Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-20 Leeward Exh A (Items 1&2 Kahananui SLU002&REZ011) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 20, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of AARON KAHANANUI (PL-SLU-2021- 000002 AND PL-REZ-2021-000011)was called to order at 9:41 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith"Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Diana Mellon-Lacey, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), April Surprenant(Planning Program Manager covering for the Deputy Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: AARON KAHANANUI (PL-SLU-2021-000002) Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for .992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4413 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 100 feet southeast of its intersection with Kalaoa Street, `O`oma Homesteads, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-017:024. APPLICANT: AARON KAHANANUI (PL-REZ-2021-000011) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-1 acre (A-la) zoning district to a Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet(RS-15) zoning district for .992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4413 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 100 feet southeast of its intersection with Kalaoa Street, `O`oma Homesteads, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-017:024. VITOUSEK: The New Business, the Commission will take up agenda items number 1 and 2 simultaneously. I'll read them both on. The applicant is the same, Aaron Kahananui. PL-SLU-2021-000002, application for State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculture to Urban for .992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4413 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 100 feet southeast of its intersection with Kalaoa Street, `O`oma Homesteads, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-017:parcel 024, parcel 0-2-4. Item number 2, Applicant, again, Aaron Kahananui, PL-REZ-202 1-000011, application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-1 acre, A-la, zoning to a Single-Family Residential-15,000-square-foot, RS-15, zoning district for .992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4413 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 100 feet southeast of its intersection with Kalaoa Street, `O`oma Homesteads, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-017:parcel 024. Staff presentation will be by Christian Kay. Christian, go ahead. 1 EXHIBIT A KAY: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to you, Happy New Year as well, to the rest of the commissioners. If you give me a moment to share my screen, please. And can everybody see the presentation without comments? VITOUSEK: What do you mean, "without comments?" KAY: I'm sorry, without, without the presenter screen. ROY: No, we are seeing the wrong KAY: Seeing the wrong screen. ROY: Yeah. KAY: One moment, please. All right, that should work. Is that better? Okay. VITOUSEK: It's good. KAY: All right, perfect, thank you. Again, as the Chair stated, these are two applications that we'll speak about concurrently. The first is for State Land Use Boundary Amendment, and an associated Change of Zone. The subject property is located in the North Kona District of Hawaii Island. For reference we've got Hawaii Belt Road, or Mamalahoa Highway, running generally north-south through the slide. The subject property is located here indicated by the red star. For Reference, we've got Matsuyama Food Mart here, to give you an idea of where it is relative to a landmark SURPRENANT: Hey, Christian, this is April. I don't know if everyone else is seeing more of a vertical screen. So your slides are very small, kind of in the center of the screen. The orientation seems odd, so we can't, it's very tiny on our screens. KAY: My apologies, give me one moment,please. [Having difficulty in adjusting the display] Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I'm having some difficulty here. Do you mind taking a quick recess, and I can fix this? VITOUSEK: No problem. How long would you like? KAY: Just about five minutes, please. VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll try to come back at 9:51. KAY: Thank you so much. [Chairman Vitousek called a recess at 9:46 a.m. He called the hearing back to order at 9:49 a.m.] 2 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Okay, go ahead, Christian. KAY: Thanks again for your patience. As I stated before, the subject property is located in the North Kona District of Hawaii Island, here indicated with a red star. For reference we've got Mamalahoa Highway running generally north-south through the slide, and a close landmark is the Matsuyama Food Mart. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for .992 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-1 acre zoning district to a Single-Family Residential 15,000-square-foot zoning district for the same area of land. If the requested land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into a total of two lots with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet each, consisting of one existing single-family dwelling and supporting infrastructure on each lot for estate planning purposes. The applicant plans to complete subdivision of the property by mid-year 2022. Here is the county zoning map for the area. We've got a similar Agricultural 1-acre zoning and Agricultural 5-acre, Agricultural 3-acre zoning in the area. Again for reference, we've got Mamalahoa Highway running generally north-south through the slide. The subject property takes its access off of Kinoulu Street at the intersection of Kalaoa Street. The current State Land Use, pardon me, the current State Land Use designation for the subject property and much of the surrounding area is Agricultural. However, the County's General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject property and much of the surrounding area in its Low-Density Urban designation, which is meant for more low-density residential type uses up to six units per acre. The subject property is located within the Kona Urban Area, again outlined here in a yellow star, and is considered by the Kona CDP an infill rezoning for the area. Here is an aerial photo of the subject property outlined in red. Again, we've got Hawaii Belt Road, or Mamalahoa Highway, running here, Kalaoa Street in this general vicinity, and then Kinoulu Street. The subject property is currently improved with the two dwellings: the first which was built in 1961 here, and then the second which was built under an `Ohana Permit in 1992 here to the right. Other uses in the area are residential in nature, some small agricultural uses, and a water bottling plant, which was approved by Special Permits across the highway. Here is the applicant's proposed subdivision map. Again, we've got Mamalahoa Highway running here. Again, Proposed Lot 1-A would consist of the original dwelling on the property built in 1961; Proposed Lot 1-B would consist of what is now permitted as an `ohana dwelling on the property. Here's some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. We've got a photo here in the upper left of Mamalahoa Highway coming onto Kalaoa Street and heading toward Kinoulu Street. The upper right is a photo of the entrance onto Kinoulu Street where the applicant takes 3 EXHIBIT A access from. And here on the bottom middle photo is a photo on the right-hand side of the original dwelling on the property, and this is a photo looking mauka toward the `ohana dwelling. The second set of photos that we have here are upper left looking mauka, on the right-hand side you'll see the `ohana dwelling, and then this is a shot again looking mauka of the `ohana dwelling, and this is from the top side looking makai with the `ohana dwelling on the left-hand side. Since the applicant received our background, recommendation of proposed conditions, they've submitted a request to revise conditions C, H, and L C is a condition relative to water system improvements, and we worked with the applicant to agree with their request to remove the 300-foot fire hydrant requirement, but we also propose to add in this last line that indicates that any required fire protection improvements by the Fire Department or Department of Water Supply will be met. So what happened here is we received some incorrect information from the Department of Water Supply; the 300-foot standard that they quoted to us is actually meant for more multiple-family uses, commercial uses, or industrial uses, whereas for single-family uses the requirement is 600 feet, which would cover the subject properties because there is an existing hydrant within 600 feet of both properties. Just again out of caution we just wanted to add this kind of standard language saying that any, any fire protection requirements will be met as required by the Fire Department or Department of Water Supply. The other two changes were just changes to information, or more clarifying information, on mitigation for the Hawaiian Hawk, as well as the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth, which we felt better clarified what the requirements would be and are agreeable to the applicant's proposed changes with some slight non-substantive additions of our own. And so this is amended Condition H relative to the Hawaiian Hawk, or `Io, and this is a proposed amendment to Condition I relative to protection of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth. So these will be you should have received our amended proposed conditions yesterday—so as you make a vote on these applications, these will be the deputy director's new conditions relative to these three issues. Finally, with that all said, the deputy director is recommending that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for both the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, as well as the Change of Zone. I'm happy to turn the time over now to the Chair and happy to answer questions as is appropriate. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. I think we will continue with the presentation by the applicant. Let's so we have registered John Pipan, the consultant, and Aaron Kahananui, applicant. Okay, would you please raise your right hand so I can swear you in? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? PIPAN: I do. VITOUSEK: Mr. Kahananui? KAHANANUL I do. 4 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Have you received the background—oh sorry, would you please state your name and the town that you live in? PIPAN: John Pipan, Honoka`a. Aaron, go ahead. KAHANANUL Aaron Kahananui, Kalaoa, `O`oma. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo. Have you received the background and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? PIPAN: We have. We've reviewed the conditions proposed and suggested revisions, which Mr. Kay went over just previously. So we are in agreement with all of those revisions, along with the untouched original conditions. VITOUSEK: Okay,please go ahead with your presentation. PIPAN: Thank you. Chair Vitousek, Planning Commissioners, Happy New Year. Glad to see your agendas abbreviated today unlike recent past meetings; they've been pretty robust. So I'll keep our remarks short. The facts of the applications were covered well by Mr. Kay. We appreciate the hard work of the Planning Department and the deputy director's favorable recommendation on these applications. Basically, what we are dealing with here is bringing the land use designations in line with the use of the property. This proposed action, the rezoning, the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, would allow the Kahananuis to separate ownership of the two homes; Mr. Kahananui's niece and nephew live in the neighboring home on makai side, he lives on the mauka side. You know, good fences make good neighbors and all of that, and people would like to manage their lots independently, and he could speak more to that if you'd like. But I feel like the potential adverse impacts of this project are minimal or non-existent, and this one should be fairly straightforward; however, we are certainly ready to answer any and all of your questions and have any discussion you might like. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Mr. Kahananui, is there anything that you would add? KAHANANUL No, John basically said everything. Yeah, you know, I just want my niece and nephew to do what they want to do with their property and, you know, be independent of my, of the mauka property so they can do whatever they need to do. Thank you very much, and that's all I have to say. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the Planning Department or for the applicant? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a question. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, go ahead. 5 EXHIBIT A PISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Thank you for preparing the proposed amendment, or proposed conditions. I just want to learn a little bit more about proposed condition H and I why do you feel like that's a good, good amendment? PIPAN: I can take a crack at that if you like. Thanks for the question, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. As written, as proposed by the Planning Department, the condition requiring a biologist to survey any tree, a qualified biologist to survey any tree prior to cutting, I felt, was perhaps a little overly restrictive of the applicant's property rights. Mr. Kahananui does tree work as his profession, so, you know, he is well aware of how to do these things in a responsible and respectable process. So the, I just feel like there is perhaps a little bit more detail in the proposed amended condition that better reflects, okay, what we've got on the property already; it's practically fully developed, and as the condition were written, even if the tree were maybe 10 feet tall, non-native, you know, any cutting of any tree would require this additional step of having a certified or trained biologist to come out and look at the tree and say that there is no hawks, no nests present, when I think, you know, common, common sense can prevail in those situations as well. Have nothing against Hawaiian Hawks, obviously, we'd love to protect their habitat. Feel like the potential for this property being quality habitat is fairly limited. The trees are all pretty small. As I understand, hawks prefer to nest in larger, much larger trees, `6hi`a or koa particularly. So, that, that being the rationale for the decision on the hawk condition. And for the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth condition, again, this was just maybe a little bit of clarity added in that as was written, any vegetation less than one meter was to be removed. And that didn't really make much sense because you may have a lot of vegetation less than one meter. And I think the host plant of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth, aside from the native `aiea, would be the tree tobacco, so DOFAW has developed these guidelines to mitigate for potential impacts to Blackburn's Sphinx Moth based on their life cycle; if the plants are small, they say it's okay to remove them, but if they get big, then, you know, it's more likely that there's eggs or larvae present. So we feel like the proposed amendments, you know, better clarify that it's the tree tobacco plants that they are talking about, not really any vegetation. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, thank you for the comprehensive response, and it helps me to appreciate, right, the expertise of this applicant and the practicality of the matter. May I ask another question, Chair? VITOUSEK: Of course. PAISHON-DUARTE: Look, I think this question, I'd like to direct it towards the Planning staff, please. My question is if we were to, if we were to approve this application, would this set precedent for any other applicant that has, you know, similar conditions? Meaning I guess my specific question, would we then now need to apply these conditions to other similar applications with similar habitat? KAY: Sure, I can address that. If I may step back and further address your question about the `Io protection, I did also want to point out that the revised condition that the applicant supplied is also more in line with our standard condition that we normally add for those protections. So I 6 EXHIBIT A just wanted to bring that up as well. I'm not sure how that passed through the cracks here this time, but, yeah, we have set similar conditions in the past. To your second question, the