Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-16 Leeward Exh A (Items 1 Frank Sirlin PL-SMA-2022-000024) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 16, 2023 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of FRANK SIRLIN (PL-SMA-2022-000024) was called to order at 9:38 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Council Chambers, Building A, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairperson Barbara DeFranco presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Barbara DeFranco, Zaheva Knowles, Michael Dela Cruz, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Michael Vitousek ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ" Kanuha III ALSO PRESENT: Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, 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), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Janice Hata(Zoom host), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) And seven public members in the audience. APPLICANT: FRANK SIRLIN (PL-SMA-2022-000024) Application for a Special Management Area(SMA) Use Permit to demolish an existing single- family dwelling and accessory building and construct a two-story, 3,023-square foot, 4-bedroom, 5.5-bath single-family residence and related improvements which include two (2) two-car garages, an in-ground swimming pool, spa, and lanais, on 0.38 acres of land situated within the SMA. The subject property is located at 69-1882 Puak6 Beach Drive, on the makai side of the road approximately 1.75 miles southwest along Puak6 Beach Drive from the Puak6 Boat Ramp, por. of Puak6 Beach Lots, Lalamilo, South Kohala District, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-9-006:025. Secretary's Note: [indecipherable] indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. DEFRANCO: So, then we're going to move on to the new business. So, we have agenda Item 1. So, we have an applicant Frank Sirlin, PL-SMA-2022-000024. It's an application for a Special Management Area(SMA) Use Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and an accessory building and construct a two-story, 3,023-square foot, 4-bedroom, 5. and a half, 5.5 bath single-family residence and related improvements which includes a two (2) car garages, 2 2-car garages and an in-ground swimming pool, spa, and lanais on 0.38 acres of land situated within the SMA. The subject property is located at 69-1882 Puak6 Beach Drive, on the makai side of the road approximately 1.75 miles southwest along Puak6 Beach Drive and from the Puak6 Boat Ramp,por. of Puak6 Beach Lots, Lalamilo, South Kohala District, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-9-006:025. So, we have our staff Alex Roy to do our Power Point presentation. 1 EXHIBIT A ROY: Good morning, Commissioners. Let me try to get this going here. We've got 2 different battling mouses. Okay, good morning. I'm here to present the project for Frank Sirlin. This is a Special Management Area Use Permit PL-SMA-2022-024. The TMK there listed is 6-9-6, this is in Puak6 in the South Kohala District. Here's a location map. As most of you know, here's Puak6 Beach Drive, extends down and about close to the end there probably the last third, that red star marks the location of the project. The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing single-family residence that's located on the property. They're going to construct a 2-story single-family residence, garage, a covered lanai, and they are also going to do an in-ground swimming pool and spa. The existing septic system will be closed and replaced with a DOH approved aerobic advanced wastewater system. The total development area is 4,975 square feet and the home will be connected to the existing utility lines like water and electric that already run through Puak6 Beach. Here's the County zoning. You can see that the subdivision itself is Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet. You have mauka of the subdivision zoning is Agricultural-5 acre and this remnant parcel which there's not much left is actually Open zone, but you'll see there's very little land left. It's eroded away thus making this a shoreline parcel which is why we're here today. Here's the State Land Use Urban of course for the subdivision and Conversation for those Ag mauka lands. LUPAG has the subdivision as Low Density Urban and then you can see Open for both this remnant and then those mauka Conservation lands. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject parcel outlined in red. So, take note of the other development throughout this area. You can see that there's large homes that are right up to the old 20-foot setback. So, I just want you to recall that so you can see especially these 3 down here. They are built right up to that 20-foot setback as is this property, the subject property. Here's a site plan of the existing development. I've marked out the 40-foot, so the current 40-foot shoreline setback. So, we can see that a majority of this structure and a small portion of that structure extend into that setback area right now. So, once the old structure is demolished the applicant is going to be moving back outside of the 40-foot setback. So, this represents a small- scale managed retreat what we'd like to see people doing as they move forward trying to move themselves back from the shoreline. So, this is a great project in that they're demolishing the house that's in the setback and then moving everything outside of the setback and as you can see, they're going to fill up the property but it's well designed with the garages and home here. So, I just put this up as a reference from what's existing and then what's proposed. So, you see there's a difference and I put the height difference here. You've got 22 feet and we're adding a couple feet of height on that back building there but for the most part it's not wide. It's laid out similarly, of course it'll be a larger structure but just to kind of give you a reference on the scale and on the changes. I'd like to show the public access when we have SMA projects. So, we have here 3 public access points right in this area and one is directly adjacent to the subject parcel and here I outlined it. In this bottom photograph you can see subject parcel outlined in blue and then the red arrow indicates 2 EXHIBIT A the shoreline access from Puak6 Beach Drive. There is no parking, it's a pedestrian access. So, no parking and only pedestrian access. Here I went and visited the site. Did a site inspection and here's walking down to the access and then so here's the subject property and then here's the subject property in both photographs on the left. So, here you can see as I was speaking before that remnant parcel really no longer exists in the shoreline essentially is right up to the makai face of the existing seawall. This access point was repaired with the County. There were some issues back in about 10 years