public
testimony from Bruce Pleas on November 21, 2006 on Bill No. 2201
Following is my testimony on Bill No. 2201 that covers many different
areas of the Kapalawai project.
Process at last Planning Commission meeting on recommendations
presently before the County Council
At the last Public Hearing before the Planning Commission in which
the legislation on Kapalawai that is presently before the County
Council was passed the following timeline was followed;
The Public Hearing was convened late (around 6:30pm) with only
1 person of the 3 people signed up to give public testimony in
attendence. The Public Hearing was closed after 1 person testified,
the other 2 people were not given the chance to present their
testimony thru either oral or written forms.
The Planning Commission went directly into formation and discussion
of the recommendation before the Council today with again only
1 person available to give public testimony and the Planning Commission
then passed the recommendations sent to the County Council.
I brought up the fast process to the Planning Commission Chair
and read the Planning Commission Rules in which this process is
allowed.
In the past the Planning Commission has kept open Public Hearings
when they are held late and people who are signed up to testify
are not present. This is done as a courtesy to the public so that
the people who have expressed interest in the Public Hearing have
a chance to present their testimony to the Planning Commission
by either written form or at the next scheduled continued Public
Hearing.
I feel that this process followed by the Planning Commission on
the recommendations now before the County Council did not allow
the interested public a fair opportunity to present their testimony.
On the shoreline certification
The first shoreline certification was approved in 2001 and even
with 2 amendments presented to the Planning Commission for approval
there was not another shoreline survey done for a shoreline certification
done until November 2005, which was reviewed and re-submitted
in February of 2006. This review/re-submittal was appealed in
May 2006 by myself and to my knowledge the appeal has not had
a decision made on it.
In any case State/County regulations require a new shoreline certification
within 1 year of any building, grading and grubbing permits being
issued and since the last shoreline survey was done on February
2006, only good until February 2007, the project will need another
new shoreline survey/certification done before any permits can
be issued.
It is pointless to pass an amendment (At the writing of this I
do not have a copy of the legal amendment before the County Council,
all I have to go on are my notes from the Planning Commission
meeting, copy of Special Management Area Time Extension Request
dated July 11, 2006 and what was in the newspaper) that is tied
to the shoreline certification and gives the applicant a set amount
of time for an extension (18 months) "from the most current
shoreline certified by the State of Hawaii at the time of building
permit application." As I presented to the Planning Commission
this equates to a pretty much open ended extension unless specific
wording is inserted to specify which shoreline certification (2005?,
2006? 2007?) and how to deal with the appeal process (does the
appeal process supercede the shoreline certification or does it
run concurrent with the shoreline certification?) and is this
the final or just the first in a line of extensions?
All of this adds up to a confused amendment when the original
Ordinance (No. PM-2001-356) that the applicant agreed to is specific
in requiring "Substantial construction of the hotel shall
be completed within five years from the effective date of this
ordinance."
The original intent of this five year requirement on completion
of "substantial construction" was from the realization
in 2000/2001 of prior resort zoned areas that had set idle for
20+ years that were then coming back on line due to the availability
of monies and the renewed interest of building resort-condo developments
on Kauai. The realization that over the last 20+ years that the
infrastructure and the local work/living conditions have changed
so much in these areas (and on Kauai as a whole) that prior resort
zoned areas that looked feasible 20+ years ago were no longer
as feasible and in some cases no longer needed. This is why Council
member Valenciano proposed the five year requirement on both Westside
resort zoning Ordinances so that in five years these projects
could be reviewed and see if they were still a viable project.
Five years
ago PMRF had almost closed, Kekaha Sugar was closed, G&R Sugar
was in dire straights and unemployment was much higher than today.
