Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-15 Leeward Exh D (SPP 20-000219) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 15, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PUAKEA RANCH DBA KUPUNAKANE RANCH LLC (SPP 20-000219) was called to order at 11:30 a.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chairperson Nancy Carr Smith presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Perry Kealoha, Max Newberg, Mark Van Pernis, Michael Vitousek and Faith"Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: J Yoshimoto, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), John Mukai, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director), Alex Roy (Planner), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Rachelle Ley (Secretary to the Planning Director), Kim Tanaka(Secretary to Boards and Commissions) and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: PUAKEA RANCH DBA KUPUNAKANE RANCH LLC (SPP 20-000219) Application for a Special Permit to operate Puakea Ranch as a Guest Ranch on a 14.9-acre portion of a 32.411-acre parcel situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located mauka of Akoni Pule Highway south of Haw! Town, Puakea, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 5-6-001: Portion of 082. Secretary's Note: "- - -" indicates indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or simultaneous talk. CARR SMITH: We are going to move on to the first agenda item. Applicant Puakea Ranch dba Kupunakane Ranch LLC. This is SPP 20-000219. It's an application for a Special Permit to operate Puakea Ranch as a guest ranch on a 14.9-acre portion of a 32.411-acre parcel situated in the State Land Use Ag district. The subject property is located mauka of Akoni Pule Highway, south of Hawi town, Puakea, North Kohala, Hawaii. TMK is (3) 5-6-001 and a portion of Parcel 082. So, staff, ready for the presentation? I believe this is Alex. VITOUSEK: Commissioner—Chairperson Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Yes. VITOUSEK: If I could just CARR SMITH: Yeah. VITOUSEK: This is Mike. Before we get started, I would like to make a declaration on this. At the bottom of our pile, after reading the whole thing, I noticed that my father, Roy Vitousek, has previously represented the applicant. I contacted him, and he told me that he has not represented 1 EXHIBIT D them until, or since 2017. And I have never discussed the merits of this project with him. I don't believe that it affects my ability to be objective in any way on this. And if there are no objections from the Commission and from the applicant, I would like to stay on as a commissioner to hear this. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Mike, appreciate the disclosure. Commissioners, anybody have any objection? (No audible response) I see heads saying no. Does the applicant have any objection to Mr. Vitousek being a part of this? CHIN: This is Doug Chin. The applicant doesn't object. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chin. VITOUSEK: Thank you. CARR SMITH: All right. How are we doing, Alex? Is Alex coming out of Jeff's office, or I'm sorry, while we are waiting for Alex, can I ask Bill Adkins, can you identify yourself, please? I'm not familiar with your name or your role here. Bill Adkins, are you there? I see your window. Go ahead, Bill. B. ADKINS: This is Bill Adkins. I was, we, my wife and I, Theresa, are residents in Kona Reef, and we were just listening in to how things were going through the last issue. CARR SMITH: I see, okay. We invite you to view that on YouTube,please, and to not stay on the WebEx call, if you will. B. ADKINS: Okay. T. ADKINS: So the results of the hearing will be on YouTube? CARR SMITH: It's on YouTube live right now, so you should be able to find it. T. ADKINS: And in order to have, share testimony, we would have had to file paperwork CARR SMITH: That's right, you would have signed up by a certain time. T. ADKINS: Okay, thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Okay, Alex? ROY: - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: I don't hear you, Alex. I see you. And I don't see mute, but I don't hear you. Hi Jeff. DARROW: Hi there, Madam Chair. The computer locked up, so they are just trying to fix it- 2 t2 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: No problem. DARROW: Okay, thank you. CARR SMITH: We can take a breath here. DARROW: Okay. (Pause) ROY: Chairperson, can you hear me? CARR SMITH: Yes. ROY: Okay, sorry about that. CARR SMITH: No problem. Proceed with your presentation when you are ready. Here we go. ROY: There we go. All right, sorry, we are working off of one computer. Everything is a little different this time, so. All right, I think start it here. Puakea Ranch dba Kupunakane Ranch LLC is the applicant for the Special Permit, SPP-20-000219. I'd like to start off real quick with bits of information to help the Commission. I do have the lot—can everybody see that or, Chair, can you see that arrow I'm moving around on the screen? CARR SMITH: Yes, I can. ROY: Okay. I'll go ahead and just show off the lots, lot numbers, for the Puakea Ranch Lots 1 through 9. So starting with the applicant's parcel, or lot, it's lot 1, and you move to the right, lot 2 is a small one, lot 3, this right here is lot 4, lot 5, then following 6, 7, 8, 9. So here is the Puakea Ranch nine-lot subdivision. At this time the applicant is requesting a number of uses, some of which are continuous and some are new. I'll go through the list, and if there is any questions, of course, let me know. The applicant is proposing to have full complete seven guest ranch guesthouses that will accommodate 38 overnight guests per daycurrently, that number is 18 that includes the conversion of the `Ohana House, which is a storage building to a guesthouse; the conversion of the former cottage site, which is currently a foundation only, that'll be converted to a guesthouse; the conversion of the tool shed to an ADA compliant restroom facility that will be used for special events and for guests; construction of a new enclosed event space, also known as a pavilion, within the 2.14-acre construction area—I'll clarify that; development of a parking area for events; demolition of the Tree House and construction of an additional guesthouse for overnight accommodations that will occur with support only with full DPW permitting; demolition of the existing pavilion or relocation—so the director has said that if possible, reuse 3 EXHIBIT D that material from the deconstructed pavilion in the appropriate location or build a whole new one. The guest [sic] would like to host private events for up to 100 non-guests—so that's non-overnight guests—on Friday or Saturday; only one special event per weekend is proposed, so if there is an event on Friday, there will not be one on Saturday, or vice versa. The guest ranch will grow, and continue to grow, and sell food, along with utilizing the certified kitchen for catering for guests, catering for special events, and use during large event. The guest ranch will offer horseback riding and other similar ranch activities. The guest ranch will offer equine therapy, cooking, art, and yoga classes. The guest ranch will host two community events per year with up to 350 people. The guest ranch will utilize portable toilets until more permanent restroom facilities can be constructed for guests and special events. The director has said that the use of portable toilets for the large events will be able to be continued in perpetuity, as that is a very common practice for big events that happen only a couple times a year. I'd like to just read off real quickly the definition of guest ranch. This is from Hawaii County Code, Section 21, or 25-1-5, and it says, "`Guest ranch' means an establishment with its surrounding land which offers recreational facilities for activities such as riding, swimming and hiking, and living accommodations." Here is a map of the county zoning in the area. The outlined property in red is the subject property. As you can see, it's well within the A-20a, so Agricultural 20-acre, zoned district. Mauka of the property, you see A-600a, which is 600-acre Agricultural lots, and then across the street is the A-10a subdivision, which is 10-acre lots. There is a farm, agricultural farm small lot, and some other smaller zoning parcels that are located quite a distance away from the property, but the surrounding area is A-20a or across the street really A-l0a for that subdivision. As you can see, practically the entire area barring the coastal zone, which is Conservation district, is in the Agricultural district, so State Land Use Ag for this parcel and all surrounding parcels. LUPAG shows this as Important Agricultural Land, and take note that the entire area, all nine lots, are within the Important Ag Land designation of the LUPAG. Here is an aerial photograph of the property, showing some of the, kind of make out some of the guest ranch buildings vailing in some of the other agricultural uses. Just for scale reference, the structure, the residential structure that's kind of at the bottom of the picture in the center is approximately 1,000 feet from the project area. Here is a pretty comprehensive map of the historical structures. So there are a number of historic structures that are on the register; so they've been registered as historic structures, to which the applicant has maintained and upgraded those structures aligned with Department of Interior rules and regulations regarding structures on the national and state register. I would like to also note that the guest ranch, so the use of the guest ranch as a facility for overnight accommodations, has been in practice longer than any person alive during this meeting; it's over 100 years this property has been used as a guest ranch. So any person coming in would have known that the 4 EXHIBIT D use was not only continuing but in practice and has been in practice for some time. So the registered properties will be included in some of the guest houses, and I think, and the applicant may speak to this more, but the idea is to move the whole property possibly into some kind of register status, protective status, of historic district. Here's a couple of shots of two of the structures: The Cowboy House on the left, Yoshi's House on the right there. So just to kind of give you an idea of what the structures look like today. They've been well maintained, upgraded where necessary, but, again, have stayed within the DOI, Department of Interior, regulations regarding these historic structures. Here is a site plan, this is one of the earlier site plans, and I've kind of outlined some of the structures. Take note of two things: One is the