Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-20 LPC Minutes & Transcripts LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I MINUTES MAY 20, 2021 The Leeward Planning Commission met in regular session at 9:47 a.m., with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. Based on the Governor's Nineteenth Proclamation Related to the COVID-19 Emergency dated April 9, 2021,this meeting was held online,with live stream video for the public to observe the meeting. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek,Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Mark Van Pernis,Faith"Faye"Yates, and Max Newberg (until 2:58 p.m.) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ"Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter,Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department),Jeffrey Darrow(Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson(Planning Program Manager), Alex Roy(Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero(Planner),and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) A quorum was present. Chairman Vitousek called the meeting to order. He explained the public accessibility to this meeting, as well as the protocol for the participants to follow. Chairman Vitousek announced the following changes to the meeting process: 1) As a result of a request from Commissioner Van Perris and of a meeting with him and the county ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act) coordinators, Commissioner Van Perris will be offered the following reasonable accommodations: a) A headset to assist with clarity; b) The ability to provide written questions in advance of the meeting,which will be read by the chairperson during the meeting; and, c) The ability to use the Zoom Chat function for questions, which will also be read by the chairperson into the record. 2) Pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 1-5, the commission will adhere more closely to Robert's Rules of Order, which include the following: a) Discussions must take place after a main motion has been moved and seconded. After the commission has heard from the Planning Department staff and from the applicant,the chairperson will allow a limited opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and the department staff,but the commissioners may not discuss the item until a main motion has been made. Each commissioner will have a block of time of no more than ten minutes to ask questions but may request an extension from the chairperson. 1 b) After a main motion has been moved and seconded, discussion can take place. Any subsequent changes, such as requests for alterations of conditions or wording, will be made in the form of a motion to amend the main motion, which will require a second and a vote to formally amend the main motion. c) In the event there are any behaviors displayed by applicants, members of the public, or commissioners that are disruptive to the order of the commission meetings,the chairperson will exercise his/her authority pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 1-50)to address these behaviors and, if necessary, to remove the disruptive party from the meeting. The chairperson will provide one verbal warning, and if the warning is not heeded,the chairperson will call a recess and give a second verbal warning. If there is any further disruptive, disrespectful, or discourteous behavior following the second warning,the party will be removed from the meeting. d) The commissioners are requested to take an active role in ensuring the order of the commission meetings. If a commissioner objects to any behavior,he/she may interrupt by stating"Paint of Order" and his/her concerns will be discussed. If a commissioner objects to an undiplomatic or improper manner,he/she may interrupt by stating"I object to the consideration of this question"and his/her concerns will be discussed. Chairman Vitousek introduced the commissioners and staff in attendance. At 9:55 a.m.pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92-7(d) and Planning Commission Rule 1-5(c)(2), the commission discussed and voted on the following amendments to the agenda: 1) Add election of a temporary vice chairperson for the June 2021 commission meeting: A motion to adopt the amendment was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner Yates. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the motion carried with five ayes(Carr Smith,Yates, DeFranco,Newberg,and Vitousek), one no (Van Pernis), and one absent and excused(Kanuha). Chairman Vitousek stated that this item will be added as New Business item 7. 2) Postpone New Business item 2,JEKATERINA MYSIN (SMA 21-000078), until the June 2021 commission meeting, as requested by the applicant: It was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner DeFranco that the commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes 92-5. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the motion carried with five ayes (Carr Smith, DeFranco,Newberg,Yates, and Vitousek), one no (Van Pernis), and one absent and excused(Kanuha). The commission went into executive session at 10:16 a.m. and came out at 10:26 a.m. A motion to allow a continuance as requested was moved by Commissioner Newberg and seconded by Commissioner Carr Smith. A vote was taken by show of hands,and the motion carried with five ayes (Newberg, Carr Smith, DeFranco,Van Pernis, and Yates), 2 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes one no(Vitousek), and one absent and excused(Kanuha). Chairman Vitousek clarified that the commission would still accept public testimony. 3) Include making clerical revisions to permitted uses in the Family Agricultural zoning district in New Business item 6: A motion to adopt the amendment was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner Newberg. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the motion carried with five ayes (Carr Smith,Newberg, DeFranco,Yates, and Vitousek), one no (Van Pernis), and one absent and excused (Kanuha). The discussion ended at 10:37 a.m. [SEE DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT A] Chairman Vitousek at this time called upon Commissioners DeFranco and Van Pernis to make their disclosure statements concerning New Business item 1, ARNOLD RABIN (SPP 21- 000224). Commissioner DeFranco stated that she knew Applicant Mr. Rabin personally and his wife was currently working for her,but that she felt that she would be able to make an impartial decision on this matter. No one raised objections to Commissioner DeFranco's participation in this agenda item. Commissioner Van Pernis stated that he had as an attorney represented Applicant Mr. Rabin in a variety of matters years ago, and that he considered Mr. Rabin a friend. He recused himself from this agenda item for the reason that his relationship with the applicant would prevent him from being fair and impartial, Chairman Vitousek accepted his recusal. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Vitousek called upon public testifiers, explained the procedure,and swore them in to tell the truth in their testimony. At 10:40 a.m. five individuals provided statements regarding New Business item 2, the application of.IEKATERINA MYSIN(SMA 21-000078). The testimony ended at 1 1:04 a.m. [SEE HEARING TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT B] There was a connectivity problem with next testifiers. At 11:07 a.m. Chairman Vitousek called a recess to address the problem. He called the meeting back to order at 11:15 a.m. At 11:15 a.m. Six individuals provided statements regarding New Business items 3 and 4, the applications of TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD& KAY LYNN WARD (SLU 21-0000561REZ 21-000246). The testimony ended at 1 1:36 a.m. [SEE HEARING TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT C] It was moved by Commissioner Yates and seconded by Commissioner Carr Smith that public testimony be closed. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the motion carried with five ayes (Yates, Carr Smith,DeFranco,Newberg, and Vitousek), no noes, and one absent and excused (Kanuha). Commissioner Van Perris voted neither for nor against the motion. 3 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS 1. APPLICANT: ARNOLD RABIN (SPP 21-000224) Application for a Special Permit to allow the use of a portion of an existing farm dwelling as a real estate office on approximately 1.01 acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 83-5365 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 0.46 miles north of the Hawaii Belt Road/Middle Ke`ei Road intersection, Ke`ei 2nd, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 8-3-010:089. The commission took up this item at 11:36 a.m. Commissioner Van Pernis recused himself from this item. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner Newberg that the application for Special Permit docket number 21-000224 be approved based on the planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried with five ayes (Carr Smith,Newberg, DeFranco,Yates, and Vitousek), no noes, one recused(Van Pernis), and one absent and excused(Kanuha). The hearing ended at 11:51 a.m. [SEE HEARING TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT D] 2. APPLICANT: JEKATERINA MYSIN(SMA 21-000078) Application for Special Management Area Use Permit to construct a six(6)unit, five(5) story condominium and related improvements on a 9,934 square foot lot situated within the Special Management Area. The subject property is located at 75-6150 Ali`i Drive, approximately 0.25 miles north of Royal Poinciana Drive, Puapua`a 2",North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-020:066. This item was postponed until the June 2021 commission meeting. 3. APPLICANTS: TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD& KAY LYNN WARD (SLU 21-000056) Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, Kalaoa 0, O`oma I",North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-005:015. 4. APPLICANTS: TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD & KAY LYNN WARD (REZ 21-000246) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre(A-5a) and Agricultural 1-acre (A-la)to a Single-Family Residential 22,000 square feet(RS-22) zoned district for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, Kalaoa 4 h, O`oma I",North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-005:015. The commission took up these two items simultaneously at 11:51 a.m. 4 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes At 12:52 p.m. after a verbal warning, Chairman Vitousek called a short recess to discuss decorum with Commissioner Van Pernis. He called the hearing back to order at 12:55 p.m. Action on SLU 21-000056: It was moved by Commissioner DeFranco and seconded by Commissioner Carr Smith that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application of the state land use boundary amendment, docket number SLU 21-000056, based on the deputy planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried with six ayes(DeFranco, Carr Smith,Newberg, Van Pernis, Yates and Vitousek), no noes, and one absent and excused(Kanuha). Action on REZ 21-000246: It was moved by Commissioner DeFranco and seconded by Commissioner Carr Smith that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for change of zone, docket number REZ 21-000246, based on the deputy planning director's recommendation,which shall be adopted. Commissioner Carr Smith moved to amend the motion to include the following revisions to the recommended conditions of approval: 1)Condition C,the word"application"in the third to last tine be corrected to "applicants"; 2)Condition L, the first line,except for the word"prior,"be deleted; 3) Condition M be replaced in its entirety with"Prior to final subdivision approval,the applicant shall install a five-foot high fence along the entire southern boundary of the property, and a speed bump, stop sign, and convex mirror at the bottom of the subdivision access road"; and 4) Condition N, the word"unlikely" in the first line be deleted. Commissioner Van Pernis seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the subsidiary motion was taken, and the subsidiary motion carried with six ayes (Carr Smith,Van Pernis,DeFranco,Newberg, Yates, and Vitousek),no noes, and one absent and excused(Kanuha). A roll call vote on the main motion as amended was taken, and the motion carried with five ayes(DeFranco, Carr Smith,Newberg, Van Pernis, and Vitousek),no noes, one abstention(Yates), and one absent and excused(Kanuha). The hearing ended at 1:23 p.m. [SEE HEARING TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT E] Chairman Vitousek called a recess at 1:23 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 2:00 p.m. 5. APPLICANTS: MARIKO SAKITA& MARK H. MOZESON (SPP 21-000225) Application for a Special Permit to operate a four(4)-bedroom bed and breakfast establishment on approximately 3.925 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District, The subject property is located at 59-270 Olomana Road, approximately 0.5 miles north(makai)of its intersection with Kohala Ranch Road, Kahua 1",Kahua, Waika, North Kohala, Hawaii, Tax Map Key: (3)5-9-01 1:067. Chairman Vitousek announced that this application had been withdrawn by the applicants. 6, INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR An ordinance amending Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code) and Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended). Amendments to Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code),Article 4, Article 5, and Article 6 relate to general provisions, final plat map and construction. Amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2 and Article 6 relate to general administration and time extensions and amendments for planned unit 5 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes developments. The purpose is to amend language in the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code in preparation for the EnerGov launch,which will change the process for submitting applications to the Planning Department and making clerical revisions to permitted uses in the Family Agricultural zoning district. The commission took up this item at 2:02 p.m. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner Newberg that the commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the planning director's proposed ordinance amending Chapters 23 and 25 of Hawaii County Code, including clerical revisions to permitted uses in the Family Agricultural zoning district. A vote was taken by show of hands,and the motion carried with five ayes (Carr Smith,Newberg, DeFranco, Yates, and Vitousek), no noes, one abstention (Van Pernis), and one absent and excused. (Kanuha). The hearing ended at 2:1 S p.m. [SEE HEARING TRANSCRIPT—EXHIBIT F] 7. ELECTION OF TEMPORARY VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE JUNE 2021 COMMISSION MEETING At 2:18 p.m. Chairman Vitousek opened the floor for nomination for temporary vice chairperson for the June commission meeting. Commissioner Carr Smith nominated Commissioner DeFranco. Commissioner Yates seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, a vote was taken by show of hands, and Commissioner DeFranco was elected temporary vice chairperson for the June 2021 commission meeting with five ayes (Carr Smith, Yates,Newberg, DeFranco, and Vitousek), no noes, one abstention(Van Pernis), and one absent and excused (Kanuha). At this time Deputy Planning Director Darrow expressed his gratitude to departing Vice Chairman Newberg and presented a certificate of appreciation signed by Mayor Mitchell Roth. Commissioner Carr Smith also expressed her appreciation to Vice Chair Newberg and spoke of their years of service together on county boards, starting with the Board of Appeals. MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the April 15, 2021,Leeward Planning Commission meeting. At 2:18 p.m. it was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner DeFranco that the minutes be approved as submitted. A vote was taken by show of hands,and the motion carried with all in favor. 6 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. CZNVSMA presentation by the State Office of Planning and Planning Department staff. At 2:19 p.m. Coastal Zone Management Program Manager Justine Nihipali and Planner Shichao Li of the State of Hawaii Office of Planning provided a presentation regarding the Hawai`i Coastal Zone Management and Special Management Area("SMA") Permitting. [SEE COPY OF POWERPOINT—EXHIBIT GI Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carr Smith, Mr. Li clarified that the trigger for an SMA Major permit is not only the $500,000 construction cost threshold but also a significant impact. He said that impact is in fact more important;however, the$500,000 threshold provides an automatic trigger where there is no question of discretion. Commissioner Carr Smith also asked how impact is differentiated between a beach area and a rocky cliff. Mr. Li responded that the impact on rocky cliff area has to do more with the landslide and coastal hazard issue, whereas the beach area deals more with the erosion issue. He further said that according to the definition of shoreline by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the top of the cliff can be regarded as shoreline,which triggers SMA requirements and shoreline setback requirements for the parcel. In response to Commissioner DeFranco's questions regarding sea walls, Mr. Li said that sea walls and any shoreline hardening structures are prohibited in the beach areas, except that if there is specific interest of the public in building a sea wall, it can be permitted. Chairman Vitousek asked if sand dunes that would not be created by coastal processes are included in the beach definition. Mr. Li responded that both the submerged or nearshore area and the upland area like sand dunes are considered beach. Chairman Vitousek further asked if sand deposits buried under outside sediments that were brought in by land alteration or land reclamation, could also fall under the definition of beach. Mr. Li answered in the affirmative and said that if it is historically a beach area that can be found by a geological survey or another way, it can be defined as beach. Chairman Vitousek also asked if there is a size limit on what constitutes beach. He noted that in Kona there are very small pockets of sand surrounded by lava, which is the local form of a beach. Mr. Li said in response that there is no size definition under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A on beach, and that that would more likely be determined case by case. Planner Alex Roy of County of Hawaii Planning Department provided a presentation on the SMA Review Criteria and the Regulatory Process,relating especially to Hawaii County. [SEE COPY OF POWERPOINT—EXHIBIT H] Commissioner Newberg left the meeting at 2:58 p.m. Chairman Vitousek asked when the amount of$500,000 constituting development was established. Mr. Li responded that it was by Act 153 in 2011,which changed the amount from $125,000 to$500,000. Mr. Roy noted that if it is found during the building permit process that 7 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes the cost estimate provided by applicant seeking an SMA Minor permit does not match the county's valuation,the county has the opportunity to request an SMA Major permit instead. He also said that the Planning Department recognizes that a series of incremental permits will eventually have resulted in major work and impacted the area; therefore,the department has been looking at cumulative impacts differently and pressing people, including government agencies, for SMA Major permits,which would allow review by the public and the planning commissions. The presentation ended at 3.26 p.m, 2. Discussion of recent Special Management Area(SMA) determinations,minor permits and enforcement action issued by the Planning Director. There was no discussion on this matter. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Vitousek asked about Commissioner Carr Smith's holdover status, as her term had expired March 31, 2021. Commissioner Carr Smith said that her holdover was through June; however, since she would be off island, this was the last meeting for her. She added that she had offered to remain on board until her replacement was appointed but had not heard back from the Office of the Mayor. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Carr Smith and seconded by Commissioner DeFranco that the meeting be adjourned. A voice vote was taken, and the motion carried with all in favor. Chairman Vitousek adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, No iko Sauer, Secretary ATTEST: �h& Vli�wel( Michael Vitousek(Ju112,2021 I.5-121 LIST) Michael Vitousek, Chairman Leeward Planning Commission 8 Leeward Planning Commission May 20,2021,Meeting Minutes LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPT MAY 20, 2021 The commission discussed potential amendments to the agenda for this live-stream online meeting at 9:55 a.m., with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. Michael Vitousek, Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Max Newberg, Mark Van Pernis, and Faith"Faye" Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ"Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department),Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Alex Roy(Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission S ecretary) VITOUSEK: Before we get into public testimony, we have some potential changes to the agenda. Sunshine Law allows the commission to alter the agenda on the day of the meeting with a two-thirds vote of the commission, provided that changes to the agenda are not reasonably major importance. So, requested change number one, is with the pending departure of Vice Chair Max Newberg from the commission, we will be without a vice chair for the June meeting. There is a chance that I have a scheduling conflict in June and may not be able to attend; therefore, it would be prudent to amend the agenda to allow for the election of a temporary vice chair for the June meeting to give us enough time to properly agendize a permanent replacement for Vice Chair Newberg at a future meeting. Therefore, I request a motion from the commissioners to amend the agenda to allow for the election of a temporary vice chair for the June LPC meeting. CARR SMITH: So moved. YATES. (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Moved by Commissioner Carr Smith. Second by Commissioner Yates. Any discussion? Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: (Inaudible—microphone on mute) VITOUSEK: Yeah, needs to be unmuted. i EXHIBIT A VAN PERNIS: Now can you hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes. VAN PERNIS: Is there any possibility of changing the date of the June hearing s❑ that you would not have a conflict? VITOUSEK: Possible, but in either case I think we should have a deputy, I mean an interim vice chair for the meeting, regardless of whether I'm there or not. S❑ we can work that out with—the date of the meeting—we can work that out offline and figure out if we can schedule it or schedule a special meeting. But I think for the purposes of coverage, we will need to have a vice chair. Any further discussion? I would, I put this item as item number 7, if it were elected, so it will be taken after the completion of all the other items. SCHLUETER: Excuse me, Chair. Dahlah Schlueter, Corporation Counsel. I just want to, while everyone is considering,just make sure that you are aware that the Hawaii Revised Statutes 92-7(d)does, as the Chair, allow for this, provided that no item shall be added to the agenda, if it is of reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons. So I just want to make sure you all know the standard just so that, while you are considering. VITOUSEK: Okay, any further discussion? (No audible response) okay, seeing none, let's take a vote. All those in favor? (Commissioners Carr Smith, Yates, DeFranco, and Newberg, and Chairman Vitousek raise their hands in favor.) VITOUSEK: Aye. Any opposed? VAN PERNIS: (Raises hand in opposition) VITOUSEK: Okay, motion carries is that six to one? JACKSON: I believe it's five to one. VITOUSEK: Five to one, five to one, okay. Thank you. The item will be added as agenda item 7. Okay, next up is a clarification of agenda item 2. In a letter dated May 18, 2 02 1, the applicant's representative for agenda item 2, Jekaterina Mysin—forgive me if I pronounced it wrong SMA 21-078, requested to postpone until the June meeting to give the public time to review and comment on changes to the development plans and to allow the applicant additional time to follow up on concerns expressed by community members. This application has not been 2 EXHIBIT A withdrawn. There has been a petition for standing in a contested case hearing on this agenda item that has also not been withdrawn. Given the very short notice, on which this item was withdrawn, was requested to be postponed, there wasn't sufficient time for the applicant to notify all the owners and lessees or individuals who have possessory interests of properties within 300 feet pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9-11(d). I'm concerned about the department unilaterally postponing this item. The applicant may withdraw their application at any time, but if they want to postpone the agenda item this close to the meeting, then the Planning Commission needs to make that determination. So the applicant is not the only party involved in this public meeting, especially if there is a request for standing in a contested case. So we will hear public testimony on this item, and then the Planning Commission will consider whether this item should be continued in its entirety or whether the commission should hear the petition for standing in a contested case. Moving onto potential amendment to the agenda item number G. Deputy planning director is requesting a change to the planning director-initiated bill to add FA zoning. Mr. Darrow, will you please explain the requested amendment to the agenda? DARROW: I can. If we can go back to the previous item. The department does not agree with moving forward on the motion to grant or to deny standing on the matter of number 2. The applicant has requested a continuance; when you read the rules, it gives the applicant the right to submit a filing fee and to request a continuance. There is no information in the rule regarding a motion by the commission. Further down in the rule, under Decision and Order, there is a section that says the applicant may request the commission to defer action on the application. So there are two different situations here. As mentioned previously, standard practice is is that if the applicant requests a continuance prior to the hearing, there is no hearing that has, was no hearing on the matter, that we accept the request, they submit the filing fee—the filing fee is for administrative cost that will be used to be able to re-agendize the item—and then they are required to send out the notification. As it was late in the process, I don't know if the applicant sent out the request to the surrou- or the information that was needed to be sent out to the surrounding property owners,but the department did post on the website that this item was continued. The department is not ready to move forward on this inatter, and being a party in this matter, is requesting that it be continued. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. You know, we are kind of getting conflicting message on whether it's the commission's role to continue a matter on the agenda, whether it's the department's. 1 believe that it's the commission's role to decide whether to continue a matter that is placed for the commission, and as such, I'd like to give the commission that opportunity and; you know, they will likely consider all of the information that's coming from the department and the applicant and public testimony in snaking a decision to continue DARROW: The reason why I mention that I disagree with that is because the way that the rule reads is that there is a process in place for the applicant to follow without the request, or being granted by the commission, and that process is that they submit the filing fee, and that they 3 EXHIBIT A notify surrounding property owners that the matter has been continued. They wouldn't do that, if they had to g❑ before the commission to request the continuance because they wouldn't be sure if they were going to be granted a continuance. They would have to be ready to move forward on the matter, and so would all parties. At this point all parties have been notified that the issue has been continued. And so we have not had an opportunity to prepare for this matter today. VITOUSEK: Okay--Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Can you hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes. VAN PERNIS: I disagree with the Planning Department's analysis. I think (indiscernible) the language of the fee rule says the Planning Commission can decide, or implies that. But I'm concerned because the lateness of the application, whether or not there is public testimony, that should be taken. I also would like to hear from the Planning Department as to whether—two thingsa notice has been, they signed the notice, originally was presented or in place, and secondly, whether the application fee, the fee that has been referred to, has been paid. DARROW: I have received the filing fee for the continuance. Maija, if you could answer the other question. JACKSON: Yeah, I believe the sign is still posted on the property. And the applicant did provide notification to all owners within 300 feet of today's hearing. They did not send out a notice yet that the hearing was, that they requested to continue the hearing, However,the department did put on our website that the hearing was continued, so anybody that views our website and the background and recommendation reports would see that the hearing was continued. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: In follow-up, you say, "believe'; are you certain or not certain that the notice including the sign that goes up on property was timely in place? SMITH: (Raises hand) VITOUSEK: I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, we are not taking public testimony at this point. SMITH: I just wanted to clarify that the sign is in place. VAN PERNIS: Well, it's in place now, but was it in place prior to the meeting? 4 EXHIBIT A JACKSON. Yes, Commissioner Van Pernis, staff went out to do a site visit, and when they did the site visit, the sign was in place. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. VITOUSEK: So, I think what might make the most sense for us to do at this point would be to call an executive session, in which we'll have the opportunity to consult with our Planning Commission attorney to determine the appropriate course of action for this agenda item. Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: If I could just ask the Planning Department a quick question before we go into executive session. I understand that they have a process and procedure, and I respect that but I'm wondering, in this case when it's been continued, how is the petition for standing handled, generally, Jeff? DARROW: The entire hearing is continued. And the reason that we want them to be continued together is because normally what happens is when we come together for a hearing, staff will present the application, they will provide all the information, they will be able to answer any questions of the commission that they may have, and then after the presentation and questions and testimony are complete, then they go into the matter of whether or not to grant standing. It's difficult to move forward with one portion of this application without the other, because you are going to be very limited on what you can d❑ and what you can ask and say in regards to the petition because the other portion is continued. But again, our process has always been that when the matter is requested by the applicant prior to the hearing to continue, that we will continue the matter. If it's at the hearing, and the applicant or the petitioner or the Planning Commission requests a continuance, then there is a motion made and a vote. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, with that, I think executive session would be appropriate. Will one of the commissioners make a motion to go into executive session to consult with our attorney:' CARR SMITH: (Raises hand to so move) VITOUSEK: Moved by Commissioner Carr Smith. DEFRANCO: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner DeFranco. All those in favor? (Commissioners Carr Smith, DeFranco, Newberg, and Yates, and Chainnan Vitousek raise their hands in favor.) 5 EXHIBIT A VITDUSEK: Aye. Any opposed? VAN PERNIS: I oppose. VITDUSEK: Oppose, okay, one, five to one again. With that, we will close the public testimony, or close the public meeting, and we will go into executive session. How are we going to do that? JACKSON: So with Zoom, we have what is called a breakout room. VITDUSEK: Okay. JACKSON: So what I'm going to do is I'm going to put the planning commissioners and Corp. Counsel Schlueter and Noriko in a breakout room, and then—so bear with me, this is the first time I've done a breakout room—when the commission is done with the executive session, you guys will have to come back to this main meeting, and it will have a little icon for you to click to come back to the main meeting. So we will all still be here; the testifiers, the applicants, staff will be in the main meeting. VITDUSEK: Okay. JACKSON: Okay? So let me, let me try to set that up,just give me a few minutes here. DARROW: Good luck, Maija. JACKSON: Thank you. The commission went into executive session at 10:16 a.m..for the purpose of consulting with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the commission 's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities,pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 92-5. At 10:25 a.m. there being no further legal questions, the commission came out of executive session at the call of Chairman Vitousek. The commission left the Zoom breakout room and rejoined the main meeting, and Chairman Vitousek called the open session back to order at 10:26 a.m. VITDUSEK: Okay, we are back from our executive session. Thank you for your patience. At this time we'll be seeking two motions from the commission: One motion being whether to postpone agenda item 2 as requested by the applicant, and one item being whether to allow public testimony on this agenda item. So if the commissioners would like to make a motion so we can have a discussion. DARROW: Mike, can I just make a suggestion? 6 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Ices. DARROW: Chair—sorry about that. In any, whenever any item is agendized, there is no need to vote on public testimony; we will always accept public testimony for any item that has been agendized, whether it's continued or not. VITOUSEK: Got you. Okay, so we, in that case, we just need one motion, and we will be allowing public testimony on this no matter what. Commissioner Newberg, I mean Vice Chair Newberg, sorry. NEWBERG: Thank you, Chair, I would like to make a motion to allow a continuance for agenda item 2, Mysin for SMA 21-000078. CARR SMITH: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Motion by Vice Chair Newberg, second by Commissioner Carr Smith. Discussion? Is there anything anybody would like to add? (No audible response) no, okay, all those in favor? (Commissioners Newberg, Carr Smith, DeFranco, Van Pernis, and Yates raise their hands in favor.) VITOUSEK: Any opposed? (Raises hand in opposition) okay, is that five to one again`? JACKSON: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay, motion carries. This item will be deferred to a later date. Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: (Inaudible—microphone on mute) VITOUSEK: It's on mute. It's on mute, Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Is a motion in order to allow public testimony for those who have appeared today on the Mysin matter? VITO]SEK: A motion on that is not neccssary; public testimony will be allowed on that agenda item today. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. 