
them, or valid to the site. But absent that, then that just, I don't have any direction as far as what we
would do in the future to help address those concerns, because the only other way that this comes
back officially, as agenda item business, is if there's a modification proposal or after next year's
status update.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, you're saying that right now, if we accept it, we have to put in there a
modification now if we wanted it to be considered. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Hull: No, no. The Department or the Commission can issue a petition to modify the permits,
out of subsequent Planning Commission meeting or at any at any Planning Commission meeting.
Of course, the property owner needs to be given due notice. So, a scheduled modification can
happen at a future Planning Commission meeting. But outside of that, if you want to have
discussion outside of modifying the proposing to modify the conditions of the permit. The only
other time this is going to come back to the Planning Commission would be at next year status
update.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, we could not do another hearing, where we would hear where the
developers as well as the public can hear testimony from, and I understand, we've got a lot of
written testimony and we've read them all. But for a discussion to a formal discussion at a Planning
Commission meeting between the developer and some of the public.
Mr. Hull: I think, you know, the request can be made from the landowner at any time to give
another status update, prior to the mandated one next year. And ultimately, it would be up to the
landowner to determine whether or not they're willing to give an earlier status update, if you will.
But right now, right, the only way that we can agendize the items if there's an actual action before
the commission for a set of permits, or under status update as required under the conditions of
permit or request that you know, the applicant, come back and provide additional information.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: So, by accepting it that we closed off any actions until next year's what
you're saying, is that correct?
Ms. Cox: I don't think so. I don't think so I thought, according to Chapter12 rules, what we can do
is we can decide subsequent to this meeting that we do want to modify some amendment, and then
we would report it to you, right, Kaaina?
Mr. Hull: Hold on, hold on, one second. So, as I understand, Commissioner Streufert’s request is
that she would like it to be brought back in the future before the status update. But outside of a
modification proposal just to have further discussion.
Ms. Cox: And we would have to have it in a modification, right? I mean we'd have to have
something (unintelligible).
28
Mr. Hull: During modification request. Absolutely, discussions will occur because it's an official
agenda item. But my understanding from Commissioner Streufert’s request is that she may not
necessarily want to go down the modification route to have further discussions with the applicant
and the community on concerns about the site. And I want to say is that you absolutely can. But it
would essentially be a request from the commission that the applicant present. And, you know, as
I’m watching this thing unfold, it is looking like this could get fairly litigious. All I'm saying is that
the applicant Can, can you know say no, we're not required to come back to you until next year for
the condition, while I'm getting as you may want to ask the applicant, if they're willing to come
back on a future date prior to the required June status report of 2022.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay, well then let's ask the question. Would you be willing to do that?
Mr. DeCoursey: We would need to have discussions with our legal counsel, and we can let you
know.
Chair Apisa: One of the other options, I believe was to defer so what happens if the item is
deferred?
Mr. Hull: We would be scheduled for a second, another agenda item for the deferral date.
Ms. Cox: But if we if it's deferred or we, and it comes back, aren't we in the same place we are
today except further down the line, I mean we still if we, if we decided we wanted to modify
something we would still then have to have a separate agenda item at a separate meeting, correct?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Ms. Cox: So, it doesn't really, all it does is sort of push it down the road without anything. Seems
like.
Mr. Hull: Yes, but as a scheduled agenda item for a petition to modify does not have to happen
after the status of the, like say for example, if Commissioner Streufert felt she wanted to wait till
January to request a status, to differ the status update to the January meeting. And in the meantime,
another Commissioner worked on a proposal to modify and ultimately that proposal would have to
be vetted by the Chair to be agendized, because ultimately, it's at the Chair’s discretion of the
agendas are set. But if that Commission and the Chair decide they like to move forward with a
modification, a modification could happen before the January deferral date.
Ms. Cox: I see, okay, thank you.
Mr. DeGracia: This is Commissioner DeGracia. I got a quick question, just to get a more of an
understanding of where we are between now and actual construction. I believe, Ron Agor stated
that there were seven permits left. Is that the only item between now and actual boots on the ground
for construction?
Mr. DeCoursey: That's consistent with my understanding, yes.
Mr. DeGracia: Thank you.
29
Chair Apisa: And I guess just comes to my mind more of a comment again, my understanding
already, there has been a lot of demolition work, there's been asbestos abatement, rodent abatement,
and possibly other things, but those things have been completed at this point?
Mr. DeCoursey: That's correct. Approximately five and a half million has been spent today, on
demolition asbestos removal and other things that does not include the ongoing permit work or
additional conditions that this Commission is imposed on us.
Mr. Ako: Chair Apisa, I have a question. You know if the commission decides to go in for
modification, we need to put it on the agenda. Do we need to come up with the specific
modifications on the agenda as a line item saying about modification? And then probably during
the meantime, communications could be going on at the Department as well as the developers or
the lenders with what might be workable or what might not be?
Mr. Hull: Yeah, I'll answer that question Commissioner Ako. Indeed, an actual proposal for what
modifications are being looked at would be necessary. Granted, through the process, and I can
almost put you know, if it's one that the landowner objects to I can pretty much guarantee it's going
to go into a contested case hearing. And through that process, the proposed modification could be
amended or adjusted. And you know, I don't want to get too legal in this, but it just, you know,
understanding that while the commission can propose modifications, it will have to go through a
proportional Nexus analysis legally by either yourselves in the process, or the hearings officer.
Because right down the street you have two resorts, that were approved with conditions that
ultimately, they did sue on. And the courts found that the Planning Department and Commission at
the time, out step their bounds in requiring certain additional improvements on the highway and
rescinded the conditions to state, “These resorts can actually put it in place without the updated
conditions of approval that were placed on those resorts.” So, I'm not trying to say that you not to
do it or, or to do it. But just used to paint the picture that modifications and revocations can happen
and then also just for general public can happen with just cause, and with a proportional Nexus
analysis. Just because of the Commission has the authority to modify and revoke, does not mean
that the courts will always uphold it if that analysis is not adequately made.
Mr. Ako: I just think that the parties just need is to talk story a little bit, though in terms of how to
move forward. But I think there's a lot at stake for the developers and the lenders out there, right? I
think they are putting a lot of money out there on the line and, you know, something's got to get on
it. You know, got to do something. As well as for the people that out here who go through the
traffic every day. You know, and nobody has actually come forward from the public to say that this
is what (unintelligible), that this consequences on both sides. Okay, so if I get my goal is not to
revoke a permit. It’s on how the community as well as developers can come together because at the
end of the day, they are going to be neighbors. So, my whole goal of this whole thing is that, and
we have is period, whatever the period is where parties get together and talk sorry, see if something
can be worked out. I just don't know how to, you know, what the process is to get that done. But
there's a lot at stake, you know, consequences.
Chair Apisa: You bring up a good point, Gerald. I mean, be at a resort or be in a museum Park
Cultural Center, there's going to be traffic and other consequences to either side. So, somewhere
there has to be some meeting of the minds. Yeah, it would be wonderful if t's something more
amicable could be worked out rather than going to the courts and I don't know if that's doable.
30
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair? Please go ahead.
Mr. DeCoursey: Well, I would just briefly respond and on behalf of the lenders and hopefully the
future developers as well, that we are open to discussions to specific proposals. You know, we're
not closing the door to conversations we're happy to talk to any of the Commissioners, one on one
or hold additional meetings, you know, as needed.
Ms. Cox: Sorry, go ahead, Laura, go ahead.
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair, I just wanted to say that I thought that Director Hull accurately
described the legal consequences. And I think that there is emotion on the floor, and we are in a
debate and deliberation stage right now, so we should probably be moving toward a vote, but not to
discourage any, any comments that are forthcoming.
Chair Apisa: Yes, that's what I was about to say, we do have a motion on the floor. So is there any
further discussion pertaining to the motion on the floor that's being discussed.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Now actually, I'm not sure what the consequences of voting for or against
the motion to accept means, and whether it closes off discussion or whether it opens discussion or
whether it ties anyone's hands of either the Developers or the Commission or the Planning
Department. So, I'm not sure that I'm ready for what, because I really don't understand fully what
the consequences of voting, either way or the other is going to be.
Chair Apisa: Laura, could you give us further insight into what a yes vote or a no vote would mean
specifically, a yes vote.
Ms. Barzilai: It does not preclude your future legal remedies under Chapter 12 should you choose
to pursue those with the Director. And if you feel that it's appropriate Madam Chair, you can
entertain a motion for Executive Session at this time to discuss. But to answer commissioners to
first question. The consequences of a motion to accept do not preclude her from taking a step
forward under Chapter 12, to consider drafting a petition to the Director, regarding modifications
have permit conditions.
Mr. Hull: So, Sorry. I will also state that Commissioner Streufert may not want to go that far, I
will also state that as Chad mentioned, they are absolutely opened to or seem or appears open to
further discuss should Commissioner Streufet or any other Commission member want to request
just to comeback and give a pre status report to further discuss issues and concerns.
Ms. Barzilai: And I support that type of an informal approach.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: But that would have to be in the motion but it not?
Mr. Hull: It would essentially, the process says if you guys approve or not approve sorry, accept
the status report today. I'm not saying you should, if you folks want a defer it to get further
information that's totally appropriate as well but should the Commission to accept the status report
today. And Commission Streufert, you know, in a few weeks after doing your discussions with or
31
thinking about the various issues and concerns, you decide you would like another discussion on
the floor formerly with the applicant and having the ability for our members of the public to
provide testimony. Essentially, you would just either notify me or the Chair, and we could directly
communicate that to the applicant that we're having a request for further updates and discussions on
this project, at a specific agenda or date.
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Could I request that we go into executive session, is that something we can
do?
Chair Apisa: Do we need a motion for that, Laura?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: I think we do.
Mr. Hull: Laura you're muted,
Ms. Barzilai: Sorry about that, guys. Yes, Madam Chair, you would have to entertain a motion and
read the Executive Session notice please into the record, and the move and would have to state the
purpose of us entering executive session at this time.
Chair Apisa: I would entertain a motion that we go into Executive Session, and to clarify. It may
go into Executive, agenda item for one of the permanent purposes listed in Section 92-5(a) Hawaii
Revised Statutes (“H.R.S.”), without noticing the executive session on the agenda, where the
executive session was not updated in advance. HRS Section 92-7(a). Executive Session may only
be held. However, upon an affirmative vote of two thirds of the members present also be the
majority of the members to which the board is entitled HRS Section 92-4. The reason for holding
the Executive Session shall be publicly announced. So, I believe the purpose would be to further
discuss the, the vote. The motion that's on the floor, is that correct, Laura?
Ms. Barzilai: The legal consequences of motion before you.
Chair Apisa: So, the purpose is to discuss the legal consequences of motion before us. Yeah, I
would entertain a motion to that effect.
Ms. Barzilai: Which would have to pass by majority vote, Madam Chair.
Ms. Cox: I move we move into executive session for the purposes as you stated
Chair Apisa: Is there a second.
Mr. Chiba: Second.
Chair Apisa: I would like to take a roll call please, Kaaina.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madame Chair. Motion is for Executive session, Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
32
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufurt?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes 7:0, Madame Chair.
Chair Apisa: We will adjourn to executive session.
Ms. Otsuka: It’s on Teams.
Ms. Cox: Yes, it is on Teams.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Commissioners if I can remind you that you should leave the Zoom meeting,
and you should enter the Executive Session through Teams and I would predict that we would be
back in about 15 minutes, back into zoom.
Chair Apisa: We will leave this meeting and then come back in. Other people, please stay on the
call. Thank you.
The Commission moved into Executive Session at 11:21 a.m.
The Commission returned to Open Session at 11:54 a.m.
Chair Apisa: Call the meeting back to order after the recess.
Mr. Hull: Okay, everybody here. Did you want to take a Roll call?
Chair Apisa: Yes, please.
33
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here and I’m alone.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Here and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufurt?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: By myself.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Here and by myself. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: 7:0 present. Madame Chair.
Chair Apisa: We are resuming our meeting we have a motion on the floor to accept the Status
Report and we have a second. Any further discussion on the issue, if not I would call for voice vote
on it.
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair, I think it’s most appropriate to do a roll call.
Chair Apisa: Yes, roll call vote, please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call if no further discussion? Roll call vote. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
34
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Cox?
Ms. Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufurt?
Ms. Nogami Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Apisa?
Chair Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion Passes 7:0. Madame Chair.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Mr. Hull: With that, we have no further agenda items.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
UNFINISIHED BUSINESS (For Action)
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 12, 2021. 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: Moving all the way down to Agenda Item, N as in Nancy announcements topics for
future meetings. I think we've discussed previously that we probably want to have a meeting till
October 26. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to inform you that we're going to actually have to
schedule a meeting for October 12. There was a hearing contested case hearing that, the hearings
officer took action on it and send it back to the Planning Commission. So given the timelines,
what's the one to be able to have only one meeting for you folks in October, given the timelines, we
35
have to have both an October 12 and October 26. But we'll just right now, just to take one item. On
the October 12 agenda. And with that, there's other future topic meetings. We have a few I'll say,
relatively anticipated non-controversial items, but coming up in November we will have the actual
Princeville Glamping application in house, so that's being scheduled for November. And other than
that, we have no further topics. If there are any other topics that commissioners would like us to
look at agendizing with the Chairman, you can let us know right now, or you can give us a call on
the side.
Chair Apisa: And I would just like to alert, Vice Chair Cox, I will be on October 12, I will be on
the mainland at a conference, so I will most likely be absent on October 12. I would ask Vice Chair
to please Chair the meeting.
Ms. Cox: Oh great, I love it. No, I will do it. Thanks, Donna.
Chair Apisa: Thank you. That's all I have.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Apisa: We have a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Cox: I move to adjourn.
Ms. Otsuka: Second.
Chair Apisa: All in favor? Just a voice vote, please. Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed?
Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Motion carried 7:0. Thank you.
Chair Apisa: adjourned the meeting at 11:59 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Arleen Kuwamura,
Commission Support Clerk
36
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval).
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.
1
KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 12, 2021
Draft
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by
Chair Cox at 9:00 a.m., - Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings
The following Commissioners were present:
Ms. Helen Cox
Mr. Gerald Ako
Mr. Melvin Chiba
Mr. Francis DeGracia
Ms. Glenda Nogami-Streufert
Ms. Lori Otsuka
Excused or Absent
Ms. Donna Apisa
The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Kaaina Hull,
Deputy Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Myles Hironaka, Dale Cua, Romio Idica, and Planning
Commission Secretary Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney – Deputy County
Attorney Laura Barzilai, Chris Donahoe, Office of Boards and Commissions – Administrator-
Ellen Ching, Administrative Specialist Anela Segreti, and Support Clerk Arleen Kuwamura.
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Cox: Called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Kaaina Hull: Madam Chair, its 9:00, we can start the meeting whenever you
folks are ready.
Vice Chair Cox: I think there's no reason to wait, let's go ahead and call the meeting to order.
Kaaina, can you do a roll call?
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madame Chair. Chair Apisa is excused. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here and by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here and I’m alone.
D.2.
May 24, 2022
D.2.
June 14, 2022 X
2
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here and by myself
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Here by myself.
Mr. Hull: Chair Cox?
Chair Cox: Here, and by myself except my dog, sorry we can have a little levity, can’t we?
Anyway, he's not listening.
Mr. Hull: Thank you Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Seven Present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Hull: Moving on to Approval of the Agenda.
Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai: Good morning, Madam Chair. Deputy County Attorney
Laura Barzilai. In order to properly address today’s Agenda Items a motion to amend the agenda
items is necessary to allow for Item L and Item H, to immediately follow Item F. It is appropriate
for you Madame Chair, to entertain such a motion at this time.
Chair Cox: Thank you Laura, can somebody make a motion to that effect.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I move to amend the agenda. I'm not sure exactly what it was to allow for
Item L. I, to come directly after.
Chair Cox: Item L. Item L.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay.
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair, if I could state again, the order of flow should be Item F, followed by
Item L, then Item H.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I moved to amend the agenda item, L, followed by… I'm sorry, I'm getting
this confused. Okay, as stated by the attorney.
Chair Cox: Is there a second.
Ms. Otsuka: Second.
3
Chair Cox: Thank you. Any discussion? Okay, I think we can just do a voice vote on this one. So,
all those in favor? Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carried.
6:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Mr. Hull: Next, on the agenda would be the Minutes for the approval of the Minutes for February
9, 2021, March 9, 2021, and April 13, 2021.
Chair Cox: I think we can take these together unless someone needs to separate them out. Do any
commissioners have any discussion about these minutes. If not, can someone make an agenda. I
mean that motion. I’m sorry.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I moved to accept the Minutes as presented.
Chair Cox: Do we have a second?
Mr. Chiba: Second.
Chair Cox: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Since there was
none to begin with, I am assuming not. I think we should probably do a roll call vote on this one,
Kaaina.
Mr. Hull: Roll call, Madame Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Cox?
Chair Cox: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion Passes, 6:0. Madam Chair.
4
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (None)
Mr. Hull: There are no Receipt of Items for the record.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Hull: Next, rounding Hearings and Public Comment. We did not receive any registered
requests in advance of this meeting for virtual oral presentations. Written testimony was received
for one of the cases of the Agency Hearings and will be read during that time.
Continued Agency Hearing
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-1, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-
3, and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the construction of a farm dwelling unit within Lot 7 of the
Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea, involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili
Makai Street and immediately adjacent to property identified as 4254 Kahili Makai Street,
Tax Map Key: (4) 5-2-021:007 (Unit E), and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx.
27.56 acres in size= Valerie M. Neilson and David N. Kells. [Director’s Report received by
Commission Clerk, 10/8/19, deferred 10/22/19.]
Mr. Hull: So, we will be moving on to the next portion of the Agenda Item, which is F.1, and being
that is as part of a Contest Case Hearing, Madam Chair, I will turn this portion of the agenda over
to you, and we call your turn.
Chair Cox: Thank you, Kaaina. So, we're moving on to item F.1.a, a Continued Agency Hearing of
Nielson Kells. I’m going to read into the record that Item, Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U) 2020-1, Class IV Zoning Permits Z-IV- 2020-3 and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the
construction of a farm dwelling unit within Lot 7 of the Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea,
involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili Makai Street, and immediately adjacent to
property identified as 4254 Kahili Makai Street, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-2-021:007 Unit E, and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel approximately 27.56 acres in size. Valerie M. Nielson and
David and Kells. I don't know if I'm supposed to read the Directors Report was received by the
Commission Clerk. On October 8, 2019, and was deferred until 10 22, 19. And we really what we
need here is a motion for an open-ended deferral of the agency hearing, so that the Unfinished
Business at Item, L may be addressed.
Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa: Sorry, sorry to interject, but I just wanted to also
note that we didn’t, we did not receive any request for testimony. So just according to how we set
up the process here just so that we can manage the logistics behind the scenes on the, you know,
recording and accepting and allowing everybody to have your opportunity to testify. We've asked
that folks who are interested in testifying to email the Department and then we'll send them send
out the registration link. We didn't receive anything prior to 9am yesterday and October 11, but we
did receive a number of have written testimony that you folks have received since yesterday at 9am
on October 11. We received a letter, two letters one dated October 7 and one day, October 8 from
Cori Qian Kiiyana. We also received a letter from Bill Chase, a letter from Aaron Rosenstiel, a
letter from Leilani SimGodbehere, a letter from Brent A. Godbehere, a letter from Eric Hansen, and
a letter from Amber Morrison. So, that was transmitted to you folks, and was received prior to the
5
cut off yesterday at 9am. Thank you, and that's all I have.
Chair Cox: Thank you very much. Okay. So, did anybody, did everybody understand the motion
that we need is to defer an open-ended deferral so that we can go on to item L., and address this
issue under Unfinished Business. We have motion.
Deputy County Attorney Laura: Madam Chair, just to clarify, that motion to defer the Agency
Hearing. That's what you're requesting at this time.
Chair Cox: Yes, an open-ended deferral of the Agency Hearing.
Ms. Barzilai: Thank you.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I moved to defer this to the open, the Agency Hearing to defer the agency
hearing.
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Cox: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. I guess we're
ready for, I think we should do a roll call vote on this one.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Madam Chair. Yes, I can take roll. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Chair Cox?
Chair Cox: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Motion passed. Six Ayes, Madam Chair. Motion passes 6:0.
6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-1, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-
3, and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the construction of a farm dwelling unit within Lot 7 of the
Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea, involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili
Makai Street and immediately adjacent to property identified as 4254 Kahili Makai Street,
Tax Map Key: (4) 5-2-021:007 (Unit E), and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx.
27.56 acres in size= Valerie M. Neilson and David N. Kells. [Director’s Report received by
Commission Clerk, 10/8/19, deferred 10/22/19.]
a. Consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation of Contested Case,
CC-2020-2, Valerie M. Neilson & David N. Kells, concerning Special Management
Area use Permit SMA (U) -2020-1, Class IV- 2020-3, and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the
construction of a Farm Dwelling Unit within Lot 7 of the Kahili Makai Subdivision in
Kilauea, involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili Makai Street and
Immediately adjacent to Property identified as 4316-Z Kahili Makai Road, Tax Map
Key: (4) 5-2-001:007 (Unit E), and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 27.56
acres in size.
i. Intervenors CS Development LLC and Charles Somers Individually, Exception to the
Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendations; Request for Oral Argument Before the
Commission; Certificate of Service.
ii. Respondent Planning Department of the County of Kaua’i Report aand
Recommendation; Certificate of Service.
iii. Petitioner’s Support of the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation; Certificate
of Service.