surveyed AIS area. This is what I'm calling the 2.14-acre construction area. All new development will be contained within that—upgrades and, you know, changes to,just in structures may occur—but all new development will only occur within this 2.14-acre area. And take note of the pavilion on the right-hand side of the photograph; that is going to be the one that would be removed and moved down into that 2.14-acre, what I'm calling construction area. You see also the chicken coop, the tool shed that I spoke of, that will be converted to an ADA bathroom. There is the `Ohana House, Yoshi's House. So these are the properties that not only are historic but will be used for the guest ranch. Again, there will be seven total guest houses, if approved. Here is kind of a pulling-out on the same site plan and then pulling-in to the construction, 2.14-acre construction area where the applicant has kind of outlined where those new structures; you can see parking,portable toilets, the proposed event space, which we are calling pavilion or new event space, the proposed ADA restrooms and then another guest house there. So, again, the existing chicken coop will be converted, so it's, as well the existing tool shed and bunk house; so those are existing structures in that they have development of, at the footprint, but they'll be expanded on to create guest houses. I put this upI understand that this is, there is a lot here and the writing is kind of small for you to see but I wanted to show, because this is showing a lot of landscaping, which goes in agricultures uses, which go along with the property's use. There is extensive agriculture being conducted on the property and will be expanded in the future to not only support the ranch itself but the community. There is landscaping that is being placed and will be placed as necessary to mitigate issues with the neighbors, including noise. One of the requirements that the Planning Department had requested to mitigate noise impacts was moving the pavilion down to a more central location in the middle of the property, which we felt that was, would help to mitigate some of noise impacts. And the applicant has stated that they would be planting a rose screening to vegetation to, again, further mitigate potential noise impacts to the surrounding properties. This is a view north along Highway 270, or Akoni Pule Highway. The property entrance is on the right hand of the photograph. Looking south on the same highway. The property entrance is on the left hand side of the photograph. 5 EXHIBIT D I added this just to show the property, full property entrance, as it enters the property and then onto the subject parcel. And you can see that it's an unimproved dirt gravel driveway. One of the conditions that were placed on the application, one of the director's recommendations, was following a recommendation by DPW for a light, a street light, to be placed at the entrance of Akoni Pule Highway and the property. We thought that that was a good idea, and the applicant is willing to work through some kind of lighted, you know, entrance there for safety. So at this time the director would like to approve with the stated conditions. I wanted to take note that there was a change in Condition—and hopefully the PC got that—Condition number 3, which relates to water. I'll go ahead and just read that just to make sure; so we amended Condition 3 to say, "Prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall provide estimated average daily water usage calculations[,prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii] to the Department Water Supply [for review and approval.] The water usage calculations must show the estimated maximum daily demand [from the private well and from the DWS water system. The calculations shall also include the estimated peak-flow in gallons per minute from both sources.] The applicant shall comply with Department of Water Supply requirements by implementing conservation measures in order to limit their water consumption to an average of 400 gallons per day," for the county water, "which is the current water allocation [based on the existing water meter size and water availability in the area. As represented by the applicant, any additional potable water needed for the proposed development shall be provided by the private water well.]" So the applicant has stated on numerous occasions that the intent is to create their own water source, so the well has been, will be pursued, and increase catchment will also be pursued. The intent is not to utilize the county's water. Obviously, 400 gallons per day would not be sufficient usage. So the idea is to move into more self-sustained or collecting their own water on site. And that's it. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much, Alex. All right, Commissioners, do you have any questions for Alex? Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes. Could you return to the second page of your presentation, what the applicant requests? Could, can you hear me? ROY: Yep, yep, yep CARR SMITH: I think he's working on ROY: Yeah, give me a second, I'm working out of foreign screen here, so I've got to VAN PERNIS: The second page of your presentation. ROY: Yeah, I'm trying, but the computer doesn't seem to CARR SMITH: He's working on it, Mark. ROY: I'm locked up again. I'm sorry. Hold on one second. 6 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: That's all right. Mark, what was the issue? VAN PERNIS: The issue of concern is at the second page, what they are requesting. Can you hear me? CARR SMITH: Yeah, I hear you. Let's wait for Alex to come back, and then if they can't get the presentation up again, maybe you can simply explain to him what it is you are trying to understand. CAMERO: Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I'm going to leave real quick and come right back in to try and share the screen CARR SMITH: Okay, sounds good - - -. Director Yee, you need an IT budget. YEE: I'll take any kind of budget. VAN PERNIS: Let me try to proceed without that page. CARR SMITH: Okay, let's wait, though, because he is, he is not here to listen to you clearly, so hold on, thank you. Here we go. VAN PERNIS: That's the page. CARR SMITH: This page, okay. All right. Are you with us, Alex? So ROY: Yep. CARR SMITH: —Mark, can you ask what your question is about this page,please? VAN PERNIS: I have two questions. Are building permits required for all of these, this construction and conversion? And, secondly, is the additional guest house replacing the Tree House included in the seven guest houses referred to in the first line? ROY: Yeah, every construction activity will require DPW permits, 100 percent, for electrical, plumbing, all the, for building, of course. And the Tree House is included in one of the seven to be, you know, constructed. Now, we, the Tree House will be pretty much demolished and reconstructed,just on the same location, so that will require full, you know, full permits building permits,plumbing permits, electrical permits, things like that. So, yes, all permits are required for all new and modified development. VAN PERNIS: And the Tree House replacement, is it included in the seven? ROY: Yes. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. 7 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Barbara, go ahead. DEFRANCO: They mentioned that they are going to be a ranch where they are going to have horses. Is there a stable being built, and how many horses are going to be involved in this? ROY: I don't know about any stables. That, you may want to address with the applicant when they come up to talk. That wasn't part of the discussion, new stables or DEFRANCO: Okay ROY: animal husbandry of any sort. I mean what's continued DEFRANCO: Thank you. ROY: Yeah. CARR SMITH: Anything else, Barbara? DEFRANCO: No. CARR SMITH: Okay. Commissioners? YATES: I have a question. CARR SMITH: Okay, Faye, go ahead. YEATES: Is this when I ask a question about the—my gosh, now I forgot my question—about the, you know, the past delinquencies or the past fines, etcetera? Is this the time to talk about that or not? CARR SMITH: Does the county want to address that, or should- - - ROY: hould- - -ROY: Chairperson, we understand—and Michael may want to touch base on this—we understand that, you know, this is kind of two separate situations. We are working through the Special Permit. The NOV, yes, obviously there is a notice of violation that the applicant is working through, but that's not really part of this review, because it has its own separate but Michael may want to touch base, clarify on that. YATES: Well, my point is, are we going to work on this before we discuss, you know, the fines that were, that have been levied against them, and who is going to be addressing that, and what's going to happen with that? That's why I'm asking. CARR SMITH: So I guess how does the, how do the violations and the fines affect the Special Permit application. YATES: Yes. 8 EXHIBIT D YEE: Can I chime in, Nancy? CARR SMITH: Yes, please, Director Yee, go ahead. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. So, I need to back up a little bit, so the Planning Commission understands my approach. When I became planning director almost four years ago there's always a myriad of issues and things that you can work onI probably stepped into violations a little bit more so than maybe other previous directors, and into special cases. This was clearly a case that had a long history. But if you get mired into all the past, it becomes very difficult to see yourself out of the woods, right? And so,part of it in starting almost, almost immediately when I became planning director, so in early part of 2017, I met with Christie Cash, I went to the site to understand the site and to try to figure out what were the issues. I will tell you, and it's my personal approach, that throwing a hammer of violations and fees to try to cure problems is not always the most successful approach. We have thousands of violations on the islands. And part of the goal one by one is to be able to work with the, with the property owner on a violation to get them into compliance; that's clearly been my approach. If you get mired into wanting the county to play enforcer, I'm not sure that gets us to better end results. And as I said in this position, I bring that kind of leadership to try and resolve problems. So in this case, from early 2017 it has been trying to understand how we could get them to a Special Permit application. The violations eventually went into litigation and went off my desk as a violation that I could deal with, and went into litigation with Corporation Counsel. As those fines and fees have been kind of accumulating over