|
<br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman?
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Yes.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: I had a question, actually, I had some clarification for the applicant, not, no question
<br />for the testifier. Sidney, you know, before revisiting your proposed language to Condition No. 4,
<br />and, as you know, and the Commissioners may not know, the reason we use a setback of a
<br />minimum of 60 feet is primarily in instances where a certified shoreline survey, or a shoreline
<br />survey that’s been submitted for certification, has not yet been submitted; because a minimum
<br />setback, the standard setback from a certified shoreline survey is 40 feet, in cases where a survey is
<br />pending but has not yet been approved, our standard practice has been to ask for another 20 feet
<br />pending receipt of the certified shoreline survey. In this case, there is a certified survey, I guess,
<br />st
<br />dated July 2011, and there is one that’s pending dated August 1, is that correct, Sid?
<br />
<br />FUKE: We got an email from, and which I passed onto the staff, and I’m sorry that I didn’t provide
<br />this earlier to your staff, Mr. Director, but the State, the email from the surveyor indicated as
<br />follows: “The State certified the shoreline at One Puakō effective date August 1, 2014.” The
<br />shoreline is the same as the original, which is, the original being the 2011 certification, and that, the
<br />updated survey map is that survey map, which was made part of this application.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Okay, that helps answer a couple of questions, because a concern for the applicant, if I
<br />was the applicant, is that once we put a date in there, right, the survey is only good for a year. So if
<br />the language was based on a certified survey, you know, then you are not tied to a specific date.
<br />And that’s, I guess, the concern you had for the first date, which actually would have been, you
<br />know, the survey would not have been any good, 2011, right, because the one-year time frame has
<br />passed. Okay, so if that’s the case, or is your proposed language, what does it read? “August 1,
<br />2014 unofficially approved ….” It’s either approved or it’s not, right?
<br />
<br />FUKE: Well, the reason why, Mr. Director, is that I don’t have a map that shows, you know, the
<br />stamp; all I have is just like a series of email. And the reason why the, well, according to the
<br />surveyor, he said like, you know, it’s like having items recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances;
<br />you submit, and sometimes it takes long time to actually get it officially, you know, stamp on the
<br />map. And so this has been like over two months already, and he still hasn’t received an officially
<br />stamped map. And that’s the reason why when I drafted it, I said “the unofficially approved,” and
<br />added by like “in its absence,” because just in the unlikely event that the State said, no, this is not
<br />the one we are going to use. But I think that’s very unlikely. But just to provide adequate
<br />protection on all of the parties, I had deliberately drafted the language accordingly.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Okay. Would you accept “pending” in lieu of “unofficially approved?”
<br />
<br />FUKE: That’s fine.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Okay, I think that makes it, a lot clearer for everybody. So that sentence will read, “All
<br />vertical structures shall be set back a minimum of sixty feet from the August 1, 2014 pending
<br />certified shoreline or, in its absence, an updated certification prior to the issuance of any land
<br />disturbance activities.” Now, the second part of your proposed language is a little different from the
<br />language you proposed previously. Was there a reason for that?
<br />7
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|