Chair Cox: Thank you. So now we're going to move on to item, l Unfinished Business for Action
Nielson Kells, and I will read in the record that item. Special Management Area Use Permit
SMA(U)-2020-1, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-3, and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the
construction of a farm dwelling unit within Lot 7 of the Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea,
involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili Makai Street and immediately adjacent to
property identified as 4254 Kahili Makai Street, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-2-021:007 (Unit E), and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 27.56 acres in size = Valerie M. Neilson and David N.
Kells. Consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Reporting and Recommendation of Contested Case
CC-2020-2, Valerie of Nielson and David and Kells concerning Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA(U) 2020-1, Class IV Zoning Permits Z-IV- 2020-3, and Use Permit U-2020-3 for the
construction of a Farm Dwelling Unit within Lot 7 of the Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea,
involving a parcel situated at the terminus of Kahili Makai Street, and immediately adjacent to
Property identified as 4316 - Z Kahili Makai Road Tax Map Key: (4)-5-2-001:007 Unit E, and
affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 27.56 acres in size. Interveners CS Development LLC
and Charles Somer’s Individually, Exception to the Hearing Officer’s Report and
Recommendations; Request for Oral Argument before the Commission Certificate of Service. 2.
Respond that Planning Department of the County, Hawaii Report, and recommendations Certificate
of service. 3. Petitioners Support of the Hearings Officer’s reference Report and Recommendation;
Certificate of Service.
So, at this point we need we need to entertain either a motion to grant or to deny the Interviewers
request for oral argument.
7
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Sorry to interject. I just wanted to let you folks know that the parties are
now here. I'm not sure if you want to (unintelligible).
Chair Cox: Thanks, Jodi.
Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa: Yeah, so, all the parties are all admitted in the meeting at this point.
Thanks.
Chair Cox: Great, thank you. So, we need a motion either to, so what we're being asked to do is do
we want to allow for the oral testimony that the interveners have requested or deny that testimony.
Mr. Mauna Kea Trask: Chair, I'm sorry. For the record, Mauna Kea Trask. Can I, can we speak on
this request, is that all right? Because we didn't make the written request for the rules to explain.
Chair Cox: I don’t know. I'll have to ask our attorney.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Trask, you want to clarify your request?
Mr. Mauna Kea Trask: No, we would we submitted the request for argument pursuant to the
Commission Rules and prior to the voting on the motion or making the motion. We just like an
opportunity to describe, you know, why, just to be heard on it.
Ms. Barzilai: Madam Chair, I think that's fine. I mean, so long as Mr. Trask is not reaching the
substance during this portion, I think that that's fine.
Chair Cox: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Trask: Thank you very much. Chair, Honorable Commissioners. Interveners have made a
request for oral argument, and we think it's appropriate, in this case, not only for ourselves but for
all parties. You know, this was supposed to be a three to four day Contested Case Hearing.
The last hearing, we had with everyone in the room was March 30, 2020. About a week or so
thereafter the world went into global pandemic and we're still kind of into it. I think that given the
extensive record, the issues related to the application, the recommendation of the hearings officer, I
think the Commission would benefit from hearing from all parties. You know you have the written
submitted so it's not going to be anything. You know, very expansive it's just something that I think
is appropriate, so you can understand where the parties are coming from, there's days of transcripts,
hundreds of pages. I don't expect you have to have read all of them, but I think that it would be
appropriate under the rules, and due process to allow for argument by each of the parties, and we
just make the request such, Thank you.
Chair Cox: Thank you for clarifying.
Ms. Barzilai: Madam Chair, Laura, if I may, it might be appropriate this time to hear from Ms.
Nielson and Mr. Kells, regarding their position on our arguments. If you would like to welcome
them to speak?
Chair Cox: Yes, thank you. I see David is on I don't, David Kells would you like to speak. Oh,
8
there’s Valerie Okay, go ahead.
Ms. Valerie Neilson: So, am I just speaking to whether or not we want to hear oral argument?
Chair Cox: Yes, yes. Because the substance will come later if we vote. If we approve the motion to
hear oral arguments, then you will have a chance to give your, you know, the substance that
you'd like to say.
Ms. Valerie Neilson: Thank you. We, we don't feel that, given the amount of time, that we have
already invested including the Planning Department feel that these details need to be rehashed.
We've spent extensive amounts of times with a Hearings Officer and all parties to very tightly
comb through every detail of our 228-page application. The Hearings Officer has rendered his
decision, and we respect that and want to move forward without additional delay.
Chair Cox: Okay. And we want to hear from the Planning Department as well, Laura?
Since we can from the other two.
Ms. Barzilai: Okay, yes, since you have opposing arguments, we can hear from the Department.
Deputy County Attorney Chris Donahoe: Good morning, Commission. Deputy County Attorney
Chris out on behalf of the Department. The Department takes no position to the (unintelligible)
argument. It is allowable under the rules so (unintelligible) on that. Thank you.
Chair Cox: Okay. Is there a motion or do we want to discuss further before a motion of why we
would want to accept the request of the interveners for oral argument or deny it?
Ms. Otsuka: Okay, yes, I’m ready to make a motion.
Chair Cox: You're ready to make a motion.
Ms. Otsuka: I make a motion to accept interveners request for oral testimony.
Chair Cox: Thank you, Lori. Is there a second? I thought I heard a second. Was that you Gerald?
Did I hear a second?
Mr. Ako: Yes, I second it.
Chair Cox: Okay, thank you, Gerald. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded. Is there further
discussion? Hearing none. We'll take a roll call vote.
Ms. Barzilai: Roll call, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
9
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Chair Cox?
Chair Cox: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Unanimous vote, Madam Chair. Motion carried. 6:0. Thank you.
Chair Cox: So, we oral argument has been granted. Therefore, each of the three parties are entitled
to 10-minutes to present their argument, with three minutes rebuttal per party. The order of
arguments is going to be interveners Somers, respondent, Department, and then Petitioners Nielson/
Kells. So, Mr. Trask you may proceed.
Mr. Trask: Thank you very much, Chair, Honorable Commissioner’s. Interveners are wanting to
make it clear that the Hearing’s Officer is not recommending approval of these permits today.
After review and consideration all the facts and evidence, he is recommending the applicants be
ordered to cure various deficiencies in the application, including submitting plans to scale as simply
required by the CZO and SMA Rules, conduct a Ka Pa’akai analysis of traditional customery
Hawaiian rights, resubmit the revised application to the Planning Department, and a State Historic
Preservation division or SHP, and hold another hearing on this matter, public hearing on this
matter.
However, interveners argue that the Hearing’s Officers recommendation is problematic for a few
reasons. It requires the Department itself, not the applicant to conduct a Ka Pa’akai analysis on
their behalf. Something that is outside of the Department's expertise, as testified to by Mr. Cua
during the Contested Case Hearing and is improper under the rules. The Planning Department
should not be doing the petitioners job for them. They should be acting as a ref calling the balls and
strikes. Further, the Hearing’s Officer recommendation is unclear as to future procedure. Whether it
allows Somer’s and other interested parties to comment, review, and potentially intervene in future
application processes.
Further, and improperly, it suggests approval or recommends approval of future applications based
solely on a revised Director’s report, without providing for public input or input from other
interests of persons are the decisions as to the approval of the permits. Instead, the application must
be denied today, for two basic reasons. First, granting this permit application as currently
submitted, would be in violation of the CZO density limitations in the open zoning district on ag
10
within the state line use agricultural district area. This is a hard denial full stop. It's a 9-acre parcel.
you can't have more than one unit per 5-acres. Second, the fact that circumstances show the
application does not comply with the submission requirements have a complete application.
And then petitioners failed to sustain that burden to prove by preponderance of the evidence that
the proposed development is consistent with the SMA rules. Coastal Management Act, the HRS
258, and the CZO with regard to development within the County Open Special Treatment Resource
Zoning District.
First off, is clear under the CZO Section 8- 9.2 (b)(2), provide that no more than one single-family
detached farm dwelling unit per 5-acres of land shall be permitted in the open zone lands, but
within state land use ag district. This partial is within the open zone special human resource, and is
9.197 acres, and therefore, only one farm dwelling unit is allowed. The Director’s Report
specifically states that estimate use permit is required, because it exceeds $500,000, and includes
the construction of a second dwelling unit on the parcel. Petitioners’ own standards on
(unintelligible) application confirms this, and states that there is one existing dwelling unit on the
subject property. Petitioners have resided on the subject property full time since (unintelligible)
2018 in that dwelling unit. There was a K-2 Survey Map showing the property with the petitioners
current dwelling identified as a dwelling unit that's Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and Mr. Cua testified
that petitioners are currently residing on the subject property in a dwelling unit, given the structure
they're living in has a bathroom, a toilet and outside shower and a kitchen area where petitioners
plugin appliances and prepare food. That's it, June 24 transcript page, 35 to 36. Finally, a certificate
of occupancy was issued on September 12, 2004, use of the, what is alternately described as a
garage in the application as a dwelling unit, and that's exhibit LVIX.
Second, the application fails to sustain petitioners’ burden of proof to show that this proposed
development is consistent with the CZO and SMA use permit object as policies and guidelines.
And this is very important. The application is incomplete. It was submitted five times, between
October 2018, September 16, 2019, each and every time it was rejected by the Planning
Department correctly so, because of various deficiencies. And the last time, it was denied was May
23, 2019. It was then accepted on September 16, 2019. Not because the application changed. In
fact, Dale testified the application was the exact same. The only thing that changed was September
16, 2019, Mr. Cua testified agreed that it was only after pressure from the mayor’s office to an
email that the Planning Department process petitioner’s application and needed to approve it as
complete. That said, the June 24 transcript the page 81. And it's also reflected in exhibit XLIX of
interveners as exhibits. It's premature to allow any further consideration this application, until it
has actually been complete, and we would argue that the Hearing Officer recognizes this, because
he says you have to cure deficiencies 1. Which are scale plans. 2. Resubmittal as SHPD, and 6.
With regard to (unintelligible).
Second, this is a very sensitive site, this parcel and this specific building site contains four (4)
documented historic sites, three (3) of which cites 974, 975, and 976 or recognizes significant. It’s
a combined total of recognized 42 historic sites in the subject property, including two (2) potential
burials recognized by Wainiha and the Burial Counsel. Despite past damage to the sites, Mr. Cua
agreed, and Ms. Nancy McMahon confirmed, that out of 42 features, 28 are still remaining
untouched. Site 974 has sixteen (16) untouched historic sites, site 975 has six (6) untouched
historic sites, and site 976 has five (5). Nancy McMahon concurred with the assessment and also
testified that the proposed building site is within the historic preservation area. The proposed
11
building site is in violation of the Preservation Plan. And this is on June 25, hearing transcript that
1516 respectively. The historic properties may be significantly adversely affected by proposed
development, the Ka Pa’akai analysis insufficient, the permit application is inadequate to show
consistency with the objectives and policies of the SMA concerning preservation protection of
historic resources. According to the plans as submitted the east wing of the house appears to
encroach within sight 974, and the 1997 EIS, which is 24 years old, and applies to an entirely
different development needs to be updated to assess the impact on historic sites by this specific
development. This current development. Further, the 2017 SHP determination of no historic effect
was erroneous. Petitioners did not provide SHPD Susan (unintelligible) with any plans or
architectural renderings of the proposed project. And this previous assessment by SHPD was later
supplanted by an October 30, 2020, letter the Planning Department received from SHPD, saying
that the application contains insufficient information to determine the potential for the project to
adversely affect archaeological sites.
Moving on the application is insufficient to sustain petitioners’ burden of proof that it complies to
the requirements of the CZO again, none of these plans are to scale, it's impossible for you to
determine size and density and height and distance from the slope as required by previous SMA
permits that entitled The CPR development, because there's no scale. And that's testified to by Ron
Agor, who actually prepared what he called these are renderings. These are rough drafts that you
can use preliminarily, but Ron testified they're not to scale, and they need to be because of the
historic sensitivity in this site, because you could plop it right down in historic sites. Further, it is
too close, it's within 25 feet of the slope. That's (unintelligible) silty clay as recognized by the
NCRS and it's highly eroded.
Further Ron testified that you need a topographic map. In order to map all pertinent aspects of the
site. And that said this the July 2 transcript the page 121 21. The plans are not to scale, and sure that
the proposed structure is much less than 25 feet from the slope that's a page 124. Mr. Agor says, it
requires a grading permit. That's a page 121 47. There is no discussion no one in the community,
Kilauea Neighborhood Association or the public knows that you need a grading permit for this
development. But not even the petitioners know. Mr. Agor testify the lack of survey could cause
the house again to be placed within the historic site that's 153. The rocks on the site or historic
features at 155, and the plan is submitted or not to scale and are unreliable, because they were
repeatedly changed as being blown up and shrunk over time on a copy machine and cannot be
relied upon. So, as it stands right now, it's just simply insufficient. And you can't play personality,
there's a lot of testimony that was submitted recently…
Ms. Barzilai: Pardon, 10-minutes, Madame Chair.
Mr. Trask: May I just wrap up real briefly? Thank you. We're dealing with legal standards here.
These are basic requirements that everyone the county should be held to, it is not relevant, that is
Charles Somers bringing up these issues. You got to look at the law, what does the CZO say, what
is the SMA rules say, and they require this to be denied at this time. And we reserve, our rebuttal.
Thank you.
Chair Cox: Thank you, Mr. Trask. Ms. Nielson are you are going to present for the petitioners.
Ms. Nielson: Yes.
12
Chair Cox: Okay.
Ms. Nielson: So, you know David is in a different location than I, so he may want to interject or
say his piece, after I'm done. Dave, and I have no desire to relive the past 24 months. So, we hope
to make this brief. We chose to undergo the daunting task of completing the planning application
without hiring professional or legal representation. Some might say that choices, naive, or possibly
even stupid, but we want you to sincerely know the reason why that we made that decision.
Dave and I feel that by doing the work we are simple ownership of this land is transformed to
stewardship. It is in becoming steward's that we apply our experience our knowledge to the
everyday decisions that we will be faced with when managing this special property on Kauai.
It's only when we embrace and attempt to understand what the state of Hawaii, the County of
Kauai, and the town of Kilauea are faced with can we become a part of a bigger solution, albeit
small, but nonetheless that part of that solution.
For these reasons Dave and I undertook this very unfamiliar task, something we've never done
before. And while on this path we made many, many, many friends, and we found a few enemies,
and I bet you can guess who they are. But what we have gained as the experience, knowledge and
perspectives beyond our personal Vantage. Last week people called David and I to remind us that
this process is more than an application to get permission to build a home. The planning application
process for us, our process has been about building community, and about bringing people together.
So, we are consciously aware of how building projects impact neighborhoods. The Kilauea
Neighborhood Association supports the application, their support was publicly reaffirmed
following the conclusion of the Contested Case Hearing. I went to them and asked if we needed to
represent, and I was told no, that their support does not have a deadline, and they have all the
information they need to support us, there have been multiple opportunities for public testimony to
express opposition and yet Mr. Somers alone, objects to the proposed development. Mr. Trask a
assured us during the Contested Case Hearing that would change, he repeatedly claimed that are
comparatively modest build would interfere with his ability to hike, to fish, to swim, on his palatial
estate during his occasional visit to Kauai.
Our planning application was submitted May 2019, and yes, we did work closely with the Planning
Department, I would think you guys would embrace that. It was accepted complete September
2019, and with proof of appropriate public node is given by the Department and us.
We were granted a spot on the Planning Commission public hearing agenda, October 22, 2019.
Intervention was granted despite the fact, that we were not given appropriate notice and intervene
admitted that the application has not even been read, prior to being granted intervene or status. In
fact, intervener to try to subpoena the county for what was public record some four months after the
scheduled hearing. These details along with every jot and tittle of the approximate 228-page
application were reviewed for nine grueling days that expanded, many, many months.
David and I had resolved at the prehearing meeting in February 2020, that he and I would accept
the hearings, the Hearing Officer’s Findings and that we would adhere to his recommendations,
even for we had an opportunity to present our evidence. We tried very hard to view the lengthy
legal process is an opportunity to gain knowledge.
13
So here we are. Some 24 months later, and although Dave and I don't completely agree with all the
findings from Hearing Officer Kimura, we agree with his recommendation to provide the requested
information so this Commission can ultimately approve the application for SMA use permit, use
permit, and class IV zoning permit for our proposed project that we received the hearings officers
report and recommendation on August 24, 2021. He, where he advised that the petitioners provide
the Planning Department with revised application addressing alleged deficiencies, Dave and I will
work to address those alleged deficiencies as recommended by Mr. Kimura. And we will resubmit
the rescheduling fees as recommended by Mr. Kimura, and we will provide SHPD a copy of the
revised application to confirm that their findings in 2017, their determination, that our proposed
project has no effect on significant historic sites, still holds true.
Dave and I will work with community members and seek guidance with the assistance from Dawn
Chang to complete our Ka Pa’akai analysis. It's David's in my position as petitioners that our
application was deemed complete by the Planning Department in 2019. Appropriate notice was
given, and intervener status should not have been granted to someone who never even read it.
However, the information requested by the Hearing Officer is valuable and will help to clarify any
alleged deficiencies. Therefore, the petitioners agree to an open-ended deferment that will allow us
time to gather, organize, and include the information requested and Mr. Kimura’s recommendations
to the application. This will allow time for revised Director’s Report on the newly included
information and allow time to reschedule to a future Planning Commission meeting for permanent
approval, while following the standard protocol timelines of 60 days from the filing. We don't have
any interest of rehash in those details, the shotgun that Mr. Trask is attempting to bring up. We've
hashed those details and there's no need to go through them again. Thank you.
Chair Cox: Thank you very much. I apologize, because I originally said the order was going to
have the Planning Department before you, Valerie, and I apologize. You jumped right in when I
asked you. I know we're still within time, did David want to add anything?
Ms. Barzilai: Madam Chair, we have 2-minutes 35 seconds remaining.
Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. David Kells, would you like to add anything?
Ms. Nielson: I don't think he knows how to unmute himself.
Chair Cox: Okay.
Ms. Nielson: He just he just texted me said, “no” but thank you.
Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we will now move on to the Planning Department.
Deputy County Attorney Chris Donahoe: Thank you, Commissioner. Again, for the record Deputy
County Attorney Chris Donahoe, representing for Planning Department. As previously stated in the
Submission of September 7, 2020, the Planning Department is in support of the adoption of the
Hearing Officer’s Report and recommendations in full the Contested Case received on August 24,
2021, as was set forth in our submission. It's the position of the respondent Planning Department
that pursuant to RPPC RP PPC 1-6-17, be there was a preponderance of the evidence presented
over the course of multiple Contested Case Hearings, as well as necessary statutory and case law
14
authority to properly support not only the determination of the Directors Report, as well as properly
support the Hearing Officer’s report and recommendations of the Contest Cases that were received
on August 24, 2021.
And the for the benefit of time, I'm not going to reiterate the evidence and arguments that were laid
out by the Planning Department in its submission of September 17, 2021, as I'm certain the
Commission has reviewed all the pleadings. Which were extensive, and I understand that, and I
appreciate the Commission taking the time to review the, the, all the evidence in this case, I'm
given that there's a preponderance of the evidence, given that the statutory case law authority. The
Plan Department respectfully request the Planning Commission to adopt in full, the Hearing
Officer’s Report and recommendation, in August, that was received August 24, 2021. With that
said, if the Planning Commission adopts the Hearing Officer’s Report and recommendations. I like
to bring to the Commission's attention, two separate issues, and I'll be brief. One is, involving the
timelines, that may be affected. Should the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendations, be
adopted. First, Pursuant to KCC Section 8- 3.1(f), regarding Class IV Zoning Permits, 8- 3.1(f)(3)
states within 60 days after the filing of a completed application. The Planning Director shall
prepare a report that indicates the reason supporting the issuance with conditions or denial of the
application. KCC Section 8- 3.1(f)(4) states within 60 days after the receipt of the Plan Director’s
Report or within such longer period as may be agreed by the applicant, the Planning Commission
shall hold at least one public hearing on the application in issue the permit with without the
conditions or deny the permit.
And then second, SMA Rule 10 states, that the Planning Commission shall act by majority vote of
its total membership upon an application within 60 calendar days after the conclusion of the
hearing, except in cases of emergency, or in cases where the Planning Commission requires further
information or find that issues require further classification, or we're an extension of time, has been
agreed to by the applicant. Therefore, the Hearing Officer’s Reporting and Recommendations are
adopted by the Planning Commission. It's, it's our position that petitioners would have to waive any
timeline set forth by both KCC Section 8- 3.1(f) and SMA Rule 10. It's my understanding that the
petitioners would be willing to wait these timelines, but it would be requested that the Plan
Department can confirm this for the petitioners.
Second, if the petitioners waive the timelines, and the Planning Commission does have authority to
adopt the Report and Recommendations in full, so that that additional information requested by the
Hearing Officer can be provided. And the authority is found in RPPC 1-6- 19-8-2, regarding
Commission action for post agency hearing procedures, which states, upon filing of the exceptions
and support documents as was the case here, the Commission may under little I little I little I,
reopen the docket and take further evidence for may take such other disposition of the case that is
necessary under the circumstances. So, for those reasons, the Planning Department supports the
adoption the Hearing Officer’s Recommendation received in full by this Commission, and the
Planning Department will reserve any remaining time for them. Thank you, Commission.
Chair Cox: Thank you. Hearing the arguments, I think we're now ready to go to the rebuttal and
we'll take the same order we did before, so, Mr. Trask.