Now there are not enough workers for the businesses on Kauai,
PMRF needs trained and untrained employees, there are more agriculture
jobs in seed companies than there were in Kekaha Sugar, aquaculture
has returned more jobs to the Westside, G&R sugar is now expanding
into energy production with a new plant and increased acreage
in energy crops and unemployment is at an all time low. Plus now
there are 2,000 to 3,000+ resort units planned for Kauai with
more waiting in the wings to be passed which will employ any resident
who wishes to be employed in this field of work and to complete
these already passed projects some workers will probably have
to be brought in from other areas. All of this adds up to another
reason that the five year requirement be enforced and not extended
as there is not the great need for another development on Kauai
at this time, especially one that will only be paying service
level wages when there are higher level wages available on many
different types of employment.
On the erosion setback
The erosion study presented is a "The data presented here
represent a draft analysis of the maximum erosion hazard."
and "This map is not a final product....Our final product
will have a more accurate and precise analysis of erosion hazards
that may vary significantly from this. For instance, one crucial
missing piece of information is a modern, high resolution aerial
photograph. We hope to have such a photo within the next 6 months
to assist in the production of our final erosion analysis."
The recommendation (#21) from the Planning Commission (as presented
to me in July 2006) states that "A building setback line
shall be established from the most current shoreline certified
by the State of Hawaii at the time of building permit application.
This setback line shall take into consideration the "red
line" (the 70-year erosion hazard line plus 40 feet as established
by the preliminary erosion study by Dr Chip Fletcher dated June
2006, or 200 ft., whichever is closer to the shoreline, or other
acceptable setback based on other models developed by the County
of Kauai shoreline erosion study." There was another note
written in by Mike Laureta that I could not decipher completely
that could of also been added to this condition that has to do
with the Transition zones along the shoreline.
A note is that the setback agreed upon and presented in all of
the maps is 100' for this project, not 40' and that the setback
line only has to take into consideration the 70-year erosion hazard
line and has the phrase "whichever is closer to the shoreline"
as a loop hole to allow buildings as close to the shoreline as
possible. On the map that was presented by Dr. Fletcher available
at: (see image above for preview of image) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/images/Kapalawai1200.jpg
the original computed erosion setback varied from 100+ feet to
around 500 feet for the 70-year erosion rate and if you add the
100' setback to these figures the agreed upon 200' setback does
not appear to be supported by even the draft erosion analysis.
On type of resort
There is still the question as to the type of resort this will
be. It started out as an Eco-hotel on which the EIS was based
on, on July 13, 2004 the applicant submitted a modification to
the Conceptual Site Plan that included kitchens in some units
along with a proposal to make the use of this parcel a Condo-resort
with the starting price for a 1 bedroom unit at $420,000. This
request was withdrawn by the applicant.
This still brings up the question as to the present plans as to
what type of hotel/resort/condo is planned for this land parcel.
Please remember that developers at the zoning amendment stage
have presented one type of use to the County Council and at the
opening of the project the type of use has changed from what was
presented as a conceptual plan/use to the Planning Commission
after it left the Council's venue.
On planning
From the time of the formation and passing of the 2000 General
Plan this project has been considered and was included in the
General Plan. Since then this project has been before the Planning
Commission and County Council in various forms. For the entire
time I I have been questioning the location of this proposed resort
on a couple of different levels;
1) Fully 75%+ of the land area is in Flood and Tsunami zones,
the entire area along the ocean (approximately 10%+ of the project
area) is in the Hurricane Inundation Zone. I have always questioned
the logic of putting any people into an area that has potential
to harm those people, especially with the project providing no
shelters in case of an emergency situation (evacuation of resort
area and housing of visitors if the resort is destroyed or not
livable) for their guests and the additional residents that will
be needed to staff the project.
2) This project is a prime example of spot zoning as it does not
adjoin any significant residential/commercial area that will support
it or that the resort will support and will require that all guests
at this project will have to drive into the closest town. There
is an adjoining parcel of land that lies next to the Russian Fort
and is well within walking distance of Waimea town that I have
long contended is a better location for a resort. Also this adjoining
parcel of land is 90%+ out of the Flood, Tsunami and Hurricane
Inundation zones and is a much better land parcel for this type
of development.