time, I do want to say that there was a stipulation for Christie Cash to stop her operations, and that has occurred in certain areas. And so part of it was taking the time to think where we go forward to have a Special Permit come forward to you folks to be able to make a decision. So I don't, to a certain extent, I want to separate out what the violation and the fees will be, because part of it is if we can find a resolution forward with a Special Permit, then we can address what the final fee may, what will happen to that, because the fine and fees is accumulating because there is a violation, so you want to cure the violation, and in this case we are looking at a Special Permit. So trying to hang a violation over their head, that becomes problematic when you are trying to find a path forward. So, yes, I would even say I don't know offhand how much the fine and fee is at this point, because to a certain extent, once it went out of my hands in probably 2018 to Corporation Counsel, it was off my radar to get to a Special Permit, not on accumulating fines and fees; at the point I probably had stepped off, we probably had a couple of hundred thousand, because you have daily fines and stuff. So I don't know if a half million dollars is a correct amount; I have actually no idea, I'd have to check our Corporation Counsel. I could generally say once we get to a resolution, if we can find a resolution, we will settle that violation in some form or fashion. I don't have complete control of what that resolution will be, though,just to let you know, it's not my decision alone. So, thank you. CARR SMITH: That was very helpful for me, thank you. Go ahead, Faye. You have a question? 9 EXHIBIT D YATES: Thank you, Michael. That was just my concern; I just kind of wanted to know if by having those fines, if that was going to, you know, impact what you were trying to do at this point in time like, you know, is the cost going to be so astronomical that she can't even move ahead with what the Special Permit, and then we'll be back to extending and extending. So that was reason for my question. CARR SMITH: Maybe we can find that out from the applicant, too. YATES: Yeah, thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Faye. Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? CARR SMITH: Yes. VAN PERNIS: My question is in response to Mr. Yee's testimony. I question—it sounded like a fancy way of saying that, no, the fines or judgments are coming out of the court case, to your knowledge, for past infractions has not been paid—the permit is for future activity, but past activity resulting in fines or judgments from the litigation have not been paid, but are not being waived, if this permit is granted. Is that correct? CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Director. YEE: To my knowledge, that's a correct statement. I will say, typically, of a lot of violations that eventually get cured, when they are still sitting in kind of in my court and hasn't gone to Corporation Counsel to this kind of level of litigation, I have a lot more leeway to reduce fines. In this case, it's probably a little more complicated, so I wouldn't say anything has been waived yet. But again, I'm apprehensive to throw down a penalty so large on anybody that becomes a hole they can't get out of. That doesn't serve our island well, either. So it's always finding a balance. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Appreciate that philosophy. Anyone else? CHIN: Chair Carr Smith, I haven't been recognized, but I just wanted to this is Doug ChinI just wanted to say that when the applicant presents her, that's her presentation, then I'll try to address the questions from Commissioner Yates and Commissioner Van Pernis. CARR SMITH: Very good, I knew you would, thank you. So, no further questions from Commissioners? All right. Thank you, Alex, for the presentation. Okay, let's move on to the applicant's presentation now. So, I have Christie—are you on Joshua's, Christie? CASH: I am. 10 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Okay, there you are. And then we have Doug, and then we have Keith Winnie as well—you are the architect, right? (No audible response) Okay. And is there anyone else that's on the screen that's with your hui? (No audible response) No. Okay, all right. Would you folks please raise your right hand? Christie, can I see your- - - CASH: - -CASH: Can you see me? CARR SMITH: Not yet. CASH: (Low-volume private conversation) I am raising my right hand. CARR SMITH: Okay, I believe you. Do you folks swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? CASH: Yes, I do. CARR SMITH: Very good. Is Mr. Chin starting, or are you, Christie? However you folks plan to do it, you can go ahead with your presentation. CASH: Okay, I'll, I'm just going to start. Hi, good morning, or good afternoon at this point. I'm Christie CARR SMITH: Speak up, please, Christie. CASH: Oh, can you hear me now? CARR SMITH: Thank you. CASH: I'm Christie, and I'm just going to tell you my story, my journey of the past 14 years. It's been an honor to own and now live at the historic Puakea Ranch. I purchased this property in 2006. Puakea Ranch has a very vibrant and historical past. But when I purchased it, the Ranch was in the state of neglect and disrepair. I did what I could to restore the buildings and structures to their authentic origins. When I first met with the Building Department, the county said they did not have records for any of the structures on the property. So I started with immense research—for years. I obtained original building records and 20 years aback rental records complete with affidavits from the folks who previously lived in these homes, in an effort to save them and make them legal with the county. During my research I met with Masa, Thelma, Eunice, Robert and Margaret Kawamoto, who all graciously shared their family histories and photos with me for part of my preservation efforts. I felt the stories of the families who lived in these homes were more meaningful than just the architectural value of the cottages. Out of respect for the kupuna of Kohala who were born and raised at Puakea, I display these photos and history books in our cottages for our guests to enjoy, honoring and preserving the legacy of the paniolo of Hawaii Island. At the end of my research the county's previous planning director, Ms. Leithead Todd, recognized these structures, all of them, as legal nonconforming homes. That same day Puakea Ranch was accepted to the Hawaii state historic register based on my diligent efforts of research and arduous application process. Multiple 11 EXHIBIT D SHPD representatives visited Puakea Ranch at my invitation prior to us being added to the register. I am very, very proud of the work and accomplishments I have contributed to our community by saving these historic homes and the stories of the families who called them home by placing this entire site on the historic register. It has been an immense financial undertaking and has taken much time. But Puakea Ranch is obviously very worth it to me. One thing I was certainly not prepared for in this 14-year journey was the burden of placing Puakea Ranch on the state historic register. This adds undue pressure on my Special Permit application. Getting the Ranch onto the register meant that I now needed an environmental assessment. An environmental impact study, cultural assessments, archaeological surveys, land surveys, and traffic assessments, as well as Water, Fire, all of these agencies are part of an environmental assessment. Had I not placed the property on the register for protection into the future, an EA would have not been requirement, adding so much more work, time, and money, not only on my part but also many county staff members who would spend countless hours working on my file, which I very much appreciate. That being said, I believe historic preservation is very important, and it's meant to be shared. There seems to be no point to collecting these stories, photos, and preserving these homes of the past, if you have no one to share them with or to learn from and enjoy them. Who am I preserving it for, if not the community and for the visitors wishing for a more authentic experience than the typical Hawaiian resorts? The Kawamoto, Lewis, Shim, Stevens, and Muniz (ph) families are all still here in Kohala and always welcomed at Puakea. I do not feel the best use for this historic property is to be closed off to the community and lived in by a gentleman rancher sitting up on top of this 33 acres, not doing much agriculture, as demonstrated by many of the homeowners in the ag-civic subdivisions surrounding Puakea Ranch. This seems counterintuitive to historic preservation and to the North Kohala CDP values of building and sustaining agriculture in general. Please consider the following quote from the GoFarm Hawaii website: "local and global studies show that agri-tourism/rural tourism, outdoor/adventure activities, eco-travel and hands-on educational experiences are key to sustainable business models in isolated island locations, like Hawaii. Especially when it comes to agriculture." Small businesses in Hawaii are vital to the economic stability of the rural communities-based support. And, unfortunately, small farms don't really make it in Hawaii without this added tourism mechanism. Our guests shop, dine,play, explore, and support all of the small businesses in our community, including small farms. It goes without saying that allowing my overnight guests to host gatherings on site puts money into the pockets of local small vendors coming to support celebrations, be that an anniversary, a birthday, a wedding or a baby shower. These celebrations are not loud, drunken, disruptive parties. Most of they go unnoticed. Puakea Ranch is an ideal location for a community gathering spot because of gorgeous outdoor setting for special occasions and appropriate gateway to welcome both the local island community and the visitors into our historic and agricultural communities of Hawi and Kapa`au. It is my hope that you were all able to read over the 100 support of letters sent to Mr. Yee and to all of the commissioners prior today. You've met my counsel, but I did want to introduce my counsel, Ms. Tina Ohira and Mr. Doug Chin. I did want to say thank you very much, 12 EXHIBIT D Commissioners, for your time, your attention, and your service to our island, for volunteering for these very important decisions. I appreciate, respect that you'll support the highest and best use for this historic and special property. Lastly, I wanted to say a very heartfelt thank-you to Mr. Yee, Mr. Darrow, and Mr. Roy for their countless hours they have spent working, vetting, and determining a positive recommendation to the commissioners. Thank you all very, very much. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Christie. Go ahead, Mr. Chin. CHIN: Aloha, everyone—can you hear me? CARR SMITH: Yes, thank you. CHIN: Great. Chair Carr Smith, Vice Chair Kealoha, Commissioners DeFranco, Newberg, Van Pernis, Vitousek, and Yates, thank you very much for your public service and for being involved in the Leeward Planning Commission. I just got appointed to a commission myself over here on Oahu, and I can tell you that whatever motivation or ambition or a phone call from the mayor got you to be part of this commission, it ultimately I'm sure becomes a labor of love, and it's a lot of time and sacrifice on your part away from your work and your family to be able to decide some very important things. So I want to thank you very much for being involved in that. I also want to thank Director Yee, as well as the staff at the Planning Department for Hawaii County and Corporation Counsel, for working with us so closely through this, through this entire process. I guess what I wanted to do was just address a few things, and then I think we are ready to be able to take whatever questions that we [sic] have. But the first thing that we wanted to say is that we appreciate the time and effort that was put into the Planning Department's recommendation that the permit be approved, with several conditions. And we would note that those conditions that have been placed upon the Special Permit are extensive, they are thorough, and they are ones that, we believe, are ones that will address the concerns that have been raised by the many different people who have testified, mostly the people who have testified against it. But I think also the approval will back up the support from so many people in the community whether they are residents, long-time residents, small-time business vendors, and other people that live in the district. And so we are, we hope that what this discussion ends up being is more of a discussion what we can do with these, what we can do with these conditions. We appreciated the most recent submission, Condition number 3, that was put out by the Planning Department after reading the different pieces of testimony that had been submitted. We are ready to accept that. I think what we also did was we submitted a few recommendations for changes to Conditions 7, 8, and 17, which we can address at another time, or at some point during this meeting, when that comes up. But I just wanted to at least summarize where we stood on the different conditions that have been, that have been placed. And I will just also note that those conditions certainly give the right to be able to review and to revoke the Special Permit, if there is anything that occurs in the future that is not consistent with what the Planning Department and the county is recommending. 13 EXHIBIT D I guess the other thing that I wanted to address was Commissioner Yates and Commissioner Van Pernis's great questions about the different violations. And I appreciated Director Yee's response. I don't have enough experience in Hawaii County, and I certainly, absolutely, by talking about Oahu County, I have no intention of trying to say that we know better or anything like that; that is absolutely not my intention. But all I wanted to do was simply say that my experience in Oahu County when it comes to violations is that this is just, this is something that happens, and by that I mean that we are talking about a complaint-serving system; so in other words, if you have a very small number of people who are vocal, such as certain neighbors of Ms. Cash right now, who consistently barrage the county with complaints after complaints after complaints, well, then that will result in certain violations that are issued. And as the Commission well knows and the county department knows, these are daily fined, and so, and so the numbers of the fine, or the quantity of the fines that we are talking about certainly is a very, very high number, but it is also something that occurs because of the number of complaints that come from people who want to make complaints. And, unfortunately, I think all four counties are this way; they are very much complaint-driven in terms of what they issue. And then it accumulates because of daily fines. I will say that the half million dollars that are being cited by people under oath, who spoke to you earlier this morning, is completely wrong, is completely fabricated; there is absolutely nothing in any of the court documents that insinuates that the fines are $500,000. The only reference within the court documents to fines is something that it accumulates up to about$197,000. Now, that's high, it's a very high amount, but that's where I appreciate Director Yee's approach. It is, frankly, it's a policy decision that's made by the county or by a planning commission to the extent that they weigh in on this kind of policy. But it's this idea—and I've seen it done when I was the managing director here in Honolulu—it's basically this, it's a, these violations get issued, the fines accumulate, but really the endgame for the county is to get the person, who has been issued the citations, to comply and to eventually get to a place where they can be permitted, in compliance, and at that point in time, then they are able to settle up and work through addressing all their violations and fines. So I want to say this right now: Ms. Cash is absolutely committed to making right all of these different fines with the county. I think the approach, though, is making sure that she is in compliance; that way the hammer keeps hanging over her, taking care of that through something like this, getting a Special Permit, and then being able to settle everything up with the county. And the reason why you can know I'm not just saying that is because what we were able to work with, what we were able to work out with the county after they filed their litigation against us, was basically a stay, and what I want to read to you is what the state says as that was signed by Judge Fujino—where it says this, it says that the county and the defendant—that's us, okay, us guys—mutually agree, first, in lieu of the time, expense, and the risk involved in either of the parties litigating a motion for preliminary injunction, second, in view of the ongoing progress in permit approvals occurring at the same time, during which relevant permits for the subject property will either be granted or denied, and, third, in the interest of compromise, to a stay of activities related to the subject property—meaning that she was going to not engage in activities of the subject property—and also a stay of litigation in this action. And so what the county agreed to and what Judge Fujino signed was a stipulation and order that said let's get this worked out first, and then what we can do is once we get those approvals in place, if we do, if we are fortunate enough to receive that from the Planning Commission, then we can start being able to work out these fines. So I completely disagree with the testimony from the earlier person, who had talked about how this is out of sequence. Quite frankly, this is the sequence; this is how things occur in Hawaii, whether 14 EXHIBIT D it's Hawaii County, whether it's Oahu County, Kauai, or Maui. It's always a balance between trying to get people who own properties to comply versus also being able to help them to be able to achieve the dream that they had. So, the last thing that I just wanted to talk about—and then we are more than delighted to be able to take whatever questions that you have, unless Mr. Winnie has something to say as well—is this, is that, certainly, I was listening just like you folk did, I got a chance to be able to read the testimony and to hear and to be here this whole morning with you folks, thinking about and listening to what the different neighbors have said, and I think what I would share with everyone here that sure it seems like there is a very profound disconnect in terms of what people think is happening up there at Puakea Ranch. So on one hand either Christie Cash is a developer holding drunken hot tub brawls up there at the Ranch with rock music that's going on past 1:00 a.m., accumulating a half-million dollars in fines from the county, and basically just causing havoc in everything that she does. And, you know, I actually was more prepared to simply just talk about the conditions and hope that we could move into there, but that pilikia was just very upsetting to listen to, frankly, because so much of it was inaccurate, but also because it just sounded like people who are using this area as retirement community to create gentleman ranches that I'm not sure is really the ultimate policy of what Hawaii County wants, or any of the county in the state quite frankly, but it's also people who were essentially saying the exact same kind of picture of a neighbor that they said in their testimony to the Pasadena community association or to the Menlo Park community association at their other properties when they didn't like what their neighbors were doing. And, frankly, what we would urge the Commission to do instead is to listen to the different residents who have been there, who have seen that, to understand that there is a different Christie Cash that we are talking about; it's someone who has really made this a dream and a labor of love to be ablet to restore something that was an existing guest ranch for hundreds of yearsI'm sorry, not hundreds but for more than a hundred years, and it has been around long, long before any of the mega mansions that have been built up in that area. And this is a great opportunity to be able to move forward, to be able to, not only to be able to get the permit, if that is something that the Commission is willing to grant, but also a chance to be able to bring everything in compliance, to be able to resolve these complaints. I want to tell you it's been an honor to be able to represent Ms. Cash, to be able to visit her beautiful, gorgeous property to see the amount of care and love that she has put into this, and to be committed to you that, you know, I'm here to see you through; we are going to, we are going to get her, you know, if, assuming this step is allowed to go forward, then we are going to be able to get all of those other things resolved, and I'm committed to you to being able to help Ms. Cash to be able to get there. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chin. Mr. Winnie, did you have something to say, and then we'll go into questions after that? WINNIE: - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: Could you unmute yourself, please, Keith? 