ago and so that wall was repaired and now a safe and secure clear access for pedestrians and then the protection for the residents. Here's a photograph I kind of peeked up over the wall into the front, the makai side of the property. So, all this would be clear as the applicant moves out of the setback area. So, we can see that this will kind of remain probably very similar to what we see now which is just a grassy area and then the pool will be right at the 40-foot setback area. And here you can see the wall and the neighboring property, there's a large wooden wall kind of bounds between the neighboring property and this one. And there's a wall along the makai face and a wall along the access and then the front of the property, let me show you that. Here's from the street looking towards the property. You can see it's pretty open, so there's plenty of buildable area. No real grading or land needs to be because it's been well developed since the 1960's. Here's just a shot of the property entrance of the driveway to the subject property looking along kind of north, northeast along Puako Beach Drive and then right adjacent to that would be the public access. So, there's the driveway and then the public access is kind of right there. We spoke to this myself and Tracie Camero the other SMA Planner, we spoke to a gentleman who's lived on this property across the street, and we asked him about the access and it there's any issues and he said "no", it's pretty well used and there's has never been parking issues or anything like that. A lot of people, I think most of them walk up and down this road and utilize those access points. But we asked him if there's any kind of concerns that we should be aware of and he'd been there for 20 something years and he said, "nothing that he could think of'. So, it's pretty readily used, it's wide open, it seems safe and then it takes you right down to the water. So, the Deputy Director's recommendation on this is approval with the stated conditions. I'll take questions if you have any. DEFRANCO: Do we have any questions for Mr. Roy? VITOUSEK: Chair? DEFRANCO: Yes, Mike. VITOUSEK: My main question was analysis of the scenic resources indicated in our packet that there wasn't an analysis because it wasn't viewed from a highway. Do we consider view from Puako Beach Road? 3 EXHIBIT A ROY: By law, it is view plane analysis really should be coming, it's from the highway. VITOUSEK: Yeah. ROY: But in this case, that's why I showed the height difference there's only a change of 4 feet. VITOUSEK: Yeah. ROY: So, and then also along the access there wouldn't be any view plane and the fact that he's moving back as you walked down the access point the view would actually be more open. So— VITOUSEK: Right. ROY: —but yeah, the view plane analysis really wasn't done because it's yeah not from a main highway. VITOUSEK: I mean like perspective on, growing up up there and seeing the changes in Puako where you can drive down Puako Beach Road and see the ocean. ROY: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Whereas now with the size of the houses coming in and the large stone walls that are being built. ROY: Yeah. VITOUSEK: You can't see the ocean anymore on the Puako Beach Road. ROY: Yeah, no, I agree there's a lot of large developments going on down there. But there won't be a wall blocking, I think, on the mauka side — VITOUSEK: What is the height of that wall? ROY: What is? VITOUSEK: Do you know what the height of that wall is on the mauka side of the property? ROY: Oh, on the beach, of the sea wall? VITOUSEK: No, the mauka. 4 EXHIBIT A ROY: There is no wall. [indecipherable] Yeah, there's no wall on the roadside. The walls are along the access sea wall and then there's like a wooden wall between the neighbor and the property. KNOWLES: The drawings make it look like there's a wall. DEFRANCO: No, [indecipherable] KNOWLES: I did. DEFRANCO: Any questions? KNOWLES: I have a question. DEFRANCO: Okay. ROY: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, the applicant is proposing to put in a stone wall. He might be able to address— VITOUSEK: Okay, yep. ROY: —the height of that and a little more about that. DEFRANCO: They're going to speak next. KNOWLES: I had a question about the second driveway. I only saw one driveway on the property currently. Were they intending to put that second one on the road front? Cause it seems like it's two 2-car garages. ROY: Yeah, there will be a second, if I could pull up the[indecipherable] KNOWLES: Yeah, if you could show us the photo that would be helpful. ROY: Yeah, if you could bring up that PowerPoint again,just to show the plans. Yeah, so there'll be a second entrance entering that second garage adjacent to the neighbor on the side here. Let's pull up the photograph, yeah, so the second entrance would be here. KNOWLES: Is that standard? Does the County just put in another apron there or what happens with respect to the increasing in access point on the road. ROY: I'm not sure about what requirements DPW might have regarding the additional entrance and John might be able to speak to that. The applicant might be able to speak to that the requirements for adding a second driveway. But I have noticed, I did notice there were a few residences down there that had multiple driveways or in one instance, it looked like almost the whole front was an entrance. But this is a pretty low use road as you can see the edges are there's a lot of sand and stuff like that. But I assume that for line of sight there may be some 5 EXHIBIT A requirements to remove some of the vegetation and then of course they're probably some standard separation between the neighboring access. But again, John might be able to speak to some of that. KNOWLES: Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair. DEFRANCO: Commissioner, Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. So, I just wanted to confirm that this applicant is putting forward the proposed use for residential purposes, correct? And that a short rental application has not been, is not attached to this proposal. ROY: Not that I know. It appears to be a residence for Mr. Sirlin, yes. DEFRANCO: Are there any other comments, oh, excuse me Jeff Darrow. DARROW: Thank you Chair. The applicant's representative will be coming up shortly to speak about the application. It's my understanding that this residence has been used as a short-term vacation rental. It does have a current non-conforming use certificate. That was one of the concerns in doing this application. Whether or not that particular permit would be null and void. The Department did confirm that it would not be null and void moving forward. So,just for your information. SIRLIN: If it helps, I'm here. It's Frank Sirlin here, I'm sorry, I'm late. DEFRANCO: Oh, okay. You're going to be up next. Are there any other questions for Mr. Roy? Oh, you did, excuse me Commissioner. DELA