Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-31 TPUAKO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 PUAKO BAY INVESTORS, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SMA 07-000016) was called to order at 10:16 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo C. Kimo Alameda Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Christopher Yuen, Planning Director And 16 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PUAKO BAY INVESTORS, LLC (SMA 07-000016) Continuation of a Public Hearing on the application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of an 8-lot single-family residential subdivision and related improvements. The property is located on the makai side of Puako Beach Drive, adjacent to and east of the Puako boat ramp, Lalamilo, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-9-2:1 and 2. GRAHAM: The second item on our agenda is a continuation of a Public Hearing on the application for a Special Management Area Permit to allow the development of an 8-lot single-family residential subdivision and related improvements. The property in question is located on the makai side of the Puako Beach Drive, and is adjacent to and on the Kona side of the Puako boat ramp, in South Kohala. The applicant is Puako Bay Investors, LLC. Again, if you, we have one testifier. If you want to testify on this application, please go to the end of the table and fill out a slip. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the South Kohala District of Hawaii. More specifically, we’re looking at the Puako area. This is Queen Kaahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction. From Queen Kaahumanu Highway we have Puako Beach Drive running in a northeast-southwest direction. The different colors on the map illustrate our County zoning. The lighter green shades represents Agricultural 5acres. The darker green represents Open zoning mainly along the ocean areas. The light yellow represents Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet. The purple zoning represents Resort 1,250 square feet. The area of this EXHIBIT B 1 application is within one of these resort zonings identified with a red dot. The applicant in this case, Puako Investors LLC, is requesting a special management area use permit to allow the development of an 8-lot single family residential subdivision. Referring to the applicant’s proposed subdivision layout map, we show the Puako Beach Road in this particular area near the lower portion of the map and the proposed layout showing the 8 lots, as well as the interior roadway. We have the ocean area near the top of the map. There is a parcel between the proposed area for the special management area use permit and the ocean which is identified as State land. Additionally, to the west of the property we have, or to north of the property, northeast, we have the Puako Boat Ramp, which is in this particular area. The applicant also intends to construct related improvements, which will be the roadway, drainage, a drainage channel which is in this particular area to the west of the subdivision, drainage and water system improvements, underground utility improvements, as well as landscaping. Conditions to mention, Condition 6 requests the applicant to provide a lateral shoreline access which will be in this particular area from the boat ramp. Condition 7 requires the applicant to work with the State Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation in improving this particular boat ramp area to be able to improve the mauka-makai access to the shoreline. And Condition 16, which deals with the drainage easements. We apologize for the late submittal to the Planning Commission as we were trying to resolve issues regarding the flood study and drainage on the property. th We have received several late transmittals. One is from Na Ala Hele dated July 20, and this morning we had received three submittals from the applicant. One is identified as a revised shoreline zone conceptual landscaping plan dated August 23, 2007, a cultural impact assessment for Hawaii County Planning Commission hearing dated August 2007 from Paul Rosendahl; and an article with the heading “Daring to Chart Murky Waters”, and this has to do with an individual wastewater system that is an aerobic type of system. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this special management area use permit request with conditions. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Rho. RHO: You talked about a lateral shoreline access or trail and in this letter from Irving Kawashima he mentions mauka-makai access. So is there any plan for mauka-makai access? DARROW: Our Condition No. 7 where we speak regarding the improvements to the boat ramp, in the condition it states that this will negate the need for a mauka-makai public access through the project site because there is existing already a mauka-makai access to the shoreline on this boat ramp area. So the Planning Director is just requesting a lateral from this already established mauka-makai access at the boat ramp. RHO: So can you also describe what that shaded area either looks like near the water or on the water, not the brown shaded area but the light shaded area on the -. EXHIBIT B 2 DARROW: This particular area here? RHO: Well, actually, I’m just looking at that really light shaded, looks kind of like faded yellow, right there. DARROW: Oh, right here. I would think that that would identify the beach area possibly. But I might defer the -. PUBLIC: Shoreline. DARROW: Shoreline. RHO: Sandy beach? DARROW: If we can defer that question to the applicant. There might be a, this might be identified on the -. RHO: There’s a picture that’s being circulated, so I think that will help me. YUEN: Yeah, we’re circulating an aerial photo. It’s a little cove with a little bit of a sandy beach and a little bit of a more open shoreline there. And just to follow up on a question about mauka-makai, we’re recommending a lateral only. It’s a distance of only about 500 feet from the Puako Boat Ramp to that little cove, and maybe another 100 to 200 feet more from the little cove to the end of the property line, which is not really a very, much of a distance to walk from the Puako Boat Ramp. So rather than create a second mauka-makai access we thought that the lateral access was enough. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. At this point we’ll have the applicant come forward. I just wanted to let the one testifier we have know that after the applicant makes his presentation and gives questions, then we’ll take the public testimony. Okay? Could I swear you in first. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Fuke; and start with your name and address, please. FUKE: Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. I’m here assisting the applicant in the presentation of this application. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. KIHUNE: Good morning. My name is Howard Kihune. I represent the developer, and one of the owners, and my address is 2530 Kekaa Drive, Lahaina, Maui. GRAHAM: Proceed. EXHIBIT B 3 FUKE: Sure. Mr. Chairman, before responding specifically to some of the questions that Commissioner Rho raised, I’d like to just kind of provide the Commission with some of the generalized background, you know, regarding this application. Very briefly, as the staff had indicated, the subject area consisting of 6.7 acres consists of two parcels. It was zoned back in 1967, 68, thereabouts in resort. So just given the size of the property, it’s capable of supporting approximately 230 multiple family residential units. However, you know, during the course of the, the applicants had secured interest in the property about a year ago. And prior to finalizing its development plan, what it had to do is go through like a number of studies. And, in addition to that, meetings with the community were held, as well as with specific individuals within the community, just to get a sense as far as what some of the issues were. They conducted an archaeological inventory survey. They commissioned studies relating to drainage and the floodway. They had flora and fauna work done. In addition to that, they had studies, you know, relating to the coastal water impact and the groundwater impact. So some of these technical consultants are here today. So if during the course of the presentation or subsequent to it, if there are issues that the Commissioners may have, or for that matter public testimony, then they’re prepared to respond to them. Basically as the staff had indicated the project is a single family residential lot subdivision. It’s 8 lots, as opposed to the maximum of 233. And as indicated earlier the applicant was very sensitive about the density issue, the traffic concerns, and not wanting to really intensify any excessive residential activity in that area. And, as a result, they limited the project to just 8 single family residential lots. The lot sizes are to be ranged between 23,000 to about 31,000 square feet, you know, a little bit more than half acre in size. As reflected also in your staff’s report, they wanted to essentially retain the residential character rather than go ahead with what the existing zoning would allow them. So, specifically, they proposed within the, their CC&Rs they would have restrictions relative to the height. They would use all the single family residential standards as opposed to the resort standards relative to heights. In specific reference to the coastal access, they were mindful of the need, given that this is an SMA Permit, for a mauka-makai as well as lateral access kind of considerations. And as the Planning Director had indicated, rather than having another mauka-makai access through the property given the fact that the properties immediately to the north of it is zoned by the State where you already have public access, the applicant felt that it would be much more prudent to work something out with the State, with DOBAR. It’s called Division of Boat and Recreational. And so there is a condition that states that, I believe that’s Condition Nos. 6 and 7, that requires the applicant to work together with DOBAR and improving the parking and related improvements at the Puako boat ramp. And so what that means is that rather than, you know, specifically having a mauka-makai access, what would be better for the public and which the Director had suggested in which we totally agree, is to improve