15 EXHIBIT D WINNIE: Hi, there we go, okay. My name is Keith Winnie. I'm an architect in the State of Hawaii, and I've been here for quite a while, and I got licensed in '99, so I've been around a little bit. And when I was asked to look at this property about a year ago, I noticed immediately that the property was an older property. I didn't realize how old it was. But I did some research, and there has been a lot of misinformation about this property. Originally, when I looked at the notice of violation, I was surprised to see that there were no permits at all stated in the NOV. And so, having been around a little bit, I realized that the property had been subdivided previously, and re-subdivided, and then consolidated—(clearing throat) excuse me—and, which generated several TMKs for the property. So every time you make change to the property boundaries, a new TMK gets issued. So I went back and verified that with the Planning Department. They told me at the Kona office that, yes, the property had been subdivided and re-subdivided and consolidated. So after looking at it and asking for a written verification that what permits were issued on the property, I've got, I got nothing official back from the Building Department or the Planning Department. And so then I went over to the records over in Property, Real Property, and looked,pulled the records from there, and I was able to come up with a couple dozen permits and various other things that show the property had been built. Some of the earliest permits were back in the 1900's, so, which really surprised me because I didn't think the records went back that far. But, with that being said, I was kind of surprised that the NOV showed no permits. I don't know why that was, except that in the current TMK only shows up in the computer, and the older TMKs don't until you dig around and actually find them. I think that's problematic for this particular property since when you go back and look at the records, it shows that the—and I submitted the records to the county through the Building Department. I submitted the records to the county with some building permits I applied for, so there should be some record of that. And so that could help alleviate some of these problems with the NOV. And also, the NOV showed a bunch of violations. I can't really pinpoint what they were. There were probably 80 pages to the NOV, and most of it was pictures, other than five pages of verbiage. And basically, what the NOV said there was no permits on property, which I found to be false because there were a lot of permits on the property. Going back and looking at the old records that were submittedI don't know whether the, whether you guys have or not, what I submitted, which is probably a different procedure than this procedure, because I was only hired to correct some of the building issues but when I went back to look at the building issues, I was later told by the owner that I'm on the historic registry, which kind of eliminates the county from requiring new requirements and new updates to be included in new permits, and only stuff that's a violation of life-safety issues, like electric or, you know, bad electric or something. But there are a number of electrical permits on the property, there are also several other plumbing permits, so that should be taken into account when you hear people say there is no permits on the property. That's what I have to say about this property. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Director Yee, did you want to respond to any of his comments? Or no? (No audible response) I was just surprised by some of the—okay, very good, thank you. Faye, go ahead, if you'd like to ask question - - - YATES: - -YATES: - - -not so much question; I was, I just want a clarification. My reason for the question about the fines was because I did not want to get to the point that whether we approve or 16 EXHIBIT D disapprove, the people say how can you do that when there are these violations. And so just, that was for clarification. The other thing that I wanted to say is that I'm very familiar with that area there, and I know that a lot of our local people have found there, they love it, it's, you know, it's, and like they said, it's some place that has been there for a hundred years. And so, I'm hoping that, should this be something that moves forward, that they will continue to be able to have their little bridal showers, baby parties, and things like that, and that not be counted as a once-a-week thing because I am thinking that that 350 number was when you have those big parties, because those little parties are really important for people and community. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Faye. Mr. Van Pernis, go ahead. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. Mr. Chin, is there any judgments against the applicant? CHIN: There are no judgments. VAN PERNIS: Thank you, I didn't think so. The fines or penalties are for past activities, right? And this application is for future activities? CHIN: Correct. VAN PERNIS: And do you agree that there is some past violations but no more than $197,000 worth? CHIN: Correct. What I was saying is that the $197,000 in fine, that's the only number that is in the court documents that were filed by the county. So that's all that exists. VAN PERNIS: And the 197,000 is the amount that you are, that's subject to a quotation of Mr. Yee? CHIN: Exactly. VAN PERNIS: You are not arguing that— CHIN: hatCHIN: With the county, with the county, not with, not with Director Yee but— VAN utVAN PERNIS: All right, with the county, I stand corrected - - - CHIN: - -CHIN: - - - lawyers, right. VAN PERNIS: And now, you are not arguing that this process for future activity in any way affects that. 17 EXHIBIT D CHIN: Correct. It's not that these—granting the permit is not going to erase the fact that Ms. Cash has to be responsible and accountable for the past violations. That would be something that we would work out with County Corporation Counsel and fully intend to do so. VAN PERNIS: - - - CHIN: - -CHIN: - - - county's approachI'm sorry, I'm so sorry, CommissionerI just think the county's approach is, it's this idea, keep the fines hanging over the applicant in order to get them into compliance and then once all of that is pau and set and moving forward, then you go, okay, now let's look at what these daily fines were and let's come up with an appropriate settlement now, which, that would be a normal way to reso- I mean, at least in my mind for my own experience, that would be a typical way to resolve this kind of situation. VAN PERNIS: And do you have a time frame that you could provide for that settlement to take place? CHIN: I think we would love to get it settled as quickly as possible. I think we were waiting for this very important decision to come through. And so that's the, you know, getting a yea or nay from the commission today would be very helpful towards moving us to being able to get that part resolved. Time frame, as you can see, I'm wiggling around on that. I mean I think a lot of that has to do with talking to Corporation Counsel. But I think we are motivated to try to get Ms. Cash resolved in this, you know, nobody wants this kind of litigation hanging over them. VAN PERNIS: Thank you CARR SMITH: Thank you very much - - - VAN PERNIS: - - - I'd like to say that I've been to the Ranch in years past, I know some of the people who have at least submitted written testimony, and I've considered all of the things related to this hearing testimony, paperwork—and I, my bias and opinion is to, is favorable, subject to the conditions of Mr. Yee, not those of Mr. Chin submitted a day ago, because they don't serve the people, they serve Ms. Cash. So I assume the biased opinion and my announcement over here does not disqualify me from further participation in this proceeding. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Van Pernis. Barbara, I think you had your hand up. Go ahead. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I was this is for Mr. Chin and for Mr. Yee. And I really appreciate the presentation. Thank you, everyone, for working on this project. But it was in this, the latest letter that we got from you, Mr. Chin, about Rule number 17, landscaping requirements, that you were asking to be deleted in its entirety, and I wanted to dispute to this. Thank you. CHIN: 17, Condition number 17-1 just want to make sure we are looking at the same thing because Condition number 17 doesn't talk about landscaping; it talks about complaint process. 18 EXHIBIT D DEFRANCO: It should, okay, sorry, maybe I'm reading this letter wrong. It says, "the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements) CHIN: Oh, there it is DEFRANCO: then it goes, "Condition 417: We respectfully ask that this condition be deleted [in its entirety]." So maybe I'm confused as to what this is for. CHIN: (Low-volume private conversation) DEFRANCO: It's page 2 of the letter that we received, October 1P. CHIN: So, the comment that, so what, Commissioner DeFranco, what you are referring to is if Director Yee's, the Planning Department's Condition number 8, and what this is talking about is the demolition of the pavilion and the Tree House and the construction of the ADA restrooms, as well as the balance of all the construction that should be completed. And so, we did not have a, we certainly didn't have a problem with the landscaping requirement— DEFRANCO: equirementDEFRANCO: Okay CHIN: Oh, I see, I understand what's going on, I understand what's going on DEFRANCO: Okay, thank you. CHIN: So the part that says we request that it be deleted in its entirety, that has to do with Condition number 17 - - - DEFRANCO: - -DEFRANCO: - - - okay. CHIN: Right, right. And the only reason for that—and I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt the only reason for that is because it will have to do with the complaint process and - - - DEFRANCO: - -DEFRANCO: - - -yeah, I understand - - - CHIN: - -CHIN: - - - so we were just trying to, we were actually just saying what we were worried about was that the same thing that has happened in the past decade would continue to happen, and - - - DEFRANCO: - -DEFRANCO: - - -yeah, I under- I understand the complaint process. I was just wondering about the landscaping requirement, so. And, again, I'm wondering where the stable is going to go for the horses or what you are planning to do there with the horses. CASH: Hi CARR SMITH: Christie, do you want to address that, please? 