CRUZ: Just looking at the information that was given to us. It looks like here that there was an improvement on the, I guess there's a rock wall along the property. That's back in 2012. Won't there be reinforcing that with the additional swimming pool that will be built out there in the 20-foot setback? Will there be an additional reinforcement on those walls? ROY: I'm not sure of the engineering but, the rock wall issue that you're speaking of is an issue between the applicant and the County to try to improve the access to maintain cause there was some damage to the walls. So, John might be able to speak to the engineering aspect of it but the whole reason for that rock wall repair was to ensure a nice kind of open and clear County access. Because there was some damage to the walls in the past so, the County and the landowner at the time worked together to come up and fix that wall and that was the reason for the repairs and things like that. But as far as the engineering I'm not sure if the walls are going to need to be reinforced to support the additional weight of a pool. DELA CRUZ: Another question. 6 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Yes. DELA CRUZ: When the construction begins was there any feedback from the neighboring or neighbors or the residents of Puako? Knowing that that's the only one-way road, there's no other exit,just in case of an emergency. You know, traffic is the other thing and is one of my concerns. If there's a lot of heavy machinery in the area could cause some traffic when there's an evacuation route happened. ROY: Well, the hope would be that they store their vehicles and they're not parking on the road. But I totally get it because when I went down there, there was construction and there was further up that road and all the cars, all the work trucks were parked right along that road. But we didn't receive any public comments. Any comments from the neighbors. They were all notified in accordance with law the 300 feet and nobody contacted me. But I do understand I've been down there many times and I know, yeah, the work trucks can get in the way and maybe John can speak to the best management practices that they will employ to make sure that they are not blocking Puako Beach Drive. DELA CRUZ: Thank you. ROY: But, yeah, it's a tight squeeze for sure. DELA CRUZ: It's a pretty narrow sidewalk there and road so. ROY: Yeah, it is, it's definitely a tight squeeze. Like I said, the day I went down there, there was trucks, they were kind of parked really, really close and you had to kind of go around them. But maybe the neighborhood understands there's limited space but, like I said, we didn't receive any public comments from neighbors. DELA CRUZ: Thank you. KNOWLES: I have one more question. DEFRANCO: Okay, go ahead. KNOWLES: So, as part of the SMA Use permit consideration one of the things that we're required to look at as I understand is the cumulative impact of development in the area and I think it gets back to Commissioner Vitousek's question. Which is really, growing up Puako used to look very different than Puako looks now. So, what does the Planning Department use as the basis for sort of impact of cumulative development? Because I think as we go to these like built to the edge of the lot extremely large houses relative to the smaller houses that have been there traditionally and historically it certainly does change the look and feel of the community. And I'd just like to get your perspective on that as we consider the use permit. What is the tipping point for us to be considering cumulative impact of development when the development now looks like McMansions, and it used to look like old Hawaiian fishing beach homes. DARROW: I can respond- 7 EXHIBIT A ROY: No, oh no. We have received guidance from the State Office of Planning on cumulative impacts and that's something that Deputy Director Darrow, myself and others have been really trying to figure out how to gauge those metrics. When you have a single- family residential development a lot of times the cumulative impact is not so much on the project itself. But like you said on the overall community and as these projects go in and keep coming and keep coming and keep coming that cumulative impact becomes the kind of like you said kind of overwhelming the community and then all of a sudden there's no access. We drive down Ali`i Drive, I remember decades ago being able to drive down Ali`i Drive and now you can never see the water because of all of the development that's gone in there. Puako is no different. There's a lot that is definitely going down, a lot of large homes are going down, we can see 3 houses up, 3 houses down from the subject parcel. They're a large development. But we are working to try to come up with, because it is something that we're supposed to be looking at. But how to determine cumulative impacts, we're still in the infancy of really trying to figure that out. But we are working with the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to come up with a kind of a process to determine that. And we would love any insight on how that can be applied to specific projects when the cumulative impact is a more community level but maybe Deputy Director Darrow can speak to that. DARROW: Thank you Ms. Chairman. When we look at overall development it's normally at the time that the development comes in for a permit. In this particular case, Puako has been in place for decades. What's happened is the law has changed. Up till this point each one of these dwellings would be exempt from review for SMA. They would be exempt. What happened in 2019, 2020. The State Law changed to say that, if you are going to build a dwelling along the shoreline, you need to come in for an SMA permit. The main reason for that was to address the impacts of the shoreline. It wasn't so much to look at it, we do look at it accumulatively, but we are not going place the impact of the entire project or entire Puako on one person coming in because they are wanting to build their dwelling that was actually there since however long it's been there. What we are looking at now is to make sure they comply with the new rules and regulations of the shoreline area. This particular application is something that we would actually like to see happen more frequently in the sense that they're demolishing the existing dwelling that's obviously too close to the ocean and they're moving it back double of what it was previously and so it's going to have less of an impact on the shoreline. That's how we're looking at this particular application. Up to this point all those dwellings that you're seeing in Puako my understanding this is the first one coming before you for an SMA permit in this area. Up to this point every dwelling has been exempt and Puako was developed prior to SMA rules and regulations and so there was no review of a cumulative impact