a parking area so that there would be more access to the coastal area. There was obviously some drainage kind of issues; and that was one of the reasons why this matter was continued for a number of meetings. You know, we had prepared a drainage study, we had drainage studies done. We had to actually go back to the drawing board, largely because we had a meeting with the community; and some of the community, during the course of the community meetings, some of the community members raised concerns relative to the overall flooding in this area. And so the developer had elected, pursuant to also discussions with the Planning Director, to go back to the drawing board, do more evaluation. And as a result they EXHIBIT B 4 came up with a drainage system which we believe is now acceptable to the Planning Department. But what it essentially called for is like two-fold. One is like whatever water that presently traverses through the property would be diverted into a channel on the Kona side of the property which is outlined in the green on the presentation map. It would basically, you know, capture and divert whatever water that’s going through the southern end or the Kailua end of the property, and then pushing into that direction. Equally critical, however, is that whatever storm water is, I mean, excuse me, whatever water is generated by the project would be captured by on- site drywells on the individual property owner, on the respective lots. But equally so, there would be a separate basin, drainage basin, adjacent to the main drainage basin, to capture whatever runoff that there may be from, excess runoff that may be coming from the individual lots. To further minimize on-site drainage concerns, what the applicant proposes to do is in conjunction with the CC&R is to have like much more pervious type of surface on the respective properties. For example, as opposed to having traditional, you know, concrete or asphalt driveways, for example, you know within each of the properties, they’re proposing to have more pervious surface, which would allow for more natural percolation, such as rubberized surface or concrete type, not concrete, landscape concrete blocks. In terms of the wastewater system, again, realizing that this is a coastal property, there’s no County sewer system in that area, their plan was always to do the septic tank and an aerobic system. Mr. Kihune has had numerous discussions with Mr. Harold Nagata, and that’s the basis for the article that was passed out today. It was an article that appeared initially in the Pacific Business News and subsequently in the Honolulu Advertiser. And so I basically highlighted, you know, the critical component; and this is the type of system that the applicant intends to utilize for the property, be it the traditional aerobic system or an aerobic system; and this is well tested in, and has met with considerable rave reviews. It basically functions as an individual sewage treatment plant on the respective properties.We had studies done by Dr. Steve Dollar, who by the way is here, and also Dr. Tom Nance, who both collectively did studies relating to the groundwater, as well as the coastal water impact, relative to the project. And essentially they concluded that the project would not have any significant, if at all, impacts to the both groundwater as well as to the coastal waters. Dr. Paul Rosendahl’s office, as noted by the staff’s report, did prepare an archaeological report. During the course of our discussions with the community, we did discuss with one of the adjoining property owners. And while, Dr. Rosendahl’s report, you know, clearly stated that he did not, you know, there was nothing found on the property, the site has been totally cleared; and as a result, the planner who did the environmental assessment concluded that the cultural resources of the property, if any, you know, are negligent. However, during the course of meeting with the community and, you know, particularly one of the neighboring property owners, there were thoughts that possibly there may be some cultural implications. So as a result rather than having to risk not submitting a separate cultural impact assessment, we did have one prepared; and that was submitted today. And basically the cultural impact assessment, which was done pursuant to Chapter 343 type of standards, clearly indicate that, and confirmed the earlier conclusions, that, in fact, there is no cultural resources that would be adversely impacted by the project. EXHIBIT B 5 Finally, we did have the flora and faunal type of studies done; and, again, basically none of them, you know, none of those studies concluded that there were any impacts, which pretty much like brings us to here. So if there are any questions that the Commissioners may have of myself or any of the consultants we’d be more than happy to answer them. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, do you have any particular questions? I’d like to ask a question perhaps of Mr. Dollar, your consultant. FUKE: Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Sure. So do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? DOLLAR: Yes, I do. GRAHAM: Thanks. And could you give your name and address, please. DOLLAR: Yes. My name is Steven Dollar. Address is 1039 Waakela Place, Honolulu. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Dollar we just got presented the bulk of this application to us this morning, so I haven’t had a chance to really read over your work, although I was quickly trying to browse it here while I was trying to pay attention to Mr. Fuke at the same time. My understanding is that the Puako Bay, the condition of the marine life there right now is rather stressed and that there are problems with algae in the area. And when I just took a quick look through your analysis of the water quality and all there, I didn’t see the usual kind of discussion that’s made of the marine life and all. So could you just give me a little understanding of what it looks like in the water off this project as far as whether there are algae, whether there are other sedimentation stresses or whatever on the coral that we should know about. DOLLAR: Yes, I can. In fact, we, Tom Nance and I, prepared a report that, I’m not sure you have, that presents a lot of photographs of the bottom coral. Have you seen that? Is that part of what you’re looking at? GRAHAM: I really don’t know, but usually in the black and white the photographs come across kind of bad anyway, so -. You know, I have snorkeled a bit in that area in the last few years so it doesn’t look like your normal kind of off-shore healthy reef, but I’m sure you have a more formed analysis. DOLLAR: Yeah, that’s true. I have the colored photographs here if you want to look at them later. But as you say the area of Puako Bay there is not what I would call a typical coral or Kona Coast, West Hawaii Coast, coral community. And basically it’s, because of a lot of sediment runoff that’s happened over the geologic past and there’s an area in-shore, if you look at the beaches there they’re composed basically of volcanic rock, and not white sand, a terrigenous or land arrived mud. And there’s a zone, a near shore zone, where this mud extends out. And where that mud extends out is sort of trapped in these bays. They get stirred up every time there’s a storm, and then resuspends and it settles back to the bottom. So it prevents coral growth in that inner part of the bay. If you swim out past that, and we actually characterize that EXHIBIT B 6 in this report, beyond the zone where the mud occurs, the coral is fairly healthy and does look like pretty much typical West Coast of Hawaii. GRAHAM: Thank you. Can you tell me about any algae growth you encountered in that bay? DOLLAR: You know, I’m surprised you said that because we saw no algae there to speak of, and photographs document that. So if there’s algae there, which I’m not aware of, it’s not in the area of this project. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. And have you followed at all, I know the University of Hawaii has had a long, long term sort of monitoring program of Puako itself. I don’t know whether they focused in this particular bay or not. Are you aware of that, and what they encountered, and what they’re doing? DOLLAR: I’m aware of it. I haven’t seen any of the data. I actually started one of the first areas, I studied over here. I started working in West Hawaii in 1972, actually did my masters thesis looking at the environmental factors that control coral reefs here, and one of the areas was Puako. But I haven’t seen the data from the Hilo people. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Any other questions for Mr. Dollar or anyone else from the Commission? FUKE: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one question? GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: I guess maybe this is more directed to the Planning Director. You know, like all of the proposed conditions to date are acceptable and, you know, this is understandably an SMA permit for an 8-lot subdivision. And so it’s my understanding that as a person applies for a building permit, you know, for single family residential use, be it for swimming pool, guest house, guest cottage and the main dwelling, or whatever, that they’d still be subject to an SMA assessment review. YUEN: They should submit an SMA assessment. But the result of the assessment, unless they were proposing something unusual or not consistent with the underlying permit, would be that the construction of the home itself is covered by the permit. There’s a statement, I mean, that’s generally true when somebody comes in for a subdivision that’s supposed to lead to single family dwellings. But we do have a sentence in the permit that makes that, is intended to make that quite clear. FUKE: So it is clear that each lot would be restricted only to single family residential uses? YUEN: That’s correct. FUKE: Correct. EXHIBIT B 7 YUEN: If, for example, someone wanted to do a duplex, it would create an interesting question of whether you have to amend this permit; but at least it would take either an amendment to this permit or a new permit to do that. This permit itself allows 8 lots and one home on each of the 8 lots. FUKE: Okay. Part of the reason why is that, in speaking with the applicant earlier, there is a possibility that some of these homes, because, you know, some of these homes may be absentee homeowners, they may wish to have like a guest cottage, you know, on the property. That’s the reason why I brought it up. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: They couldn’t have a second kitchen. The break point in the Zoning Code between what makes a, and there are other factors as well, but the key one is the second kitchen. Now you can have a detached element to a home, and there’s some real guidelines on detached elements. So you don’t have to have all of the bedrooms, for example, in one structure. But you couldn’t have a second kitchen and a second structure. FUKE: Thank you very much for the clarification. And just for the record the applicant has had a chance to review the staff’s report and the proposed conditions recommended by the Director and have found them to be acceptable. GRAHAM: Thank you. You all may be seated now. And I have one public testifier; . and that’s Mr. Rob Shallenberger And if anyone else wishes to testify, please sign up at this time at the end of the desk there. Mr. Shallenberger, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? SHALLENBERGER: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. You could go ahead and give your testimony now, but start with your name and address, please. SHALLENBERGER: My name is Dr. Robert Shallenberger. My address is 123 Puako Beach Drive, Kamuela 96743. I have submitted testimony by mail back in February which should be in your packet in anticipation of the original hearing. And nothing has really substantively changed from that but I would like to amplify a few points. In particular we’ve had a very good working relationship with the developer.And its consultants have been very forthcoming in the meetings, we’ve had both individually and as a group in the community, have been very useful for us. And I think some of the conditions they’ve agreed to stem from those discussions. I think it’s fair to say that most of the people in Puako would prefer not to have the site developed at all; but a low density alternative to what is possible under the current zoning is very welcome. And that’s one of the reasons we’ve been willing to work closely with them. I was just handed copies of the Planning Department’s background report and the flood study so I haven’t had a chance to review those in any depth. But it is welcoming to see several of the conditions that have been included. Let me say that there are some issues that we’ve asked for that are in that letter that I sent, that we would have liked to have seen in the form of conditions. EXHIBIT B 8 The ones that have been included, like securing the water supply within a year I think is really important because of the uncertainty of the water was really an issue for us. There are references to grading ordinances and best management practices and so on in those conditions. I’m not completely comfortable, as a biologist very familiar with that adjacent reef, that we still won’t run into trouble, particularly if all of the lots were being graded at the same time in the middle of a major flood event. So I think, we would hope that the contractors working for the developers would go through some extra lengths to insure that the areas are secured to protect them in the event of a serious rain problem. We’re very pleased to see the direction about working with State DOBAR on the boat ramp. That is a very important issue for us. It’s already overcrowded. And once this access is open along the front of the development, we’re quite certain there will be a number of other people wanting to use it; and so that definitely needs some repair. Glad to see the reference to the septic systems. I would just suggest that we want to make sure that we’re consistent with what’s happening elsewhere in Puako. Whereas my understanding, certainly our case, building just a few years ago there was a requirement for an aerobic system. We’d be delighted to see something better than that but this looks, we’re very happy since there still remain many cesspools and poorly developed septic systems in that area. Other potential conditions to consider -- many of the landowners raised in the meetings with the developer that some security that there won’t be further subdivision. And it sounds like from your comments, Mr. Yuen, that a subsequent landowner could come in for a permit that would create something different than is being permitted by this request. And, in fact, several of the landowners in the area requested that the developers propose that this area be rezoned now so there was no likelihood of further subdivision.But I’ll just mention that that makes everybody very nervous what might happen after-the-fact. We also had suggested that there be some references or comments made about dealing with coqui frogs. We have worked very hard to keep coqui out of Puako and are not interested in dealing with landscapers that are not taking care to avoid this problem. So we would ask the developer to take precautions to deal with the landscaping problem. We also requested some safety provisions. If you’ve driven this road you know that the potential entrance to the development is right on a, kind of a blind curve coming down the hill from the boat ramp