Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-24 TDLNR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 24, 2008 EDWARD UNDERWOOD, ON A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of BEHALF OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND & NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF BOATING & OCEAN RECREATION (SMA 08-000028/USE 08- 000013/SSV 08-000003) was called to order at 2:21 p.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Lani Bowman Frederic Housel Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel  Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager OgxkkhrEtihlnsn+Rs`eeOk`mmdq Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And no one from the public in attendance APPLICANT: EDWARD UNDERWOOD, ON BEHALF OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND & NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF BOATING & OCEAN RECREATION (SMA 08-000028/USE 08-000013/SSV 08-000003) a.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor (South) improvements. b.Use Permit to allow the small boat harbor improvements within the Multiple-Family Residential – 1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) and Open (O) districts. c.Shoreline Setback Variance to allow portions of the small boat harbor improvements within the forty-foot shoreline setback area. The property is located on the south side of the existing Kawaihae Boat Harbor, Kawaihae, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-1-3: por 26. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 6, Edward Underwood, on behalf of State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. This is SMA 08- 000028, Use Permit 08-000013 and Shoreline Setback Variance 08-000003. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the attention of the Planning Commission to the board. The next applicant in this case is Edward Underwood, on behalf of EXHIBIT E 1 the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, or DOBOR. They are requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow improvements of the Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor South improvements that are within the Special Management Area. They are requesting a Use Permit to allow the small boat harbor improvements that are located within the Multiple-Family Residential-1,500 square feet zone district as well as the Open zone district. And lastly they are requesting a Shoreline Setback Variance to allow the portions of the small boat harbor improvements that are located within the 40-foot shoreline setback area. The area of this application is located within the Kawaihae area. We are looking at Kawaihae, Mahukona, Akoni Pule Highway running in a north-south direction. We have Queen Kaahumanu that breaks up on the lower portion of the map, and we have Kawaihae Road that extends up to Waimea. The area that we are looking at is identified mainly in black; that’s the parcel that is application is occurring on. The applicant is only requesting improvements within the portion of this parcel. This is an aerial photograph. If you can see the difference of the actual TMK map versus the aerial, there is a portion that’s not identified; this is the area that we are looking at, called the Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor South. There is also another small boat harbor that we’ll be referring to, which is identified as the Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor North, and that’s located just in this particular area. The applicant is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the following improvements: portion of a 45-foot wide, concrete three-lane boat launch ramp with two loading docks, one that will be ADA accessible; main floating dock with accessible pedestrian ramp and gangway; grading and drainage for vehicle and boat trailer parking areas; grading for the realignment of the vehicle access through the project site; boat wash down area; comfort station with an individual wastewater system, outdoor shower, water and electrical service installation; and other miscellaneous improvements. The Use Permit again is to allow the improvements within the RM zoning and the Open zoning. And the Shoreline Setback Variance is to allow those improvements within the 40-foot shoreline area, which are identified as a portion of the boat launch ramp, the west side ADA ramp, and a portion of the east gangway. Looking at the aerial, this is specifically the area of the Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor South. The improvements are going to occur just in this particular area. There is going to be the floating dock; they are going to be utilizing moorings and buoys to allow the docking for at least 30 light- draft vessels at this time. There is going to be a comfort station and other improvements, but the main improvement is to relocate the existing light-draft vessels in the North harbor to the South harbor. The reasons for the request, number one, is safety. Looking at the harbor, you have what is called the Deep-draft Harbor, or DDH, that you’ll see inside the application. Quite a bit of activity occurs within here with larger boats; you have barges, and happening in approximately 2010 you’re going to have Superferry starting to come in with an increase of passenger, large passenger boats coming in to this area. They want to be able