Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-12 TKILGORE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 12, 2007 MATTHEW KILGORE (SMA 07- A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 000020)- was called to order at 2:36 p.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Alii I, 69275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 2 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MATTHEW KILGORE (SMA 07-000020) Continued hearing on a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the construction of a 5-story, 11-unit condominium project on 14,450 square feet of land. The property is located along the makai side of Alii Drive, adjacent to and south of the Kona Banyan Tree stnd Condominium, Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-6-14:13. GRAHAM: We now move on to Unfinished Business No. 7. Applicant is Matthew Kilgore. This is a continued hearing on a Special Management Area Use Permit, which would allow the construction of a 5-story, 11-unit condominium project on 14,450 square feet of land. The property in question is located makai of Alii Drive, adjacent to and just south of the Kona stnd Banyan Tree Condominium. This is in Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii. Because this is a Special Management Area Permit, we make the final decision. And we’ll wait just a minute till staff is ready with a presentation. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map. This is a continued hearing. At our last hearing, there was a problem with the notification to the surrounding property owners. That problem has been corrected for this hearing; proper notification has been sent out to the surrounding property owners. Additionally, since our last hearing, we have received a correspondence from the th applicant’s representative, dated December 6, mainly addressing issues of parking and the shoreline setback. EXHIBIT E 1 For reference, this application is within the North Kona District. Looking at the location map, running in a north-south direction, we have Kuakini Highway. Again, the red line signifies the Special Management Area; everything below the line or on the lower portion of the map is located within the Special Management Area. We have, running on the lower portion of the map in a north-south direction Alii Drive, which is identified by a gray line. The purple zoning is identifying Resort zoning. The red dot signifies the area of the application. The applicant in this case, Matthew Kilgore, is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit for an 11-unit condominium project and related improvements. This includes eleven 2-bedroom/2-bath units on a 5-story, 45-foot high structure. We have several maps. We have one that’s been submitted this morning; that’s an aerial that kind of shows you the plot plan. Each one of the Commissioners has gotten an 8 ½ by 11 of this particular photo. We also have a newly submitted presentation map from the applicant identifying that he has added one more parking stall onto the property from our last Planning Commission meeting. And again, we have what appears to be a landscaping layout on the portion, bottom portion of the easel. Previously on this property, there have been two Special Management Area Use Permits: SMA 173, which was approved in ’82 for an 8-unit condominium project and related improvements; and again in 1991 we had SMA 318, which was approved for a 12-unit condominium project and related improvements. Both of those were subsequently revoked. And at this time we have another applicant before us, requesting an 11-unit condominium project on this property. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this Special Management Area Use Permit request. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Jeff, you know, the Public Works comment letter indicates that they are requesting that no vehicular security gate shall be installed or swing within 25 feet of the Alii Drive right-of-way. And is that something we want to add to Condition No. 12? DARROW: It would be up to the Planning Commission. We had addressed this briefly at our last meeting. Now the applicant had mentioned that they had no intentions of putting a gate, but I don’t think they had any objections to adding that condition. WATANABE: Follow-up with the Director? Do you feel that it’s necessary to put that specifically in as a condition? GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Probably not necessary. I don’t have a problem with that being a condition. GRAHAM: Any other questions for Mr. Darrow? Jeff, on a entry and egress, I missed the last meeting, so I don’t necessarily have, even thought I read the minutes, don’t necessarily have all the information, but often on these – at least I remember one or two other small condo projects on Alii Drive – there was an issue about, you know, the turning, the sight-distance, the adequacy of the width, and all that, one-car versus two-car coming, whatever. Have all these EXHIBIT E 2 issues been addressed? Do we know that this is adequate and safe and fine, the entry and exit to this property? I just haven’t seen anything about that. DARROW: It hasn’t come up at this point, but it’s something that we can address. Maybe the applicants might be able to more fully answer that. Looking at the Public Works’ memorandum, it just mentions their standard conditions. GRAHAM: Yes. That’s what I saw also. Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I believe I recall the application you are discussing, and I believe that was kind of like a nonconforming flag lot. And the driveway was directly adjacent to an already existing building, and that’s why sight-distance became a concern there. But this I believe is pretty open in the front. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Darrow? All right. Could the applicant and/or applicant’s representative please come forward at this time? Could you raise your right hands, please? And I’ll swear you in now. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? YEH: I do. KILGORE: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you both. And Mr. Yeh, if you want to begin -. YEH: Sure. GRAHAM: And just start with your name and address, please. YEH: Thank you. My name is Thomas Yeh, representative for the applicant. My address is 85 West Lanikaula Street, Hilo, Hawaii. KILGORE: And my name is Matthew Kilgore with Koa Architects up in Waimea. My address is 65-1285 C Kawaihae Road, 96743. YEH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. On the security gate issue, to answer Commissioner Watanabe’s question, that’s not a problem. If the Commission feels it’s necessary to insert as a direct prohibition, that’s fine. One of the reasons for that, too, is there have been some discussions with some representatives of the community where they didn’t want to have a gate, just so that people who wanted to exercise traditional access, if any, to get to the shoreline, they could do that without having to climb over a gate. There are, as we mentioned in the last hearing, accesses within, public accesses within 100 yards of each side of the property. And then in terms of the sight-distance issue, yeah, I don’t believe there is really an issue; and Mr. Kilgore can talk about that. EXHIBIT E 3 The reason we are, we focused on submitting that submittal today was a question that came up during the last hearing about whether the parking that was being proposed was adequate, and then also how it came to be that there was a 20-foot shoreline setback. And what we planned to do today is have Mr. Kilgore describe to you how we got from, you know, 1991, not 1991, but pretty much 2005 to the present, how that shoreline got adjusted and why the building design and footprint is the way it is. So, and then we’ll get into the parking issue. And we are open to any other questions that the Commissioners may have. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yeh. Go ahead, Mr. Kilgore. KILGORE: Definitely. I believe there was some question last time about how we got to the 20-foot shoreline setback exception. And I’m hoping that the graphics that have been distributed help explain that. The shoreline from 2005, really only came back about 10 feet from the historical property line. And when we went to re-certify the shoreline with the State DLNR, their State Surveyor came out and noticed what he termed a high-water wash mark from a big storm this past winter; and that pushed the state certified shoreline quite a bit back into the site, about 20 feet. And if we, the Exhibit A-1 that has been distributed to you shows that if you take that shoreline and push it back 40 feet, which is the standard shoreline setback, the resultant buildable area, after subtracting the 8-foot side yard setbacks and a 20-foot front yard setback, is 5,900 square feet or so, which is less than 50 percent of the site area. So that does trigger Rule 11-5. So given that, we had originally anticipated doing a 12-unit project, similar to the 1991 SMA 318. But given the extreme shoreline definition from the last winter storm, it simply does not fit. So we were reduced to 11 units. And our building does sit 6 inches shy of the 20-foot shoreline setback all way up; it holds that line sacred. As far as stacking of cars and accessing Alii Drive, it is fairly wide open in the middle of the frontage. I believe they are taking out one of the banyan trees from Banyan Tree Condominiums right now, which would help the sight-line to the north. But that’s definitely something that we would, have considered that there is room to stack a car trying to get back onto Alii Drive. GRAHAM: And what do you mean that’s something you would consider? KILGORE: Well, it’s something that we had considered when we laid out the site plan. It’s a, it should be adequate for a car to stack and wait to access back onto Alii Drive. GRAHAM: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: So if I understand it correctly, you are planning a 5-story building, and I think I read somewhere in there about that you are already, that your baseline for the building is already 6 or 7 feet higher than where the shoreline is certified. Am I remembering that correctly? KILGORE: Well, we propose -. SIRACUSA: Or am I