area. And we’re concerned about potential accidents and have asked the developer to suggest calming devices, signage, mirrors, whatever we can do to mitigate that problem. And, finally, this may seem like a silly issue but there is one unusually large keawe tree referred to as the Goto tree which the developers have agreed to protect and retain; and we’d like to see that be a condition of the development. I’ve two remaining issues of serious concerns that were covered in that letter. But ironically and unfortunately, I guess, the development is downstream and downwind and next door to a lot of problems, and one of which you talked about earlier which is flooding. And we appreciate and commend the developer for their extra effort to try to deal with the problem they’ve dealt with, which is all the water coming downstream off of State lands. But we’ve asked the developer, and I don’t know to what extent you can condition this, but it might be similar to the DOBAR EXHIBIT B 9 condition. And that is direct the developer to work with the State, in this case the Division of Land Management, to deal with a really serious flood control problem that’s in large part caused by really poor grading on the State lands adjacent to this property. And so it is manageable. When it gets very wet in Puako what the first thing that happens is that the road adjacent to this property fills up with a couple feet of water -- and there are several hundred acres in the back in the State lands that are dry or just wet from rainfall but not runoff -- and in large part because of poor drainage systems on those State lands. And the other issue, I might also mention that when that area floods, it’s more than just an inconvenience cause that is our only effective escape route in the event of a hurricane or a tidal wave. The other issue I want to mention is fire. And I think they passed around a photograph, an aerial photograph, which I shot a couple days after a fire which occurred in Puako on July 1. I saw a couple of people holding the acetate sheet. If you could look at that, you’ll see that there is an area that has just been burned right adjacent to the road. That’s a 25-acre fire that occurred on st July 1. It quite possibly was set by an arsonist, but we don’t know that for sure. We were very lucky that there happened to be an off-duty fireman very close to it right when it started and he was able to call in a helicopter within 10 minutes. But if you’ll look at it, it burned right up to the road; and the property immediately across the road is this project. And so we are very concerned about fire in Puako. I’ve worked with the State, again, the Division of Land Management, to enhance our firebreaks to try and find ways to deal with these problems. But, frankly, I think the developer might have a hard time selling lots knowing that the forest within 30 feet of the edge of the lot is so vulnerable to fire. So we again ask the developer to work with the Division of Land Management on a firebreak. If you’ll look at that picture you’ll see that they put a firebreak in immediately after the fire started. But we would like to see that along the edge of Puako Beach Drive so that the makai properties are not vulnerable. So with that, I’ll take any questions you might have of me. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Shallenberger. Do any of the Commissioners have questions? Let me ask you one if I might. I actually used to live at 124 Puako back when that was a little flat house on the slab. On the coqui frog issue, I know in Kohala we’ve had a coqui frog issue that the community has really come forth and dealt with very well, as I presume you guys have. Is there a group there in Puako which sort of has the equipment, whatever, to deal with any coqui frog infestations? SHALLENBERGER: Yes. We do have a group in Puako and we got a County grant that allowed us to buy some equipment and be better prepared for it. But it’s really about every month, month and a half, somebody reports that we go out and get it. And so far we’ve been successful. But we also deal with the landscapers working on new projects, individual houses in Puako, to try and get them to deal with the problem. But here again the best technique on that side of the island in my opinion is to negotiate agreements with landscapers that require them to deal with the problem if they bring it in. GRAHAM: Sure I was thinking, and I’ll ask Mr. Fuke this in a little bit, that maybe one condition we could put in is that if there were coqui frogs within the subdivision that it would be required of the homeowners that they allow your group to come in and deal with the coqui frog. Because I know in Kohala that’s been the only issue as you can find a recalcitrant EXHIBIT B 10 person here or there that says, well, sorry I don’t want anybody coming on my land even though I’ve got coqui frogs going. Does that sound reasonable to you, or unnecessary, or -? SHALLENBERGER: Yeah, we haven’t experience that problem in Puako, I think because most of the people have heard the frogs, they know what the issue is, and there’s sort of a common support to try and deal with it. We’re also working with Mauna Lani, and Hapuna, and Mauna Kea on the