19 EXHIBIT D CASH: Yes, so currently we have a historic saddle house on the property that's being used as such; it stores the horse's saddles and bridles. We'll never have more than six horses on this property. Probably at any time, currently, we only have two horses on the property. And we don't plan on building stables right now; the horses stay outside. DEFRANCO: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. You are good, Barbara? (No audible response) okay. Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Thank you. First thing, I really appreciate the background from Mr. Chin on the stay from Judge Fujino until the permit is granted or denied. I think that's very important to what we are doing here. And, you know, hearing it from the applicant's attorney is one thing. I would like to hear that from our attorneys as well. Is that something that anyone from Corp. Counsel is prepared to speak on? CARR SMITH: Mr. Mukai, are you there? YOSHIMOTO: Madam Chair? CARR SMITH: Go ahead, J. YOSHIMOTO: Hi, this is J in Kona. CARR SMITH: Yes. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah, I can confirm that the details that was provided by Mr. Chin is accurate. Cody Frenz, Deputy Corporation Counsel, with her office, is handling that case, and, yeah, short and sweet, the statement Mr. Chin provided is correct. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much, appreciate that. And absolutely no knock on Mr. Chin,just want to hear it from our guys as well. Second thing I'd like to ask is, given that we are dealing with the Hawaii Register of Historic Places site, I would like to know a little bit about the consultation that has been done so far with the State Historic Preservation Division. If the applicant or the applicant's architect could go over that, I'd appreciate it. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Christie. CASH: Are you asking about the past or the future? VITOUSEK: I'm asking about what has been done so far. CASH: As far as what, what—I'm sorry I'm confused about the question. 20 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, sure, so, you know, we are dealing with the historic site, very significant historic site, which is listed on the Hawaii Register of Historic Places, but this site has never been formally recorded, according to the documentation that was submitted to us. In the environmental impact statement and in the background reports and all that, it's described as being informally listed, informally recorded by the applicant and listed in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. CASH: I think our architect is up to answer to that because I, I don't know the difference. I know it's on the historic register. So I don't know the difference. VITOUSEK: Someone's got their hand up. CARR SMITH: Yeah, I'm sorry OHIRA: Hi CARR SMITH: Can you let us know who you are, again? I don't think I've got you- - - OHIRA: Oh, yes, Christina Ohira. I also represent the applicant. And Keith can, you know, further explain this also, but the property is on the state historic register. We printed a copy of the current register from the DLNR website. We submitted that to the Planning Department, along with, I believe 10 to 14 days ago, Keith submitted the full plan set to address all of the issues in the NOV. And so that should be with, that should be in permit review right now. I see Tracie-Lee has a question. CARR SMITH: Yeah, go ahead. - - - Alex, do you want to chime in? ROY: Yeah, Commissioner Vitousek and Chairperson, an AIS was completed, or archaeological inventory survey, was completed for the construction area, kind of updated a number of studies, but they also submitted, during the EA process, a review to SHPD. So SHPD did review the project and didn't have any comments because of the registered status. I've been working with her as the staff for the Cultural Resources Commission to ensure compliance with like DOI standards, and once construction starts to get going, we are going to have Puakea Ranch come to the CRC and present to ensure that, you know, it's following with the historic register status. That's all I wanted to add. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mike. VITOUSEK: Okay, so, the archaeological inventory survey is done on 2.14-acre portion of the 14.9-acre project area, so only a small portion of the entire project area within a larger historic site has been subjected to an archaeological inventory survey. And the issue here is that we are not dealing with an archaeological site; we are dealing with an architectural site that is listed on Hawaii Revised, or Hawaii Inventory of Historic Places. So, you know, as Ms. Cash pointed out, that listing on the historic register has a lot of significance to it that opens up a whole set of requirements that are in place in terms of consulting with the State Historic Preservation Division prior to any alterations of the site pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E-10, as well as 21 EXHIBIT D Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E-42, and particularly with the exemption under 6E-42.2, which exempts any historic register sites from being in the exclusion category dealing with single-family homes. So, basically, in order for this site to have been altered to the point that it is today in terms of restoring it and all the work that's gone into it, adding swimming pools, all this other stuff, there should be a long history of correspondence between the applicant and the Historic Preservation Division, indicating that these additions to the historic site are not taking away from the qualities of integrity that make the site significant to begin with. Is there any record of any consultation with the Historic Preservation Division in regard to the alterations that have occurred on this site over the past decades? CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Christie. CASH: Like I said, before the property was placed on the historic register, I did have Theresa — I forgot her last name but she visited the property, she was employed by SHPD. I also had Steven Roth (ph), I believe, he was, he visited the property, toured all the cottages, all the homes. And I also worked with a gentleman named Thomas Quinlan who was, presented himself as a historical preservationist contractor; he dealt with SHPD with me quite a bit. He helped me prepare my application and inviting all of the SHPD representatives to the site. I didn't do improvements to the property after it was submitted to the Register, so other than adding the pavilion, which we tried to, we did submit plans to SHPD for approval, but they were rejected because Planning said that I had to get a Special Permit before I could do that. I don't—does that answer your question? ROY: Commissioner Vitousek, a 6E analysis was submitted to SHPD, and SHPD chose to not respond to that request. So, we can only do consultation, you know, if it's a two-say street, SHPD refuses to respond, and really not much we can do. VITOUSEK: Completely understand, but here we are with the opportunity to review the project; in and of ourselves we could take into account the effect of the project on a historic resource. So given the time that we have now, I believe that if a thorough review of the proposed project I should back up—in order to do a thorough review of the effects of this proposed project on this historic site, we need to have an accurate inventory of the historic sites that are there within the Special Permit area. In my opinion that would be an architectural inventory survey of the 14.9-acre project area. CARR SMITH: Christie? CASH: We did that. We submitted all, we submitted as-built plans, and all of those buildings were recorded when we put the property on historic register; every single structure on the property was outlined, and plans and photographs were submitted. So we, architectural survey has been done, and our architect, Mr. Winnie, completed as-built plans for all of them - - - my understanding - - - VITOUSEK: So, I mean, that's just not information that we got as part of our packet, so we only can base our assumptions on information that we have. That's why I was asking the questions of 22 EXHIBIT D that. Mr. Winnie, is that something that you can confirm? Has the architectural recordation of this site been confirmed by Historic Preservation at all? WINNIE: I think documents are stating that fact,but I have not been involved in the historic process. I've only been employed by Ms. Cash since December, and that all happened before I came on board. I have prepared plans for corrections to the property in the NOV, and the—what do you call it—the pavilion and the pool basically are also part of our submission then - - - I'm involved in this process right here before you. So I'm not really up to speed on all the issues on the basic—what would you call it—the special use permit- - -prepare it. VITOUSEK: Okay, you know, personally I believe that, as Alex and the applicant stated, this project has always been used as a guest ranch, and its continued use as a guest ranch is important to its survival and maintenance as a historic site. So what's being proposed here, I'm definitely in favor of, you know, as with other aspects of this application. How that is accomplished seems like a little bit of an issue. I would be willing to move forward with this, especially if we can incorporate a condition to the effect of requiring the applicant to conduct a thorough review with Historic Preservation of the proposed alterations to the historic site. I know that that's been committed in the background reports to us, saying that all new construction will undergo review by State Historic Preservation Division to ensure consistency with the appropriate Secretary of Interior standards. But that language isn't incorporated into the conditions. So if we could incorporate that into the conditions, that would satisfy my concern. ROY: Would you want to see an archeolo- architectural inventory survey? So you are looking for an inventory. My concern is that SHPD's lack of response, and if you put this burden on the applicant to wait for SHPD, you know, we would be dragging it out. So, is there something the commissioners would be accepting, you know, to show good faith that she tried to work with SHPD, complete with an architectural inventory survey? VITOUSEK: Yes, I mean, to me, that's what I think is necessary in order to take into account the effects of this project on this historic site. I think that an architectural inventory survey of the 14.9-acre site is necessary. But, you know, I would be willing—if SHPD had a different perspective, if they've already done that, and I don't know, you know, the condition that as stated in the background report that prior to any new construction, the project will undergo review by State Historic Preservation Division to ensure consistency with the appropriate Secretary of Interior standards for treatment of historic properties, if that is incorporated into a condition with the recommendation for preparation of an architectural inventory survey for the planning area, if not completed already, then to me, that satisfies my concern. ROY: Those are, I want to address if the applicant will have an issue with that. OHIRA: No, I think—can you guys hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes. OHIRA: Okay. I think that makes sense. I think it definitely makes sense for it to be limited to the project area, the two point some-odd acres that will actually be touched. And, yes, if we can, 23 EXHIBIT D like Alex has suggested, because I've seen in a correspondence where Christie has, you know, just emails and emails of just checking in,just checking in, hey, did you get my report, hey did you get that. So,just so SHPD doesn't become the eye of the needle, because I'm also very cognizant of the time frame that's imposed in one of the conditions. But, yes, that condition suggested by Mike is perfect. ROY: We want to include the entire permit area, 15 acres, or 14.9 acres. OHIRA: I had thought Mike said the development area. VITOUSEK: My recommendation is for the project area, which is the special management, or special use permit area, which is the 14.9 acres, because there have been - - - alterations within that area outside of the 2.14 acres, with the additions, the swimming pools and other elements that are non-historic elements being put into a historic site complex that could detract from the historic integrity of those sites. Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't have its own value and is necessary in order to preserve those historic sites; it's just a process that has to be done in order to take into account the effect. And to me, that means recording what's there to the extent that's required under Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 13-2-84, and then using that information as the sort of baseline to make sure that the future alterations and use of this historic site as the guest ranch don't reduce the integrity of the site, change it into something that is not and make it so it's no longer a significant historic site. Basically, I understand the applicant's intentions, I think she's got good intentions; I just want to make sure that we outline a path for how she can accomplish those intentions without inadvertently causing - - -to the historic nature of this site. OHIRA: And this is an architectural inventory. VITOUSEK: That's my recommendation, but, again, under the language that's included in our background report but not included in the conditions, requiring the review from the State Historic Preservation Division prior to the completion of any new construction within the Special Permit area. CASH: Yes, I agree to that. OHIRA: Great. ROY: Okay. CARR SMITH: - - - YATES: - -YATES: Now we've lost Nancy? Nancy? CARR SMITH: Sorry, sorry, sorry. I was asking Alex—did you say that that request had been made and that State Historic Preservation had not responded? I'm not clear whether this inventory survey has been completed or not. 24 EXHIBIT D ROY: As is typical for all projects review of 6E submittal to SHPD for review, and also during EA process they are asked to review the environmental assessment and comment on, and we did not receive any review, or any comments from SHPD, basically because I had figured that they had reviewed the site during the register process, so they felt that their review was—so we didn't hear back from them during this process. We keep actively trying to reach out to them for an archeological inventory survey, and as I said, as the staff to the CRC, that's another possibility to get the review that Commissioner Vitousek is looking to get. So, but, yeah, we were kind of left to the winds of SHPD, but we did, like I said, during the EA and during the application process we do ask them for their comment. CARR SMITH: So, Mike, will this, will the timing on this, based on your experience, affect her ability to move forward with her other, other work she wants to get started on right away? VITOUSEK: It seems as though she has a lot of stuff to get started on right away, and these conditions can be done over time. No matter what happens, you know, because this has already been submitted to SHPD for review, and in the event that they review it, they can come back with a set of conditions and requests that are different than what I might have requested, maybe more restrictive, maybe less. But if the county, as Alex is proposing, reviews this themselves through the Cultural Resources Commission, then we can move forward in good faith knowing that we have considered the effects of the special use permit on this Hawaii register of historic site and issued our approval in good faith that this will be reviewed and considered. CARR SMITH: Thank you for that. Mr. Winnie, go ahead. WINNIE: It's my understanding on how this process works; once you apply to impact the site, you have to have it reviewed anyway by Historic people. And it's my understanding also that this has been reviewed by them, and so I think it's not an unreasonable request, but I think it's also a duplicate request. So, I'm pretty sure that you have to go through the historic review process once you apply to change the site or the buildings, so you are not allowed to basically change - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: Thank you. Christie. CASH: That's correct. Like I said, anything that we do going forward, the Planning Department won't even accept it; we have to go through SHPD. We have no choice. That's just, they won't, they won't even look at our plans without first SHPD approving them. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: The environmental review that Mr. Winnie is referring to and the archaeological inventory survey Mr. Vitousek is referring to are two different things. So the lack of response on the environmental review submittal is not lack of response on an archaeological survey that was never delivered. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Kealoha or Mr. Newberg, any comments, questions? 25 EXHIBIT D KEALOHA: I just want to clarify that Commissioner Vitousek's request was that the archaeological review be submitted, not necessarily approved, because if SHPD fails to respond, the requirement will have been met. CARR SMITH: Is that what- - -your intention, Mike? VETOUSEK: So my intention is to have the effects of the project reviewed by either Historic, State Historic Preservation Division or by the County Cultural Resources Commission prior to the introduction of future elements that could detract some of the nature of the historic district. So, that would include the new buildings going in in the construction area, and I think study the entire area in order to say if the introduction of these new buildings is going to have an adverse effect on this site. I think that, you know, my recommendation for the tool to study that is the architectural inventory survey. CARR SMITH: Got it. Mr. Darrow, do you—go ahead. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to comment briefly about the past and the efforts that have been made in this particular application. The applicant has worked with the Planning Department significantly to try to resolve a number of issues that have been pending. And in working with the Planning Department, we tried to work with State Historic Preservation Division to try to resolve some of the permitting issues. And whatever the reasons were, we could not come to a resolution. This particular case had frustrated efforts to the point that we had reached out to the heads of the division and requested that there be a process put in place that would be able to allow a clear path towards a resolution whenever we came across this type of situation. In working with both SHPD, Department of Public Works, Planning Division, and other departments, we met and came to an agreement on a process that SHPD now has in place. And what it was was that prior to this process, an applicant would submit something to SHPD, and they would not accept it. It was not, according to their rules, the proper way to submit that particular information; they said that it had to come from a government agency through a permitting process. So we established a process where now whenever a permit is received by the Planning Department, we have to submit it electronically through what's called an intake portal that SHPD has set up, that once it's submitted, it's date-stamped, acknowledged, and that time clock starts, and they have a period of time to review whatever the information that's provided. And so, as Alex has mentioned, we submitted both the draft environmental assessment, the final environmental assessment, the Special Permit, through that process and have not received a response. It would have, if we had received a response, we would have acted accordingly. So we appreciate Commissioner Vitousek's insight to be able to identify this area. Up to this point, this is, to my understanding, the first time that we've heard this, as far as an architectural inventory survey. I did look at the archeological inventory survey in there; there was, it had an exhibit of the national register for historic properties, which, I mean it appeared to go into detail, as far as the architectural aspects of the property. IfI don't know if that's sufficient or if that's not sufficient, but it appears to have great detail regarding the architectural inventory on the property. 26 EXHIBIT D Again, I just wanted to reiterate that the applicant has made great efforts towards trying to resolve these matters. And it's been frustrating to say the least, but now with this new process in place, there at least is a time frame that is given to respond, and if that time frame is not met, then we can move on. So that's where we are at at this time. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thanks, Jeff. Mike, did you want to respond? VITOUSEK: Yeah, I just, I think that I'm completely comfortable with that, with if we can submit the necessary information to SHPD and they don't respond, we move on, because we've adequately considered the effects of the project on the historic site. So I don't think we need to have language in there requiring SHPD's approval of it,just that it has been submitted for review. DARROW: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Okay. Mr. Newberg. NEWBERG: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to address the alleged complaints regarding noise. It seems to be some specific complaints regarding 100 to 110 decibels. Do we have anything, you know, I mean, that can back that up or substantiate it? That's an incredible amount of noise. I don't know if that came from on the same side of the highway, what have you, but to address those concerns that were alleged, has there been any public record or announcement of any sort of noise violations that,you know, beyond normal hours in the neighborhood? ROY: Commissioner, staff who are here, we did not receive any complaints, any direct complaints, or any complaints for indications that the police or any other complaints have been provided. Nothing to know noise measurements. We received some grainy video that seemed to appear to have some noise, but it was hard to make out what it was, and definitely we were unable to, you know, measure decibels. But, no, we didn't, we weren't provided any from anyone from the community any kind of indication of anything specific. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Christie, did you want to respond? CASH: I just wanted to say that we don't, we don't allow that level, we just don't. We don't allow that, those levels. Our DJs are given decibel readers. We go to property lines to make sure—we want to respect our neighbors. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an issue that comes up every so often with the Planning Commission. And sometimes there is a request to place even decibel limits on permit conditions, and that's something that the Planning Department cannot enforce. This is an area that the Department of Health takes care of. Unfortunately, they do not have staff on this island that actively go out and that enforce these types of complaints. They have to fly in from Honolulu, so by the time they get here, obviously, the complaint that's being made, it's probably 27 EXHIBIT D already completed, if it's a nighttime event or whatever it is. But that has been a very difficult area to really nail down because of the fact that it's under a specific purview for enforcement, and they have to be trained and they have to have the proper equipment that will stand up in court, if it was challenged. The Planning Department just doesn't have that training or that equipment to be able to actively enforce that type of complaint. In, we are aware of the fact that in the Agricultural district, it does allow the noise levels up to 70 dB, which is one of the highest allowable levels. But, again, that's something that is out of our purview. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Jeff, don't go away—or who from the county wants to respond to the three requested changes from the applicant? I don't think we've discussed those. So their proposed change on 7, 8 and 17, what's the county's position on that? DARROW: Michael, you want to take this one? You are on? Okay. YEE: Yeah, the October 13'h letter with the proposed changes are fine with me. CARR SMITH: All of it. YEE: Yep. CARR SMITH: Okay, very good. So, the applicant- - - ROY: - -ROY: - - - Chair, Chairwoman, I'm sorry, real quick, I just wanted to reiterate, too, that there is a, we put a condition in for annual reporting, so taking out that compliance is really not an issue, because we are going to have, she is going to be required to do an annual report of her compliance with the condition until those conditions are complied. So that will be a way for us the Planning Department to keep tabs on conditions and compliance with those conditions. CARR SMITH: Okay. Anyone else? If there is not—Mr. Van Pernis. Use the microphone, please. VAN PERNIS: I'd like to know what Mr. Yee's position on those requests in that letter I received 24 hours ago. They all, all the requested changes appear to cramp the public, or against the public's shared input, assume crank complaints rather than real complaints, and give Ms. Cash more economic benefit from leeway at the expense of the public. So I think they should, the conditions as Mr. Vitousek wants to amend them, but the conditions stated by Mr. Yee are appropriate. Five years for ADA? Come on. CARR SMITH: Okay. Anybody else? (No audible response) All right. We can move on to a motion, if anyone is ready to proceed with that. Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: If Mr. Vitousek would make his, state his motion to add the condition concerning historic preservation, I would be happy to second that. CARR SMITH: Mr. Vitousek, which is on you. 28 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Sure, I'm working on the condition right now. CARR SMITH: Okay, we'll give you a moment to do that. VITOUSEK: Thank you. (Pause) YEE: This is Michael Yee. I'm going to buy Mike some, a little more time. CARR SMITH: Sure, go ahead. YEE: So, as I near the end of this mayor administration, I become a little more reflective about my time here in what, and the commitment all you commissioners put in to continue to work here, and one of the trends in the last few years has been yoga retreats, guest houses, things that are disguised as vacation rentals, right? Bed and breakfasts. They fall all into this kind of overnight accommodation category that we struggle with. Last month we heard a very difficult application, the Hickey application. And I do, in being reflective, there are some differences between last month's application and this month's application, and this is where you try to strive to find that balance. The—and you know I'm grounded in historic preservation before coming here this certainly is a historic property, and one of the things we strive for in historic preservation is finding a use that helps keep that property in place. And so in this case, this use has a guest ranch, active guest ranch, certainly it will help support that. That's certainly one unique aspect of this application this month. Another thing is the infrastructure issues that were mounting on last month's application versus this month. Less road issues, the ability to deal with water issues, sewer issues on the site is a little more, easier to kind of deal with. And so there are definitely differences, and, but the one thing we know is every application that comes in front of you around yoga retreats and everything else, presents very unique circumstances. And I will also want to comment; it seems like, I don't know,probably 75 percent of the ones we, that come into the department are basically complaint-driven. Like they, we fell upon them because there was a complaint from somebody, we may contact, and we try to strive to get them into compliance. And I could see that being the trend for a very long time, and so very problematic, if we try to go down the road where we just want to throw down a hammer on people in violations, be it that an overnight accommodation or not. It is a daunting challenge, but certainly I think an approach from the Commission to help bring people into compliance, that's a balance with their neighbors and for the benefit to the island, is certainly something you should continue to strive for, which you are doing now. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you for that, Director. Do we have a motion - - - ? Go ahead. VITOUSEK: I would like to just run the language of the proposed condition by the applicant and their representative to see if they are okay with it. CARR SMITH: Sounds good. 29 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: "Prior to the commencement of new construction within the 14.9-acre project area, State Historic Preservation Division and the County Cultural Resources Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the proposed project on Puakea Ranch State Inventory of Historic Property Site 9071. This will include the preparation and submittal of an architectural inventory survey of the 14.9-acre project area." CARR SMITH: Could you repeat that? Christina was in motion. I'd like her to CASH: - - - I'm good with that. I don't know - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: Christie is, okay. Do you want to make sure that your counsel heard all of that? CASH: Yes. CARR SMITH: Can you repeat it, Mike, one more time? VITOUSEK: Sure. "Prior to the commencement of new construction within the 14.9-acre project area, DLNR State Historic Preservation Division and the County Cultural Resources Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the proposed project on Puakea Ranch State Inventory of Historic Property Site number 9071. This will include the preparation and submittal of an architectural inventory survey of the 14.9-acre project area." OHIRA: - - - CARR - -CARR SMITH: Christina, I don't hear you. OHIRA: Sorry, I was on mute. Yes, that sounds acceptable. CARR SMITH: Okay. And the county is fine with that? ROY: The staff has no issues with that. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Alex. KEALOHA: I will therefore second that motion. CARR SMITH: Perry is ready to second your motion. Make your motion, Mike. VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah, I will make the motion. I move that Puakea Ranch dba, Special Permit application for Puakea Ranch dba Kupunakane Ranch LLC, SPP-20-00[0]219, be accepted with the conditions as amended. YATES: I second. 30 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: All right, so we've got a motion from Commissioner Vitousek and a second from Faye Yates. Is there any more discussion - - -? (No audible response) If not, then, Alex, can we have a roll call vote, please? ROY: Sorry, I missed, who is the first and second, I mean the second? CARR SMITH: Mr. Vitousek and Ms. Yates. ROY: Okay. CARR SMITH: Mike, was there something else? VITOUSEK: No,just— CARR ustCARR SMITH: Okay VITOUSEK: I was the first. CARR SMITH: Waiting, okay. ROY: Okay. Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. ROY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Newberg? NEWBERG: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: As submitted by Mr. Vitousek, yea. CARR SMITH: What was that? 31 EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: With Mr. Vitousek's amendment, yes. CARR SMITH: Okay. ROY: And Chair Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. ROY: Motion carries six to zero CARR SMITH: Very good ROY: seven, sorry, seven, there are seven of you today CARR SMITH: Seven to zero. Very good. Thank you, Christie. Best of luck to you with moving forward with everything. CASH: Thank you so much, Commissioners and the Planning Department and my amazing counsel. I really appreciate all your time today. Mahalo. CHIN: Thank you for your effort CARR SMITH: You'll be notified in writing of the decision. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chin. OHIRA: Thank you, everyone. CARR SMITH: Yeah, thank you, folks, take care. The hearing ended at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 32 EXHIBIT D