mixing it with something else? KILGORE: Well, the base-level elevation of the first level garage is, I believe, 7 feet above sea level; what we would term AMSL, average mean sea level. But we, to get the 11 units EXHIBIT E 4 in a severely reduced floor plate, we did end up reducing the floor-to-floor height to 8-foot 8, which is very tight. But that’s how we were able to get the number of units into that small envelope. SIRACUSA: I’m trying to compute the math here; 11 units, you know, in 5 stories, that’s -. KILGORE: Well, we have -. SIRACUSA: That’s two -. KILGORE: We have -. th SIRACUSA: Units per story. And where is the 11 unit coming from? KILGORE: Well, we have four occupied floors with three units per plate, levels 2, 3 and 4. And the last floor is two penthouses. SIRACUSA: I see. And the property on the other side of the highway, heading mauka, is that all up-slope? KILGORE: Site -. SIRACUSA: I’m thinking about viewplanes right now, okay? KILGORE: Absolutely. And we did field a few calls, about half a dozen, from neighbors who were wondering if their view to the ocean would be obstructed, and in truth none of them are. Directly mauka of our project is actually a County-owned pumping station. So there’re nobody there to obstruct. SIRACUSA: Yeah, well, there are, you know, judging from the aerial photographs -. KILGORE: Just here, yeah. SIRACUSA: There’s, yeah, there’s nothing much immediately above, but that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be in the future in that someone who may want to build on a property mauka of yours in the future would find their viewplanes by – five stories is a pretty high building, you know, I mean, for a residence in terms of an area where most everything is pretty low to the ground, as I see, you know, the surrounding structures are. So it looks to me like it would be fairly visually intrusive. KILGORE: What we are proposing is no taller than the adjacent buildings; Banyan Tree’s is up to the 45-foot height limit, as well as the apartment building to the south. You have to know that this aerial photograph is quite old. This entire area here is taken out by the County and the State pumping stations. There really is no potential for a mauka view to be blocked. SIRACUSA: How many -? EXHIBIT E 5 KILGORE: This, this -. SIRACUSA: How many stories did you say? The, no, the one to the left, the, yeah. KILGORE: Banyan Tree’s is actually four, but they have a taller floor-to-floor height than we do. We are all under the 45 feet. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Kilgore. I was concerned a little bit on a lateral access. I know Mr. Yeh spoke of there being shoreline access reasonably close both to north and south. And so I think what we want on a lateral access is for people to be able to walk along the shoreline and all. And when I first, I looked at the picture there, there’s certainly a lot more than 20 feet of distance from your building to the bottom there. So that must be into the public property, and I presume much of it is rocky and not green. So can you give me a little update on what it’s like walking along this shoreline and what you are going to have on the makai side of the building? KILGORE: I can cover that. Yeah, it’s actually a sacred shoreline area, so we are not allowed to improve upon the area there. But it has been grubbed previously as recently as 1980. But it’s all overgrown again. And you are exactly right; from the average place where a layman would maybe define the shoreline, our building is about 70 feet back. So there is plenty of room for lateral access, yes. YEH: Maybe I can give you a good picture of that -. GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Yeh, thank you. YEH: If you take a look at the letter that we submitted late last week, we have what’s called Exhibit G-1, and maybe you can refer to it. That’s a black and white photo, but I think you can still see relatively well. If you take a look at Exhibit G-1, which is a shot from the shoreline basically looking mauka, you’ll see that there are a set of coconut trees; those coconut trees are actually mauka, I mean makai I should say, of the innermost point of where the certified shoreline now is. If you take a look at the right hand side of the photo, you’ll see, you can just barely make out the location of an existing seawall that’s on the property to the south. If you now take a look at the next Exhibit G-2, that’s showing the Banyan Tree Condominium, which is to the north, again there is an existing seawall which ends at the property line on the north side. So if you were to go walk laterally along the shoreline from either north or south direction, you would be basically staying well makai of where those coconut trees are noted. And of course, where the certified shoreline is, in Exhibit G-3, it’s actually a little bit mauka of where that lone coconut tree is, close to that fence line that you see. So from a lateral access standpoint, for this particular property, I think you can see that there is – when you measure 20 feet mauka of that, then current condition from the Planning Department is to say there