other sides of us; and they tend to have more problems than we do I think because of much more landscaping. But anything that you can do to condition so this doesn’t become a source of coqui would be great. GRAHAM: And as far as the work on the Puako Boat Ramp, you know, that these folks would cooperate with the State on that, do you have any sense that that means that they do anything? SHALLENBERGER: I think they recognize that there is a parking issue. We’ve talked with DOBAR about it. You know, frankly, if it were up to me I’d see the developer as part of being a good neighbor would cost share some projects involving fire protection and improvements to the ramp. I know that you can’t require that. But that seems to me if you want to protect the value of their investment as well as dealing with, you know, the relationship to others in Puako it would be a good motion. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Shallenberger. Mr. Fuke, you may return if you would. And do you have any response or further comments to make, please. FUKE: Yes, I do. I think, first of all, in terms of the keawe tree, if you’ll note on the conceptual landscaping plan which is also over there, and I think a copy was also provided individually to all of the Commissioners, the so-called that keawe tree is proposed to be retained. It’s, if you look at the map it’s on the Kona end of the, mauka Kona end of the property. So that will be definitely retained. The applicant has no objection and would welcome really like Dr. Shallenberger’s group to do any coqui frog control if it happens, you know, within the subject property. If you also, again, look at, you know, the landscaping plan, you can see that much of the proposed landscaping activity that the developer is suggesting is not only on his property but also on State land. And there’s also a sliver of State land between portions of the subject property and Puako Beach Drive. It’s the intent of the applicant to eventually work with the State in procuring the property and possibly improving that sliver of area between the project and Puako Beach Drive and further landscaping it. And in conjunction with that then they would like to address the traffic . calming issue that DrShallenberger raised. We realize that we still have to work with the State relative to possibly developing an environmental assessment and securing the appropriate permits to implement the lateral shoreline access and the landscaping program. Relative to the no further subdivision aspect, it’s already contained within the CC&Rs that, you know, this is limited to only 8 lots. In the unlikely event that a person proposes to do further subdivision then obviously they would have to come in with another SMA Permit application or possibly an amendment to the existing SMA Permit, which would thus require another public hearing, and the community would be able to weigh in on such a request. EXHIBIT B 11 Finally, in terms of the drainage system the applicant is committed as noted in the, I think,-. Also the Mauna Kea Soil Water Conservation Service, Pete Hendricks I think provided in his comment that what the developer should really seriously look at is try to incorporate the principles of storm water best management practices. And that’s what the applicant intends, and has been doing and intends to do, largely in conjunction with the submittal of any plans to the County for review and approval. Finally, relative to, you know, the fire question and the overall flooding issue, you know, it’s really like not so much a global but a regional kind of issue that, you know, it’s obviously to the benefit of the developer and all respective or ultimate homeowners, you know, to work in concert with the Puako Community Association and with the State. And if need be, the developer would be more than happy to take the lead. But it’s certainly something that this one developer or this Puako LLC, you know, should not really be held responsible or accountable to solve an issue which is really much more regional in nature. It really requires the participation of all of the affected homeowners. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Any comments from Commissioners? Since you will be selling these lots to private parties, is there any way we could write a condition that you could perhaps word for us regarding the coqui frogs to allow access? DUNCAN: Good morning. My name is Stan Duncan. I’m a landscape architect with PBR Hawaii and our address is 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 650, Honolulu, Hawaii. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. DUNCAN: Related to the coqui frog issue, this project when it does reach the construction standpoint and we prepare the final construction plans, landscape planting and irrigation drawings, we will, as part of our specifications, require that the licensed landscape contractor provide plant materials free of coqui frogs. And in the event that somehow they do show up for some reason, he will also be required and responsible for removal of such. So I think we will do our best to make sure that the contractor, you know, brings in plant materials that is free of the frogs. And, okay, Howard is mentioning that we would be willing to write that into the CC&Rs as well and make it a requirement that the coqui frog issue be dealt with by the individual homeowners as well should that occur. GRAHAM: Thank you. I would appreciate that. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just a follow-up. I’m unfortunately one of the most recent victims, I would say, of little fire ants. And in my mind they’re almost worse than the coqui frog. Can you include that? Seriously. And I was not aware until my personal infestation was really, was not aware of how devastating this alien species is. Is that correct? Maybe the grammar is not correct, but I think you get my point. So, you know, if we’re going down this road, it’s a major disclosure issue as coqui frogs are now when you’ve got to sell your lands. So now if I ever sell my house, I’ve got to disclose little fire ant infestations. And it’s, well, it’s harder to detect in EXHIBIT B 12 some ways than coqui frogs so, until you have a major infestation and you get stung by it; and it’s wiping out all the other insects on your property. So I’d just like to bring that up. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Yeah, I’m afraid, you know, this is a pretty slippery slope that we’re playing on now. You know, if we start regulating coqui frogs, fire ants, and God knows what else, where does it end? I can appreciate the fact that, you know, there are certain things that maybe the public in general does not care for; and since the developer is willing to throw in or concede to the coqui frog, that they issue in the covenant, hopefully that’s the end of it though. I mean are we going to keep on adding more things to the covenants that are beyond, say, a planning issue? GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. Any other questions or -? Mr. Fuke, you had something to say? FUKE: I think that, you know, based on what Mr. Duncan, who’s the landscape consultant to the project, had indicated, while his representations are all being made, you know, to this Commission, they’re all part of the record. I think that just for the assurance of the Commission if you, you know, as the Chair had suggested, if you wish to include such a provision, you know, within the restrictive covenants then, you know, you might want to consider something along this line -- that on Condition No. 5 where it talks about the restrictive covenants in the deeds, within the subject property shall, and maybe you can say something like, “incorporate control of alien plant and insect species and give notice that the terms,” etc., etc., etc. GRAHAM: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Commissioner Watanabe. This is really a very slippery slope. I don’t think anybody else in Puako Bay has to make sure their plants are free of coqui frogs or fire ants before they bring them in and plant them. Now we’re asking something exceptional. If they’re going to agree to it, more power to them. But we’re a Planning Commission. We’re not the Department of Agriculture and we’re not in charge of entomology. I think it’s an unreasonable condition; and it has nothing to do with planning. And, as I say, nobody else in Puako Bay has that restriction. It’s a voluntary effort. If they’re willing to practice due diligence with their landscaping services, I think that’s as much as you can require, to be honest. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Woodward. Any other comments from Commissioners? All right, thank you, Mr. Fuke. Thank you all. So I think we’re finished with the public hearing part now and we can move to decision making by the Commission. Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: If it’s in order I’d be willing to make a motion. GRAHAM: Go ahead, please. EXHIBIT B 13 WATANABE: I make a motion that we approve Puako Bay Investors, LLC’s Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 07-000016) based on the Director’s recommendations and conditions. GRAHAM: Thank you. Is there a second? Do we have a second? ALAMEDA: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Alameda. Any discussion by the Commissioners? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, before you take a vote on that motion, I think procedurally we’ve all agreed that that we will close the hearing first before we make an action motion. WATANABE: Oh, okay. GRAHAM: Thank you. I kind of verbally closed the hearing but I didn’t take any motion to that effect. Do you think a motion to that effect is more appropriate? HAYASHI: As long as it’s agreed that the hearing is closed. GRAHAM: Right. WOODWARD: Agree. GRAHAM: So is there any disagreement? COMMISSIONERS: No. GRAHAM: Thank you. All right, Commissioner Watanabe, do you have anything further to say before we take a vote? WATANABE: No. GRAHAM: Okay, Jeff, go ahead. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion before us is to approve the Special Management Area Use Permit. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT B 14 IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you. You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 11:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary A T T E S T: Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 15