to relocate the vessels that are in this particular area out to the South harbor, so that they can decrease the possibility of there being any type of accidents that may happen. And again, the other main reason is to relocate the particular Small Boat Harbor North to the South. EXHIBIT E 2 This particular project is Phase 1 of a larger build-out. Inside the background it gives you the full build-out plan; ultimately they wanted to have at least 300 light vessels being able to locate in this area. At this time it’s been toned down to approximately 90. So in full build-out you’ll be looking at approximately 90 stalls for this particular area. The mooring blocks that I mentioned earlier are only temporary; they will be replaced later with finger piers. The Planning Department is recommending approval with conditions for all the applications – the SMA, Use Permit and Shoreline Setback Variance. The applicant did have some concerns regarding several conditions within the background and rec. To address those concerns, the Planning Department has sent out revised, or amended conditions, that’s the yellow amended condition form that you have. They were concerned about the aerobic septic system, which is identified in Condition No., in the yellow it would be the new Condition No. 5, and also the new Condition No. 6 having to do with a subsurface filtration system for the boat wash down area. These are in response to comments that the Department received from the Division of Aquatics, DLNR. Additionally, there were concerns regarding landscaping. The Planning Director did make some changes to those conditions – Condition No. 3 as well as deleting Condition No. 5. Phase 1 is proposed not to have the landscaping in that particular phase, but in future phases they will address in greater detail the landscaping requirements. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Any questions of -? Jeff, I have a couple of questions. So the new No. 5, though, still requires an aerobic septic system. Is that correct, or -? DARROW: Correct. The new Condition No. 5, the Planning Director feels that that is still a necessity. WATANABE: Okay. So we hang on to that one. That was for the CZM and water quality. I think I caught a couple of typos also in both your Use Permit and the Shoreline Setback Variance, and that would be for Condition 2 in both of those; I believe we are referring to this as SMA Use Permit 08-000030. DARROW: My apology. That should be 28. WATANABE: Yeah, I think 28, yeah? DARROW: Yes, thank you. WATANABE: For both of them I think we put it in as 30. Other than that -. DARROW: We’ll go ahead and fix those. Thank you. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. So if we have no questions of staff, then -. I guess I should swear you in. May I swear all of you in, please? Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. EXHIBIT E 3 WATANABE: Thank you. I don’t know who’s going to begin, but whoever is testifying, would you state your full name and address before your proceeding with your testimony, and you may begin. YUASA: Thank you, Chairman Watanabe and Commissioners of the Planning Commission and Planning Director Yuen. My name is Eric Yuasa. My title is the boating engineer, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, 333 Queen Street, Suite 300, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. And to my left I have Martin Nakasone, he’s the lead project engineer for AECOM, formerly M&E Pacific. Should I introduce -? WATANABE: Yeah, you may as well. YUASA: Okay. To my right I have Dan Mersburg. He’s the harbor agent for our Kona site. WATANABE: Okay. Martin, you are going to begin then? NAKASONE: I’ll give my address. WATANABE: Okay, I’m sorry. NAKASONE: Eight-four-one Bishop Street, Suite 1900, Honolulu 96813. WATANABE: Thank you. MERSBURG: My address is 74-380 Kealakehe Parkway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. WATANABE: Thank you. Eric, you’re going to take the lead then? YUASA: Yes, sir. WATANABE: Have you had a chance to – well, apparently you have because you voiced some concerns – but you’ve had a chance to look at the revised conditions in the SMA Use Permit? YUASA: Yes, I did. WATANABE: Are you all right with the conditions as revised? YUASA: We would like to make some clarifications on recommendations to Condition No. 5 and 6. WATANABE: Okay. EXHIBIT E 4 YUASA: Condition No. 5 on Page 2 indicates that “The applicant shall use an aerobic septic treatment unit for the comfort station. This system shall be included in plans submitted for Plan Approval.” What we want to clarify is that when we designed this wastewater system, which consists of a septic tank and a leach field, we did go through Department of Health for their review and approval. And also I want to state that the septic tank/leach field system was designed in accordance with the Department of Health, Environmental Division, Wastewater Branch rules and regulations. And also I want to state that the leach field, or soil absorption field, is approximately 100 feet from the shoreline. And also, it’s constructed at elevation about 13, which would put the bottom of the absorption bed at about plus ten, so there is more than adequate separation between the groundwater and the bottom of the leach field, or absorption bed. The Department of Health rules call for minimum three-foot separation