shall be no development and there is going to be a lateral access plan worked out with the owner – so practically speaking, you are actually able to go well inland of where you would go, if you were walking along the shoreline, than having to stay on the makai side of those walls on the each side. I hope that helps. EXHIBIT E 6 GRAHAM: Certainly helps. Would that indicate also that, when I look at the drawing up there and I see the five coconut trees that are lowest on the piece of paper, that those are in fact already existing and not on your property -? YEH: They are actually, I think – which one? KILGORE: All those – I’m sorry. YEH: Yeah. KILGORE: All those trees on this colored site plan here are existing along the sides and here. And the light green is what was a part of this property historically, but is now being pushed back into the shoreline setback area. So the dark green area we will try to improve upon and maintain the trees; the light green area, we cannot do any improvements. GRAHAM: Thank you. YEH: Yeah. And then also, if you take a look at the exhibit that was just handed out that shows the building footprint, you’ll see how well inland this building really is from the actual seaward boundary. And you know, there’s been a couple of numbers that have been used describing the area of the property. The actual property as acquired is, I think, 15,500 square feet or so. If you take the current shoreline where it has been certified, and if you exclude that area makai of where that certified shoreline is, you then end up with 14,450 square feet. So, yeah, there has been quite a reduction in the usable area. GRAHAM: Could you please show with a laser pointer right where the seawall on the more northern property on the left side where it abuts your property there, kind of how far up, or -? KILGORE: Yes. On the Banyan Tree side, it’s actually bearing a lot of trees. But it’s right about there. GRAHAM: And on the diagram off to the left of there, the one that’s just hand-drawn? KILGORE: Oh, on this one? GRAHAM: Yeah. KILGORE: It’s actually way out by the traditional, historical property line. GRAHAM: That’s where the seawalls are. KILGORE: Yeah. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. YEH: And then if you take a look – and we can go back just a little bit, just staying on this shoreline setback issue just a little bit more – if you take a look at Exhibit H-1, EXHIBIT E 7 pass those photographs, you’ll see the approximate location of where the former seawall was. And that’s essentially the rubble that you see in the photographs we showed you. And then if you take a look at the next Exhibit H-2, it has where the 2005 shoreline was with the 40- and then 20-foot setbacks noted thereon. And then finally when you get to the next Exhibit H – I think there is an H, yes – H-3, it shows the current certified shoreline; and then you also get an idea where these other buildings, current buildings are both to the north and south, and there was as you can see here also makai where the actual allowable footprint is now for this project. So it kind of gives you an idea of what the progression has been both from the seaward boundary 2005 to the current. We know that from an interpretation standpoint, you know, a 2-year period shouldn’t result in that kind of a change, but from an interpretation standpoint, unfortunately it has; and so therefore, they’ve lost this one unit that they were going to build. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yeh. YEH: Thank you -. GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? ALAMEDA: Actually -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: No, I was going to say you already answered my question. But I’ll trade my four pens for your one pen. No, I’m just kidding. I like the pointer.I think that’s something that we should consider in the future. It’s easy. YUEN: Make a note that when Commissioner Alameda retires from the Planning Commission, that will be his present -. ALAMEDA: Yes. YUEN: So a laser pointer pen. ALAMEDA: A laser pointer. Never give a kolohe boy a laser pointer. No. Actually, I’m ready to entertain a motion, if that’s okay with the Commission. GRAHAM: Hang on a second, please. First, I don’t have anybody signed up for public testimony. But is there anyone here that would like to give public testimony? YEH: Mr. Chairman, just one more area ‘cause there -. GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Yeh. YEH: You know, there was just one of the areas concerning parking, and I know I covered it somewhat. And if you’ve taken a look at the Plan Approvals, we really do believe that the parking that’s been proposed is sufficient. In response to the issue that was raised the last time, what Mr. Kilgore did is he actually moved an exit stair along the north side more towards the shoreline and created some additional space to try to squeeze one parking stall there. EXHIBIT E 8 As you can see, because of the shoreline setback issue and the decrease in buildable area, it squeezes the building up as well as parking. What, just to show you also what – if I can have Jeff circulate this – two