The county Planning Commission yesterday voted in support of court-mandated amendments to the permits for a pair of planned Waipouli resorts, in the process reauthorizing the projects despite opposition from concerned community members and even some commissioners. A September ruling
The county Planning Commission yesterday voted in support of court-mandated amendments to the permits for a pair of planned Waipouli resorts, in the process reauthorizing the projects despite opposition from concerned community members and even some commissioners.
A September ruling by 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe struck down three conditions that she deemed had been unconstitutionally imposed by county officials last year on the 20-acre Coconut Beach Resort and 12-acre Coconut Plantation Village.
Those conditions, among 19 that were tacked onto the projects’ applications, essentially required the developers to contribute millions of dollars toward infrastructure improvements such as upgrades to roads and water treatment facilities.
Letters from both Wailua-Kapa‘a Neighborhood Association Board Chair Rayne Regush and the Sierra Club Kaua‘i Group Executive Committee member Judy Dalton argue that even with the amended conditions, the scope of the projects should trigger environmental assessments.
When completed, the Coconut Plantation Village will contain 192 multi-family units, six hotel rooms, associated amenities, a cultural preserve area, a relocated beach access and a minimum of 399 parking stalls. The Coconut Beach Resort will house 343 multi-family units, six hotel rooms, associated amenities, a restaurant, a cultural preserve area, two public beach access routes and 565 parking stalls.
Greg Meyers, representing the 1000 Friends of Kaua‘i nonprofit in its legal proceedings against the county and the developers, said an EA would be the easiest mitigation. He added that this was all but inevitable and warned the commission that it would at some point tire of hearing the case.
Others in attendance, including the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation’s David Frankel, argued that the court’s ruling not only opened the door to rewrite the stricken conditions, but allowed the commission the latitude to take a look at the viability of the entire project.
“You have more power than you realize,” said resident Elaine Dunbar, describing the amended project as “not the same animal anymore” and encouraging the commission to “scrap the whole thing.”
Meyers finally drew the commission’s attention to a report filed by county planner Michael Laureta five days before the Jan. 24, 2007 permit approval.
Immediately preceding his recommendations, which eventually became the 19 conditions, Laureta wrote, “should the Applicant not participate with the major infrastructure improvements simultaneously with the construction of the project, staff’s recommendation would be for denial since adverse social impacts would occur.”
Still, Chair Steven Weinstein, who voted against the permit when it was originally approved by the commission, said he believed it was too late to revoke the permit and instead encouraged fellow commissioners, including troubled neophyte Herman Texeira, to consider only the amendments before them.
“I’m not comfortable with this project,” Texeira said. “But it seems like our hands are tied.”
Weinstein agreed, saying, “I’m not happy, but you gotta do what you gotta do.”
After receiving clarification from Planning Director Ian Costa that “any time you approve an amendment, you are approving the permit as amended,” the commission voted 6-1 in favor of approving the amended conditions for both projects. Commissioner Stuart Hollinger twice voted in opposition.