Mr. Trask: Thank you, Honorable Chair. In regard to the arguments by petitioners. First, these are
adversarial proceedings, there's no enemies made here, it's that's unfortunate to say it that way
15
because people are just advocating their interests in this in this proceeding. However, it is telling
that applicants said they chose to undergo this process themselves, not to hire any professional legal
help. Now that's partially true, they did do this hearing themselves, but they did Hire Ron Agor
first. And if you look at the facts and evidence that the hearing, Ron Agor was effectively fired,
they agreed amicably to split, but Ron was let go. Because of his insistence on items that would
comprise a complete application. Specifically, scaled plans, a survey of the building site, so you
can understand the location of the of the proposed development, with regard to the historic sites,
and updated Historical study, and archeological study, because of his knowledge of this historic
sites. See Ron did the plan for the previous development for another landowner over here, he knew
that this was a sensitive area, and it was in assistance, and the delay afforded to that insistence that
cause petitioners to fire him. So, there was help, but again, this goes back to the first argument.
This is not about the personalities; this is about the law.
The SMA policy is clear when managing development, the commission must use implement and
enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible and managing present and future
coastal zone development. If you look at the KNA letter, 2 KNA members said voted against this,
because they said the SMA so sensitive shouldn't be developed. If you look at this Dale Cua’s
testimony, he says, Appendix 10 which is the KNA a letter. He testified the letters to the neighbors
does not reflect the description of the development in the application, that's June 24, transcript page
70-73. Dale testified that the presentation to the KNA by the petitioners, was incorrect and
inconsistent with the application that's June 24 transcript, 74 and 76. That's just the fact. Mr.
Donahoe is right. Upon the submission of a complete application, you proceed the public hearing,
the application is incomplete. That's it. It's not sufficient, though.
People can denigrate Somer’s and people have denigrated me personally, but that's not relevant, I
would hope these arguments in any other circumstance. With regards to the presence of sensitive
historic sites, including Two (2) burials recognized by the Burial Council would be enough for this
Commission in any situation, including those involving Somer’s and myself personally, to deny it
application and simply require resubmittal. And the reason why that's so important is because
procedurally, it gets bogged down. I'm sure Mr. Nielsen talked to some people on KNA, but they
don't know, they weren't there at the Contest the Case Hearing. They don't know this evidence.
They don't know Dale's testimony; they don't know Ron's testimony. I mean if you look at the
application itself dependency (Unintelligible).
Ms. Barzilai: Madame Chair, three minutes.
Mr. Trask: Thank you very much. And just in closing. Again, the appropriate thing is to deny this
application because it's just simply insufficient under the law. thank you so much.
Chair Cox: Thank you, Mr. Trask. Ms. Nielsen, your return.
Ms. Nielson: My position, again, David's and my position, again, is all this was hashed and
rehashed at nauseum with Mr. Kimura. When I presented to the association the second time, I
expressed to them, the concerns that Somer’s brought up about the size and things like that. And
the reality is the reason, the primary reason there was a change, is because of recommendations that
came out of the KNA a meeting. They had looked at our original design, and said that you know,
some things need to change, and we made those modifications. And so that's why the presentation
16
from the KNA to what was actually completed in the application, there is a difference.
But what didn't change is, we aren't building a private mansion. We are building a very modest
home on a reasonable parcel of land in the same footprint that was previously approved by the
Planning Department. I think if we're given the opportunity to hear from SHPD, we are in the
process of right now, of getting a, an additional field survey, working with engineers and
archaeologists, I'm in the process of contacting local native cultural practitioners so
we can understand from their perspective, what can we do to understand if there is an impact.
So, Dave and I are working diligently from our heart. No, we're not as familiar with the law, as Mr.
Trask is, but we're not taking this necessarily from a solely legal perspective we're taking it from
the perspective of being a part of a community and understanding and participating in that
community. I understand, we have rights we have a right to build on our land, we have a right to
make good use of that, but we also have an obligation to be to be good citizens, and that's what
we're trying to do. And I would think that the Commission Members would jump with joy that you
have two committed, community members who've done this legwork and gone to such efforts to
understand and apply the rules and regulations. So, I don't want to rehash those, and be bogged
down with legal jargon that Mr. Trask is throwing at us. The bottom line is our application was
complete. It's not perfect, but neither am I. And neither is anybody else. Am I willing to get it
closer to perfect? Absolutely. We don't want this applicant application to be approved, because of
some loophole, like we weren't given appropriate notice but that was a loophole. We want it to be
approved because you guys have confidence that David I will comply and follow the rules and
regulations as they, as they are written.
Ms. Barzilai: Excuse me. Madam Chair, three minutes.
Ms. Nielson: I'm done. Thank you.
Chair Cox: Thank you. And now, Planning Department, three minutes.
Mr. Donahoe: Thank you, Commission. The application that was submitted was deemed complete
by the Planning Department. It's normal for additional information, and that's what's being
requested here, additional information to that completed application by the Hearing Officer.
And as case law says ordinarily difference will be given the decisions of administrative agencies,
acting within the realm of their expertise. The Director’s Report should be given deference, and the
decision of Planning Commission should be given difference because analysis of permit
applications and approval permits is within its realm of expertise. Therefore, again, that's more
support for the adoption of the Hearing Officer’s Recommendation and Report, in this case, and
nothing further. Thank you.
Chair Cox: Thank you. Before I open it up, thank you for all of you, for your oral testimony. I'm
going to open it up to questions from the Commissioners in just a second, but first, I want to clarify
one thing with you miss Nielson, and that's that you and Mr. Kells do waive the timelines, as stated
as necessary from the Planning Department.
Ms. Nielson: Yes.
Chair Cox: Thank you. We just needed that on record because we won't have time to consider it
unless those are waived Thank you very much. Okay, so Commissioners any, questions, any
17
discussion. And at this point, your questions should be related to the content of the Hearing
Officer’s report and the party's arguments.
Mr. Ako: Chair Cox, I have a question.
Chair Cox: Yes?
Mr. Ako: This is Gerald Ako. I noticed in the documents that both have said, we talked about the
preponderance of evidence in there. But going back before that. I think what I was kind of trying to
figure out is that does one party have a burden of proof in the hearing itself? That would be
applicant, or?
Chair Cox: I believe that's a Laura question.
Ms. Barzilai: Madam Chair, I think, what would be most productive is for Commission Ako to
direct his question to one of the attorneys. If he could please direct it either to the Department or to
Mr. Trask.
Mr. Ako: I think that being the case, I think go directly to attorney Donahoe whether the applicant
had the burden of proof in hearing case.
Mr. Donahoe: Yes, Commissioner Ako, Thank you. The applicant would have the burden of proof
during the course of the Contestant Case hearing. And that is under 167. Yeah, sorry.
Mr. Ako: Yes, I guess now, that the hearing is over, the recommendation that has come forward
yeah, an oral argument has been placed on the table to examine again. I guess both positions as well
as the Hearings Officer’s Recommendation. I guess I would have address this to Mr. Trask, as the
burden of proof, their burden of proof in this oral argument here. Or does it still remain with the
applicant.
Mr. Trask: Yes, Honorable Commissioner Ako. Yes, so the rule is clear, under 1-6-17(b) the party
initiated the commission considerations in this case the applicant, shall have the burden of proof,
including the burden of producing evidence, as well as a burden of persuasion. And the degree of
quantum approve shall be a preponderance of evidence so that's more likely than not, and that's
why it's so important. They shoulder everything. It's if they choose to proceed a certain way that's
their choice, if they choose certain exhibits that's their choice, if they choose not to have scale plans
that's their choice. That's their burden, it's just like a criminal case, you can sit there and say
nothing and walk because it's the prosecution. So, in this case it is, and it you know and not to be
course or anything like that, but you make your bed you lie in it. And that's, that's the issue.
Mr. Ako: Oh, are you referring to the hearing itself, or does that burden also transfer over to, I
guess, while we make oral arguments here?
Mr. Trask: Well, it transfers over because the Hearing’s Officer is a delegated person to hear it, but
you have to approve it. You have to be persuaded; you have to be satisfied. And this is important.
You know, the authority of the SMA is the Commission, it's not the Department, the Department is
your administrative helper, you make the decision you have to know. And that's why this is so
18
important to argue today and bring up these issues because it's you know what else.
Mr. Ako: Thank you.
Chair Cox: I'm wondering if the Commission would feel it appropriate to move into an executive
session?
Mr. Ako: Chair Cox, I would move to an executive session.
Chair Cox: Okay. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4) for the purpose
of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal counsel on questions, issues, status
and procedural matters. This consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges,
immunities and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to the matter of
Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation of Contested Case CC-2022, Valerie M. Nielson
and David and Kells, concerning Special Management Area Use Permit SMA-2020-1, Class IV
Zoning Permits Z IV-2023, and Use Permit U-2023-3, for the construction of a Farm Dwelling Unit
within Lot 7 of the Kahili Makai Subdivision in Kilauea, involving a parcel situated at the terminus
of the Kahaili Makai Street and immediately adjacent Property Identified as 4316-Z, Kahili Makai
Road Tax Max Key: (4) 5-2-001:007 Unit E, and affecting a portion of a larger personal approx.
27.56 acres in size.
We have a motion. Do we have a second to move into executive session?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I second.
Chair Cox: Okay, I believe, at this point I'm the one who has to take the roll call. So
Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Chair Cox: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
Chair Cox: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Chair Cox: Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Chair Cox: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Streufert: Aye.
Chair Cox: And me. Yes, aye. It’s unanimous, Motion Passes, 6:0. Therefore we will go into
19
executive session probably for about 30-minutes. That means Commissioners, you will go off this
place and go on to our Teams Executive Session. Laura, do you have anything to say before we do
this?
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Madame Chair. Can you just briefly clarify the purpose of the executive session
just beyond the notice you just read. Very simply clarify the purpose.
Chair Cox: Beyond what I just read? It’s to consider the Contested Case Hearings Officers Report
and Recommendations.
Ms. Barzilai: Thank you for your clarification.
Chair Cox: So, we will leave now, we think it will be about 30-minutes and return. Thank you for
your patience.
The Commission moved into Executive Session at 9:56 a.m.
The Commission returned to Open Session at 10:45 a.m.
Chair Cox: Call the meeting back to order after Executive Session.
Laura, I believe we are all here. Could you take roll call so that we can begin the meeting.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, of course, Madam Chair. Yes, I can take roll. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here and by myself.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Here and by myself.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner DeGracia? Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Can you hear me?
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, I do.
Mr. DeGracia: Here and by myself.
Ms. Barzilai: Thank you. Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Here and I’m by myself.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Here and by myself.
Ms. Barzilai: Chair Cox?
20
Chair Cox: Here and still with my dog.
Ms. Barzilai: All present Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Six Present. You may proceed.
Chair Cox: Okay, are there any questions that the Commissioners have?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Yes, if I could.
Chair Cox: Go ahead.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I would like to ask the petitioners Valerie Nielsen and David Kells, are they
on?
Chair Cox: Yes, they are.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I believe you are in receipt of the Hearing Officer’s Report, as well as
Recommendations, and in his decision in order, he's got three recommendations, actually, four,
which talks about providing a revised application addressing deficiencies, or alleged deficiencies.
(Unintelligible) for the SHPD, as well as the Conditions that were part of the Planning Commission
approval from the earlier application. Are you willing to, or do you accept these Conditions, and
Recommendations?
Ms. Nielson: Yes.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed to know.
Chair Cox: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, we have now considered the
record and the argument of the parties as well as the Hearing Officer’s Report. So, I would
entertain a motion to either adopt, reverse, or modify the Hearing Officer’s Recommendation or
Report and Recommendations.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Right, I move to accept the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation
of Contested Case. CC-2020-2, Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2020-1, Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-2020-3, Use Permit U-2020-3, on TMK (4) 5-2-001:007 Unit E.
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Cox: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion. I believe we're ready for a
vote. Laura, can you do a roll call vote please.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner Ako?
Mr. Ako: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Chiba?
Mr. Chiba: Aye.
21
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner DeGracia?
Mr. DeGracia: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Thank you. Commissioner Otsuka?
Ms. Otsuka: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner Streufert?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Chair Cox?
Chair Cox: Aye.
Ms. Barzilai: Six Ayes, Madam Chair, Motion Passes 6:0.
Chair Cox: Thank you. And just as a reminder to all of us that the deferral of the Agency Hearing
has been approved as an open-ended deferral. And so, these, it will return to the Commissioners
agenda after the requested materials are submitted and proper notice and publication is completed.
Mr. Trask: Thank you, Chair. For the record, Mauna Kea Trask. I just want to clarify that given
the open deferral; interveners are still parties to this proceeding as it goes forward. So, we were
entitled to notice and participate and be present at the agency here. Am I correct? We believe that's
correct under the Planning Commission Rules.
Chair Cox: I believe that is correct. Laura, can you clarify.
Ms. Barzilai: Yes, Madam Chair, the intervener maintains their status because this is a Continued
Agency Hearing.
Mr. Trask: Thank you so much for the clarification appreciate.
Chair Cox: Thank you. So, we now need a motion to close the Unfinished Business so that we can
move on in the agenda. Is there such emotion?
Ms. Otsuka: I motion to close Unfinished Business.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I Second.
Chair Cox: All those in favor? Do we need a roll call for this, Laura?
Ms. Barzilai: I think a voice vote would be fine, Madame.
Chair Cox: All those in favor say aye. Aye. (Unanimous voice vote) Aye. All those opposed.
Hearing none. Thank you. Motion carried 6:0. Thank you very much for everyone's patience and
22
commitment, and I believe we'll go back to the rest of the agenda.
Ms. Nielson: Thank you.
New Agency Hearing
Mr. Hull: There is no New Agency Hearing.
Continued Public Hearing
Mr. Hull: There is no Continued Public Hearing
New Public Hearing
Mr. Hull: There is no New Public Hearing
All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports
AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-88-10,
CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-88-39), USE PERMIT (U-88-31), and SPECIAL
PERMIT (SP-88-6) to allow construction of a paved parking lot containing approximately 90
off-street parking stalls, landscaping, and related improvements on a parcel situated on the
mauka side of Po’ipu Road, situated directly across the Grand Hyatt Kauai Resort & Spa,
affecting a portion of the Poipu Bay Golf Course further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9-
001:007, and affecting an area approx. 1.3 acres in size.
Mr. Hull: Thank you Madam Chair, members the Commission. Moving on to Agenda Item G
Consent Calendar. So, unless a commissioner wanted to discuss any of the Consent Calendar
Agenda Item, the Department would be asking for a motion to receive the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar.
Chair Cox: Is there a motion?
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: I motion to (unintelligible) Calendar.
Ms. Otsuka: I second.
Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous voice vote) Aye. All those opposed. Hearing none. The Motion carried 6:0.
23
NEW BUSINESS.
For Action - See Agenda F for Project Descriptions
Mr. Hull: We have no New Business.
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 26, 2021. 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 Madam Chair, moving on to Announcements the next meeting Planning
Commission meeting is scheduled for October 26, 2021. On that agenda currently we have
tentatively the Hyatt parking lot expansion proposal, as well as the Seacliff application for the
Greens residences returning to the commission. Upcoming, you know, for future just on the horizon
we a lot more zoning amendments that council has forward over to us concerning the zoning
ordinance. And one in particular how condominium property regime rules are implemented.
But nothing else. Just so you are aware, we are not having a second meeting in November, as that
it could conflict with members of the public as well as Commissioner as possible holiday activities.
And then, just say also aware that it’s also common practice, that if we hold a meeting in
December, it's just generally the first meeting and not the second meeting for the same reasons as
the November meetings. If there's any topics you folks would like to see us bring to the agenda
item, you can let us know and we can work with the Chair. Other than that, that’s all we have to
report.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cox: Thank you, Kaaina. I believe we are done if somebody would like to move that we
close the meeting.
Ms. Otsuka: I move that we adjourn today’s meeting.
Ms. Nogami-Streufert: Second.
Chair Cox: All those in favor say aye? Aye. (Unanimous voice vote). All those opposed. Hearing
none. I believe we are adjourned. Motion carried 6:0. Thank you.
Chair Cox: adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.
24
Respectfully submitted by:
Arleen Kuwamura,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval).
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.
F.2.a.
May 24, 2022
F.2.a.
June 14, 2022 X
Ka'aina S.Hull
I^irector ofPlanning
I.SUMMARY
Action Rcquired by
Planning Commission:
Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa
Dcputy DircctorofPlanning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR'SREPORT
Consideralion ofClass IV Zoning Permit,Use Pcrmit and Special
Permit to allow construction of a new commercial helicopter tour
and rcpair facility,and associatcd site improvements
Permit Application Nos.Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-4
Use Permit U-2022-4
Namc of Applicant(s)AIRBORNE AVIATION,INC.
II.PERMIT INFORMATION
-F.1t.^.i<
FEB O 8 2022
PERMITS REQUIRED
S Vsc Permit Pursuant to Section 8-2.4 ofthe KCC,1987,as amended,a
Use Permit is required since the project site is within the
Special Treatmenl -Public District (ST-P).
11 Project Developmcnt Use
Permit
11 Variance Permit
11 Special Permit
^]Zoning Pcrmit Class
a iii
Pursuant to Section 8-8.4 ofthe KCC,1987,as amendcd,a
Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requircment for
obtaining a Use Permit in the Gcncral Industrial (I-G)
zoning district.
11 Special Managcmcnt Area
Permit
Usc
D Minor
AMENDMENTS
Zoning Amendment
[_]General Plan Amendment
1I State Land Usc District
Amendmcnt XF.2.a.1.
May 24, 2022
F.2.a.1.
June 14, 2022 X
Date ofRcceipt ofCompletcd
Application:
Datc ofDirector s Report:
Date ofPublic Hearing:
Deadline Date for PC to Takc Action
(60T"Day):
III.PROJECTDATA
Decembcr 21,2021
January 25,2022
FEBRUARY 8 ,2022
March 26,2022
IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 8-3.1(f),KCC:This report is being transmitted to the Applicant and
Planning Commission in ordcr to satisfy the
requircmcnts ol'Section 8-3.l(f),relating to the
provision ofthe Plamiing Director's rcport and
rccommendation on the subject proposal within sixty
(60)days ofthe filing ofa completed application.The
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Dlrector's Report
Airbome Aviation,Inc,
1.11.2022
2 1 P age
PROJECT INFORAMTION
Parcel Location:Lihuc Airport Terminal
The project sitc is located along the makai side ofAhukini Road in
LThu'e,situated approximately 1,000 feet north ofthe LThu'e Airport
terminal.
Tax Map Key(s):3-5-001:008(Por.)Arca:Approx.61.5 acres
ZONING &DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Zoning:General-Industrial (I-G)
State Land Usc District:Urban
Gencral PIan Designation:Transportation
Hcight Limit:50 feet
Max.Land Coveragc:50%oflotarca
Parking Rcquirement:1 parking stall per 200 s.f.office space,1 stall for
every three (3)employees,1 stall per customer.
Total required =TWENTY-ONE (21)min.
Front Setback:lOfeet
Rear Setback:lOfeet
Side Setback:5feet
Community Plan Area:NA
Community Plan Land Usc
Designation:
NA
Dcviations or Varianccs Rcquested:NA.
application was reccivcd on Deccmber 21,2021,and the
Applicant,through its authorized agent,was notified
accordingly ofthe Planning Dcpartment's intcnt to
commence permit processing.
Public Hearing Date:FEBRUARY 8,2022
V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE
As noted in the Application,the Applicant is leasing I-ot D within the Llhu'e Airport AOA,
which is under the State ofHawai'i,Department of Transportation -Airports Division
jurisdiction.The project involves the construction ofanew 8,400 square feet (SF)hangar
facility that will be used to store/repair its helicopters as well as serve as its customer tour
office and associated appurtenances.The project is intendcd to accommodate the
Applicant's helicopter tour services.As represented,the Application involves thc
following improvements:
As proposed,the proposed warehouse/repair facility measurcs approximately 105'X 80
and complies with the building height requirement within the Comprehcnsive Zoning
Ordinance (CZO),refer to Section 9 ofthc Application.
For further details ofthe project,please refer to Scctions 3 through 5 ofthc Application.
VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION
PIease refer to Application.
3|Page
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airbome Aviotion,Inc.
1.11.2022
Typc oflmprovemcnt Dcscription
I-Iangar Structure Measurc approximately 105'X 80'.It features:
o Hangar -Helicopter Storage/Repair
o Office spaces
o Work/Storage Rooms
o I-obby
o Rcstrooms
Site Improvements Several associatcd improvemcnts necessary with the
proposed facility which includes:
o Onsite parking lot for its employces and
customers
o Twenty-Two (22)stalls provided
VII.AUDITIONAL FINDINGS
1.The subject property is located within the Lihu'c Airport AOA,which situated on thc
northern side oflhc airport facilily lowards thc Ahukini Landing Area and is under the
administration ofthe State Department ofTransportation (DOT),Airports Division.
2.The adjacent properties to the east and south are also located within the County General
Industrial (I-G)zoning districts,and are also under the administration ofthe State DOT
Airports Division.Adjacent properly to the west,across Ahukini Road,is fallow
agriculture land with a similar industrial zoning designation.
3.General Plan
1.Section 5.4.4.1 ofthe Kaua'i Genera]Plan sets the following polices concerning
"Transportation":
a.Lands includcd within the Transportation dcsignation shall be used
predominately for major shipping and transportation facilities.Uses
include commercial harbors and airports managed by the State of
Hawai'i Department ofTransportation.
b.Transportation uses have industrial characteristics such as high noise
levels,and shall be buffered from surrounding urban uses.
In addition,Section 4.7.1.1 further states:
"The LThu'e Airport,located about onc mile east ofLIhu'e Town,serves as
Kauai's primary gateway for all arriving and departing residents and visitors.The
Airport was modernized in 1 986 with a new,expanded terminal and a second
runway.AI1 overseas passcnger service,interisland commuter service,and cargo
service uses I.ihu'e Airport.In addition,hclicopter operation are centralized in
LThu'e,with hcliport facilities located adjacent to the commuter terminal.'I'he
Airport encompasses approximately 834 acres ofland and is owned and operated
by the Statc ofllawai'i as part ofthe statewide airport system."
4.Existine Land Use Permits
The following information represents land usc approvals/permits associated with the
Llhu'e Airport property:
o Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-87-36 -This application received approval by
the Planning Commission on January 28,1987,and it authorized the
expansion ofthe runway and construction ofa Hre training pit.
o Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-90-18 -This application received approval by
the Planning Commission on November 9,1989 and it authorized the
construction ofalail way,aircraft apron,and air cargo building.
4|Page
Z^IV-2022-4,U-2022-4:Director's Report
Airborne Avialion,Inc.
1.11.2022
o Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2008-13 and Shorcline
Setback Variance SSV-2008-3 -This application receivcd approval by Ihe
Planning Commission on April 24,2009 to allow improvements to stabilizc
the old Ahukini dumpsitc.
o Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2017-5,Use Permit U-2017-5,and Special
Pcrmit SP-2017-2 -This application received approval by the Planning
Commission on February 14,2017,to allow construction ofa new
tcrminal/administration facility,fueling area,aircraft hangar and associatcd
improvements.
o Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2017-13,Use Permit U-2017-11,and Spccial
Permit SP-2017-6 -This application receivcd approval by the Planning
Commission on July 25,2017,lo allow construction ofa new fuel farm
facility and associated site improvements.
5.Access
Access to the proposed facility is through Ahukini Road,and it is also adjacent to a
private driveway offAhukini Road (Keaolewa Street).
KCC DEVELOPMENT S'l'ANDARDS &APPLICABLE REOUIREMENTS
As proposed,the project complies with the building height and setback requirements
for development,as specified in Sections 8-7.3,ofthe Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (CZO).
a.Off-Strcct Parking —As reprcsented in thc Application,a tolal of22 parking
stalls will be provided.Section 8-7.3(e)(3)ofthe CZO specifies:
6.
o
o
o
One (1)parking stall for each three (3)employees,or one (1)parking stall
for evcry five hundred (500)square fcet ofgross floor area ofthe buildings
where the number ofemployees is unknown;
One (1)parking stall designated for visitors for each two hundred (200)
square fect ofoffice spacc;and
Parking spaces for trucks,equipment,or other vehiclcs used in the conduct
ofthe business.
For the 8,500 SF warehouse building,a minimum oftwenty-one (21)parking
stalls would be required.In addition,the Applicant shall provide parking for
each company vehicle and that information was also not provided in Ihe
Application.As such,the Applicant should providc a minimum of 21 off-street
parking stalls plus the number ofdisclosed company vehicles.Howcver,the
Applicant should be madc cognizant that Planning Director may increase
parking requirements when particular uses or localions occur in areas whcre
unusual traffic congestion or conditions exist or are projected.
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviation,Inc,
1.11.2022
5|Page
b.Building Height &Sctbacks:As proposcd,the projcct complies with building
height and setbacks spccified in Section 8-7.3 ofthe KCC.
c.EIA Fees:The Applicant will bc subjcct lo thc rcquiremenls ofScction 11A-
2.2 ofthe Kauai County Code (K.CC),relaling to the payment ofthc
Hnvironmental Impacl Assessment (EIA)Fce per square foot ofgross building
area.
VIII.AGENCY COMMENTS
AttachedasExhibit'A'.
IX.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
In evaluating the applicant's request to construct a new administralion building/terminal
facilily and associated improvements,the following should be considered:
1.GENERAL PLAN ('GP-l
The property is designatcd as "Transportation"in the GP and Section 2.2 (9)sets forth
policies ofthe Industrial and Transportation designation.It specifies:
"These designations apply to areas that exclusively accommodate
business,transportation,production-orientated,and light industrial uses.In
general,these uses need to be buffered from surrounding land uses due to
noise and other considerations.Lands within the Transportation
designation are uscd predominantly for major shipping and transportation
facilities including Lihu'e Airport,Nawiliwili Harbor,and Port Allen
Harbor."
The proposal is consistent with the designation in that it would serve and support the
Applicant's commercial hclicopter tour operations at I-Ihu'e Airport.Further,thc
Applicant's rcpair,storagc and support staffis appropriately located in an area that is
designated for such use,which is also consistenl with uses found in an industrial/
transportation designation.
The proposed development satisfies the following policics ofthe General Plan,as taken
from Section 1.4:
a.Section 1.4,entitled "POLICIES TO GUIDE GROWTII"
1)Policy #1 Manage Growth to Prcserve Rural Character"-The project
is within the "Transportation"designation whcre transportation related uses
arc found.Thc proposed development is directly related to the Applicant's
commercial helicoptcr tour operations out ofthe Llhu'e aiqiort tcrminal.
Z-IV-2022-4.U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviation,Inc.
I.I 1.2022
6 1 Pag e
2)Policy #3 "Rccognize thc Idcntity ofKauai's Individual Towns and
Districts"-As previously mentioned,the project sitc is locatcd within the
LThu'e airport terminal where it is comprised ofindustrial and commercial
developments.It is consistent with thc surrounding uses in that area.
3)Policy #4 "Design Hcalthy and Completc Ncighborhoods -The project
is located within the transportation hub ofLThu'e/Nawiliwili.As a result,it
is advantagcous to have uses that support Uhu'c and its users which is in
close proximily ofthe harbor facilities.
4)Policy #6 "Reduce thc Cost ofLiving"-The development will assist in
allowing people to work and live within the Lihu'c area.Proving industrial uses
that support the users of the airport and harbor arca could help reduce the
transportation expcnses for those users,which could indirectly benefit its
cmployces.
5)Policy #7 "liuild a Balanccd Transportation System"-Having Ihe
proposed facility near the airport &heliport would alleviate any potcntial
transportation problems related to thc shuttling of customers from an off-site
location.
6)Policy #8 "1'rotect Kauai's Scenic Beauty"-The project is not close to
any scenic byways,open space acquisition priorities,recognized preserve
areas or wetlands.The nearest resource identified by the Kaua'i General
Plan Llhu'e Hcritage Resource Map is Hanama'ulu Bay/Ahukini Landing,
situated to the north ofthe project site.
7)Policy #10 "Hclp Busincss Thrive"-Thc proposed developmcnt supports
and fostcrs small businesses in the Lihu'e area as wcll as nearby
communities (Nawiliwili).
8)Policy #16 "Protcct Acccss to Kauai's Trcasured Places"-Due to its
location wilhin the LThu'e airport terminal,the proposed devclopment would
not have an impact on thc public's access to nearby streams,the shoreline,
trails,rccreational areas,or placcs associated with Hawaiian religious,
cultural,or traditional practices.
2.Use Permit
a.Thc proposed request is to be evaluated pursuant to Section 8-3 ofthe Kaua'i
County Code (KCC),1987,as amended,relating to the standards ofissuance for
a Use Permit (as notcd below):
1)A Use Permit may be granted only ifthe Planning Commission finds that
the establishmcnt,maintcnance,or operation ofthc construction,
development,activity,or use in particular casc is a compatible usc and is not
detrimental to health,safety,peace,morals,comforl,and general welfare of
persons residing or working the neighborhood of the proposed use,or
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in Ihe neighborhood
or to the gencral welfare ofthe community,and will not cause any
substantial harmful cnvironmental consequenccs on the land ofthe applicant
or on othcr lands or waters,and will not bc inconsistcnt wilh the intent of
7|P age
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviotion,Inc.
1.11.2022
this Chaptcr and thc General Plan.
2)The primary purpose ofthe Spccial Treatmenl -Public Facilities (ST-P)
designation is to ensure that the subject district is used to accommodate
facilities used by thc general public.The subjcct proposal meets that
purpose in thal it contributes to Ihc heliport/airport facility by centralixing
the Applicant's operations into that designated arca,as it was originally
intended for.
3)As designed,the proposed building and use is consistcnt wilh thc criteria in
granting ofa Usc Permit.The facility is located within the State DOT's
airport complcx and is compatible with the surrounding airport uses.
4)As proposed,the facility would not be delrimental to the health,safety,
peace,morals,comfort and the general welfare of pcrsons working in the
area,as the use would not entail any dangerous or haxardous activitics that
currently existing at the project site,would not general any additional traffic
and noise,and would not have any harmful environmental consequences.
3.Proiect Considerations/Development Standards
a.It is noted thal thc Applicant currently works out ofthe airport terminal arca
but does not havc a structure to house all its operations.Like similar
hclicopter tour operations,it will become centralizcd and more cuslomcr
friendly (much more visible).As such,it will be necessary to provide off-
street parking for its customers and employees.'l'he Applicant would be
subjccted to the parking and EIA fee rcquirements noted in Sections 8-7.3(e)
and 11A-2.2 ofthe Kaua'i County Codc (1987),as amended.
b.In the unlikely event there are excessive parking issues generated by this
facility,Section 8-5.5(3)(E)ofthe CZO states that "the Planning Director
shall determine the distribulion of requirements for any particular use or
combination of uses and may increase parking requirements whcn particular
uses or locations occur in areas where unusual traffic congestions or
conditions exist or are projected.Therefore in an cffort to mitigate
unforeseen parking issues,the department reservcs the authority to increase
the parking requirements when particular uses cause unusual traffic
congestion.
c.It is uncertain as to whether thc Applicant has made provisions for night
illumination with the project,based on the preliminary plans that have been
submittcd.If so,night illumination should be designed to minimize adverse
impacts on the Fcderally Listcd Threatened Specics,Newell s Shearwater and
othcr seabirds.Night lighting should be shielded from above and directed
downwards and shall be approved by the U.S.Dept.ofthe Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service.If cxtemal lighting is to be uscd in coiincction wilh the
8|Page
Z-IV^2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviation,Inc.
1.11.2022
d.
proposed project,all cxtemal lighting should be only ofthc following types:
downward-facing,shielded lights.Spotlights aimed upward or spollightin^of
structures is prohibited.
Though the use is gencrally permittcd,the Applicant should institule the
"Best Management Practices"in order lo insure that thc operation ofthis
facility does not gcnerate impacts thal may affect the health,safety,and
welfare ofthosc in the surrounding area ofthe proposal.
Agency Comments -The Applicant should resolve and comply with all agency
requirements as recommended in the permit application review,including but not
limited to thc fire codc requirements as imposed by the County Fire Department,
drainage requirements for DPW-Engineering Division,wastcwater requiremcnts
for the State Departmcnt of Health (DOH),and the archaeological/historical
requirements ofthe State Historic Preservation Division (SIIPD).
X.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Based on the information contained in the Staff Rcport Findings and Evaluation,the
Planning Department concludes the following:
1.The project will not have significant adverse impacts to the environment or the
surrounding area.The proposal is gencrally in compliance with the criteria
outlined for thc granting ofaUse Pcrmit and Class IV Zoning Permit;and
2.The proposed use should not be detrimental to persons,properly,or the
environment in the surrounding area.
The Applicant should institute the "Best Management Practices"to insure that thc
operation ofthis facility does not generate impacts that may affect the heallh,
safety,and welfare ofthose in the surrounding arca ofthe proposal.
XI.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hereby recommended Class IV
Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-4 and Use Permit U-2022-4 be APPROVFJ)subject to the
following conditions:
1.The commercial helicopter tour and repair facility,and associated sitc
improvements shall be constructed and operated as representcd.Any changes
to the opcration and/or the respective slructures shall bc rcviewed by thc
Department to determinc whether Planning Commission review and approval
is required.
9 1 P age
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviotion,[nc.
1.11.2022
2.In accordance with Section 1 lA-2.2(a)ofthc KCC,the Applicant shall
submit to the Planning Department Environmenlal Impact Assessmcnt (EIA)
fees for the project prior to building permit approval.
3.Bascd on the proposal,Ihe Applicant shall provide a minimum oftwcnty-
one (21)off-street parking stalls.However,thc Applicant is madc aware
thal in an effort to mitigate unforeseen parking issues,the department
reserves the authority to incrcase the parking requiremcnts when
particular uses cause unusual traffic congestion.
4.In order to minimize adverse impacts on the Federally Lisled Threatened
Species,Newell's Shearwater and other seabirds,all external lighting shall be
only ofthe following types:downward-facing shielded lights.Any spotlights
aimed upward or spotlighting of structures,landscaping,or the ocean shall be
prohibited.
5.The Applicant shall develop and utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's)
during all phases ofdevelopment in order to minimize erosion,dust,and
sedimentation impacts oflhe project to abutting propertics.
6.The Applicant shall resolve and comply wilh all agency requiremcnts as
recominended in the permit application review,including but not limited to the
fire code requirements as imposed by the County Fire Dcpartmenl,drainage
requirements for DPW-Engineering Division,and the wastewater requirements
ofthe State Department ofHealth (DOH).
7.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 ccase and the
applicant shall contact the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources,
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)and the Planning Dcpartment to
determine mitigation measures.
8.To the extent possible within the confines ofunion requirements and
applicable legal prohibitions against discrimination in employment,the
applicant shall scek to hire Kaua'i contractors as long as they are qualified
and reasonably compctitive wilh othcr contractors,and shall seck to employ
residents ofKaua'i in temporary construction and permanentjobs.It is
recognized that the applicant may have to employ non-Kaua'i residents for
particular skilledjobs where no qualified Kaua'i rcsident possesses such
skills.For the purposes ofthis condition,Ihe Commission shall relieve the
Applicant ofthis rcquirement ifthe applicant is subjected to anti-compctitivc
restraints on trade or other monopolistic praclices.
9.The Applicant shall implement to the extent possible sustainable building
techniques and operational methods for thc project,such as Leadership in
Encrgy and Environmental Design (L.E.E.D.)standards or another
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4;Director's Report
Airborne Aviation,Inc.
1.11.2022
10 1 P age
comparable state-approved,nationally rccognized,and conscnsus-based
guideline,standard,or system,and stratcgics,which may include bul is not
limited to recycling,natural lighting,extensive landscaping,solar panels,low-
encrgy fixtures,low energy lighting and other similar methods and
tcchniqucs.All such proposals shall be reflectcd on the plans submitted for
building permit review.
10.Thc Applicant is adviscd that prior to construction and/or usc,additional
government agency conditions may be imposed.It shall be the Applicant s
responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respcctive agency(ies).
11.The Planning Commission reserves the right to add or delete conditions of
approval in order to addrcss or mitigate unforeseen impacts this project may
create,or revoke the permits through the proper procedures should conditions
of approval be violated or adverse impacts be created that cannot be properly
addressed.
The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the
Planning Department's final recommendation in vicw ofthe forthcoming public hearing
process scheduled for FEBRUARY 8,2022 whereby the entirc record should be
considered prior to decision making.The entire rccord should include but not be limited
to:
a.Pending government agcncy comments;
b.Testimony from the gcneral public and intcrcsted othcrs;and
c.Thc Applicant's response to staffs report and recommendation as provided
herein.
DAI,EA.lCUA
Planncr
Approved &Recommended to Commission:
KA'AIN/j
>r
s.i-rULi.
Planning
ll|P ag e
Z-IV-2022-4,U-2022-4:Director's Report
Airbome Aviation,Inc.
1.11.2022
Application for Amendment to
Special Management Area Use Permit (U)‐2001‐2
Hill Residence
5171 Aliomanu Road
Anahola, Kauai, HI
Prepared For :
Richard Hill, Owner
Prepared By :
Cogent Designs
P.O. Box 617
Kapa’a, HI 96746
January 22, 2021 F.2.b
May 24, 2022
F.2.b.
June 14, 2022 X
Project Statement :
The proposed project consists of the construction of a split‐level Boat Storage (1,564sf) and General
Storage (748sf) addition to the basement level mechanical room of an existing Barn.
The intent of the proposed project is to provide a storage space for a recreational fishing boat, boating
accessories, and general storage.
Ka Pa’akai o ka Aina Analysis :
The petition area had been developed as a residential property over several years in the early 2000’s.
No known cultural or historical artifacts were discovered at that time to the best of my knowledge. The
petition area does not contain, nor hinder any traditional or customary Native Hawaiian practices.
Should any cultural or historical artifacts be discovered during the course of the proposed project, work
would be stopped and State Historic Preservation Department shall be notified of their existence and
would be treated according to their requirements.
Applicant and Property Information :
Recorded Owner : Richard Hill
P.O. Box 691
Anahola, HI 96703
(408)828‐2857
Agent : Cogent Designs, LLC
P.O. Box 617
Kapa’a, HI 96476
Contact: Jon Kegle
(808)652‐0015
Tax Map Key : (4)4‐009‐005:005
Lot Area :8.1420 Acres / 354,666sf
State Land Use : Conservation, Agriculture
General Plan
Designation : Agriculture
County Zoning : Agriculture
Table of Contents :
Appendix A : Special Management Area Permit Assessment
Appendix B : Project Construction Estimate
Appendix C : Letter of Authorization
Appendix D : Supporting Land Use Maps
Appendix E : Existing Barn Drawings
Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Appendix F : Proposed Barn Addition
Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations
Appendix G : Site Photos and Legend
Appendix A:
Special Management Area Permit Assessment
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
I. Part A
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Address:Phone:
Applicant’s Status: (Check one)
Owner of the Property (Holder of at least 75% of the equitable and legal title)
Lessee of the Property Lessee must have an unexpired and recorded lease of five (5) years
or more from the date of filing of this application. If not, Owner(s) must
provide a Letter of Authorization.
Authorized Agent Attach Letter of Authorization
Contact Person:Address:
Phone:
Email:
PROJECT INFORMATION
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Site Address:Tax Map Key:
Lot Area:
State Land Use District:County Zoning:
General Plan
Designation:
Nature of Development:
*NOTE: An Environmental Assessment in accordance with HRS Chapter 343 is
required for actions requiring a Shoreline Setback Variance (SSV). Please
contact the Planning Department for further information.
Valuation of Development:
(Estimate Attached)
Date of Application:
808-652-0015
5170 Kukuna Road
Anahola, HI 96703
Conservation/Ag
Agriculture
Addition to Existing Barn for Boat and general storage
$486,752.25
January 22, 2021
Jon Kegle / Cogent Designs
✔
4-9-005:005
354,666 sf
Ag
P.O. Box 617
Kapaa,HI 96746
Jon Kegle
808-652-0015
jon@cogentd.com
P.O. Box 617
Kapaa,HI 96746
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 2 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 11/2016
II. Part B
The petitioner shall be responsible for filing the following required information with the
department before an application is considered complete:
1. A written description of the proposed project, location and a statement of
reasons/justification for project.
2. If property abuts a shoreline, a certified shoreline survey conducted by a registered land
surveyor within 6 months of an application shall be submitted, when required by the
Planning Agency.
3. A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all proposed and existing structures and
other pertinent information. Also, preliminary building sketch plans are to be submitted.
4. Any other plans or information requirements by the Director.
Note: An Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement that has been
declared adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or under
Chapter 343, HRS, may constitute a valid filing under this section.
5. Project Assessment:
a. Description of the area and environment involved including flora and fauna, and
other features;
b. Description of the existing land uses of the project site and surrounding areas;
c. Description of how the proposed project will affect the area involved and
surrounding areas. Specifically the assessment should evaluate if the proposal:
YES NO
i. Involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction
of any natural or cultural resources, including but not
limited to, historic sites, Special Treatment Districts as
established by the County of Kauai Comprehensive
Zoning ordinance, view planes or scenic corridors as
outlined in the Community Development Plans, and
recreation areas and resources;
Discussion:
The proposed project does not contribute to any irrevocable losses to any of the
aforementioned resources.
✔
Surrounding areas include beach front natural areas, and agricultural lots.
Existing land use of the project site is a residential complex and surrounding areas of ag lands
with primarily residential development.
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 3 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
ii. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment;
Discussion:
YES NO
iii. Conflicts with the County’s or the State’s long-term
environmental policies or goals;
Discussion:
YES NO
iv. Substantially affects the economics or social welfare and
activities or the community, County or State;
Discussion:
YES NO
v. In itself has no significant adverse effect but cumulatively
has considerable effect upon the environment or involves
a commitment for larger actions;
Discussion:
YES NO
vi. Substantially affect a rare threatened, or endangered
species of animal or plant, or its habitat;
Discussion:
YES NO
vii. Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise
levels; or
Discussion:
The proposed project does not create any detrimental impact to the surrounding
environment or limit existing uses.
The proposed project does not conflict with the County or State's policies or objectives.
The proposed project does not negatively impact the social welfare or economy of the
Community, County, or State.
The proposed project does not adversely impact the environment, perpetuate or contribute
to any existing negative impacts.
The subject parcel does not include any vulnerable flora or fauna, nor does the site contain
any critical natural habitat.
The proposed project does not create nor cause any air, water or noise pollution.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 4 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
viii. Affects an environmentally sensitive area, such as flood
plain, shoreline, tsunami zone, erosion-prone area,
geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water or
coastal water;
Discussion:
YES NO
ix. May have a major effect on the quality of the environment
or affect the economic or social welfare of the area; and
Discussion:
YES NO
x. Would possibly be contrary to the policies and guidelines
of the Rules and Regulations, the County’s General Plan,
Development Plans, and Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Discussion:
d. Evaluation of the proposed development relative to the objective and policies as
contained in Chapter 205A, HRS; and Section 3.0 of the Special Management
Area (SMA) Rules and Regulations: (complete following questionnaire)
RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES:
Objective
Provide coastal recreation opportunities accessible to the public.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
YES NO
1. Will the proposed development adversely affect coastal resources
uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in
other areas?