nights ago, a representative of the applicant, around 10:20 p.m., took some photographs of the Banyan Tree Condo, which is just to the north, it’s a 20-unit condominium, has 25 parking stalls; and so photographs were taken both from the north side of that condominium, and also from the property. And you can see, really there is no overflow parking. This is the time when people would be at home, ready to go to work the next morning, or whatever is that they do. And so we think it’s really a good example of why the parking stalls that we have here, which are actually in excess of the ratio that’s for that particular building, should be sufficient. That’s all I have. And I didn’t bring any findings and conclusions for you to fight over. So hopefully we make it easier. KILGORE: Yes -. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yeh. Mr. Kilgore? KILGORE: Their requirement is 1.25, and we’ve done our best to exceed that. Once upon a time before the shoreline had been pushed so far back, I believe we were up to 21. But because the shoreline is pushed so far back, the best we can do, again I pushed the stair around and I decreased the utility room, which has kind of upset my engineers. But I got another parking stall in there. We are at 18, which is 1.6 per unit. GRAHAM: Thank you. I had one other little issue there with regard to flooding and issues like that. I know not long ago we had another SMA permit farther, not too far from here on Alii Drive, where the neighbors even wanted to contest the permit because of possible flooding. And it seems to me that in your situation, we’ve just handled it in a very, you know, standard boilerplate way, you know, that you will handle any water on site, that kind of thing. Are there any water transport issues going on right now, you know, with heavy rains and things as to how you have to deal with water that might come across Alii Drive or down Alii Drive, or-? Because I don’t see any background on that kind of thing and I’d like to be sure that we are considering that. KILGORE: Certainly. There is actually the base flood elevation as defined by the FIRM maps – it goes about there – and it says 12 feet. So what that means is that no occupant floor can be below that 12-foot elevation above sea level. We, of course, have done that. And in the interest of the owner and building the project property, we would, our civil engineers would provide for dry sumps and perhaps even backup pumps that would alleviate any kind of storm water accumulation. GRAHAM: Yeah, I’m, aside from how you are going to deal with that situation, I’d like to know kind of what is the lay of the land as far as any water coming down from the mauka direction and how you are dealing with it or if you have to deal with it or where it goes, if you have any insight into that. KILGORE: I’ve not, having many times been to the site, I’ve not seen any evidence of a lot of water coming off Alii Drive onto the site. I can’t say that it seems to be a problem. GRAHAM: It’s not in any low spot at all along Alii Drive there? EXHIBIT E 9 YEH: Doesn’t believe to be. And I think the 12-foot elevation you were talking about, Mr. Kilgore, was the tsunami scenario, right? KILGORE: That’s correct. YEH: Yeah, and we haven’t received any comments from Public Works or anybody else, either. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you, Mr. Yeh. Commissioner Rho? RHO: I just want to say a few things. One is I appreciate your work on the parking as well as the setback information; I think it really clarifies it. But I did want to get clarity on the actual parking. Now you say you have 18. How may of those are for residents and how many are visitors, out of the -? Isn’t that 18 the total? KILGORE: That’s correct. Eighteen stalls total is the best we could put on site. I believe we maybe leave it up to the association of owners as to how many to allocate per unit or designate as visitor. RHO: ’Cause the last time, as I recall, what I have down is that you have 14 residents and 3 visitors. So I just wonder, is it now 15-3 or -? KILGORE: That’s reasonable to suggest. If you do the 11 units and 1.25 per unit, I believe that’s 14; that’s why we had mentioned that number. But there is some flexibility there that probably rest with the association of owners, I guess. GRAHAM: All right. Any follow-up, Commissioner Rho? RHO: I guess I still have, you know, like I said I appreciate the work you’ve done, but I still have this concern about parking. And yes, I understand that there will be retirees population you’re thinking that’s going to occupy this building, part-time residents. But should they start to rent out their units, with the prices in Hawaii in general, 2 incomes and I venture to say 2 cars -. And at this meeting and the previous meeting we talked about walking distance, like a town center. Well, unfortunately, in Kona nobody really walks, right? And the people coming to that area actually drive to that area; I’m talking about the surfers ’cause it’s such a popular surfing area. So you know, as I said the last time, I realize that your project is a very small project in