between the bottom of the leach field, or absorption bed, and the groundwater table; we have about seven feet separation in between.And also right now, as I said, we did work with the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch, and the funds were submitted in July, and hopefully real soon we should get formal approval of the wastewater system that was submitted. WATANABE: Okay. You realize that this recommendation came from, I believe it’s DLNR, yeah? Right? YUEN: Actually, what we put in was in response to something that was requested by DLNR, Aquatics Division. What they ask for seemed even a little more stringent, but this is what you can do that’s basically consistent with having a septic system and a leach field. They asked if I -. WATANABE: For contained system, I think it was. YUEN: A completely contained system. I’m not sure that that’s what they meant, but to me a completely contained system is something that you don’t have a leach field or a drainage field at all and you use, like, a pump-out system, which we thought was going overboard. WATANABE: Yeah, I just wanted to point out to you, Eric, that it’s not so much this Planning Department that is making this request of you, inclusive of the filtration that is in Condition 6; it’s DLNR. We are following their advice, who is, you know, the left hand – I guess you are the right hand in this case. YUASA: Chairman Watanabe, you are correct. The comments did come from our Division of Aquatic Resources, Kona Office, and they did request that we install holding tanks for the restroom wastewater system as well as the boat wash down because they felt that there’s a potential for contamination of the harbor waters, if the effluent or the runoff water would get into the ocean. We do not concur with their recommendations to put in a holding tank; we do not believe that it’s practical or that there is a potential for contamination. You know, addressing Condition No. 6 that requires us to “hire an engineer to design a subsurface filtration system utilizing material to filter oil, gasoline, various chemicals, soaps, bleach and fish blood for the boat wash down area. The filtration system shall be designed in EXHIBIT E 5 consultation with the Department of Health, Clean Water Branch and shall meet with the approval of the Planning Director prior to implementation.” We want to also point out to the Commission that the wash down area is located approximately 180 feet inland from the water, and we do not believe that any of the runoff water will enter the ocean. In fact, I’ve talked to our designer, and we are going to make some adjustments to the design in which we are going to slope the wash down area mauka, instead of makai; and we went out there during the lunch break and it looks like we can drain it into an existing keawe brush and we believe that the runoff water will not enter the ocean. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Yuen, do you have comments on that? They are, I guess, proposing to slope it in the opposite direction as currently sloped and farther away. YUEN: Yeah, I think we didn’t expect that the water would flow over the surface into the ocean; it was a question of having some kind of filtration or some kind of retardation of the water as it percolates down or, and it would involve something like a clay layer that’s put in underneath a septic system. How big is the wash down area? YUASA: It’s not very big; it’s basically to accommodate two boats. YUEN: In your septic system, do you have to import a soil layer? It’s kind of a different questions, but -. NAKASONE: Yeah, let me address the first question with regards to the wash down area; it is approximately 45 by 60. YUEN: Okay. And then the second question, you know your septic system, do you have to import a soil or a clay layer for your septic system? NAKASONE: No, that’s not required. We are not looking to import the clay layer below the infiltrator type units. YUEN: The idea here, again you know, the letter that we got from DAR was talking about a containment system, which seems like a difficult thing to do for -. The wash down area is -. It’s not paved, is it? You wash down over some crashed, this is over a crashed coral surface there, as I understand? NAKASONE: There is one portion that is paved, and that is basically a requirement for an ADA area. YUEN: I see. NAKASONE: So it’s a wash down area for two stalls, and half of the area is paved. YUEN: And so you can drain it into the area where there’re keawe trees growing? EXHIBIT E 6 NAKASONE: Yes. Looking at the site, the local area around the wash is sloped backwards. I guess the general grading is towards the ocean, but since we flattened out that area for the wash down, we can slope or reverse the slope towards the inland portion, which is near the keawe tree area. Now, overall the general grading would be still towards the ocean with regards to rain and what not, but with regard to local area wash down it would drain from the paved area back inland towards the keawe trees. YUEN: And directly into where there’re keawe trees growing? NAKASONE: And if not, we can grade into it. The elevation in that area is roughly about 16, so it is well above the sea level. YUEN: Yeah, I think that would work, something like that, because you are diverting it into vegetation that would then take up the water. So that