of this subdivision back when it was first constructed. ROY: Yeah, all those large homes there and they got an SMA because they were considered as exempt. KNOWLES: So, when we're looking at this, we don't consider at all that this house is, I mean basically three times larger than the current dwelling. It's more of this the look 8 EXHIBIT A and feel of Puako overall that I continue to wonder about and what our role is in managing that. So, it's not just about the shoreline per se but it's also about maintaining the character of these valuable communities. So, the fact that someone lived there before I absolutely understand that, but they lived on 1,200 square feet of the lot and not 5,000 square feet of the lot. DARROW: Thank you Commissioner. DEFRANCO: Thank you Commissioner. I just wanted to be clear too that. So, they're going to be removing all of the old building and then they are required to do the SMA setback now at 40-feet and you can clearly see all the other homes that are there at 20-feet probably or something like that. Is that right? ROY: Yeah, yes that's for sure. DEFRANCO: And then they're also putting in a current sewage system, septic. ROY: John can speak to that a little more, but it's a high tech — DEFRANCO: Right, very high tech. ROY: — aerobic, so he's going above and beyond what other developers DEFRANCO: What others are doing. ROY: Yeah. DEFRANCO: Right. ROY: Are doing because we all know at Puako Beach— DEFRANCO: Yeah. ROY: —the whole area and until they can get a community wide septic system which I hope is part of the CIP in the future. DEFRANCO: So, some of the other homes might even be on old types of cesspools [indecipherable crosstalk] ROY: Or small individual wastewater what we call drain fields or something like that. Yeah, for sure. So, that's why we felt that this was in my mind three things are really good they're moving back, they're lifting up because they're in the flood zone and then they're installing this more high-tech wastewater system. 9 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: When you lift it up and I think Commissioner Vitousek was mentioning too about the sight. How much higher again was it from the previous, from the neighbors, what do you — ROY: I didn't measure to the neighbors but from previous it's only 4-foot difference, a 4-foot height difference. DEFRANCO: Okay, thank you. ROY: Yeah. DEFRANCO: Are there any other questions for the County? No, okay. Thank you. So, we're going to hear now from the applicant's presentation. So, we have John Pipan and Frank Sirlin via Zoom. So, I'm going to get you to raise your hand and to swear you in and to tell the truth today before the Leeward Planning Commission. PIPAN: I do. DEFRANCO: You do. And Frank are you and you do too. Okay, thank you. Okay, now just again please speak directly into your mic. All right, and you've received the background recommendation and reports from the Planning Department? PIPAN: We have, yes. DEFRANCO: And do you agree with the recommendations including all of the conditions? PIPAN: Yes, we agree. DEFRANCO: And so now, please proceed with your presentation. PIPAN: Aloha kakou. John Pipan, I live just outside of Honoka`a here on the Big Island. Thank you all very much for your time and dedication to this process. Thanks Deputy Director Darrow, Planning Department staff for the excellent presentation, the favorable recommendation, and the hard work that went into evaluating this request. We think the merits of this request that were outlined just previously by Mr. Roy are significant and that we are retreating from the shoreline voluntarily. We're starting with an old property that's been developed for decades right so the first home was built late 50's early 60's. It was added on to in the mid-70's compliant with all the rules and regulations at that time. All of those rules have changed over the intervening decades. So, what we've got now is a legal development that doesn't conform to current rules in terms of its setback from the shoreline primarily and the compliance with the flood zone regulations. So, this is what we're starting with. Mr. Sirlin, the applicant, has been very proactive,very conservation minded. The idea to reuse, salvage, recoup many of the building materials from the existing dwelling and incorporate those as he can into the new dwelling came from him. I didn't have to push for the enhanced aerobic 10 EXHIBIT A treatment system that really improves the wastewater effluent from the property. And in terms of SMA review we're not tasked to look at the entire community and how it's changing over time. We're tasked with looking at the criteria put forward in SMA like view impacts, like environmental impacts, public access and we're taking all of those boxes here. That said, the question came up for the sea wall and the pool. There are no plans to do any changes at all to the sea wall that was recently repaired and is in good condition. It was recently re-surveyed by Wes Thomas Associates to confirm its condition since it was repaired under permit. The swimming pool that's proposed will have to be engineered to comply with all building regulations, all flood zone regulations and likewise the access to the property will have to be approved by DPW. So, this isn't a building permit that we're submitting to you, right. It has to go through additional clearances but we're here to evaluate those SMA criteria and I think we're really going to the max of what we can do to retreat from the shoreline, to come into compliance with all the current rules and regulations. With that, I'll be happy to field any questions you may have. We just really respectfully request your favorable consideration on this one. Aloha. DEFRANCO: Thank you John. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? PAISHON-DUARTE: I have a question for the applicant. DEFRANCO: Oh yes, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Good morning, my name is Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and I had a question for the applicant. I wanted to confirm that the use for the new house or the new development is primarily for residential purposes, living purposes and just wanted to clarify again whether there is a proposal to rent out the property for short-term vacation uses. PIPAN: I can help with that, and Mr. Sirlin can chime in. But my understanding is Mr. Sirlin intends for this to be his primary residence eventually. It may take a number of years to build it within the time frame allowed by the SMA permit course. The existing non-conforming use of the STVR, he'd like to retain if possible but it's not a deal breaker. He'd like to have that option for financial reasons to be able to let it out short term and this kind of rolls into a discussion that's bubbling up now with the proposed regulations or changes in regulations to transient accommodation rules. So, we're seeing potentially