comparison to others that we have dealt with. But parking for me still becomes an issue because even if it’s just one car that’s parked on the roadside, it deprives somebody from accessing the beach; and we have very few beaches in Kona, as you know, too, so -. Anyway, I don’t want to prolong this thing. I just wanted to mention that. I don’t expect a response. I think you did a good job responding and your presentation and your written report. But I still have concerns about parking. YEH: I always like to respond – I’m just joking. But the reason we went out and took a look at the other facilities, multi-family residential units in the vicinity, was just to kind of assure ourselves that we wouldn’t have the kind of experiences that you are suggesting may occur. ’Cause you know, if you take a look at the Bali Kai Condominium, if you take a look at EXHIBIT E 10 the Banyan Tree Condominium and then across the street, the Royal Kahili, if anything, those, the uses and the ownership that exist there is probably going to have a higher density parking demand than this facility will. And it seems to us that when you look at the actual experience shown by the uses and the parking for those facilities, it is in fact okay. And that’s the best that we can do to be able to say how do we compare these two – a little bit apples and oranges; but at least from that standpoint we feel somewhat comfortable that it’s not going to be a problem. So that’s all. Thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho? RHO: You should’ve never responded; I have response to that. Have you not been to Banyan Tree’s when it’s been full of cars? YEH: I have. And I actually surf myself; I surf at Lyman’s, Banyan’s. But that parking is not necessarily generated by the facilities -. RHO: Right. YEH: It’s in fact that you’ve got these other issues -. RHO: Yes. YEH: For uses of the shoreline -. RHO: But one additional car from Bali, from Banyan, they all add up to parking spaces that are taken, leaving people who want to get to the beach and beach access, they are out. This is not a problem that, you know, I would want you or your project to address. I think it should be addressed all along the coastline. But, anyway, that’s from the point that I come from. YEH: I’ll shut up. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Rho. And thank you, Mr. Yeh. YEH: Thank you. GRAHAM: Anything else from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, just one observation, I guess. You are saying that residents will be second-home buyers or retirees. So your project isn’t going to do anything, you know, positive for our local housing situation. On the other hand, I can’t imagine that you could, would, or even could legally turn someone down because they were a local person, and wanted to avail themselves of one of your units. Is that correct? YEH: Well, you see, I think it’s a -. SIRACUSA: So your prognostication that, oh, well, you know, we’re probably not going to have 2 cars per unit -. EXHIBIT E 11 GRAHAM: Microphone. SIRACUSA: Doesn’t necessarily hold up. YEH: It’s really more -. GRAHAM: Mr. Yeh? YEH: Yeah, and I appreciate that. It’s really more of the factor of the fact that you have a pretty prime shoreline location. You’ve got tremendous cost that it’s going to take to be able to build this facility.And I think just from a pricing standpoint, that’s going to be a big factor in terms of, right, who buys into this facility. I mean that’s a practical reality because I think their estimated cost is about 5 million dollars to build this. So it’s not a matter of rejecting, you know, who wants to buy into; it’s just who, practically speaking, is going to be able to do that, just from an economic feasibility standpoint. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yeh. Do we have any other questions from the Commissioners? All right, well, you all can go back now. And I think I can call in Commissioner Alameda for his motion. ALAMEDA: I pass. GRAHAM: You pass. Okay. The lunch is coming forward, huh? ALAMEDA: I’ll mess up the motion. GRAHAM: So anyway, we are available for any motions on this application -. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: From the Commissioners. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I move that the Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 07- 000020, be approved based on the Director’s recommendation, subject to the conditions provided. GRAHAM: Thank you. Is there -? DOMINGO: Second. GRAHAM: Second? Was that Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes. GRAHAM: Yes. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo, that we approve this SMA permit. Do we have any discussion on the motion before we take a vote? All right, Jeff? EXHIBIT E 12 DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve SMA Use Permit No. 07-000020. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? I mean -. GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: Chairman Graham? Thank you. The motion passes, six to two. GRAHAM: Thank you. And you’ll be notified in writing. YEH: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT E 13