seems like that would work for that. And the other one, you know, I mean, you folks can make your argument to the Commission; our recommendation is that it incorporate the aerobic unit in the septic unit. WATANABE: Eric, you had something to add? YUASA: We might want to suggest to the Commission that perhaps we could add language for No. 5; maybe you could add language to state that “if required by the Department of Health, Environmental Management Division, Wastewater Branch,” that an aerobic unit is required. Then the applicant has no problem with putting in an aerobic unit. YUEN: If I can comment. Actually, I’m quite sure, I believe the Department of Health is not going to require it; it’s not their normal requirements. And this is something that’s being requested on environmental grounds by Aquatic Resources. So you know, we would – of course the Commission makes the final decision – our recommendation remains to keep the aerobic unit in. WATANABE: Okay. For your information, we are across, Hawaii Community Credit Union is across from Queen K. Highway and we had to put in an aerobic because we abut the historic park. Go figure. I don’t know how the other Commissioners feel about this, but Mr. Yuen, you want to possibly come up with some new wording for No. 6 since it appears you’ve agreed to compromise in that area? YUEN: Yeah, I’m working on that, and I’ll have it ready in a couple of minutes. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: I had one question on No. 5. What’s the difference that is an aerobic septic treatment versus a holding tank? Is it the cost? Convenience? NAKASONE: It’s going to be both cost as well as maintenance. An aerobic unit will include power and an air pump versus a septic tank which is basically based on settling, time of settling. EXHIBIT E 7 HOUSEL: Right, okay. So it’s cost of operation then. NAKASONE: Cost and maintenance, yes. HOUSEL: Okay. NAKASONE: Also, I might add at this point, the comment with regards to the infiltration, a lot of times looks at oceanfront sandy beaches. This area that we are constructing on is dredged material filled to create fast lands, so it is a different type of material versus a very poor sandy type beachfront, beach park, so to speak. So all conditions are different. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? Yes, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: So there is additional ongoing cost for the aerobic system. I guess given the concern expressed by Aquatic Resources as far as protecting the surrounding aquatic area, you know, that’s obviously their concern. I’m just clarifying in my mind the aerobic system would essentially provide more secure, safer way to dispose of the sewage as opposed to the septic leach field system. In other words, for the additional expense you get additional protection. Comparing the aerobic to the, but what you are wanting to do is the septic system with a leach field. WATANABE: I think it’s more along the way of nutrients. IWASHITA: Huh? WATANABE: I think it’s more along the way of nutrients as opposed to safety. That’s why the Department of Health is willing to go along with just a regular septic system because that would gain the safety concern. It’s more nutrients -. IWASHITA: Okay, so what we are looking at is, like historically, the kind of issues that we’ve had in other SMA applications -. WATANABE: Right, algae blooms -. IWASHITA: Algae blooms and those kinds of concerns -. WATANABE: Exactly. I think it’s more along those lines. IWASHITA: So I guess my question for the testifier is that you’d agree that an aerobic system would be better as far as a prophylactic measure to prevent nutrients from contributing to algae blooms. YUASA: You know, there is still debate among us engineers whether or not the aerobic, or aeration type unit, is actually better. I mean, this is probably a deviation from the old cavitette system that they used to have in which the treatment system would introduce air into the EXHIBIT E 8 basically a holding tank and, instead of an anaerobic condition where the wastewater is broken down without oxygen, it creates a more aerobic environment that stimulates, I guess, more bacteria growth to cut down the nutrients; the bacteria would break down the nutrients in the wastewater. But it’s going to be still disposed of by a leach field. This provides a little bit of additional protection, but right now that only works if the system is functioning properly. It does require more maintenance, and seeing the way our boating maintenance works due to the high cost, I mean, if we don’t maintain the system properly, I really don’t think that there will be much benefit over the regular septic tank system. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Yuen -. IWASHITA: Can I follow up? WATANABE: Sure. IWASHITA: What you described before, the anaerobic, that’s actually what Aquatic Resources is asking for, a tank system? WATANABE: No. IWASHITA: An enclosed tank system? WATANABE: No. IWASHITA: That’s different? WATANABE: Yeah. IWASHITA: But with an enclosed tank system which then everything is shipped out, gets pumped and shipped someplace else? YUASA: Yes, that’s correct. IWASHITA: Right? So basically Aquatic Resources is saying this is important enough, we think it should all be taken away; that’s what it’s asking for. And we are saying that we want this additional protection, which require maintenance, require cost, but it’s better and provides, when properly maintained – if it’s a condition, I think we’ve got to put in “properly maintained” as a condition of granting this – then it should be better, right, for reducing the filtration of nutrients. YUASA: Unfortunately – we try to discuss things among our different sister divisions before it goes to the public – but in this case we’ve sent many letters to Division of Aquatic Resources for comments during the EA pre-consultation, during the draft EA and even the final EA, but even after the final EA was published in June 2008, we still haven’t, we didn’t get any comments from Division of Aquatic Resources. We got comments on September 19, 2008. And I want to add that this project was advertised in May 2008, bids were opened in June, EXHIBIT E 9 and the contract was actually awarded to Hawaiian Dredging. So as soon as we get these permits, we are looking at starting construction. So whatever changes we make to these plans -. WATANABE: Is a change order. YUASA: We have to go back to the consultant to redesign the IWS, we’ve got to go back to Department of Health for approval, then we have to go to the contractor to negotiate a cost change, and likely it will be a lot more expensive then. WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question. Mr. Yuen, we compromised on No. 6 because, according to my recollection, the wash down area is, like, 180 feet from the shoreline, and we said, well, if you’re going to slope this off from that area back in, and it’s I guess only 45 feet I think in width, and we’re going to slope it back to where the keawe trees are located and the vegetation would help brake down the nutrients, and that seemed to be okay. My question is how far from a septic system – because I believe the original septic system is, like, 100 feet from the shoreline, if I recall – how far from the septic system can the leaching system begin, and could you actually – you see what I’m getting at – force it father inland? YUEN: Well, I don’t know as far as how far you can move the leach field from the facility itself. But it’s really more a question of percolating down rather than any change, it really wouldn’t make much difference to move it farther away from the shoreline. The wash down area would probably work because what’s going to happen is that you have plants that are going to take up the water and prevent it from moving down into the groundwater. So the idea behind the aerobic is it reduces the amount of nutrients.It is true that you have to maintain the system property. They are commercially available units that can be purchased to do this. I’m afraid that the argument about we plan to do a project exactly a certain way, so do not change the conditions on us from what we plan to do is not one that we really can follow when we are being responsible in terms of our responsibilities in looking at these permit applications. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further comments from any of the other Commissioners? It doesn’t seem like it. Do you have anything else to add besides your concerns about Condition 5 and Condition 6? And I guess Condition 6, now you are satisfied, I believe, with the compromise there. YUASA: Yes, we are satisfied with Condition 6. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. So then aside from Condition 5, you have no other concerns with the proposed conditions? YUASA: I just wanted to -. One closing statement: As an engineer we need to follow certain guidelines, and we thought that by following the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch guidelines, Title 11 Chapter 62, that that would be sufficient to design our individual wastewater system. And if the Planning Commission would like, we would want to go back to our Division of Aquatic Resources and see if they can modify their comments. EXHIBIT E 10 WATANABE: Okay, wait, earlier you suggested, “if required by the Department of Health.” Mr. Yuen, would we care to throw this right back in and add in wording to No. 5, “if required by DLNR, Aquatic Division?” YUEN: Well, they have no power actually to require it; they’ve made a comment to us about what they think. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Are you asking for this matter to be continued and reset, and you go talk to Aquatic Resources and come back? YUASA: No, I’m not asking for it to be -. IWASHITA: That would be -. In my mind, if you want to go talk story with them and see if you can change their mind, you know, that’s what would be necessary because I don’t see how, as the Director indicated, I don’t see how we can fashion a condition that really would allow for that kind of a dialogue. And if we are going to pass on it today, then we are going to vote based upon the recommended conditions as I see them now; so if you don’t want us to do that and if you want to go talk to Aquatic Resources, I see it as you are asking for continuance and come back at another time. YUASA: I want to point out that revised Condition No. 13 reads, “If required by DLNR-SHPD, the applicant shall submit an archaeological inventory survey ….” The way we read that is if, if, DLNR-SHPD requires us to do an inventory survey, then we’ll comply with that request and do it. But we did meet with State Historic Preservation Division