that areas like this that do have a pretty high density of existing non-conforming short-term vacation rentals may be permitted through this new process of vacation nodes through this new TAR regulation that's being proposed or soon to be proposed. That may just justify that that kind of use in this area is suitable. So, this is hypotheticals and it's not a make or break but this is intended as Mr. Sirlin's primary residence. DEFRANCO: Thank you. KNOWLES I just had a follow-up for the County on that. 11 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Yes, Commissioner Knowles. KNOWLES: Jeff, could you help clarify what if any sort of control this Commission has regarding the non-conforming short-term vacation rental use that he may or may not have for the property. DARROW: Confirm whether or not he does have one? KNOWLES: You're saying he does have it. DARROW: Yeah, and I believe that the applicant's representative can confirm that. PIPAN: Yes. There is an NUC for STVR use, if it's possible he'd like to retain it and our discussions with the Planning Department indicated that would be likely possible. But again, it's not a make or break. KNOWLES: I guess I'm just not clear on what our power is with respect to that DARROW: I can speak— KNOWLES: Portion DARROW: —to that. DEFRANCO: I think Mr. Darrow — DARROW: We had a similar situation in fact this may have been one of Mr. Pipan's applications. This was a rezoning that was before the County Council and there was concern that the development may turn into short-term vacation rentals. And ultimately the advice or opinion given to them was if it's something that's allowed, they shouldn't not allow it. They shouldn't restrict it if it's something that is permitted. And so, they ended up not putting that condition in. I mean the actual development itself whether or not that was a different matter but overall, it seemed like if there is uses permitted in a particular zoning district that through a rezoning or through a permit process, we shouldn't be restricting those uses. DEFRANCO: Right, thank you. DARROW: And again, this is unique in the sense that this was in to get one of these non-conforming use certificates you'd had to have been operating as a short-term vacation rental for a period of time in a particular location to receive one. And this applicant I'm not sure if he was the owner at the time or not but, this property does have a non-conforming use certificate. KNOWLES: And that use certificate travels with the parcel and not with transfer of ownership. 12 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Correct. It can change ownership. DEFRANCO: Thank you. DARROW: If I may, Mr. Pipan also touched upon the new proposed bill that's going to be coming forward shortly and the main purpose of that bill is to look at regulating hosted rentals. Where somebody lives in the residence and rents out a portion of their dwelling and they live on site. There's also discussion of creating what are called vacation nodes in areas that he had mentioned where there's a high number of short-term vacation rentals whether hosted or unhosted. Unfortunately, at this time we know how many unhosted we have. We're not sure how many hosted we have in particular areas. So, that matter may or may not be part of the proposed bill going forward. It may come back at another time. So just to be aware of that. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant or for Mr. Pipan? No. Yes. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry, excuse me. DEFRANCO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry, I applaud the applicant in developing the new residential site in a manner that is compliant with the SMA rules and also upgrading to new and improved septic systems that's wonderful. It's going to be very helpful and beneficial to the environment of course. However, if I'm hearing from you as the applicant that it's not a make-or-break deal if and not the application or I'm sorry I don't have the exact technical terms. The ability to rent out a short-term vacation rental to have the ability for that use is not a make or break. I would encourage the applicant to come back for that particular use at when the rules change and again applaud you for taking the extra steps to make sure that you are conforming to the new SMA rules. Mahalo. PIPAN: May I answer? DEFRANCO: Yes, Mr. Pipan. PIPAN: I appreciate your comments Commissioner Paishon-Duarte and I do think it comes back to what we are here to evaluate in the form of the SMA Use Permit. So, if we're talking about short-term rental use which is not all that unlike residential use in terms of impact to the SMA. I think it's maybe a little borderline to restrict that use that would be otherwise appropriate for this property without having firm grounds within those SMA criteria to restrict that use on this property. So, we can put this question to Mr. Sirlin to see what his feelings are on the short-term vacation rental use. Frank if you could, you're muted. Thanks. SIRLIN: Sure, hello everyone. I apologize for being late to this meeting but, anyway, I'm here and I've been listening for the last while. So, I can speak to the short-term vacation rental aspect too. When I started looking at Puako and had these criteria of stand-alone, 13 EXHIBIT A real Hawaiian neighborhood, and not a gated community and all that stuff. My intent was and still is to build our family home and to live there and not to have it rented out to anybody and that is the intent now and still is. When I bought that place and was looking at places in Puak6 I never even really even inquired as to whether they had a short-term vacation rental license or not because it never was or is part of the long-term plan. But after acquiring the property and with the [indecipherable]to get permits, the shoreline permit, and a building permit and before that to work with an architect and my own plans and what to build for the family. It's been a long process and an expensive one because with a mortgage on the property and so forth it's been very helpful to have the money coming from some short-term vacation rentals. And as John said whether its people renting on short-term or people living there full-time it doesn't really change the impact to the neighborhood. But to answer the question of going forward if we are allowed to build this to improve the property now, I would like to have the option of being able to do a short- term vacation rental should I need it financially in the short-term. In the long-term I don't want to rent it out. I want to live there. So, the answer is I would like to keep that option available but that's not the intent going forward. DEFRANCO: Thank you, does it answer the question? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yeah. DEFRANCO: I just wanted to speak to it. It sounds like you're going to repurpose some of the wood and things, the cedar or can you speak to that a little a bit of what you're repurposing and — SIRLIN: Sure. Well, there's two buildings on the site right now. One it was called, when we bought it, they called it the main house and then there's the cottage. So, the main house is the one that was built in the late 50's early 60's and it's a Pana Boat house. If you're familiar with Pana boat houses they're kind of like, if you remember when you were a kid playing with Lincoln logs. So, it's like a giant Lincoln log home. So, it's prefabbed on the mainland, shipped over on trucks I guess back then and put together like a log home. And so, what I want to do is not demolish that home but remove it and either sale it or pay somebody to take it away and repurpose it somewhere else on the island. And I think for a number of reasons I want to do that not only financially because to demolish it and pay to have it removed would cost money and but more importantly, I don't want to fill up the landfill with this material. It's still a pretty fine building that could be re-erected somewhere else very easily. So, it can be dismantled, each one of the Lincoln logs would have a number on it and then re-assembled somewhere else. So, the main house would be moved. The cottage,which is a small like studio, elevated it's like a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen all in one small room. That got a lot of koa wood, and I want to reuse that koa wood in the new building. So, most of the cottage would be reused and all of the main house would be reused if my plan goes through as I plan. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Are there any other questions? No, yes. PIPAN: If I could just add a little bit more. 14 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Okay. PIPAN: We've been requested by the Planning Department to really address the shoreline impacts and we've agreed to not have any staging material obviously for the construction or demolition, no heavy equipment would be allowed in the shoreline setbacks. So, all of that deconstruction moving would have to occur without impacts to the 40-foot shoreline setback area. We're totally on board with that. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: This might be more for County. But is Puako Beach Road a county road or a state road? PIPAN: It's County. VITOUSEK: County. DARROW: It's a county road. DEFRANCO: Okay, thank you Mr. Pipan and thank you Mr. Silva, excuse me, Mr. Sirlin. SIRLIN: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Yes, and since there is no public testimony either on Zoom or here, is that right? Okay, so we're going to need a motion for action then. Well, I mean the motion for discussion. We have to put a motion on the table so that we can discuss it now, all this information — KNOWLES: I move that we take this matter to discussion. DEFRANCO: We have to vote; you have to state it as if you are going to approve it and then it goes into discussion. KNOWLES: Okay. DEFRANCO: So, you make a motion to approve or not approve. KNOWLES: I move that we approve the permit as presented by the applicant. DEFRANCO: Okay and you wanted to state the — KNOWLES: I just don't see my script, but I can put the number on. I move that the application for Special Management Area Use Permit Docket No. 2022-000024 be approved based on the Deputy Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. 15 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Thank you, so, we need a second for this. DELA CRUZ: Second. DEFRANCO: Okay and seconded okay so, now we're open to discuss it. So, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. I have a question for Deputy Director Darrow. Are we allowed to place a condition on this application to make sure that, I'm clearly hearing the reasons for wanting to have the option for short-term vacation rental. Are we allowed to place a condition to ensure that comes into compliance like to make sure that the applicant applies for that use moving forward. DARROW: Applies— PAISHON-DUARTE: As a part to place a condition on as part of this application and I'm not fully aware of all of the requirements and the steps for someone to apply to run a short-term vacation rental. DEFRANCO: He already has one. DARROW: Yeah, if I could, and I briefly touched upon it earlier. There was only a very short window for somebody during the first round of rule changes for unhosted short- term vacation rentals. For somebody that was not located in a permitted zoning to be able to get what was called a non-conforming use certificate, a NUC. Once somebody receives that, then they have to renew every year and if the ownership changes the permit or the certificate can be transferred. So, this particular applicant had purchased the property with the certificate. So, there's nothing more that he needs to apply for or anything. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. DARROW: I could mention this that moving forward if the new rules are adopted that identify hosted rentals, then and the applicant lives there then they may have the same opportunity to apply for their primary residence and being able to host a room or two. And again, those are things yet unseen that we're working through. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Any other questions or discussions please, Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Thank you. I think this is a really interesting case. In that, this has been a standard practice in Puak6 for the last 20 plus years. Where historic homes are being demolished and a lot of better word mansions are being put in and there has been no SMA review 16 EXHIBIT A of that and in essence it's led to dismantling of a historic district. And this is the first time that I'm aware of that an application for an SMA has come in for Puak6. Is that the case for one of these lots? DARROW: In this particular rule change, yes. There has been some a little bit more north that were coming in that triggered when they built the second dwelling. VITOUSEK: Gotcha. DARROW: Yeah, remember we had the current rule required if they built that second dwelling, they'd have to come in. VITOUSEK: Yeah. DARROW: But this is the first one coming in Puako that the first dwelling has to come in. VITOUSEK: And my understanding of the SMA guidelines is that cumulative impacts are one of the major components for review. I believe that's 205A-26 (2)(a). I think that if this rule had been in place back before it would be a much different Puako today. So, here we are where the majority of lots in Puako have already been affected by this change. I'm not sure how at this point we can mitigate any of that. I mean looking at it individually I would love to see more view planes from the road even though it's not a State highway. I think walling off the entire lot with a 6-foot wall and 6-foot gates is really closing off views of the shoreline and