precedent is already set. There are other similar rezonings and State Land Use Boundary Amendments in the area. If you also take a look at the General Plan designation of Low-Density Urban, that's meant for more lower density single-family residential uses, as well as the Kona CDP designates that area within the Kona Urban Area where the intention is to have more residential development. So outside of the Kona Urban Area is retention and agricultural lands and those types of uses. Within the Kona Urban Area as designated by the CDP there are requirements for rezonings that lay out, you know, where rezoning is appropriate. In this case the rezoning is, again, considered an infill, and for practical purposes the entire lot is already developed with, to the extent that it can be developed. So this is just a procedural way to allow for the applicant to subdivide the property and again to be consistent with the future plans for the area as designated by the General Plan and the CDP. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. VITOUSEK: Okay, are there any further questions? My questions regarding this, the conditions really—let me see which conditions they are, sorry—really looking at H through M, which is basically all of the boilerplate DOFAW conditions, so I can absolutely see the inclusion of this boilerplate language for developing of undeveloped areas. But since this is a fully developed, fully utilized home site, which development patterns aren't changing by the proposed project, I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of these restrictive conditions that would alter the ability to use the property in this case. Looking at conditions, specifically J, "To protect any [Hawaiian] hoary bats in the vicinity of the project, woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be disturbed, removed or trimmed"between June 1" and September 15'', I would like to ask the applicant if that would conflict with their ability to maintain their property and to harvest agricultural crops. If they can't cut any trees between those months, would they be able to harvest their banana trees or harvest their coconut trees or harvest lychee? PIPAN: Mr. Kahananui, I'll let you reply to that just if you see any of these protective conditions for bats or hawks to conflict withI think the question was specifically for bats and trimming of trees. KAHANANUL Yeah, basically, I got avocados and banana and also mangoes, but they are not really that big of a tree, so not even 10 feet tall, so—except for the avocado. VITOUSEK: So under the condition if your mango tree was 15 feet, you wouldn't be allowed to harvest your mangoes during mango season. KAHANANUL I guess so, you know, sounds like it, but— VITOUSEK: utVITOUSEK: Yeah, which I don't think is appropriate; I think this is an overreach KAHANANUL Yes, I agree with you — 7 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: I think the intentions of it are good, and I think it could be applied very well to undeveloped land or native forest areas, but to put these kinds of restrictions on an agricultural area is very damaging to the agricultural industry and to the family's ability to utilize their land. And I believe that Mr. Kahananui would be able to identify a Hawaiian hawk on his own and be able to avoid impacting that hawk on his own, and I don't think that he needs to have a biologist tell him whether or not he can, what a hawk is. So he can probably identify that on his own, and if he needs to leave it alone, I'm sure he will; I don't think the government needs to tell him how to do that. KAHANANUL Yes, basically, I do see the hawks, but they are after the neighbor's chickens that have chicks, so basically, they don't reside on the property but come to feed. VITOUSEK: Yeah. Mr. Kahananui, are there any `ohi`a trees on your property? KAHANANUL Not on my property, they all, no, not at all. VITOUSEK: Okay. Is there any tree tobacco on your property? KAHANANUL Uh, no. VITOUSEK: Okay. So, you know, because there is no `ohi`a on the property, it doesn't make sense to include language on the rapid `ohi`a death, doesn't make sense to include the tree tobacco. KANUHA: I agree, I agree with you, Mike, on that, too, as well. That's something I was going to question. I grew up on Kalaoa Road. I know that property really well, you know. The hawks do come around, but they are more up in the forest, they are next to the, you know, the neighboring property; there's a couple `ohi`a trees left that they do come around. But like Mr. Kahananui said, you know, they are trying to get the chicks in the neighbor's area. My parents' house is up on Kalaoa Street, so I've seen that whole area, and I've known that property for a very, very long time. So I'm with you, too, that that language is a little, a little much. VITOUSEK: Right, right, and I mean going further, you know, to condition L, "To protect any seabirds in the vicinity of the property, the Applicant shall install shielded outdoor lights to direct light downwards. Additionally, the Applicant shall install automatic motion sensor switches and controls on all outdoor lights ... and shall avoid nighttime construction ... " I mean this is up in Kalaoa KANUHA: I've never seen a seabird in my life there. VITOUSEK: Right, in a fully developed area where there's not going to be seabirds. And basically, you know, if we are making this kind of a condition, the question to the County is who is then going to enforce whether Mr. Kahananui installs shielded outdoor lights over his 1950's constructed home? 8 