on Friday, and we did talk to the administrator and she’s amenable to allowing us not to do the inventory survey, if we can provide her with certain information. So that’s why for Condition 5, I mean, we request that you put down “if required by the Department of Health.” IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, can I follow up? WATANABE: Again, it wasn’t the Department of Health. YUASA: I’m sorry? WATANABE: It wasn’t the Department of Health. We agreed that the Department of Health isn’t going to require that. This was your Clean Water side. IWASHITA: Aquatic Resources, right? WATANABE: Yeah. YUASA: Well, or we can say, “if required by Division of Aquatic Resources.” IWASHITA: Can I follow up? EXHIBIT E 11 WATANABE: Sure. IWASHITA: I think the point is that for Historic Preservation they have authority over that condition that you just talked about. Aquatic Resources doesn’t have any authority to require; that’s our authority, that’s the Commission’s authority, the County’s authority. So there is really nothing for Aquatic -. Aquatic Resources just made its input. Obviously you don’t like the input, but if you want to talk story with them to see if they’ll change it, and you can otherwise resolve it, that’s why I’m saying Aquatic Resources would have to, you go and talk story with them and you come back, and whatever it is is whatever it is at that time. But because Aquatic Resources doesn’t have authority to say you have to do this, that’s why we can’t agree to put a condition like that in here. WATANABE: That’s said, though, Mr. Iwashita, they can go talk story with them, have coffee, and then change mind, but they don’t have authority, so we could still demand. IWASHITA: That’s right. WATANABE: So maybe it’s not in the best interest to continue. With that, Mr. Yuen, do you have the revised wording for Condition No. 6? YUEN: Yes. We will replace it with a statement that “applicant shall drain the water from the boat wash down area into the keawe vegetated area away from the shore, as represented by the applicants.” WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Everybody got that? You got that, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Yes. Just for clarification, that would be replacing Condition No. 6, correct? WATANABE: Right, right. Okay. So I take it that No. 5 remains the concern, and there are no other concerns aside from that. Is that true? Am I correct? YUASA: That’s correct. But at this point we’ll leave it up to the Commission to decide the wording for Condition No. 5. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the applicants? Seeing none, you may be seated then. YUASA: Thank you. WATANABE: We have three items before us. The SMA Use Permit 08-000028 with the revised Condition 6 where the boat wash area drains away from the shoreline towards the keawe trees, and at this point no other revisions are added to that. I entertain a motion. Mr. Iwashita? EXHIBIT E 12 IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As to SMA 08-000028, Applicant: Edward Underwood, on behalf of State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Special Management Area Use Permit to allow Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor South improvements, I move that the application be approved based on the revised conditions submitted earlier today, with the change noted by the Director as to the new Paragraph 6. WATANABE: Thank you. Do I have a second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we need further discussion on this? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. WATANABE: Okay. Can we take up the Use Permit 08-000013? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to USE 08-000013, Applicant: Edward Underwood, on behalf of State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Use Permit to allow the small boat harbor improvements within EXHIBIT E 13 the Multiple-Family Residential-1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) and Open districts, I move that the Use Permit be approved in accordance with the recommendations provided by the Department. WATANABE: That will be inclusive of the earlier noted revision to Condition 2, which corrects the typographical error on the SMA Use Permit No. from 08-000030 to 08-000028. IWASHITA: Yes, right. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do I have a second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Any discussion on this? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. WATANABE: Thank you. Now the final one, Shoreline. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to SSV 08-000003, Applicant: Edward Underwood, on behalf of State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Shoreline Setback Variance to allow portions of the small boat EXHIBIT E 14 harbor improvements within the 40-foot shoreline setback area, I move that the application be approved in accordance with the recommendations submitted by the Department, with the correction of the typographical reference to Special Management Area Use Permit being 08- 000028 instead of 30. WATANABE: Thank you. Second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. WATANABE: Okay. So then you’ll be notified in writing. Sorry about No. 5, but I guess that’s how it goes. YUASA: Thank you. The discussion ended at 3:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT E 15