Discussion:
The subject parcel does not lie within any flood zone, tsunami, or erosion prone areas, nor
any wetlands or coastal waters.
The proposed project does not affect the environmental, social, or economic well being of
the area.
The proposed project is consistent with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
policies regarding rules and regulations.
The proposed project will not affect any coastal resources or recreational activities.
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 5 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
2. Will the project require replacement of coastal resources having
significant recreational value, including but not limited to surfing sites,
sandy beaches and fishing areas, when such resources will be
unavoidably damaged by the proposed development; or requiring
reasonable monetary compensation to the State for recreation when
replacement is not feasible or desirable?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Is the project site near a State or County Park?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. Will the proposed development affect an existing public access to or
along the shoreline?
Discussion:
YES NO
5. Will the proposed development provide public access to and/or along
the shoreline?
Discussion:
YES NO
6. Will the proposed development encourage expanded recreational use
of County, State, or federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and
waters having recreational value?
Discussion:
The proposed project would not displace any coastal resources or activities.
There are no State or County parks in the vicinity of the subject property.
The proposed project will not affect public beach access to the shoreline.
The proposed project does not include the creation of any additional beach access.
The proposed project will not expand and recreational shoreline uses, activities, or recreational value.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 6 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
7. Will the development generate point or non-point sources of pollution
that will affect recreation value of coastal area?
Discussion:
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES:
Objective
Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man-made
historic and pre-historic resources in the Special Management Area that are
significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
YES NO
1. Is the project site within a Federal, State and/or County designated
historical/cultural district?
Discussion:
YES NO
2. Is the project site listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National
Register of Historic Places?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Does the project site include land(s) which have not been previously
surveyed by an archaeologist?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. If an archeological survey has been conducted for the project site, has
the survey been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for
review and recommendations?
The proposed project does not create any sources of pollution that would impact coastal areas.
The subject parcel does not lie within any designated historical or cultural districts.
The project site is not listed, nor would qualify, for inclusion in the State or National historic register.
An archeological survey was performed as part of approval of Use Permit (U)-2001-2.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 7 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
Discussion:
YES NO
5. Has any site survey revealed any information on historic or
archaeological resources? (Please provide a copy or reference of
survey)
Discussion:
YES NO
6. Is the project site within or near a Hawaiian fishpond?
Discussion:
YES NO
7. Is the project located within or near a historic settlement area?
(Cemeteries, burials, heiaus, etc.)
Discussion:
SCENIC & OPEN
SPACE
RESOURCES:
Objective
Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal
scenic and open space resources.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
YES NO
1. Does the project site abut or affect a valued scenic resources or
landmark within the SMA?
Discussion:
I cannot confirm that the archeological report was submitted to SHPD in 2001 at the time of the Use Permit
application and approval process.
I have not been able to locate a copy of the survey report and cannot verify the presence of any resources
that may have been discovered.
The subject parcel is not within or near a Hawaiian fishpond.
The subject parcel is not within or near any historical settlement areas.
The subject parcel is not within or near any valued scenic resources.
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 8 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
2. Does the proposed development affect existing shoreline open space
and scenic resources?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Does the proposed development involve alteration to natural landforms
and existing public views to and along the shoreline?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. Is the project compatible with the visual environment?
Discussion:
YES NO
5. Does the proposed action involve the construction of structures visible
between the nearest coastal roadway and the shoreline?
Discussion:
YES NO
6. Is the project site within the Shoreline Setback Area (20 or 40 feet
inland from the shoreline)?
Discussion:
COASTAL
ECOSYSTEMS:
Objective
Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse
impacts on all coastal ecosystems.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
The proposed project does not affect any shoreline or open area scenic resources.
The proposed project does not require the alteration of any natural landforms, nor will the proposed
development be visible from the shoreline.
A significant portion of the structure will be cut into the hillside to minimize the visual size and
landscaping will also minimize it's impact.
The proposed structure will not be visible from any public roads.
The project site is does not lie within the Shoreline Setback Area.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 9 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
1. Is the project site a habitat for endangered species of flora and fauna?
Discussion:
YES NO
2. Will the proposed development adversely affect valuable coastal
ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Will the proposed involve disruption or degradation of coastal water
ecosystems through stream diversions, channelization, and similar land
and water uses?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. Will the proposed development include the construction of special
waste treatment facilities, such as injection wells, discharge pipes,
septic tank systems or cesspools?
Discussion:
YES NO
5. Is there a wetland on the project site?
Discussion:
YES NO
6. Is the project site situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or
Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary?
Discussion:
The project site does not include any habitat for endangered species of flora or fauna.
The proposed project will not have any adverse affects on any coastal ecosystems.
The proposed project does not require any alterations to any waterways or coastal water ecosystems.
The proposed project will be connected to an existing septic system.
The subject parcel does not include any wetland areas.
The subject parcel does not lie within or near a Wildlife Refuge, Sanctuary, or Natural Area Reserve.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 10 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
ECONOMIC
USES:
Objective
Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State’s
economy in suitable locations.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
YES NO
1. Does the project involve a harbor or port?
Discussion:
YES NO
2. Is the proposed development related to or near to an existing major
hotel, multi-family, or condominium project?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Does the project site include agricultural lands designated for such use?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or
seafood production?
Discussion:
COASTAL
HAZARDS:
Objective
Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding,
erosion, and subsidence.
Check either “Yes” or “No” for each of the following questions. If your answer below is “Yes” or
“No” it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the “Discussion” section below the
question.
The proposed project does not include any harbor or port facilities.
The proposed project is not located near any existing hotels, multi-family, or condominium projects.
The subject parcel does not include any agricultural dedication lands.
The proposed project is residential in nature and does not include any commercial fishing or seafood
production.
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 11 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
YES NO
1. Is the project site within a potential tsunami inundated area as depicted
on the National Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM)?
Discussion:
YES NO
2. Is the project site within a potential flood inundation area according to a
FIRM?
Discussion:
YES NO
3. Does the project comply with the requirements of the Federal Flood
Insurance Program?
Discussion:
YES NO
4. Has the project site or nearby shoreline areas experienced shoreline
erosion?
Discussion:
YES NO
5. Have any seawalls/revetments/etc. been constructed or exist in the
immediate vicinity?
Discussion:
The project site appears to lie within the Tsunami Evacuation Zone and Extreme Tsunami Zone.
The subject parcel lies within Zone X, and does not require any flood related design requirements.
The subject parcel lies within Zone X, and does not require any flood related design requirements.
Shoreline areas along the property boundary are indicated to have erosion rates between 0 and .75 ft/year.
Proposed building site lies approximately 275' from the nearest shoreline.
The shoreline along the property is naturally occurring sandy beach and rocky outcroppings.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
PERMIT ASSESSMENT
- 12 -
SMA Assessment Application
UPD. 10/2013
PROJECT
ASSESSMENT:
e. Evaluation of the impacts which cannot be avoided and mitigating measures
proposed to minimize that impact:
Discussion:
f. Evaluation of the proposed development relative to Section 4.0 of the SMA
Rules and Regulations in accordance with the following aspects:
i. Substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects;
Discussion:
ii. Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the
goals and objectives of Chapter 205A, HRS; and Section 3.0 of the SMA
Rules and Regulations; and
Discussion:
iii. Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the
County General Plan, Development Plan, and Zoning Ordinances.
Discussion:
[name], [title] Date
All construction activities will employ best management practices to mitigate and minimize any
impacts to the surrounding properties and shoreline.
The proposed project does not create any substantial adverse environmental or ecological
effects.
The proposed project is in compliance with all State and County statutes, regulations,
and ordinances.
The proposed project is in compliance with the County General Plan, Development Plan,
and Zoning Ordinances.
Jon M. Kegle, Architect and Authorized Agent
Oct 30, 2020
Appendix B:
Project Construction Estismate
RS Weir General Contracting Inc
6332 Makana Road
Kapaa, Hawaii 96746
Lic.#'s BC-8159 & BC-19593
Mr. Rick Hill
5170 Kukuna Road
Anahola, Hawaii
2020.10.01
re: Boathouse/Storage Building Proposal
Mr. Hill:
We propose to build the boat house and attached storage as drawn by Jon Kegle of
Cogent Design for the lump-sum of $486,752.25. (four hundred eighty-six thousand, seven
hundred fifty two dollars and twenty five cents)
Proposal includes:
site preparation--building only
concrete slab with rebar and wire mats as specified
CMU and 2x6 wood framed walls with siding & battens. all HD structural tie-downs
(wood walls insulated R-19)
all roof framing and Firestone EPDM roofing.
(rafters insulated R-19)
windows in wood framed walls (only openings in CMU walls)
plumbing rough-in and finishing
electrical rough-in and finishing (includes LED ceiling lights)
painting
Billings made monthly on progress and stored materials. They will be made on AIA form G703
Schedule of Values.
Thank you for this work,
RS Weir
Appendix C:
Letter of Authorization
P.O. BOX 617
808-652-0015
KAPAA, HI 96746
JON@COGENTD.COM
Letter of Authorization
I, Richard Hill owner of lot T.M.K. (4) 4-9-005:005, enable Jon Kegle of Cogent Designs to act
as the Authorized Agent regarding the permitting of any and all worked on the aforementioned property
where Cogent Designs is the architect of record.
Appendix D:
Supporting Land Use Maps
%
%%
%
%
å
c
k
c
Ñ
Kilauea
Kilauea Bay
Moloaa Bay
Anahola
Kapaa
Wailua
Kealia
Kamalomalo
W
Electric Power (future)
Civic Center
Electric Power Plant
Correctional Center
Community College
Commercial Harbor
Airporte
Ì
#
Î
K C C
ÿ
ÿ
Small Boat Harbor>
Elementary Schoolc
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sugar Mill
Landfill
Intermediate/Middle School
Hospital
High School
Ñ
k
å
!;
B
ð
Public Facilities
Legend
Major Roads
Minor Roads
Transportation
Military
Park
Town Centers
Land Use Designation
Open
Agriculture
Resort
Urban Center
Residential Community
Planned Roads*
* actual alignment to be determined
N
2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet
Kawaihau Planning District
Land Use Map
PROJECT
SITE
+DZDLL60$/RFDWRU(VUL+(5((VUL+(5(*DUPLQ,QWHUPDS1*$86*6-DQXDU\ PL NP Project Site
Appendix E:
Existing Barn Drawings
Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations
1" = 80'-0"Site Plan : Existing
Appendix F:
Proposed Barn Addition
Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations
1" = 80'-0"Site Plan : Proposed
1/16" = 1'-0"Floor Plan
1/8" = 1'-0"Building Elevation : North1/8" = 1'-0"Building Elevation : South
1/8" = 1'-0"Building Elevation : East1/8" = 1'-0"Building Section1/8" = 1'-0"Building Section
Appendix G:
Site Photos and Legend
1/16" = 1'-0"Floor Plan
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5
Ka'aina S.Hull
Director of Planning
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by
PIanning Commission;
Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa
Deputy Director of Planning
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Consideration of an amendment to Special Management Area
Use Permit SMA(U)-2001-2 involving the constmction ofa split-
level boat storage (1,564 square foot)and general storage (748
square foot)addition to the basement level of an existing bam.
Permit Application Nos.Amend Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2001-2
Name of Applicant(s)RICHARD HILL
II.PERMIT INFORMATION
-F.^.^.'
V;\2001 Master FJles\Regulatory\SMA Permits\SMA Use Permits\SMA(U)-2001-2Umendment\CorTesspondenceUteport-l Amendment
1.25.22_SMA(U).2001 -2_HilI.docx
PERMITS REQUIRED
I1 Use Permit
1I Project Development Use
Permit
1I Variance Permit
I1 Special Permit
I1 Zoning Permit Class
DIV
Dm
^Special Management Area
Permit
Use
Minor
Pursuant to Section 205A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS)and the Special Management Area Rules and
Regulations of the County of Kaua'i,the change in intensity
of use of land,including but not limited to the division or
subdivision of land;which constitutes "Development".
Therefore,a SMA Use Permit is required as defined in
Section 7.3 ofthe SMA Rules.
AMENDMENTS
I1 Zoning Amendment
General PIan Amendment
XF.2.b.1.
May 24, 2022
F.2.b.1.
June 14, 2022 X
State Land Use District
Amendment
December23,2021
January 25,2022
FEBRUARY 08,2022
Date of Receipt of Completed
Application:
Date of Director s Report:
Date of Public Hearing:
Deadline Date for PC to Take Action
(60TH Day):February 21 ,2022
III.PROJECTDATA
IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 8.0,9.0,and 10.0 of This report is being transmitted to the Applicant and
the Special Management Planning Commission in order to satisfy the
Area Rules and Regulations:requirements of Sections 8.0,9.0 and 10.0 of the Special
Management Area Rules and Regulations.The
application was received on December 23,2021 and the
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richari Hill
January 25,2022
a|P ag e
PROJECT INFORMATION
Parcel Location:The project site are located off Kuhio Highway at the intersection of'Aliomanu Road,approx.0.58 miles east at the Kukuna Road terminus.
Tax Map Key(s):(4)4-9-005:005 Area:8.142 acres
ZONING &DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Zoning:Agriculture (AG)
State Land Use District:Agricultural (A)/Conservation (CON)
General Plan Designation:Agricultural
Height Limit:The maximum height of any building,other than
one intended primarily for residential use,shall be
fifty (50)feet
Max.Land Coverage:60%maximum
Front Setback:lO'-O"
Rear Setback:5'or !/2 the wall plate height whichever is greater
Side Setback:5'or '/2 the wall plate height whichever is greater
Community Plan Area:N/A
Community Plan Land Use
Designation:
N/A
Deviations or Variances Requested:N/A
Applicant,through its authorized agent,was notified
accordingly ofthe Plamiing Department's intent to
commence permit processing.
Public Hearing Date:FEBRUARY 8,2022
V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE
The proposed project involves the construction of a split-level boat house and general
storage area (see Appendix "F"Floor Plan).The split-Ievel boat storage area consists of
1,564 square feet and constructed out ofconcrete masonry unit (CMU)walls with a small-
pitched roof lines with a metal roofing finish.The general storage area consists of board
and batten siding with similar roof lines as the boat storage.(See Appendix "F"Building
Elevations)
Developments on the subject property was previously considered through Special
Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2001-2 and approved by the Planning Commission
on October 26,2000.The subject property has a county zoning designation of Agriculture
(A)and a portion is situated with the State Conservation Land Use District (CON).The
existing residence,existing driveway,and existing site improvements are located within the
State Conservation (CON)district area.The existing pool house,existing swimming pool,a
second existing residence,existing bam,and existing solar panels are located within the
county zone Agriculture (AG)district.The proposed bam addition of the boat and general
storage will be within the Agriculture zoning district.A portion of an existing solar panel
array will be removed and relocated onto the bam's roof to make room for the respective
construction improvements.
Refer to Appendix "E"&"F"for further details ofthe project and its layout.
VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION
See application.
VII.ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
1.The project site are located off Kuhio Highway at the intersection of 'Aliomanu Road,
approx.0.58 miles east at the terminus of Kukuna Road.
2.A portion of the parcel is situated with the State Agricultural Land Use District (A),
while the remainder is within the State Conservation Land Use District (C).The
proposal is within the Agricultural land use designation,which allows for agricultural
growth in a specific area.
3.The proposed development is a shoreline property and within the 500 feet shoreline
setback threshold,pursuant to the County s shoreline setback requirements contained in
Amendmentto SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richard Hill
Jmuary 25,2022
3|Page
Chapter 8,Article 27 ofthe Kaua'i County Code (1987),as amended will be applicable
to this project.A Shoreline Setback Determination Application will be needed to be
filed with the PIanning Department.The shore fronting the development experiences a
four-tenths of a foot erosion per annum.Given the average lot depth of the parcel area
and the setback calculations in Sec.8-27.3,Table 1 of the KCC,CZO the required
setback is ninety-seven feet (97'-0 ).The proposed development is approximately 333
feet away from the shoreline.
4.The subject property is NOT located within the Visitor Designation Area (VDA)and
the General Plan designation (GP)is "Agriculture".According to the GP,areas
designated as Agriculture are held in reserve for agriculture purposes with little
residential development.These areas range in scale from large agriculture fields to
small,diversified farms.
5.Most of the subject parcel is located within the Zone 'X'of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map and is outside of the 0.2%
susceptible to 1%annual chance floodplain.Areas ofthe subject property that abuts the
shoreline manly the northerly and eastem areas are in Zone "VE"coastal flood zone.
This parcel is also within the extreme tsunami evacuation zone;however,the new
addition will be constructed entirely within the Zone "X"portion ofthe subject site.
The development is not used for habitable puiposes and will not be subjected to flood
related design requirements.
6.The topography is relatively flat and grading of the project area will be very minimal
and not negatively impact drainage in the area.
7.Special Management Area (SMAJ
In addressing the issues of the Special Management Area and its objectives and
policies,the following aspects will be considered and evaluated:
a.Recreational Resources
b.Cultural/Historic Resources
c.Scenic resources
d.Coastal Hazard
e.Coastal Ecosystem
Furthermore,the proposal does not:
*Involve dredging,filling or otherwise altering any bay,salt marsh,river
mouth,slough or lagoon;
Reduce the size of any beach or other area usable for public recreation;
4|Page
Amendnientto SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richari Hill
January 25,2022
•Reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged
lands,beaches,rivers,and streams within the SMA;and
•Adversely affect water quality,existing areas of open water free of visible
structures,existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds,wildlife
habitats,estuarine sanctuaries,potential or existing agriculture uses of land.
8.CZO Development Standards
The proposed development is subjected to standards prescribed in Sections 8-4.3 and
Section 8-8.2 of the CZO.The following is noted:
a.Setback Requirements:Front property line setbacks are ten feet (10'-0")with a
side and rear property line setback of five feet (5'-O")or half the distance of the
plate height whichever is greater.
b.Lot Coverage:According to the County tax'records,Parcel 5 has an overall area
of 8.142 acres.The portion of the subject parcel where the proposed development
will be occurring is approximately 1.01 acres or 43,996 square feet,and has a
county zoning designation of Agriculture (A).This portion of the parcel is entitled
to a maximum lot coverage of sixty percent (60%)or 23,397 square feet.As
proposed,the total lot coverage within the Agriculture zoning district is
approximately 16,495 square feet or thirty-seven percent (37%),which includes the
existing bam,existing dwelling,existing pool pavilion,existing swimming pool,
existing driveways,existing photovoltaic solar array,new boat storage,new general
storage,and new portion ofdriveway.The thirty-seven percent (37%)lot coverage
complies with the allowable lot coverage within the agriculture zoning district.
9.Building Height
Pursuant to Sec.8-8.2(a)(l)ofthe Kaua'i County Code (KCC)1987 as amended,
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)allowable height for any building,other
than one intended for primally for residential use is fifty (50)feet.Appendix "F"
Building Section shows the height ranges of the general storage and boat storage are
approximately ten feet six inches (10'-6")to seventeen feet one inch (17'-!").
VIII.AGENCY COMMENTS
See attached Exhibit "A"
IX.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
In evaluating the Applicant's proposal,the following criteria are being considered:
1.GeneralPlan
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Repon
Richard Hill
Jmuary 25,2022
5|Page
The proposed development satisfies the following policies of the General Plan,as taken
from Sections 1.3 and 1.4:
A.1.3,entitled "VISIONS AND GOALS"
1)Goal #1 "Sustainable Island"-The proposed development is within county
Agriculture (A)zoning district and limited to a maximum lot coverage of sixty
percent (60%).The overall developments on the subject parcel consists of 37%
land coverage and complies the CZO development standards within the county
agriculture zoning designation.
2)Goal #2 Unique and Beautiful PIace -The subject site is a shoreline parcel.
The proposed development is away from the shoreline area and does not
negatively impact the rural character of the surrounding area.
3)Goal #3 "A Healthy and Resilient People"-The proposed boat storage and
general storage will not be used for residential purposes and will not contribute
to urban sprawl.The subject area also takes advantage ofrenewable energy by
not eliminating the existing solar array to make way for the constniction of the
boat storage.The existing solar panels will be relocated onto the bam's roofing.
(See appendix "E"site plan)
4)Goal #4 "An Equitable Place,with Opportunity for AII"-The proposed
development will provide temporary economic opportunities such as
construction opportunities to build the project.
B.Section 1.4,entitled "POLICIES TO GUIDE GROWTH"
1)Policy #1 "Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character"-The proposed
development is in within an existing residential area and should be consistent
with preserving the rural character of the neighborhood.
2)Policy #3 "Recognize the Identity of Kaua'i s Individual Towns and
Districts"-The proposed development is located an adequate distance from the
shoreline and the design of the proposed development is compatible with its
surrounding areas.As designed,it should not impact the unique rural character
of the area.
3)Policy#8 "Protect Kaua'i s Scenic Beauty"-The project site is located at the
end of Kukuna Road in the 'Aliomanu area.The proposed development would
be consistent with the previous development that was considered through
Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA(U)-200l-2.The height of the boat
and general storage ranges from approximately ten feet six inches (10'-6")to
seventeen feet one inch (17'-1")twenty-four six inches (24'-6"),well below the
6|Page
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richard HiII
January 25,2022
allowed maximum height of fifty feet (50'-0")within the County zoning
designation of agriculture for non-residential use sti-uctures.