closing off the community. Whereas the whole community may not be a gated community but the construction of these walls and gates and giant houses that block everything off create a corridor where only the individual people who owns these oceanfront properties are able to enjoy the ocean and the view of the ocean. I think it has a pretty significant change on the community. I don't know how to address that with one application. KNOWLES: I concur Chair Vitousek and that is the struggle that I am also having because I think that this idea of cumulative environmental impact as set forth in the statute has been narrowly construed quite frankly to be considering sort of like the impact on the water or as opposed to the impact on the entire environment of the community. It was very interesting to me that the applicant noted his desire to live in a Hawaiian neighborhood when in my experience Puako doesn't look like that anymore and these mansions do begin to change the environmental character of the community. I guess my question for you, Mr. Darrow, is just this idea of you spoke to it but at what point I can't locate the tipping point for when the character of a community changes so much that it is now in effect a gated community. And what our power is as a Commission to really consider that as we review these SMA permits that are really looking at the entire ocean and front environment. DARROW: Thank you. It's not an easy question to answer and in this particular case I think we're looking at probably the most, I mean, I don't want to belittle this. This is one single-family dwelling. What we normally look at for a cumulative effect is like a resort complex that comes in like Waikoloa or Mauna Lani or Kukio, Ka`upulehu and they come in for one SMA 17 EXHIBIT A permit because they have reached to a cumulative impact. We are looking at an entire development and it's approved through one SMA permit. What's happened now is the law has changed to say we feel that there should be review of each dwelling that comes upon, that comes in to want to build on the coastline so that we can address the issues that are occurring on the shoreline. There also is in that same law that says, if you build a dwelling that's over 7,500 square feet you have to come in for an SMA permit. So, right now the standard is 7,500 square feet. There was an attempt in this legislature to bring it down to 5,000 but that didn't go forward. Again, cumulative impact is when we have, let's say we had this project was coming in now Puako and we were able to look at that and say this is a large project, it's going to have cumulative impacts. How are we going to address these cumulative impacts for this project? We could say, hold back the whole development 100 feet or we could say whatever we want to. At that point we look at it as a development with cumulative impacts. This particular one it's hard to be able to place the burden of this on one person, on one applicant that's coming in and, in our opinion, doing the right thing. He's actually moving his development back out of the shoreline setback area; he's addressing wastewater issues. Again, we may not agree with everything he does, we feel like well this particular dwelling may be too big or may block a view or something. But it's this dwelling, it's not the entire Puako that we're looking at right now. We are looking at the impacts of this dwelling. DEFRANCO: Okay. VITOUSEK: If I may. DEFRANCO: Yes, Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: I disagree a little bit in that we are accessing the overall impacts of a development. Those are the impacts of that development. If it's a bigger development those impacts are greater. I believe the purpose of cumulative impacts is the accumulation of multiple smaller developments whose impacts as a whole then reached the level of a larger development. Now this particular case, this particular applicant, I don't have an answer in any way. I don't think they are individually responsible for the cumulative impacts of the culture of replacing historic beach homes, 1950's beach homes with modern mansions. This is one example of hundreds that have taken place in Puako and so I agree we can't hold this individual applicant responsible for all of the cumulative impacts that have happened. But now that this rule is in place where SMA permits for individual homes within Puako are going to be reviewed by the Commission. I think that's the role of the Planning Department to have a plan on how those cumulative impacts will be addressed and from my perspective that is maintaining the feel of the community through home design, through allowing view planes and maintaining that feel of a 1950's Hawaiian beach community that is so appealing to people coming in from other places. PIPAN: Let me respond Chair or do you have a comment? DEFRANCO: Yes, please. No, go ahead. Thank you. 18 EXHIBIT A PIPAN: So, in terms of cumulative impacts I hear what you're saying. There is this memory of what Puako was and it's changed from that, and it continues to change from that. How can we quantify that in terms of a cumulative impact or the contribution of a single home to this impact. What we're talking about here in terms of the SMA is we're placing an already permitted home that was developed decades ago with a new home with arguably less impacts based on its retreat from the shoreline, its improvement in the wastewater handling, right, and its maintenance of that permitted shoreline access, not blocking that. So, I think in terms of cumulative impact this is actually benefiting the SMA. It's improving on the current state. The home as it is currently blocks views to the shoreline across the property. So, it's not like that's changing appreciably. DEFRANCO: Thank you. I want to make a comment too because I don't see Puako as a gated community. There's public beach access roads that are open for everybody to go to the beach. It is sad that a lot of things have changed and, in our time, here viewing things but they have changed and now we're not here too really, we can't single out this one as the one that is the tipping point. I think the tipping point already happened. I think if you look at those overheads that we were provided with the homes around him are substantial homes with no setback because they didn't have to comply. So, now we have what we're being asked to do is to look at the compliance of the SMA that they have put forward. There're many parts to this discussion and many of us have different feelings and connections with these communities and surfing there and diving there and friends there and barbecuing there. But, when I see this application, I see someone who wants to be in Hawaii. Maybe everybody has a different idea what it means to live Hawaii or to live in a Hawaiian home or community or anything like that. But he is coming in with the respect for Hawaii in purchasing