7 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Yep. Okay, carrying on to the last potential change to the agenda, it's item 6. Deputy Director Darrow, would you please take us through the planning director-initiated changes? DARROW: Thank you, Chair Vitousek. We, unbeknownst to us, we had a number of staff, as well as council aides, review a particular Ordinance that went through both commissions and through council for approval regarding medical clinics and Use Permits, and this was about a month or two ago, and after everything was passed and ready to go into code, it was observed that there was just a very minor change to the wording of a particular section in the code. Although the wording is very minor in nature, the way, if it's applied, the way that it is presented, it would be incorrect. So it's just a minor change of a word, one word, and we are asking that the commission through the ability that Corporation Counsel had mentioned earlier, to be able to allow this through in this bill that we are working on. It, the way that it's added on to the agenda, is at the end it says, "and making clerical revisions to permitted uses in the Family Agricultural zoning district." It's the last section in the bill, Section—let's see, well, it's included in the bill--anyway, it's a particular word, it is from, changes it from"outside," or "within"to "outside"—I need to look at that and just find out exactly where it is. But it's, we weren't able, what happened was we found out after the agenda was already released, and so we weren't able to amend the agenda. For the Windward Planning Commission we were able to ame- to get the correct agenda out. The reason why, I mean, it's not critical for this particular section to go through; the main thing that we are trying to do with this bill is make some minor changes to the rules regarding EnerGov, and we'll talk about that as we get there. But again, we are just requesting this minor addition to help us fix this issue that happened previously. Thank you. VITOUSEK: So, are you requesting an amendment to item 6 or are you requesting a new item to be heard regarding the change to the FA zoning? DARROW: It would be just an amendment to the agenda. VITOUSEK: I got that, but is that a change to agenda item 6 or is it a change adding a new agenda item? DARROW: No, no, it's just a change to agenda item 6. I'm trying to locate the—it's Section 8 within the ordinance. VITOUSEK: The ordinance that was included in our background? DARROW: Correct. So again, it's just, we had sent the ordinance to the commission after we made the changes, but we weren't able to agendize it with that addition once it was sent out. VITOUSEK: So, so I understand, the requested change is a minor revision to the ordinance that we have had submitted to us? Maija? 8 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Yeah, Chair Vitousek, if I may? So the only change we are asking for is a change to the agenda. What happened was we put the agenda out, because it has to be released almost a month before the hearing, and then we made amendments to the bill that's before you in your recommendation report. S❑ the background and recommendation report are accurate. So the amendment we would want to the agenda is on item 6 after the last word"the Planning Department,"we would also say, "and making clerical revisions to permitted uses in the Family Agricultural zoning district." So we are just adding that last statement to the agenda. VITOUSEK. And could you take us through what the clerical revision is so that we understand what substantive change is, if it JACKSON: Sure. So if you look at page 3 of the bill of your background and recommendation report, at the bottom of page 3 there is a section 8, and that entire section 8 was added. And so what that does is that it just fixes a clerical or typographical error that occurred when a previous bill went through council. You can see it says, "The following uses may be permitted in the FA district, provided that either a use permit is issued for each use if the building site is within the State land use Ag [agricultural] district or a special permit is issued for each use if the building site is within the State land use agricultural district." So it's just a change that needs to be, it's a fix that needs to be done, because when we, when the department sent a previous bill through, we accidentally changed that word from "outside" to "within,"and that was in error. We superimposed the wording incorrectly. The code never had the word "within" in it; we accidentally added it. VITOUSEK: Okay, I see that, and I believe that that's not reasonably major importance. Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: I'd like to make a motion that we amend agenda item number 6 as stated by Ms. Jackson. VITOUSEK: Motion has been made. Is there a second? NEWBERG: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Oh, Commissioner Newberg, or Vice Chair Newberg, sorry. So, moved by Commissioner Carr Smith, second by Vice Chair Newberg. All those in favor? (Commissioners Carr Smith, Newberg, DeFranco, and Yates, and Chairman Vitousek raise their hands in favor.) VITOUSEK: One, two, three, four, five. Any opposed? VAN PERNIS: (Raises hand in opposition) 9 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Five to one— ❑ARROW: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, that will be included with agenda item 6. Now we are finally able to get into the new business of the agenda. Thank you for your patience. The discussion ended at 10:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT A LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT MAY 20, 2021 Public testimony regarding the application of JEKATERINA MYSIN (SMA 21-000078) was called to order at 10:40 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Max Newberg, Mark Van Perris, and Faith"Faye"Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ" Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Alex Roy (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: JEKATERINA MYSIN (SMA 21-000078) Application for Special Management Area Use Permit to construct a six (6)unit, five (5) story condominium and related improvements on a 9,934 square foot lot situated within the Special Management Area. The subject property is located at 75-6150 Ali`i Drive, approximately 0.25 miles north of Royal Poinciana Drive, Puapua`a 2°a, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-020.066. VITOUSEK: We have received significant amount of written testimony. That's been emailed to all our commissioners. I'll ask that any testifiers please limit their time to three minutes, not be repetitive. Please don't simply re-read your written testimony. You're welcome to summarize or update your testimony here in person. After your testimony the Commissioners may have questions for you, and when there are no more questions, please log out of the Zoom platform and switch to the YouTube channel if you wish to observe the meeting. This is to limit the number of participants on the screen in order to better manage the meeting and to minimize distraction and disturbance noise. Okay, so, Agenda Item 1, there is no testimony, Agenda Item 2, Mr. George Smith, SMITH: Yes sir. VITOUSEK: Okay, I guess I'll swear everybody in at the same time just to make it, make it easier so I don't have to be repetitive. If everybody could, could please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? [I1ands raised by visible screen participants: George Smith, Sandy Akaka, Ellen Greenbaum, Naneye Capri, Erik Funakoshi] 1 EXHIBIT B SMITH: I do. VITOUSEK: Okay, I'm assuming the same goes for everybody. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Smith, please state your name and the town that you live in. SMITH: My name is George Smith. I live in Kailua-Kona on Ali`i Drive. 75-6150 Ali`i Drive. VITOUSEK: Okay, please proceed. SMITH: Okay, I've, I've been an off-and-on resident of Kailua-Kona since 1977, and I've watched a lot of changes occur along Ali`i Drive over the years. And, I'm adamant that this particular project is not suitable for this location. The applicant has stated that they, in their petition that it will not cause any visual impact. This is an aerial photograph, I don't know if you can see it well enough, of the property, and our property with the brown roof, the old Ala Kala Condominiums, and as you can see, that pink block represents more or less the size of the building that's going to be constructed there. And the west wall of that building will be 40 feet from our building. And the impact visually, and traffic, and loss of parking spaces along the street that everybody uses to access the Ala Kala Beach access, I think is, is inordinately disruptive to the neighborhood. We're, we're looking at losing parking that's limited already on Ali`i Drive, and then there'll be increased vehicle parking on the street from overflow from the proposed project as it was originally submitted. I'm not going to get into a whole lot of details about the building because we don't know what's coming up now. I appreciate you guys postponing this and giving us a chance to, to dig into it and find out how, how we'll, how we need to react to when we finally know exactly what the applicant is proposing. But as the most, as the closest piece of property, in fact we have a contiguous property line, I am requesting that I be granted standing for when this becomes up for action. That's all I have to say. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are there any questions of Mr. Smith by Commissioners? Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: [Silence] JACKSON: Hold on just a moment, Mr. Van Pernis. Let me unmute you. Commissioner Van Pernis, are you able to hit the unmute button? I'm not able to unmute you from Here. There you go. VAN PERNIS: Can I be heard now' VITOUSEK: Yes. VAN PERNIS: I have some questions that Noriko submitted. I believe you have them, Mr. Chair. I believe Mr. Smith is the person to answer those questions. 2 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Let me, let me see if we can find those. Sorry. VAN PERNIS: It's A through F. There is no boundaries within the question—there's only the first question. VITUOSEK: I— SCHLUETER: Chair,just for a point. There is no motion on the table at the moment, so should not be having substantive discussion or questions on the matter. VAN PERNIS: This is a question for the testifier. VITOUSEK: Okay, question for the testifier. [Mr. Darrow raises his hand.] Deputy Director Darrow? DARROW: Yeah, I believe that Commissioner Van Perris' questions are to the intervenor or the testifier in the matter of the hearing. At this point, Mr. Smith is testifying as a member of the public. If he has specific questions, he could ask them in relation,but as far as his detailed questions for the hearing, we should, I would request that we wait until the hearing continues and then we're able to get into the depth of the questions. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner Van Pernis, are there any questions. I agree that your questions that have been stated are applying to the agenda item, and if there are any questions on the information that was portrayed by Mr. Smith, any clarifications that are needed on his presentation, you can ask that, but don't make it the substantive questions based on material from our packet needs to wait until we're, we're in open discussion on this. Are there any questions about the, the substance of his presentation? VAN PERNIS: Mr. Smith testified that there was a contiguous boundary with the subject property, so I believe I'm entitled to ask at least the first couple of questions of this testifier. Of course, I'll follow the Chair's direction, but the written testimony and Mr. Smith's testimony indicates it may be a boundary dispute. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, I will ask, I'll ask one of the questions here. VAN PERNIS: I think only the first question has to be asked. VITOUSEK: Yep. Yep, okay. Let's see, It says,"if there is a boundary or survey dispute to the boundaries or surveys of Ala Kala property and the Mysin property, how much land area, such as square footage, is involved in the dispute? SMITH: Is that directed to me? Smith? VITOUSEK: Yes. Yes. EXHIBIT B SMITH: The boundary line disputes that were mentioned in the first responses to the application have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties at this point. Unless something VITOUSEK: Okay. SMITH: --actually turns up during the construction, we, we, I think we're in agreement as where the property line is. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. That will conclude that. Moving on. Are there any, any other Commissioners that have questions of Mr. Smith? [None.] No. Okay, moving on,Nancye Capri. Please state your name and town you live. It's on mute. CAPRI: Okay, sorry. Good morning. My name is Nancye Capri and I live in Halualoa and on Ali`i Drive. My husband and I own a 5-acre agricultural property directly across the street from the proposed development. On both sides of us are 5-acre agricultural properties and the street is lined with residential homes. Contrary to what is stated in the application, the area is primarily residential and agricultural. I'd Iike you to consider this is a future generation argument. What is our legacy as we are leaving, and as Kona becomes fully developed? Zoning does not mean you have an absolute right. You're only on first base. If water is inadequate, you don't get what you want. If parking is inadequate, you don't get what you want. If streets are inadequate, you don't get what you want. Prior to COVID, and to the bridge construction, traffic during high-peak season or high-peak times of day is backed up from Lunapule to Ali`i Garden's Marketplace. Safe parking for shoreline access is inadequate. Driveways alone removed several parking areas for the shoreline access, and All'i Drive just can't handle any more development. Ultimately, we need to protect and preserve shoreline access. This spot is popular among surfers, fishermen, divers, families, and shoreline access isn't just a designated path. You need to have safe parking. When shoreline access is affected in a negative way, it must be in your forefront in decision- making. When considering a development, total onsite parking must be required. Absolutely no off-site or street parking allowed, including guest parking. If not, you're, you're access to the shoreline is restricted again. So, Kona's collective consciousness in the future will be sorely tested when we have had time to present, excuse me, preserve these natural resources for the people. I think the best solution is for the County to purchase the property to protect and preserve shoreline access and provide safe parking. We owe it to the future of Kona to make these baby steps and to giant steps into the future. I've submitted 373 opposition signatures to this project. Your community wants our natural resources protected, they want shoreline access with safe parking. Please read some of their comments, or all of their comments on that list, and listen, you should listen to your community. We will have over 1,000 opposition signatures by the next meeting. I think you for your time to listen and in your time to evaluate this project. 