2.Native Hawaiian TradLtional and Cultural Rights
Developments on the subject property was previously considered through Special
Management Area Use permit SMA(U)-2001-2.To the best of the Applicant's
knowledge,there are no known Native Hawaiian Traditional Cultural practices
involving the subject parcel.The proposed development does require ground
disturbance that may potentially encounter,affect,and/or impair iwi kupuna (bones of
ancestors)and previously disturbed skeletal remains.Should any cultural or historic
artifacts to be discovered the work shall be stopped immediately.The Planning
Department and the Department ofLand and Natural Resources (DLNR),State Historic
Preservation Department (SKPD)shall be notified.
3.SMA Rules and Regulations
The COK SMA Rules and Regulations contain objectives,policies and guidelines
designed to protect coastal resources.Within the SMA,special consideration is given
to recreational opportunities,cultural and historic resources,scenic qualities and open
space,coastal ecosystems,and coastal hazards.In evaluating the proposed
development relative to the goals and objectives ofthe SMA Rules and Regulations,the
following aspects are taken into consideration:
a.Public Access and Coastal Recreation -The project site does not contain any
public access or offer any recreation activities.Existing beach access to
'Aliomanu bay is located approximately .11 miles south of the subject parcel.No
public access to coastal recreation will be impacted.
b.Cultural/Historical Resources -The project site has been previously
developed.The Applicant noted that no cultural or historical resources were
discovered at the time of the original construction.However,the subject
project area has the potential of encountering iwi kupuna during construction.
Proper precautions to mitigate impacts to human remains and cultural artifacts
must be taken into consideration.
c.Scenic and Open Space Resources -The subject site is a shoreline parcel
however,the area of proposed development is located approximately 330 feet
away from the shore.(see appendix "D Land use maps).The proposed boat
storage will be cut into the existing hillside (see appendix "F"building sections)
to minimize any visual impacts from the roadway and the shore.Landscaping of
native plants will also be provided to help mitigate negative visual impacts to the
surrounding environment.
d.Coastal Hazards -The parcel is considered a shoreline property,however the
proposed development involves a portion ofthe subject parcel that is identified to
be located within the Zone 'X'ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agency
7|Page
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richard HiII
January 25,2022
(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map,and is outside the 0.2%susceptible to 1%
amiual chance floodplain.AIthough the parcel is within the extreme tsunami
evacuation zone,it is out of any Coastal High Hazard areas.Based on the Pacific
Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS)State ofHawai'i sea level rise
viewer website the subject parcel were analyzed using the Sea Level Rise
Exposure Area (SLRXA)at the 3.2 feet range for potential impacts ofpassive
flooding,annual high wave flooding,and coastal erosion.The portion of the
subject parcel where the development is located is not impacted by these coastal
hazards.
e.Coastal Ecosvstems -The proposed building site has been previously disturbed
and will not have any significant impact on the coastal ecosystem on any adjacent
properties or its surroundings.The proposed development is out of the shoreline
setback area and no erosion-protection structures seaward of the shoreline is being
proposed.The subject site is located in the vicinity ofprobable Newell's
Shearwater (aka.'A'o)flight path,and proper mitigative measures on external
lighting shall be taken to minimize potential impacts on this species.
X.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,it is concluded that through proper mitigative measures,the
proposed development can be considered,and it complies with the policies and guidelines
of the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations in that:
1.The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or
ecological effect.
2.The development is consistent with the objectives/goals/policies of the County
General Plan,the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,and other applicable
ordinances.
Furthermore,the proposal DOES NOT:
a.involve dredging,filling,or otherwise altering any bay,estuary,salt marsh,river
mouth,slough or lagoon;
b.reduce the size of any beach or other area usable for public recreation;
c.reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands,
beaches,rivers or streams within the special management area;and
d.adversely affect water quality,existing areas of open water free of visible
structures,existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds,wildlife habitats,
estuarine sanctuaries or existing agricultural uses of land.
8|Page
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Repon
Richard Hill
January 25,2022
Furthermore,through proper mitigation measures the proposed development would not
have any detrimental impact to the environment or the suiTounding area and is in
compliance with the criteria outlined for the granting of a Special Management Area Use
Permit.
The Applicant should institute the "Best Management Practices"to ensure that the
operation of this facility does not generate impacts that may affect the health,safety,and
welfare of those in the surrounding area of the proposal.
The Applicant shall implement to the extent possible sustainable building techniques and
operational methods for the project.
XI.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion,it is hereby recommended the
amendments to Special Management Area Use Permit for SMA(U)-2001-2 to be
APPROVED.If approved,the following conditions shall be implemented:
1.The proposed improvements shall be constructed as represented.Any changes to
said development shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine
whether Planning Commission review and approval is warranted.
2.Prior to commencement of the proposed development,written confirmation of
compliance with the requirements from all reviewing agencies shall be provided
to the PIanning Department.Failure to comply may result in forfeiture of the
SMA Permit.
3.The proposed boat and general storage shall not be utilized for any transient
accommodation purposes.It shall not be used as a transient vacation rental
(TVR)or as a homestay.This restriction shall be incoqiorated into the deed
restrictions of the subject parcel in the event the property is sold to another party,
draft copies of which shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
building permit application approval.
4.In order to ensure that the project is compatible with its surroundings and to
minimize the visual impact ofthe structures,the extemal color ofthe proposed
dwellings shall be of moderate to dark earth-tone color.The proposed color
scheme and a landscape plan should be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and acceptance prior to building permit apphcation.
5.The Applicant is advised that should any archaeological or historical resources be
discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area of the
archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the Applicant shall
contact the State Department of Land and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation
9[Page
AmendmenttoSMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richard Hill
January 25,2022
Division at (808)692-8015 and the Planning Department at (808)241-4050 to
determine mitigation measures.
6.In order to minimize adverse impacts on the Federally Listed Threatened Species,
Newell's Shearwater and other seabirds,if extemal lighting is to be used in connection
with the proposed project,all extemal lighting shall be only of the following types:
downward-facing,shielded lights.Spotlights aimed upward or spotlighting of structures
shall be prohibited.
7.The Applicant shall develop and utilize Best Management Practices (B.M.P's)
during all phases of development in order to minimize erosion,dust,and
sedimentation impacts ofthe project to abutting properties.
8.The Applicant shall resolve and comply with the applicable standards and requirements
set forth by the State Health Department,State Historic Preservation Division-DLNR,
and the County Departments of Public Works,Fire,Transportation,and Water.
9.To the extent possible within the confines of union requirements and applicable legal
prohibitions against discrimination in employment,the Applicant shall seek to hire
Kauai contractors as long as they are qualified and reasonably competitive with other
contractors and shall seek to employ residents of Kauai in temporary construction and
permanent resort-related jobs.It is recognized that the Applicant may have to employ
non-Kauai residents for particular skilledjobs where no qualified Kauai residents
possesses such skills.For the purposes of this condition,the Commission shall relieve
the Applicant of this requirement if the Applicant is subjected to anti-competitive
restraints on trade or other monopolistic practices.
10.The Planning Commission reserves the right to revise,add,or delete conditions of
approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts the project may,create,or
to revoke the permits through the proper procedures should conditions of approval not
be complied with or be violated.
11.Unless otherwise stated in the permit,once permit is issued,the Applicant must
make substantial progress,as determined by the Director,regarding the
development or activity within two (2)years,or the permit shall be deemed to have
lapsed and be no longer in effect.
The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the
Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing
process scheduled for FEBRUARY 8,2022 whereby the entire record should be considered
prior to decision-making.The entire record should include but not be limited to:
a.Pending govemment agency comments;
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richard Hill
J.muary 25.2022
io|Pa g e
b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and
c.The Applicant's response to staff s report and recommendation as provided
herein.
Byv
ROMIO IDICA
Planner
Approved &Recommended to Commission:
KA'AINA-S.HULL
Director of Planning
Date:V^\V>^
Amendment to SMA(U)-2001-5;Director's Report
Richari Hill
January 25,2022
ii|Page
EXHIBIT"A"
(Agency Comments)
For reference
Applicant:Richard Hill
Application Number:SMA(u)2001-2
Deadline 1-10-21
Sanitation Comments:
1.Noise will be generated during the demolition and constmction phase ofthis project.The
applicable maximum permissible sound levels as stated in Title 1 1,HAR,Chapter 1 1 -46,
"Community Noise Control",shall not be exceeded unless a noise permit is obtained
from the Department of Health.
2.Temporary fugitive dust emissions could be emitted when the project site is prepared for
demolition and when construction activities occur.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.
3.The waste that is generated by the project 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 burning of any of these wastes on or off
site prohibited.
Wastewater Comments:
None
Clean Air Comments:
1.Hawaii Administrative Rules Title 11,Chapter 60.1,Air Pollution Control contains
information on air permitting requirements.Ifyou need assistance in determining ifan air
permit is needed for your project (Noncovered Sources",depending on heat input
capacity and/or the combination of other fuel powered equipment located at the facility)
the Clean Air Branch can be contacted at (808)586-4200 or cab.generalw.doh.hawaii.gov.
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.
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4444 RICE STREET,SUITE A473 LIHU'E,HAWAI'l 96766
(808)241-4050
FROM:Kaaina S.Hull,Director (Romio)December23,2021
SUBJECT:
TO:
Special Management Are Use Permit SMA(U)-2001-2,Accessory Structure
Tax Map Key:(4)4-9-005:005,Richard Hill,Applicant
FOR YOUR COMMENTS (pertaining to your department):
No comments on project,but the only concern is plans will need to be submitted when
PV is installed on accessory structure.
This matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the County of Kauai Planning Commission on
2/8/2022 at the Lihue Civic Center,Moikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B,4444 Rice Street,
Lihue,Kauai,at 9:00 am or soon thereafter.If we do not receive your agency comments within one (1)
month from the date of this request,we will assume that there are no objections to this permit request.
Mahalo!
~D
Depanment of Transportation -STP DPW-Engineering~n
DOT-Highway,Kauai(info only)
~a
DPW-WastewatersDOT-Airports,Kauai (info only)
~0
DPW-Building~0
DOT-Harbors,Kauai (info only)s DPW-SolidWaste~w
State Department of Health
"D'
Department of Parks &Recreation~a
State Department of Agriculture
~w
Pire-Department /"CT
State Office of Planning s County Housing-Agency~0
State Dept.of Bus.&Econ.Dev.Tourism
'n'
County Economic Development"n
State Land Use Commission
~a
KHPRC~w
State Historic Preservation Division
~w
Water Department~u
DLNR-Land Management s Kaua'i Civil Defense~D
DLNR-Foresty &Wildlife
"D'
U.S.Postal Department~a
DLNR-Aquatic Resources
~s
UH_Sea_Grant~n
DLNR-OCCL
"u"
County Transportation Agency-D-
Other:
Kauai Department of Planning
Use Permit Application
Historic Property Interpretive Kiosk
Mitigation for the Hanapepe Bridge Replacement,
Kaumualii Highway,
Route 50, Island of Kauai
HI STP SR50 (2)
Prepared For:
Hawaii Department of Transportation
Highway Division – Kauai District
Prepared By:
JACOBS
Submitted To:
Kauai Department of Planning
AUGUST 13, 2021
F.2.c.
May 24, 2022
F.2.c.
June 14, 2022 x
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 2
Table of Contents
Section 1: Kauai Department of Planning: Application for Use Permit .................................................... 3
1 Applicant Information ........................................................................................................................... 3
2 Project Contact ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Project Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4
4 Project Location Details ........................................................................................................................ 4
5 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 5
5.1 Interpretive Kiosk Design .............................................................................................................. 7
6 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 8
7 Consistency with Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code. ..... 8
Section 2: Interpretive Kiosk Design Plans ................................................................................................ 9
Section 3: Interpretive Kiosk Sign Details ............................................................................................... 11
Section 4: Site Photos ............................................................................................................................. 13
Section 5: Coordination and Correspondence ........................................................................................ 15
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 3
Section 1: Kauai Department of Planning: Application for Use
Permit
Kauai Department of Planning Application Checklist
Item
Number Description Is item addressed?
(yes/no)
A. Pre-Application Meeting with Department of Planning ........................................... Yes
B. Completed Zoning Permit Application ..................................................................... Yes__________
C. Filing and Processing Fee ......................................................................................... Yes
D. Project Description / Petition ................................................................................... Yes (See Below)
E. Scaled Drawings: ..................................................................................................... Yes (See Section 2)
i. Site/Plot Plan
ii. Location Map
iii. Building / Floor Plans
F. Photos (labeled and keyed to a general site map) ................................................... Yes (See Section 4)
1 Applicant Information
Legal Name: Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Kauai District
Street Address: 1720 Haleukana Street
City, State and Zip+4 Code: Lihue, Hawaii, 96766
Contact Person & Title: Larry Dill, PE, District Engineer
Phone No.: ( 808 ) 241 - 3006 Fax No.: ( 808 ) 241 - 3011
2 Project Contact
Project Name: Hanapepe River Bride Replacement; USE PERMIT for Installation of Historic Property Interpretive Kiosk
in Hanapepe Town Park and Playground.
Government Project/Job No. (as applicable): HI STP SR 50(1)
Street Address: Mile Post 16.6, Kaumualii Highway, STATE ROUTE 50
City, State and Zip+4 Code: Hanapepe, Kauai Hawaii, 96716
Contact Person & Title: Lisa Hemesath, Environmental Protection Specialist
Phone No.: ( 720 ) 963-3473 Fax No.: ( )
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 4
3 Project Summary
Project Name Historic Property Interpretive Kiosk; Mitigation for the Hanapepe River Bridge
Replacement, Kaumualii Highway, State Route 50, Island of Kauai
Proposing/Determination Agency State of Hawaii Department of Transportation
Determination Categorically Exempt under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343.
Tax Map Key(s) [4] 1-9-005: 048 por. Hanapepe Town Park and Playground.
Existing Uses of the Project Corridor Park
State Land Use Urban District
Special Management Area No
Kauai General Plan Residential Community
Zoning Special Treatment (ST) Open District (ST-O) and Public Facilities (ST-P) designation
Project The Hanapepe River Bridge replacement project, which has been under construction since
April of 2018, is required to mitigate for adverse effects to the Historic Hanapepe River
bridge by designing and constructing a Historic Property Interpretive Kiosk. Included in
this Use permit application is a description of the proposed kiosk including location and
design details. Impacts from the development of the interpretive kiosk would be minimal.
Segments salvaged during the demolition of the historic 1938 Hanapepe River Bridge will
be repurposed into a historic property interpretive site within Hanapepe town near the
bridge site. This project would provide a historic interpretive site for residents and visitors
to the Hanapepe community to learn about the history of the area, Hanapepe town, and
the importance of the bridge to this community.
Purpose for “Use” Permit
Application
The project is applying for a Use permit to install an interpretive kiosk that contains
historic property interpretive materials including salvaged portions of the historic
Hanapepe Town bridge to document the historic character of this structure and provide a
place for reflection within the Hanapepe Town.
Anticipated Impacts Minor short-term construction related impacts (noise and dust) may occur, but the
implementation of best management practices would minimize the effects to the
environment.
4 Project Location Details
The project can be reached by driving from Lihue, Kauai on Kaumualii highway (HI-50) approximately 28
miles to the junction of HI-50 with Kona Road in Hanapepe Town. From there, turn north and drive
approximately 0.1 miles to the intersection Kona Road and Koula Road. The proposed Interpretive kiosk
would be located within Hanapepe Town Park, which is located on the western side of Kona Road within the
center of Hanapepe Town. The proposed kiosk location would be located at approximately 21.910348°, -
159.588366° in TMK [4] 1-9-005: 048 (por.). For additional location details refer to Section 2 of this
application for project maps.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 5
5 Project Description
The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) in partnership with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) is currently under construction
replacing the Hanapepe River Bridge crossing the Hanapepe River on the island of Kauai. The project began
construction activities in April of 2018 and is progressing towards construction completion towards the
end of 2021. Prior to construction, during environmental compliance activities, the HDOT and FHWA-
CFLHD coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), Native Hawaiian Organizations,
and various consulting parties on effects to historic properties. As the lead federal agency, The FHWA-
CFLHD determined that an adverse effect to two National and Hawaii State Registers of Historic Places:
Hanapepe River Bridge (SIHP #50-30-09-2280) and flood control levee (SIHP #50-30-09-2283) would occur
during construction. The Hanapepe Bridge, was a reinforced concrete tee beam structure built in 1938
and was deemed significant for its contribution to the areas of engineering and transportation in Hawaii.
The bridge was also significant for is associations with the development of Kauai's Belt Road system. The
bridge has also played a significant role in the history of Hanapepe town. The flood control levee is a large
earthen and piled basalt stone berm and was determined as eligible for inclusion in the National and
Hawai‘i Register for its association with community planning and the development of Hanapepe as well
as with federal flood control projects. To resolve the adverse effect on Hanapepe River Bridge and the
flood control levee/floodwall, the FHWA-CFLHD and HDOT entered into a memorandum of agreement
(MOA) that requires implementation of mitigation measures which resolved the adverse effect to these
historic properties. Two key mitigation measures from the MOA include:
• Prior to construction completion, FHWA shall develop and install interpretation materials (i.e
sign/kiosk) for the Hanapepe River Bridge project. The interpretive materials will include a
summary of the history of the Hanapepe Valley including but not limited to: A discussion of Native
Hawaiian history within the area; Hanapepe Town; a summary of the HAER documentation for
the Hanapepe River Bridge (SIHP # 50-30-09-2280) as well as its role in the development in
Hanapepe Town; The Hanapepe River watershed; Agriculture within the Hanapepe Valley; and a
summary of the HAER documentation for the Hanapepe River levee (SIHP # 50-30-09-2283). The
FHWA will prepare the interpretive materials and will consult with the SHPD and consulting
parties during the development of such materials. FHWA shall develop an outline, which
summarizes the contents of the interpretive materials to be developed, and will hold a scoping
meeting with the SHPD, consulting parties, and local community prior to interpretive material
development. This scoping meeting will also provide an opportunity for the collection of oral
history to be included within the interpretive materials. Two draft interpretive material reviews
with the SHPD and consulting parties will be conducted at 50% and 90% complete milestones.
The SHPD and consulting parties will be afforded 30 days to review and comment on the design
and content of the interpretive materials. The locations of the interpretative signage/kiosk have
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 6
yet to be determined. FHWA will coordinate with the SHPD and consulting parties to identify an
appropriate site for installing the interpretive sign/kiosk materials.
• FHWA will salvage character defining features of the Hanapepe River Bridge (SIHP # 50-30-09-
2280) including a segment of the Greek cross rail with lights and a Bridge end post/monument.
FHWA will make every attempt to salvage a Bridge end post/monument that has the bridge name
and/or date. FHWA will reduce the number of saw cuts during the material salvage by cutting
material at natural breaks within the structure. FHWA will stockpile and protect salvaged material
throughout construction with the intent to incorporate it as part of the interpretive signage/kiosk
area.
Throughout construction, the FHWA-CFLHD and HDOT have worked to satisfy the MOA stipulations
through the development of interpretive materials for these historic properties. To initiate this process,
character defining features and segments of the historic Hanapepe River bridge have been salvaged and
stockpiled on site while an interpretive concept could be developed. Next the FHWA-CFLHD and HDOT
initiated coordination with the SHPD and consulting parties on the MOA to outline concepts that could
be used in the interpretative materials.
During initiation of the kiosk development, two key elements were identified. The first being where the
interpretive kiosk should be sited and the second being what materials should be included within the
interpretive materials. FHWA-CFLHD has evaluated locations that would provide for the best
interpretive experience for the general public. The selection of a viable site has been contingent upon
finding a site that is suitable for providing an educational and aesthetic interpretive experience that is
easily accessible to the general public. Another key consideration included that the site occur within
Hanapepe Town, in close proximity of the project area so that the public can learn about project and
history of this area in the appropriate context with its original site setting. Representatives from FHWA-
CFLHD, HDOT, and Kauai County representatives met in 2019 to identify a suitable location to erect the
interpretive site. Several locations were reviewed in the field including the Hanapepe Library, Sites
adjacent to the Bridge, and Hanapepe Town Park. The Team ultimately elected the Park Setting.
To gauge community feedback, the FHWA-CFLHD and HDOT hosted a public meeting on February 6,
2019 at the Hanapepe Public Library from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Participants from Federal and State
agencies and the general public attended the public meeting. During the public meeting the public was
also asked to provide feedback on what they feel should be included in the interpretative materials
through a questionnaire. The questionnaire presented various themes and topics ranging from Native
Hawaiian history, Hanapepe Town history, Hanapepe River watershed, Agriculture within the Hanapepe
Valley, and Historic American Engineering Record documentation on the Hanapepe River Bridge and
Levee. Feedback received from the agency and public staff led to the development of the interpretive
materials that are provided within this application. Interpretive materials were shared with city council
for review and approval. Interpretive materials were also shared with the count of Kauai Planning
Department and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission for review. In an email dated
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 7
August 7, 2020 from William Trugillo, FHWA-CFLHD and HDOT were notified that the Kauai County
Council had approved the request to install the Interpretive Sign as presented. However, this
coordination also determined that a Class IV Zoning permit and a Use Permit would both be warranted
to construct the interpretive kiosk within the park. Details on the Interpretive Kiosk are summarized
below in support of these applications.
5.1 Interpretive Kiosk Design
The proposed interpretive kiosk would consist of sign panels and salvaged bridge components oriented
in an L-shape display constructed within Hanapepe Town Park. Work includes transporting the salvaged
bridge rail and end monument to the park location, construction of the foundation and an American’s
with disabilities act (ADA) accessible pad, installing the bridge railing and end monument on the
foundation, and purchase and installation of the interpretive signs. The sign panels will be installed
following the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Wayside Exhibits standards.