3) The Cultural and Historical significance of this parcel is
very well documented in the EIS which
makes up a decent portion of the EIS.
(See EIS
Section 4-9 @ 22 pages-Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources,
Appendix D @ 108 pages-Archaeological Inventory Survey, Appendix
E @ 54 pages-Architectural Analysis of Structures at Kapalawai,
Appendix G @ 48 pages-Traditional Customs and Practices Report)
From the beginning of this project certain members of the public
have presented testimony on the Cultural significance of this
area and have expressed their concerns of developing this very
unique area of Kauai into a resort development. At the same time
these members of the public have asked that legislation be passed
to protect this area as a Historic and Cultural Preserve and move
the project to the adjoining parcel of land closer to Waimea.
From the beginning
of this project I have asked that due to the sensitive nature
in both previous Cultural and Historic uses that the entire project
(especially any area that will have trenching or ground disturbing
activities) be gone over with Ground Penetrating Radar to
begin to identify the areas that there may be some Cultural and
Historic deposits before any Grading and Grubbing Permits are
applied for. Five years ago this was a tall task to ask for as
that technology was not available in Hawaii but now that technology
is in Hawaii, is being used to identify Cultural and Historic
deposits with this new condition needed to be added to any legislation
that is passed for this parcel of land. Please reference the EIS
and note that only 27 areas were trenched and fully 17 of those
contained the minimal 'charcoal deposits' and much more including
a burial site.
Assorted issues
Presently the work force on Kauai (including the Westside) is
barely to not able to provide sufficient workers for the existing
businesses on Kauai. When this project was proposed it was to
provide additional jobs for Westside residents in case sugar was
phased out. Presently the unemployment figures are under 3%, the
local businesses can not find enough workers to fill existing
job openings, there are proposed increases in jobs at PMRF, at
presently being built and passed projects from Hanapepe to Poipu
and at the new ethanol production facility (7,500 additional acres
in sugar and 150+ more workers within 2 years). At this time this
project is not needed to supply employment.
The applicant agreed on December 24, 2001 to the condition (t)
that "Substantial construction of the hotel shall be completed
within five years from the effective date of this ordinance. If
substantial construction is not completed within this time, the
Planning Commission shall initiate proceedings to rezone the property
to the designations existing prior to the date of this ordinance."
From the beginning the applicant agreed to and has know that "substantial
construction" was to be completed by December 24, 2006.
Over the last 5 years there has been an unprecedented amount of
previously Resort zoned areas around Kauai brought up before the
Planning Commission to be developed, yet this and the other Westside
resort project have not been developed or even worked on. Both
of these projects have a 'five year use it or lose it condition'
which should be enforced.
For the Kapalawai project there is now a revised setback of 200'
which will require a completely new site plan, possibly a change
in the Zoning since a percentage of the proposed units and most,
if not all, of the restaurants/snack bars are within this 200'
setback. There is also a percent of lot coverage that is allowed
by Ordinance in each zoned area and with the units being compressed
and paved fire lanes being added it is questionable that the existing
Zoning will allow the entire 250 units and associated amenities
to be located within the existing zoned areas.
To change the Zoning, to change the lot coverage or to significantly
change to site plan would be a significant change in the complexion
of the proposed resort, with the possibility of a change in type
of use (eco-hotel to proposed condo-resort ownership of units),
with the 200' setback only a draft proposal along with the significant
Cultural and Historical sites on this parcel I ask the County
Council to deny this request for an extension and require the
applicant to reapply for a new Zoning request once they have completed
a new site plan, defined what type of unit use will be used in
the project, provided a final shoreline erosion rate for the project
and have fully identified the cultural areas that exist over the
entire project.
contact:
Bruce Pleas
PO Box 721
Waimea, Hawaii 96796
(808) 337-9509 or 639-2850
|