4 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Thank you, Ms. Capri. [timer chimes in Background] Oh, my timer. Any questions? [None.] Okay, moving on to Maki Morinoue. M. MORINOUE: Hello. VITOUSEK: Aloha, would you please stake your name and your area of residence? M. MORINOUE: My name is Maki Morinoue. I am a Holualoa resident, multi-generation here, and over the years growing up here I have seen many things change. Now, this is just for Item Number 2, yes? VITOUSEK: Correct. M. MORINOUE: Okay. Here in Kailua-Kona especially, or Kona Coast, we have a very specific type of water table. Here the University of Manoa shows how our rainwater goes straight down to the ocean very quickly, and how our toilet behavior affects and impacts our ground water runoff. Here's another aerial shot, which I have put in my testimony, of how ground water moves through thermal camera. So, you can see that the blue area is how fast the water moves into our ocean. Over the years we've had increase various types of staph infection. We now go to the water with protection. Pre-COVID, we've had sanitation in our beach bags. Because this unit is right off the shore, having 22 bathrooms increase into our sewage area there, and having had a history of sewage leakage all along our Kona Coast poses threat to our environment and our natural resources. Having a building there established with parking, more oil leakage, possible, also poses the ability for lack of water mitigation so close to our oceanfront. So, I oppose this project. The design of the building does not reflect our cultural sense of place. It protrudes well beyond. In the report it uses the word "minor" and I'd like to push against that. It is a major eyesore to our visual landscape in Kailua-Kona. What else?There is some archaeological walls, historic walls there that I would like to see and hear its protection. And again, I second what people have already said about the parking overflowing onto the public streets of where we, the local people, love to go and fish, swim, and surf. So, for the protection of our natural resources for generations to come, our land to sea relationship must be taken into serious consideration. I second what Nancyc Capri had mentioned; that this should be raised for PONC acquisition in protecting our natural resources rather than creating more residence. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Any questions? [None.] Okay,moving on we have Janice Palma- Glennie. Janice, are you there? JACKSON: I don't sec her here. VITOUSEK: Okay. Moving next to Simmy McMichael. Simmy are you here? I see Simmy's square. MCMICHAEL: Wait. Yes, hello? 5 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Hello? Hello. MCMICHAEL: Hi, hi. VITOUSEK: Please state your name, and town that you live in, and give us your testimony. MCMICHAEL: Simmy McMichael of Kailua-Kona. I'll speak for the condo, 5-story condo, and-- VITOUSEK: Yep. MCMICHAEL: --alright. Okay so, 1 was on another project, and this came up and this is the, I'm mainly concerned about the safety of all of us on Ali'i Drive. It's about the tsunami, and it's not if, it's about when. And this needs to be taken into serious consideration, because our lives are at stake here. So, the Planning Department has received several letter on the project and it's sitting potential traffic impacts that the project may generate. This project is only a quarter mile from the Kahakai Elementary School. That road is, was, roadblocked during the last tsunami evacuation. The top of, the top of Lako and Royal Poinciana, no one could get out. It was at a dead stop. The police could not get moving. They said, "everyone get out of your car and start running." So, in this traffic issue, it's the basis of denying the application for conditions of mitigating traffic problems. If the traffic from a proposed project would be inconsistent with the goals and the policies of Coastal Zone Management Act, for example, if the traffic would hamper the ability to evacuate in a tsunami hazard area, it would interfere with the public's ability to exit. This would be a good ruling to deny the application. And when we had that evacuation that no one could get out of Ali`i Drive, and also Kam III, because there was an accident at the top, there was a letter by the police saying that no more development should be allowed as far as if you don't have the Ali'i Highway in place and traffic running, you should not have any more projects on Ali'[ Drive until this happens. So, my strong—is to oppose this 5- story condo. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Are there any questions? [None.] Okay, seeing none, moving on to Noriko Morisaki Donna. Okay, I don't see them. Setsuko Morinoue. Okay. S. MORINOUE: Hello? Hello? VITOUSEK: Oh, okay, there you are. Hello. S. MORINOUE. Hi. VITOUSEK: Okay, please, state your name and the town that you live in, and please give us your testimony today. S. MORINOUE: Hi, my name is Setsuko Morinoue, living in Holualoa over 50 years. I see many changes here and I simply and strongly oppose this number two, Item Number 2. Also, Number 3 and 4 at the same time. And, I really support the open green spaces. And from now on, 6 EXHIBIT B for, for, I believe that it's so important for Leeward community to have those spaces because of the weather changing. It's dramatic changing, especially upper here in Haivaloa area. We have more rainfall than any times before, early in the morning is already overcasting and hardly see sun coming through every day, almost like a, it's experiencing here. So, anyway, number two, the health and safety of the earth and the people live here, and the visitors alike. We need to really keep this, these open space important and we all have to protect these places and especially Ali`i Drive. We do not want to make another Kihei on Maui kind of jungle of the buildings after buildings, but at least they have a little bit of space for the open space for the beaches. But we, we have to learn from those wrongdoing, We can make better place for our future and our next generation. I really agree with Nancye and Maki Morinoue there, so I just snake it short that this island is also young, youngest island. So, anything we do, it really affects our air and water quality. So, we cannot forget that. And the most important thing of the quality of water and drinking to [Slight interruption by unknown, unmated speaker'.] S. MORINOUE: --[indiscernible] the water. Hello? VITOUSEK: Yep, we can hear you. S. MORINOUE: I don't know, it's dis--, disrupted. So, anyway, we shouldn't make any more mistakes and we just have to make better choices for the Leeward community. And, that brings economy better and also the safety living for everybody [sic]. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions? [None.] Okay, seeing none, we will move on to Items 3 and 4. The public testimony ended at 11:04 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tanaka Secretary to Boards and Commissions 7 EXHIBIT B