Additional details regarding the NPS Guide to Developing Outdoor Interpretive Exhibits, can be found at
the following location: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/hfc/upload/Wayside-Guide-First-Edition.pdf
The sign panel will consist of supports for three 3.5-foot wide sign panel measuring 42-inchs by 24-inchs
with a low-profile angle of 45 degrees. The sign panel materials will be porcelain enamel with the
following characteristics or better, unless approved otherwise by the FHWA-CFLHD in coordination with
the County:
• Description: sheet of steel with layers of baked-on glass frits and mineral oxides
• Strengths: superior image quality, durability, vandalism and scratch resistance
• Warranty: 25 years
The kiosk would result in a total area of disturbance of approximately 25-feet long by 20-feet wide. The
interpretive kiosk would include the following components:
• A 5-foot wide by 18-foot long ADA compliant concrete pad.
• An approximately 11 to 15-foot segment of salvaged bridge railing.
• An approximately 6.75-foot long rail segment and approximately 7’ long bridge railing end
monument.
• Three 3.5-foot wide sign panel supports which display three 42-inch by 24-inch interpretive
panels
Due to the weight of salvaged bridge elements, and to ensure safe viewing by the public, a concrete
foundation is required to secure the salvaged elements and sign displays to the ground. Prior to
construction the contractor will be required to provide stakes for the site location and layout. The
FHWA-CFLHD will afford the County the opportunity to do a precondition survey prior to constructing
the site. Additionally, the contractor will be required to limit impacts to the existing landscape including
trees, shrubs, and grass.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 8
Two locations within the Hanapepe Town Park have been identified on the detailed design plans
attached in Section 2 of this application. Site A is the preferred location for the placement of the
Interpretive kiosk and Site B is an alternate location if utilities or other conflicts are determined. Both
sites occur within the studied area for the proposed kiosk.
Section 3 includes a copy of the material that will be presented on the interpretive signs that will be
installed. Section 4 provides site photos of the kiosk location and Section 5 provides coordination details
during the development of this project.
6 Project Schedule
Construction of the Hanapepe River Bridge replacement has been on-going since April of 2018. Based off
of the current construction schedule, construction is anticipated to be completed later in this Calendar
Year. Additionally, the FHWA-CFLHD intends to utilize the prime contractor currently working on the
bridge replacement to also construct the interpretive kiosk. Construction of the bridge is scheduled to
be completed by November of 2021, and the FHWA-CFLHD is hoping to obtain all necessary approvals
prior to this date so that the construction of the Interpretive kiosk can occur concurrently with the
bridge construction activities.
7 Consistency with Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Chapter 8 of the
Kauai County Code.
In accordance with Section 8-3.2 of the CZO, a special use permit may be granted only if the Planning
Commission finds that the use meets the following criteria.
a) the use must be a compatible use;
b) the use must not be detrimental to persons or property in the area;
c) the use must not cause substantial environmental consequences; and
d) the use must not be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)
and General Plan.
County zoning provides the most detailed set of regulations affecting land development before actual
construction. As shown on the figures found in Section 2, the proposed interpretive site is located in the
special treatment (ST) Open District (ST-O) and Public Facilities (ST-P) designation, which was established
to create and maintain an adequate and functional amount of predominantly open land to provide for
the recreational and aesthetic needs of the community and to provide for the effective functioning of
land, air, water, plant, and animal systems or communities. In the project vicinity, the Open District
encompasses such natural and aesthetic features as the river corridor and adjacent open space areas. As
designed, the proposed interpretive kiosk is consistent with the current zoning and would not require
any zoning change. It would not result in any substantial consequences and is a compatible use with the
park setting within which it would be located.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 9
Section 2: Interpretive Kiosk Design Plans
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 10
Hanapepe Bay
ELEELE
HANA PEPE
Hanapepe TownPark and Playground
Hanapepe Park
Hanapepe R iverHanapepe Bridge Replacem ent Site
Hanapepe Bridge Interpretive Site
K a u m u a liiH ig h w a y (H I -5 0 )
Eleele Park
LEGEND
Interpretive Site
Parks
Parcels - Kauai
Roads - KauaiCounty
Historic Pr operty Interpretive Kiosk; Mitigation for the Hanapepe River Bridge Replacement, Kaumualii Highw ay, State Route 50, Island of Kauai
N01,000
Feet
Pr oject Area
Hanapepe TownPark and Playground
Hanapepe Bridge Replacem ent Site
Hanapepe Bridge Interpretive Site
Kaumualii Highway (H I-50)HanapepeRoadKonaRoadLEGEND
Interpretive Site
Parks
Parcels - Kauai
Roads - KauaiCounty
Historic Pr operty Interpretive Kiosk; Mitigation for the Hanapepe River Bridge Replacement, Kaumualii Highw ay, State Route 50, Island of Kauai
N0500
Feet
Pr oject Area
419005048
419005999
419004999
419005011
419004021
419005005
419005049
419005006
419005023
419005047
419006007
419005020
419005004
419005010
419005021 419005019
419004026
419006008
419004015
419005007
419005002
419005062
419005022419004025419005009
419007999
419005001
419005003
419005012
419005060419004019
419004018
419007999
419004023
419007999
LEGEND
Interpretive Site
Parks
Parcels - Kauai
Roads - KauaiCounty
Historic Pr operty Interpretive Kiosk; Mitigation for the Hanapepe River Bridge Replacement, Kaumualii Highw ay, State Route 50, Island of Kauai
N0200
Feet
TMK Parcel D ata
419005048
419005999
419004999
419005011
419004021
419005005
419005049
419005006
419005023
419005047
419006007
419005020
419005004
419005010
419005021 419005019
419004026
419006008
419004015
419005007
419005002
419005062
419005022419004025419005009
419007999
419005001
419005003
419005012
419005060419004019
419004018
419007999
419004023
419007999
LEGEND
Interpretive Site
Parks
Parcels - Kauai
Roads - KauaiCountyNatural
NeighborhoodCenter
Parks andRecreation
Historic Pr operty Interpretive Kiosk; Mitigation for the Hanapepe River Bridge Replacement, Kaumualii Highw ay, State Route 50, Island of Kauai
N0200
Feet
Kauai Gener al Pl an
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 11
Section 3: Interpretive Kiosk Sign Details
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 12
ʻELEʻELEM AKAW ELIHA
N
A
P
Ē
P
Ē
Waiokeoe
Kapalaoa
ʻUkulā
Nāmoemoe
Puʻuopāpaʻi
Puhi
Kapōhakukilomanu
Kawaipuʻua
Manawaiopuna
Kawaikini
ʻĀhua‘elekū
Kahipa
Kūāhua
‘A‘āwela
Peʻapeʻa PaliemoHōle
i
Hulua
Pu‘u ‘Aukai
Kapāhi
l
i
Puʻu Lehua
Pu‘u Kī
Molokū
Koakahai
Kauakahiunu
Puolo
Pualu
Akowai
Mākole
Kūwiliwili
Wailima
Haʻalulu
Hi
k
i
u
l
a KŌʻULAKahakauwila
Kālai (Kalae)
Kāhili
Kaluhi
Kekualele
Kapūnāwai
Kanalumālie
Kenakua
Kukekaloa
Mopunahoa
Oinioi
Olonawehe
Ooiki
Paakahi
Pa
p
al
u
Pōhākea
Hanapēpē Bridge
You Are Here
Pu‘u Auuka
Another Hanapēpē kaʻao, mapped in
brown, explains the origins of the
coastal ʻUkulā salt pans. One day Kia,
a Hanapēpē kamaʻāina (native-born),
began to cry because she feared the
extra fish she caught would be
wasted. Pele appeared to Kia as an
elderly woman and instructed Kia to
bury her fish so the salted earth could
preserve her catch. Pele harvested
Kia’s tears in a basin of ʻalaea (red
earthen clay), the first salt at ʻUkulā.
The area is also known as Waimaka o
Hiʻiaka (the tears of Hiʻiaka).
An ancient Hawaiian salt pan used in the present
ʻUKULĀ
MANUAHI
Mapped in yellow, the kaʻao of Nā
Mai‘a O Manuahi tells the story of
Kekanakaʻiʻimiʻike (the man constantly
seeking knowledge) who expertly
navigates Manuahi Valley to protect
two kupua (demigods), Melemele and
Polapola, from the greedy chief
ʻĀnunu. In gratitude, the two kupua gift
Kekanakaʻiʻimiʻike with prized
varieties of mai‘a (bananas) that
nourish the people of Kauaʻi for
generations. Kekanakaʻiʻimiʻike
eventually lives with Melemele and
Polapola as stars in the constellation
of Maiakū, also known as Orion’s Belt.
A valley named for the ʻalae ʻula bird from whom
Maui learned the secret of fire
Kekanakaʻiʻimiʻike’s path in Na Maiʻa o Manuahi
nā loʻi paʻakaʻi o ʻUkulā | salt pans of ʻUkulā
puʻu | peak or hill
wahi pana | storied place or other cultural site
wailele | waterfall
heiau | ceremonial structure
ahu | cairn for ceremony or landmark
pōhaku | boulder
loko iʻa | fishpond
ka ʻili o Manuahi | the subdivision of Manuahi
Waimaka o Hiʻaka | the place Kia and Pele meet
Hanapēpē, the name of this ahupuaʻa (ancient land division extending
from the mountains to the ocean), literally translates to “crushed bay,”
a reference to the frequent landslides of the area. Hanapēpē is an
abundant, dynamic ahupuaʻa, home to centuries and generations of
Hawaiian people. Long ago, settlements, agricultural and irrigation
systems, trail networks, and some of the largest, most numerous heiau
(temple complexes) on Kauaʻi were constructed.
Hundreds of wahi pana – storied places associated with Hawaiian
people, supernatural beings, and deities from across the archipelago
and Polynesia – are located throughout Hanapēpē Ahupuaʻa. Wahi
pana are remembered in oli (chants), hula (traditional dance), ʻōlelo
noʻeau (proverbs), kaʻao (legends), and many other art forms practiced
by Hawaiians today. As the memory of the people, wahi pana explain
or reveal a diverse abundance of landscape resources, and illustrate
the intimate relationship Hawaiians cultivated and continue to
strengthen with their land.
HANAPĒPĒ WAHI PANA:
A STORIED HAWAIIAN LANDSCAPE
Background Image: Aerial photo superimposed with the traditional land divisions
of Makaweli,Hanapēpē, and ‘Ele’Ele. Courtesy of Google, Maxar Technologies.
Hanapēpē Ahupuaʻa is rich in freshwater. Plentiful rainfall from
Mount Wai‘ale‘ale, the highest mountain on Kauaʻi, replenishes the
watershed – feeding the ancient rivers that carved the distinctive
valley canyons seen today.
Hanapēpē’s freshwater abundance has nourished centuries and
generations of communities. Hawaiian-engineered agricultural
systems maximized resources, productivity, and fostered
connection to ʻāina (land). Loʻi kalo (irrigated taro fields) were
developed throughout the ahupuaʻa, and loko iʻa (fishponds) were
built along the Hanapēpē River. The loʻi paʻakai (salt pans) of
ʻUkulā, visible in the historic aerial on the upper left, are spring-fed.
Families fished for moi (threadfish) and ʻamaʻama (mullet) at the
muliwai (river mouth) and for the prized ʻoʻopu (gobies) upstream.
In Hawaiian genealogy, “ulu mai la ua alualu la, a lilo i kalo” (people
come from the kalo plant). As an ancestor of Hawaiians, kalo
symbolizes the inherent responsibility Hawaiians have to care for
their land. Hawaiians introduced kalo to the archipelago and have
cultivated over 300 varieties of this food staple. Two kalo types are
well-adapted to Hanapēpē. Haʻo-kea, a fast-growing kalo, thrives in
the cold streams and shallow soils of the uplands. Na-kalo-a-ʻOla,
named for a ruling aliʻi (chief) of early Kauaʻi, is found in the highest,
inaccessible upland areas.
Hanapēpē’s expansive agricultural and aquacultural systems
supported a large population. Their conversion into historic-era
kalo, rice, and sugarcane cultivation fostered the growth of modern
Hanapēpē town and community.
HANAPĒPĒ AHUPUAʻA
MAUKA, MAKAI | FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE OCEAN
ABUNDANT WATER, DIVERSE FOOD SYSTEMS
Pele is also associated with Puʻuopāpaʻi and
the creation of subterranean lava tubes
spanning Hanapēpē Valley. Pele’s brother,
Kamohoaliʻi, the chief of sharks, swam up
these channels to the famed waterfall,
Manawaiopuna. Heiau (ceremonial structures)
like Kauakahiunu, the geometric coastal
structures and enclosures visible in the
historical aerial image to the right, were
dedicated to the freshwater deity Kāne and his
companion, the saltwater deity Kanaloa.
Hawaiians recognized the deep
connections of their land and
seascapes, from the highest
mountain peaks to spring-carved
subterranean realms, and the ocean
depths beyond the reef. Wahi pana
featuring water reinforce this vast
ecological knowledge. In the kaʻao
Keaomelemele, Pāpaʻi, the moʻo
(water spirit guardian) of Hanapēpē,
is concealed at Puʻuopāpaʻi, a
volcanic vent and freshwater spring.
Historic 1928 aerial photograph showing ancient
heritage sites of coastal Hanapēpē, including the
loʻi paʻakai and heiau associated with freshwater
resources. Image courtesy of UH SOEST.
Historic photograph of kalo and other
forms of agriculture in Hanapēpē Valley.
Image courtesy of Hawaiʻi State Archives.
Loʻi paʻakai on the northwest
coast of Hanapēpē peninsula
A bird’s eye view of traditional Hawaiian ceremonial and fishing
structures and settlement features, visible in the late 1920s on the
southwest coast of Hanapēpē Peninsula.
The Hanapēpē Bridge on Kaumualiʻi Highway is associated with the development of Kauaʻi’s
Belt Road system, and the commercial growth and social fabric of Hanapēpē Town.
Settlement in Hanapēpē began centuries ago with Hawaiian people, who established
villages, trail systems, heiau, agricultural and aquacultural complexes throughout the valley
and along the coast. 19th century accounts describe Hanapēpē as a fertile landscape with a
significant Hawaiian population under the leadership of the ruling chief Kaumualiʻi and the
high chiefs Kupihea and Kiaimoku.
Historic Hanapēpē town began in the mid-nineteenth century as an agricultural community of
Hawaiian kalo (taro) planters and Chinese rice farmers. Throughout the late 19th and early
20th centuries, more immigrant laborers arrived, expanding farming, establishing
businesses, and creating a lively nightlife, distinguishing Hanapēpē town from its neighbors.
During that time, Hanapēpē experienced flooding which frequently destroyed wooden
bridges spanning the river. In 1911, a concrete bridge and a swinging pedestrian footbridge
were built, improving reliable access and passage through the community. Although the
makai Hanapēpē Bridge, constructed in 1938, bypassed the town’s business center, it
provided opportunities for expansion and growth.
A Federal Highway Aid Project (FAP), the Hanapēpē Bridge was built using matching federal
and territorial government funds. It is the work of master engineer William Bartels and builder
James W. Glover. Technologically advanced and complex for its time, the bridge exemplifies
1930s-era concrete bridges on Kauaʻi. It displayed the refined aesthetic of distinguished
engineer William R. Bartels with Greek cross-type openings, distinctive end stanchions and
rectangular light fixtures with half-cylinder glass lenses. In 2016, the Hanapēpē Bridge was
named to the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER; HAER HI-137). Safety
concerns resulted in the demolition of the bridge in 2020.
Bridges in Hanapēpē were central to decades of life and community. They connected the
west and east sides of the town, and residents to commercial centers, public and agricultural
spaces. The Hanapēpē Bridge was a vantage point upriver and gathering place for
fishermen. Children played on the bridge and crabbed in the waters around it. Chickens,
pigs, crops, and nursery plants were also raised near the bridges.
Hawaiian and English-language newspapers reported widespread property damage and
loss from repeated catastrophic flooding. This prompted the construction of the Hanapēpē
Levee, an earthen and piled basalt stone berm (designated State Inventory of Historic Places
# 50-30-09-2283) between 1959 and 1966 on the left and right banks of the lower Hanapēpē
River. The levee consisted of 2,200 feet of levee and flood wall on the left bank, and 4,465
feet of levee on the right riverbank, which were enhanced in 1966 for greater flood protection.
The County of Kauaʻi currently operates the levee, which continues to safeguard the homes
and commercial buildings of Hanapēpē.
BRIDGES, FLOODING, AND HANAPĒPĒ:
CONNECTING, SECURING, AND GROWING A MODERN
COMMUNITY WITH ANCIENT ROOTS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hanapepe River Flood Control
(n.d.) map of the Hanapēpē Levee
Historic photograph of a man fishing in the Hanapēpē River.
Note the early 20th century railroad truss bridge in the
background. Image courtesy of Kauaʻi Historical Society.
Historic 1941 photograph of a woman standing on the Hanapēpē
Bridge on Kaumualiʻi Highway, looking mauka (toward the mountains).
Image courtesy of Hawaiʻi State Archives. See inset for location of the
left bank of the Hanapēpē Levee built between 1959 and 1966.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 13
Section 4: Site Photos
Photo 1. View of Hanapepe Town Park and Proposed Interpretive Kiosk Location.
Photo 2. Proposed Interpretive Kiosk Location.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 14
Photo 3. Proposed Interpretive Kiosk Location on western side of Kona Road.
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 15
Section 5: Coordination and Correspondence
2021-8-12 Kauai Use Permit Application Kauai Department of Planning
Page 16
Meeting Date: 11/20/2020 11:00 AM
Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting
Link to Outlook Item: click here
Invitation Message
Swafford, Aaron/DEN (Meeting Organizer)
Mike Will
Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL (Accepted in Outlook)
Lisa Hemesath
Larry Dill, PE (Accepted in Outlook)
William Trugillo (Accepted in Outlook)
Participants
Notes
Agenda
○Clarify the requirement prior to any potential meeting with Dale Cua in the Planning Dept and establish a
clear path forward.
•Hanapepe Interpretive Site Use/Zoning Permit requirement review with William.
○Discuss with Larry as HDOT will be the sponsor.
•HRS 343 Requirements with the HDOT exemption.
Discussion
William will look into it to see if it would benefit the process for HDOT or CFL.
William will also ask if the public coordination and agency consultations activities can be used to help the
application process.
Would it be better to have CFL or HDOT as the application?
COK list has a minor structure definition that will be used.
Nancy will develop the exemption package information and hand over to HDOT.
HDOT will process and send out to agencies for 30 day consultation
Nancy will provide a list of agencies.
HRS 343 HDOT Exemption for minor structures will be used.
Park development was stopped, no master plan at this time.
William will check with planners to confirm there is no conflict with the interpretive sign.
Need to coordinate with West Kauai Development Plan.
Nancy will send William the timeline of the public engagement and agency consultation to have at his fingertips to
show the level of engagement to get to this point.
HRS 343 Exemption will likely take two months.
William will ask planning on standard timelines and any opportunity to expedite.
It is in everyone's best interest to use the current contractor for the work and the project will be complete
by summer of 2021.
Site Use/Zoning Permit Application is unknown at this time
Timeline for Exemption and Application?
Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Coordination Meeting
Friday, November 20, 2020 10:26 AM
HIProgram Page 1
Email From Dale Cua on Nov 3, 2020:
Aloha Lisa,
My apologies for the belated response. After reviewing the materials you have transmitted, here
are the departments comments regarding the proposal:
Property Information
Please note that the subject property is situated within the Hanapepe Town Core and is zoned
Open (O) District/Special Treatment District -Public (ST-P).
Permitting Requirements
Pursuant to Section 8-11.3 of the Kauai County Code (1987), the project will require Use Permit
and Class IV Zoning Permit. Please understand that Use Permits are typically evaluated by the
Planning Commission through a public hearing process.
In addition, the project will involve County land that is managed by the County Dept. of Parks
and Recreation. As such, the project will be is subject to the Environmental requirements of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, more specifically, HRS §343-5.Based on the material
transmitted, it is not clear whether the project has obtained an exemption from this requirement
OR whether a Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the State has been rendered.
Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
For further clarification, the department is open to communication via a televideo conference.
Dale A. Cua, Planner
COK Planning Dept.
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473
Lihu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766
email:dcua@kauai.gov
_EXTERNAL
_ Re_ Han...
Email chain discussing the Interpretive Sign Review by the County:
From:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>
Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 2:36 PM
To:Hemesath, Lisa/EXT <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J
<lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Yes. That’s the form.
No determination application.
HIProgram Page 2
Talk to whoever you are talking to in Planning to get a final say.
William Trugillo
808-241-4927
From:Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>
Sent:Thursday, October 01, 2020 10:24 AM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J
<lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if
the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting.
William,
https://www.kauai.gov/Portals/0/Planning/Fillable%20Zoning%20Permit%20Application-[CURRENT]_
04082020.pdf?ver=2020-04-08-092938-737
Is this application you are talking about? It’s an application for a zoning permit.
We don’t know if we need a zoning permit, so is there an application for a determination if a permit is needed in
the first place?
Lisa
From:William Trugillo [mailto:wtrugillo@kauai.gov]
Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:47 PM
To:Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Dill,
Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Aloha, All,
Michael: this was not reviewed by Council as it was determined to be allowable by Administration.
Lisa: I cannot say for sure either way.My suggestion is to send an email to the Planning staff that you are speaking
to and ask for a determination on whether a zoning permit is necessary.Would be happy to help you with that as
it is usually a simple form.
Hope this helps.
William Trugillo
808-241-4927
From:Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>
HIProgram Page 3
From:Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 11:54 AM
To:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; William Trugillo
<wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if
the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting.
I just got off the phone with Kauai Planning Dept….there is someone there that is reviewing the content of the
interpretive display for the Kauai Historic Commission….and she told me that we may need a zoning permit in order
to erect the display in the park.
William, do you know if a zoning permit would be necessary from Kauai Planning Department?
Thanks,
Lisa
From:Will, Michael (FHWA)
Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:15 PM
To:Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN
<Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>;
Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Aloha William,
My apologies as I may have missed your response to Larry’s question below. Could your resend your response?
Thank you,
Mike
From:Dill, Lawrence J [mailto:lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov]
Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:32 PM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN
<Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>;
Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi William,
Did this go to County Council for approval?If so, would you please provide meeting minutes to show Council
approved it by vote?
Thanks,
HIProgram Page 4
Larry Dill, PE, District Engineer
Hawaii Department of Transportation
Highways Division –Kauai District
1720 Haleukana Street, Lihue, Hawaii 96766
(808) 241-3006 direct
(808) 241-3000 office
(808) 651-6184 mobile
(808) 241-3011 facsimile
From:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>
Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:33 AM
To:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>;
Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>;
Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN <Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
This can serve as the official notification.If you need anything else, please let me know (or send me a sample) and
we can make that happen also.
Mahalo, again, for your patience.Please keep me posted on the project progress.
William Trugillo
808-241-4927
From:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>
Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 4:41 AM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>;
Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>;
Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN <Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if
the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting.
Thank you William!! Great news!! Will there be formal notification of the acceptance by letter or is this email the
acceptance notification.
Thanks
Mike
From:William Trugillo [mailto:wtrugillo@kauai.gov]
Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 7:15 PM
To:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>;
Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>;
Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN <Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Aloha, All,
The County is approving the request to install the Interpretive Sign regarding Hanapepe Bridge as
presented.Please keep the Department of Parks & Recreation in the loop as this project moves forward, especially
if it is beyond the scope as described.
HIProgram Page 5
if it is beyond the scope as described.
I apologize for the slow progress in reaching this stage.Please let me know if you have any questions/concerns.
William Trugillo
808-241-4927
From:William Trugillo
Sent:Friday, July 17, 2020 4:15 PM
To:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>;
Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>;
Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN <Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Aloha, All,
Still working on getting this properly prepared.Will follow up next week.
William Trugillo
808-241-4927
From:Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:58 AM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Dill, Lawrence J <lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>;
Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL <Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>;
Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN <Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if
the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting.
Aloha William,
Sending another friendly follow-up for status. With the Federal year end quickly approaching, I’m hoping to gain
approvals to allow for obligation of funds and contracting prior to year-end and funds expiration. Anything you can
share on status would be appreciated.
Thanks
Mike
From:Will, Michael (FHWA)
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:26 AM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>; Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Larry Dill (lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov)
<lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Aloha William,
Sending a friendly follow-up regarding status of council engagement / approvals supporting the Hanapepe Town
Interpretive Sign / Kiosk. Anything you can share would be appreciated.
Mahalo!
Mike
From:William Trugillo [mailto:wtrugillo@kauai.gov]
HIProgram Page 6
From:William Trugillo [mailto:wtrugillo@kauai.gov]
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:07 PM
To:Swafford, Aaron/DEN <Aaron.Swafford@jacobs.com>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Larry Dill (lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov)
<lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Hemesath, Lisa (FHWA) <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>
Subject:Re: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Aloha, All,
The materials look acceptable.
Yes, can you please prepare a powerpoint?We would then see if Council wants it.
Mahalo!
From:Swafford, Aaron/DEN
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:31 PM
To:William Trugillo <wtrugillo@kauai.gov>
Cc:Haraguchi, Randall TN <randall.tn.haraguchi@hawaii.gov>; Larry Dill (lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov)
<lawrence.j.dill@hawaii.gov>; Hemesath, Lisa/EXT <lisa.hemesath@dot.gov>; Nishikawa, Nancy/HNL
<Nancy.Nishikawa@jacobs.com>; Patrick Porter <pporter@kauai.gov>; Siedlecki, Tim/DEN
<Tim.Siedlecki@jacobs.com>; Will, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Will@dot.gov>
Subject:RE: Hanapepe: Interpretive Sign Discussion
Hello William,I hope you are having a good day.As Mike discussed below, please find attached the Cover Letter
and Interpretive Sign Plan for your use in presenting to the Council.In addition, please let us know if it would help
to send over a PowerPoint for the project that discusses the project.We have one that would be a simple effort to
modify for your purpose.We have a PPT that was used for the public meeting as a foundation (purpose of the
interpretive sign stemming from the 106 MOA).We can add design info from this latest PDF and material from the
SHPD APE amendment letter (who was consulted). Please let me know if you would like that.
Thanks. Aaron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aaron Swafford, PE | Jacobs | Transportation Project Manager
M: 303-912-2716
Hanapepe-I
nterpretiv...
ltr-Hanapep
e-Interpre... HIProgram Page 7
ltr-Hanapep
e-Interpre...
HIProgram Page 8
Ka'aina S.Hull
Director of Planning
Jodi A.Higuchi Saycgusa
Deptity DirectorofPlanning
I.SUMMARY
Action Rcquircd by
Planning Commission;
COUNTY OF KAUA'I
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Consideralion of Class IV Zoning Permit and Usc Pcnnit to allow
the construction &installalion ofa cultural display statue and
associated improvcments.
Pcrmit Application Nos.Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-5
Use Permit U-2022-5
Namc of Applicant(s)STATE OF HAWAII,DEP'I'.OF TRANSPORTATION
II.PERMIT INFORMATION
V:\202;Moster Filei\l!sgulatory\;oning Permits\Class IV\Z-IV-;0!2-5\fleport!\Report-1 1.11 22 DC Slote DOT_HonapBpe Bridge Disptay.docx
4r ^.C.\
FEB O 8 2022
PERMITS REQUIRED
Usc Pcrmit Pursuant to Section 8-11.3 ofthe KCC,1987 as amended,a
Use Permit is requircd to allow any usc,slructure or
developmcnt within the Special Trcatment District.
1I Projuct Ucvclopmcnt Usc
Pcrmit
11 Variance Permit
1I Special Pcrmit
Zoning Pcrmit Class
DIII
Pursuant to Section 8-3.1 ofthe KCC,1987,as amcnded,a
Class IV Zoning I'ermit is a procedural requircment in
applying for a Usc Permit.
11 Special Managcmcnt Arca
Permit
D Use •
Q Minor
AMENDMENTS
1I ZoningAmcndment
I1 Gcneral Plan Amcndment
F.2.c.a.
May 24, 2022 XF.2.c.a.
June 14, 2022 X
State Land Use District
Amcndment
Datc of Rcccipt of Complctcd
Application:
Date ofDirector's Report:
Date ofPublic Hcaring:
Dcadline Date for PC to Takc Action
(60TH Bay):March 26,2022
January 6,2022
January 25,2022
FEBRUARY 8,2022
III.PROJECTDATA
IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 8-3.1(f),KCC:This report is being transmitted to thc Applicant and
Planning Commission in order to satisfy the
requiremcnts ofScction 8-3.l(f),relating to the
provision ofthe Planning Director's rcport and
recommendation on thc subject proposal within sixty
2 1 Page
2-IV-2022-5,U-2022-5;Director's Report
State Dept .of Transportation
01,11.2022
PROJECT INFORMATION
Parccl Location:The project site is located at thc Hanapepe Town Park and Playground
site in Hanapepe Town,approximately 600 feel mauka of Ihe Kona
Road/KaumuaIi'i Highway intersection and immediately adjaccnt to the
Hanapepe Fire Station facility.
Tax Map Kcy(s);1-9-005:048 (Por.)Arca:46,783 square feet
ZONING &DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Zoning:Open District (0)/Special Trcatment -Public
(ST-P)
State Land Use District:Urban
Gcncral Plan Designation:Parks and Recreation
Hcight Limit:30 feet
Max.Land Covcragc:10%
Front Setback:10'
Rcar Sctback:5'or '/2 the wall platc height whichever is greater
Sidc Sctback:5'or '/2 ihe wall plate height whichevcr is greater
Community Plan Area:West Kaua'i Community Plan (WKCP)
Community Plan Land Use
Dcsignation:Public Open Space
Deviations or Varianccs Rcquested:N/A
(60)days ofthc filing ofa completed application.The
application was received on January 6,2022 and the
Applicant,through its authorizcd agent,was notilied
accordingly ofthe I'lanning Dcparlment s intenl to
commence permit processing.
Public Hearing Date:FEBRUARY 8,2022
V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE
As represented in the application,the projcct involves installation ofa kiosk containing
signage providing background history of l-1anapepe Town as well as salvaged remnants of
the ofthe old bridge that was replaced (refer to Section 2 ofthe application).The project is
located within the Hanapepe Town Park and fulfills the mitigation efforts associated with
thc replacement ofthe Hanapepe Bridge along the main highway.Thc project will be
located on the eastern portion ofthc park and along Kona Road.
These improvements will feature:1)an L-shaped concrete pad that's approximately 5 feet
wide and cncompasses approximately 130 squarc feel,2)three (3)kiosk stations measuring
42"x 24"containing the signage illustrated in Section 3 ofthe application,and 3)two
rcmnant pieces ofthe old bridge.
'I'he location was selecled to minimizc its impact to thc park and will be immediately
adjacent to the existing display sign for the Hanapepe Massacre sitc.
VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION
Please refer to Application.
VII.ADUITIONAL FINUINGS
1.The project site is locatcd within the Hanapcpe Town Park and Playground site in
Hanapepe,along the wcstern side ofKona Road.'l'hc
property is situated within
Open (0)zoning district and the Special Treatment -Public District (ST-P).
SPECIAL TREATMENT -PUBLIC DISTRICT (ST-P)
The property is locatcd in the ST-P District.It is the intent ofthat district to ensure
that development within thcse areas rccogni/c,preservc,maintain and contributc to
the enhancement ofthosc characteristics which are ofsignificant historical
background,structures,or landforms,and ofvalue to the gencral public.
2.The State Land Use District (SLUD)designation is "URBAN"and the project is
consistent with improvements typically situated with the urban designation,pursuant
to Chapter 205 ofthe Hawai'i Reviscd Statutes (IIRS).
Z-IV-2022-5,U-2022-5;Director's Repori
Slate Dept .of Transportation
01.11.2022
3|Page
3.The proposed dcvelopment is locatcd within Zonc 'AE'ofthe Federal Emergcncy
Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurancc Rate Map.FEMA has identified
those areas within the Zone "AE"are determined to be within the 1%annual chancc
floodplain.This area is also within the Tsunami Evacuation Zonc with a Basc Flood
Elevation (BFE)ofapproximately 11 feet.
4.The general topography ofthe property contains a gentle slope that moves from
mauka to makai,in the direction of the Hanapepe Fire Station.
5.ACCESS
The primary access to the project site is along Kona Road,which is identified as a
County roadway.The pavement is approximately 20 feet wide and enough to
accommodate two-way vehicular traffic.
6.CZO DEVELOPMHNT STANDARDS
The proposed development is subject to standards prescribed in Sections 8-2.4,8-4.3,
and 8-9.2,which are notcd:
a.Use -The park facilities currently includes a playground equipment,recently
installed skateboard ramp amenities,and an interpretive kiosk.It is noted that
"monuments"are identified as a permissible use wilhin the Open (0)zoning
district,pursuant to Section 8-2.4 (q)(13)ofthe CZO.
b.Lot Covcrage -The proposed development is situated within the Open zoning
district and will be subjected to the Open zone lot coverage standards specified in
Section 8-9.2(a)ofthe CZO.In considering the proposcd development relative to
the overall area ofthe parcel,the land coveragc created by the project is
negligible.
c.Parking -The CZO does not specify parking requirements for park facilities
and the other municipalities within the State has designated discretion to the
Director to detcrmine thc number of off-slrect parking stalls in order to
minimize impacts to sun'ounding properties.It is noted that there is an
existing parking lot for the park and the Applicant intends to utilize the
cxisting parking area for this project.
7.USE PERMIT
Pursuant to Article 3 ofthe Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),Chapter 8 of
the Kauai county Code (1987),the purpose of the Use Permit Procedurc is to assure
the proper integration into the community ofuses which may be suitable only in
specific locations ofa district,or only under certain conditions,or only ifthe uses arc
designed,arranged or conducted in a particular manner,and to prohibit thc uscs if
proper intcgration cannot bc assured.Section 8-3.2 ofthc CZO specifics a Use
;-IV-2022^.U-2022-5;Director's Report
State Dept .of Tfansportotion
01.11.2022
4 1 Pag e
Permit may be granted only ifthe Planning Commission finds that thc use mcets the
following critcria:
a.The use must be a compatible use;
b.The use must not bc detrimental to persons or property in thc area;
c.The use must not cause substantial cnvironmcnlal conscquences;and
d.The use must not be inconsistenl with the intcnt ofthe Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (CZO)and Gcneral Plan.
VIII.AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from applicable government agencies are bcing sought and are cxpected at
time ofthe public hearing scheduled on February 8,2022.At the present time,the
department has not received comments from any of the reviewing agcncies that includes
thc COK Fire Dept.,Public Works -Engineering Division,Water and the State
Department ofl-lealth (DOH)which is attached as Exhibit 'A'.IIowever,comments are
being anticipated and will bc presentcd at the public hearing.
IX.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
In evaluating the Applicant's request to allow the construction &installation ofa cultural
display statue and associated improvemcnts,the following are being considered:
1.GENERALPLAN
The proposed dcvelopment satisfies the following policies of the General Plan,as
taken from Sections 1.3 &1.4:
A.Section 1.3,entitled "VISION AND GOALS"
1)Goal #1 "A Sustainable Island"-The project is an cxample of
responsible growth in an area designated for park and recreation purposes.
2)Goal #2 "A Unique and Bcautiful Placc"-As represented,the site was
specifically chosen to complements the natural,cultural,social and built
environmental assets ofthe I-Ianapepe area.As proposed,the project is
complimentary to the facilities at the county park.
3)Goal #3 "A Healthy and Resilient Peoplc"-There will bc minimal
visual impacts since the footprint of the structure is small compared to its
surroundings and anticipatc no significant ncgative impacts on historic
sites or Hawaiian cullural praclices.
4)Goal #4 "An Equitable Place,with Opportunity for All"-The project
would support and enhance cconomic and business opportunities andjobs
on Kaua'i.
B.Section 1.4,entitled "POLICIES TO GUIDE GROWTH"
1)Policy #8 "Protect Kauai's Sccnic Beauty"-Thc project should not
have any substantial negativc impacts on the visual resources in the
5|Page
Z-IV-2022.5,U-2022-5;Director's Report
Sfate Dept .of Transportation
OL11.2022
Hanapcpe area.The project is a tribute to thc history ofHanapepe
Town and the cxisting natural elcments and landscaping lessens the
overall visual impact ofthe current improvements and is wcll
integrated lo the surrounding cnvironmcnt.
2)Policy #9 "Uphold Kaua'i as a Unique Visitor Destination"-The
project further educates the general public (both local &visitors)of
the historical significance of the site and demonslratc how unique the
island ofKaua'i is relative to other visitor destination sites.
3)Policy#15 "Rcspect Nativc Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana"-
The project will have no substantial impacts on any ofthe nearby
historic sites and Native Hawaiian traditional cultural practices.The
project will continue existing land cntitlements as a learning and
resource center for cultural,historical,and agricullural preservation.
2.NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL &CULTURAL R1GIITS
As a part ofthe bridge replaccment project along the highway and in compliance with
environmcntal requirements,the Fcderal IIighway Administration (FIIWA)
coordinated with the State IIistoric Preservation Division (SHPD),Native Hawaiian
Organizations,and various consulting parties to cvaluate the effects to historic
properties.The findings concluded that there would be an adverse effect to two
historic places:(1)the Hanapepe River Bridgc,and (2)the flood control levee in
Hanapepe Town.
As noted on Page 5,Item 5 ofthe Application,thc project mitigates the historic
requirements ofthe bridge replacement project along Ihe main highway.
3.USKPERMIT
Pursuant Article 20 ofthe Comprchensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),Chapter 8 ofthe
Kaua'i County Code (1987),the purpose ofthe Use Permit procedure is to assure the
proper integration into the community ofuses which may be suitable only in specific
location ofa district,or only under certain conditions,or only ifthe uses are designed,
arranged or conducted in a particular manner,and to prohibit the uses ifproper
integration cannot be assured.Section 8-20.5 ofthc CZO specifies a Use Permit may
be granted only iflhe Planning Commission Hnds that the use meets the following
cntcna:
The usc must be a compatible use;
The use must not be dctrimental to persons or property in the area;
The use must not cause substantial environmcntal conscquences;and
The use must not be inconsistent with the intent ofthe Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (CZO)and General Plan.
Based on the criteria noted above,the following aspects are examined:
a.Compatible Use —As previously noted,monumcnts and similar
developments are permissible within the Open (0)zoning district.The Use
6|P a ge
Z-IV-2022-5,U-2022-5;Director's Report
State Dept .of Transporfation
01.11.2022
Permit is a requirement for any devclopment within thc Special 'l'reatment
district.The project is compatible with uses at the park facility and conlorms
to the intentions ofthe ST-P district.Furthcr,the appcarance ofthe display
containing remnants ofthe old bridge pays tributc to the history ofthe town as
well as the original bridge engineering.As proposed,thc project minimizes its
visual impact to the surrounding area,and the location &size ofthe proposed
project will not create unusual noise or other conditions that may be
incompatible lo the surrounding area.
4.CZO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
As proposed,the project complies with the building height,setback,and off-strect
parking requirements for development within the Open/Special 1'reatment -Public
(0/ST-P)zoning district,as specified in Scctions 8-2.4,8-4.3,and 8-9.2 ofthc
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO).
X.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Based on the information contained in the StaffReport l-'indings and Evaluation,the
Planning Department concludes the following:
1.The project will not have significant adverse impacts to the environment or the
surrounding area.The proposal is gcnerally in compliance with the criteria
outlined for the granling of a Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit;and
2.The proposed usc should not be detrimenlal to persons,properly,or the
cnvironment in the surrounding area.
The Applicant should institute the "Best Managemcnt Practiccs"to ensurc that the
operation of this facility does not generatc impacts that may affect the health,safely,and
wclfare ofthose in the surrounding area ofthe proposal.
XI.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion it is hercby recommended Class IV
Zoning Pcrmit Z-IV-2022-5 and Use Permit U-2022-5 bc APPROVED subject to Ihe
following conditions:
1.The project shall be constructed as represented.Any changes to the operation
and/or the respective structures shall be reviewed by the Department to
determine whether Planning Commission revicw and approval is warrantcd.
2.Ifexternal lighting is to be used in conneclion with the proposed project,all
external lighting should be only ofthe following type:downwardfacing
shielded lights.Spotlights aimcd upward or spotlighting ofstructures is
prohibitcd.
7|Pa g e
Z-IV-2022-5,U-2022-5;Direclor's Report
State Dept .of Transportation
01.n.2022
3.The Applicant shall develop and ulilize Besl Managcment Practices (BMPs)
during all phases ofdevclopment in order to minimize erosion,dust,and
sedimentation impacts ofthe project to abutting properties.
4.Unless otherwise stated in thc permit,once a permit is issued,thc Applicant
must make substantial progress,as determined by thc Direclor,rcgarding the
dcvelopment or activity within two (2)years,or thc permil shall be deemed to
have lapsed and be no longer in effect.
5.Prior to commenccment ofthe proposed dcvclopmenl,written confirmation of
compliance with the requirements from all reviewing agencies shall be provided
to the Planning Department.Failure to comply may result in forfeiture ofthe
SMA Permit.
6.The Applicant shall resolvc and comply with the applicable standards and
requirements set forth by the State Health Department,State Historic
Preservation Division-DI.NR,and the County Department of Water.
7.The Planning Director reserves the right lo increase parking requirements
when particular uses cause unusual traffic congestion.
8.Since there are known archaeological sites on the subject parcel,the shall closely
with State Department of Land and Natural Resources -I-Iistoric Preservation
Division (SHPD)in order to ensure that these archaeological sites remain
undisturbed and/or unaffccted by thc proposed construction activities.
Furthermore,the Applicant is advised that should any archaeological or historical
resources be discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in
the area of the archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the
Applicant shall contact the SHPD and the Planning Department.
9.The Applicant is advised that prior to construction and/or usc,additional
government agency conditions may be imposed.It shall be the Applicant's
responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respective agency(ies).
10.The PIanning Commission rcserves the right to add or delete conditions of
approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts this project may
create,or rcvokc the permits through the propcr procedurcs should conditions of
approval be violated or adverse impacts be crcated that cannot be properly
addresscd.
The Planning Commission is further adviscd that this report does not rcpresent the
Planning Department's final rccommendation in vicw ofthe forthcoming public hcaring
process schedulcd for OCTOBER 13,2020 whereby the entire record should be considered
prior to decision-making.The entirc record should includc but not be limited to:
a.Pcnding government agency comments;
b.Testimony from the gcneral public and intcrested others;and
Z-IV-2022-5,U-2022-5:Director's Report
State Depf .of Transportotion
01.11.2022
8|Page
c.Thc Applicant's responsc to staffs report and recommendation as provided
hcrein.
DALE A.(CUA
Planner
Approved &Recommended to Commission:
Date:
KA'AINA S.HUI-L
Director ofPlanning
'/1>f
/'Krt^-
9 I Pag c
Z-IV-2022-5.U-2022-5;Director's Repori
State Dept .of Transportation
0].II,2022