something that he feels that by complying with the rules, the SMA rules of doing the setback, of stepping up to the sewage system that he's willing to put in. This applicant is following the guidelines. So, I mean even though we may feel like the cumulative events that happened in Hawaii in general it's difficult, it's difficult to the position that we all are in to look at it and to say we can't go backwards. So, here we are and if you look at that overhead and you see what his neighbors look like. They're already all built out and they are only 20 feet away from the ocean and you have someone who's coming in and repurposing, no, coming in more of the right way of looking at it. It didn't feel like to me that a 5-bedroom home, I don't see it as a McMansion. I see a McMansion as a 10-bedroom home, with 10 baths, with 10-bathrooms. We all have a different idea of what that means. But I see an applicant who is conforming to the regulations. But I also sympathize with all of us being in this position of being raised here or being part of Hawaii and seeing it disappear the historic aspects of it being gone. Those feelings being gone. KNOWLES: I don't disagree Madame Chairwoman. I think the question in my mind is how do we elevate the discussion around what an SMA Use Permit, what the phrase cumulative environmental impact in the context of an SMA Use Permit actually means given the changing landscape. So, it isn't that I'm singling out Mr. Sirlin as the problem. What I'm singling out is the problem is this mind frame of looking at— DEFRANCO: Right. 19 EXHIBIT A KNOWLES: —It only matters if it's a large-scale development as opposed to what [indecipherable crosstalk] Mike had also— DEFRANCO: I hear what you're saying but I don't think that this is the discussion here. KNOWLES: No, it may not be but I'm trying to put it, I'm trying to put it on the record. DEFRANCO: Okay. KNOWLES: So that when this conversation goes to the County Council — DEFRANCO: Yes. KNOWLES: — or our recommendation or— VITOUSEK: In this case we're the deciding body since it's an SMA. KNOWLES: Oh, that's right. VITOUSEK: So, we issue an approval. KNOWLES: It's on us. Well, I am then just trying to put it on the record. Cause I think it is an important consideration for the Planning Department to take up as we're looking at these permits going forward, and I think at some point someone's going to have to say "no." VITOUSEK: And I would just agree to that. I can support this application in its current form. I would rather see a designed a little more community friendly to allow better views but it's his design, it's their home. I'm not going get in the way of it. What I would like to see in the future from the Planning Department is that analysis. Is that analysis of Puako specifically and how this type of development changes the character of the community which I think is an SMA criteria. So, for me again this particular application I do think it needs to be noted and hopefully future applications will receive — DEFRANCO: So, I think this is being noted. VITOUSEK: Yeah. DEFRANCO: And the other thing to also for all of us to note, is that there isn't any neighborhood people objecting to this. There's nobody here, we didn't get any letters objecting to this and there's nobody here objecting to it. So, I think that it is duly noted that we want going forward what a cumulative impact what that means and how to look that. So. VITOUSEK: The saying is death from a thousand tiny cuts, right. You could do one quick chop and the heads off and you're dead otherwise. A thousand tiny cuts does the same 20 EXHIBIT A thing and so just that level of analysis with these applications I think is very important moving forward. DEFRANCO: Thank you. DARROW: If I could respond. DEFRANCO: Yes. DARROW: I really appreciate the discussion. One the Planning Department reviews SMA permits we have standards and criteria's we have to review. We really try to go into detail in our recommendation regarding those reviews. In our Planning Commission Rules, Rule 9. It goes into great detail on what the criteria of a substantial adverse effect is. In speaking to that it says, "in considering the significance of potential environmental effects the Director shall consider the sum of those effects that adversely affect the quality of the environment and shall evaluate the overall cumulative effects of that action." And so, there's a list of 10 criteria that determine when a project reaches substantial adverse effect. So, when we go through an SMA permit we go into detail looking at these criteria whether or not this particular application has reached to a substantial adverse effect. We did do that in this recommendation, and it did not reach to that level. Beyond that, there's this discussion of we should really look at Puako from a holistic approach, right and again we can go back. What some communities have done is they've created a design review; they've created a plan for that particular area and that's something that can most definitely be done and that would bring further specific guidance to the Department when looking at these types of permits. It's just very difficult in this particular circumstance as mentioned to be able to come to that evaluation with the limited scope we're looking at of the action. But thank you very much for the discussion. PAISHON-DUARTE: Madame Chair? DEFRANCO: Yes, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: I would like to request of you to agendize a presentation from the Planning Department on the next steps that will be taken on per Commissioner Vitousek's recommendation to have ideas, strategies, a plan moving forward to evaluate Puako as a whole community. DEFRANCO: Okay, I think that would be a good agenda item. Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Mahalo for the discussion. So, we do have a motion on the table to approve this Special SMA. I don't think I have one. You want to read your motion again and then we have to vote on it and it's a roll call vote. Is that right? Okay. 21 EXHIBIT A KNOWLES: I move that the application for Special Management Area Use Permit Docket No. 2022-000024, be approved based on the Deputy Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. DEFRANCO: Do we have a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. DEFRANCO: Can we have a vote please, roll call. ROY: Commissioner Knowles? KNOWLES: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye with reservation. ROY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. ROY: And Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. ROY: The motion carries five (5)with one (1) excused. DEFRANCO: The applicant will be notified in writing of this. PIPAN: Thank you all very much and enjoy the rest of your day. Mahalo. These agenda items ended at 10:49 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary to Boards and Commissions 22 EXHIBIT A