EXHIBIT A KAY: Yeah, the answer would be if, if the conditions went through as written, then it would be up to the applicant to comply with that. If they are found out of compliance, they'd be out of compliance with the condition. I can just speak to why these are added in; whenever we receive comment letters from DOFAW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife that indicate the presence or possible presence of listed or endangered species in the vicinity, we add these as standard conditions just to kind of do our due diligence to try and protect these species. I understand in this case it may be a little bit over prescriptive, but—and certainly it's up to the Commission if they want to remove some of these, or the County Council ultimately if they want to remove some of these, and in the future maybe we can be a little bit more selective in situations where they are clearly developed properties and maybe not have some of these issues but we are trying to balance the comments we receive from these agencies who are slated with protecting these species, and our responsibility as well for protecting endangered and enlisted species. So with that, again, certainly the Commission's decision on whether or not to keep those in, and we can look a little bit more in the future on how to better right size some of these conditions to the situation. VITOUSEK: You know, I think that will be appropriate. Like I said, I agree with these conditions for instances of impacting undeveloped areas where endangered species are known to be—but I don't think this is that case. I think this is a fully developed homestead where homestead uses will continue as is currently, so I don't see these conditions as applying. Are there any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: So, are there nene up there? KAHANANUL No. DEFRANCO: No, okay KAY: Yeah, so DEFRANCO: I, too, thought it was a, it was like a sort of an overkill of somebody having a home and just trying to, you know,pick their trees and maintain their grounds. I, yeah, I think it could have been spelled out a different way, a little more general way, of protecting all of the species, of course, that we all want to protect, but this does seem a little invasive to me. VITOUSEK: If there are no further questions, we can make a motion. We'll need to have two motions. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry, may I ask, Mr. Chair, may I ask just one other question? VITOUSEK: Of course. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. This question is for the applicant. Mr. Kahananui, aloha. You know, my own,just thinking from the generational perspective, right, we are making a decision for now; my, I guess, my concern, if you can just share a little bit more, what if, what if, you know, any of your family members decide to sell your property, right, sell the property? So why I'm saying is that it seems like you folks are very conscious about how you care for your 9 EXHIBIT A `aina, for your property, but what if those, if in the case that there are new property owners and they don't have the same level of awareness and value set and consciousness? What are your thoughts on that? Like how, how do we just, my, my thoughts are like how do we make sure that land is, and our ecosystems are, taken care of generationally and not just for today? Can you just share a little bit about your thoughts? KAHANANUL Well, you know, basically, you know, I grew up and lived on that property, actually on the lower house that my brother lived in, and, you know, I want to just keep it within the family basically. And, you know, even though my niece lives in Vegas, her brother lives in the house, and they want to reside there and, you know, continue on and not—you know, keep it within the family kind of thing. So basically,just to carry on, you know, what my tutu Kinoulu started and, you know, by hanai, my dad, and my auntie who resides, who resides next door to our property. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. KAHANANUL Mahalo ia`oe. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Before we make the motion, Mike, I think, you know, and I agree with Mahina, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, too, you know, we are all into, and so are you, into preserving all these things, and we don't know beyond ourselves, so I think that's an important question. But it also felt, you know, because I'm a farmer, too, if I need to harvest my mangoes or my avocados or I need to cut a bush down, I don't need to hire a biologist to come out, you know. I, I—and looking at the way the land is, it is fully developed. So if we were to make a recommendation right now, would the recommendation include all this language or, or because of this discussion, is it being revised? I'm unsure of what we are making the recommendation. VITOUSEK: Well, we can do it a couple different ways; we can make a motion to send a favorable recommendation or an unfavorable recommendation; if we decide to make a favorable recommendation, we can do a secondary motion to amend the conditions, and while doing that, amending the conditions, we can alter or remove the conditions regarding the boilerplate Division of Forestry and Wildlife language that we don't, that may or may not apply to this particular property. DEFRANCO: Right, and at the same time, making sure that something is left in there that does protect the generational idea of it so it's not like it's a carte blanche or something. That's not what the intention is, I think, in this discussion. VITOUSEK: Right, I think weI don't know what the language would be to make sure that the environment will be protected. What I'm saying in this case is I think that the native environment has been pretty heavily degraded by the environmental use of the property, by the residential and agricultural use of the property; there's no `ohi`a left, there's no native forest 10 EXHIBIT A plants, it's just agricultural plants at this point. So it doesn't make sense to straddle this landowner with these difficult conditions, which would only be affecting their ability to make a living off of their property. KAY: If I might jump in, Chair Vitousek. Again,these conditions are meant to kind of call out some of the specific mitigation measures for the potential of these species; however, condition O of the rezone is kind of our standard catch-all, which reads, "The Applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State, and Federal codes, laws, rules, regulations, and requirements for the proposed development," so on and so forth. So there is kind of that catch-all that if there is anything related to the protection of species that are found, then those requirements would apply. If that's helpful. VITOUSEK: How about a catch-all type of condition indicating that if any state-listed endangered species are identified on the property, Division of Forestry and Wildlife will be conducted in order to mitigate any impacts from the project on those species. KAY: That sounds good. If I might jump in and just amend that a little bit, because we've been toying with this as well to kind of try to come up with something a little bit more comprehensive. So the thought is, "Should any state or federally listed or endangered species be located on the property, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Department of Forestry and Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." VITOUSEK: That seems appropriate. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: I think if it were up to me, I would replace the specific boilerplate language in all conditions—what was it H through L, or whatever it was, with that one condition. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Okay, so are we ready to make a favorable recommendation then, Mike? VITOUSEK: Sure. If you'd like, you can reference the condition that Christian just stated DEFRANCO: And each—go ahead. VITOUSEK: as replacing the other conditions. And that's—are these conditions in both the rezone and the—okay, it's just the rezone that has KAY: Correct. VITOUSEK: So we'll be replacing those conditions with the condition that Christian said and then renumbering the rest. 11 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Okay KAY: So those conditions are, start at condition H and go through condition N [sic] DEFRANCO: Yeah, yeah KAY: sorry, M as in Michael. Yeah, and then, right, so I believe the first on the agenda, however, is for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, so we want to take care of that one first VITOUSEK: Okay. KAY: —and then we can move onto the rezone, if that's okay. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: So I move that a favorable recommendation this is for Applicant Aaron Kahananuifavorable recommendation, I move a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for State Land Use Boundary Amendment number PL-SLU-2021-000002 based on the deputy planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Is there a second? KANUHA: I second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Kanuha. Any discussion? [No discussion] Okay, seeing none, we'll do the roll call vote. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. 12 EXHIBIT A KAY: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, motion carries, five-nothing. VITOUSEK: Okay, now for item number 2, for the rezoning. And again, that will be replacing conditions H through M with the language stated by Christian. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Okay, so this is for Applicant Aaron Kahananui, a favorable recommendation, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the applicant's proposed change of zoning, docket number 2021-000011, to include the, and replacing the items H to M with the language that Christian has proposed, and this being recommended, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And for the record, Christian, would you re-read the language that will be replacing condition H through M? KAY: Sure. "Should any state or federally listed or endangered species be found on the subject property, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the state Department of Forestry and Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Is there a second? KANUHA: Second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Kanuha, mahalo. And any discussion? [No discussion] Okay, we'll proceed with the roll call vote. KAY: Okay, thank you. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. KAY: And Chair Vitousek? 13 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, motion carries, five-nothing. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And thank you to the applicant. You will be notified of the commission's decision in writing. Appreciate your time. PIPAN: Thank you very much, Commissioners, Chair Vitousek. Have a great rest of your day. Aloha. KAHANANUL Mahalo ia`oe. Aloha. A hui hou. Malama pono. VITOUSEK: Aloha Mr. Kahananui. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. The hearing ended at 10:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT A