HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-18 Leeward Exh A (SMA 14-057)
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
ONE PUAKŌ BAY ASSOCIATES, LLC.
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of
(SMA 14-057)
was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community
Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman
Brandi Beaudet presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Collin Kaholo, Thomas Hickcox,
Barbara Nobriga and Keith Unger
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Thomas Whittemore
ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation
Counsel), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission
Secretary)
And approximately ten people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: ONE PUAKŌ BAY ASSOCIATES, LLC. (SMA 14-057)
Application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow for the development of a
7-lot single family residential subdivision and related improvements on approximately 6.92-acres of
land situated within the SMA and located on the makai side of Puakō Beach Drive, adjacent to and
west (Kona side) of the Puakō Boat Ramp in Lalamilo, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-9-002: 001,
002 & 030.
BEAUDET: The first item on today’s agenda is, “Applicant: One Puakō Bay Associates, LLC.,
SMA 14-057, application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow for the development
of a seven-lot single family residential subdivision and related improvements.” Jeff?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. I’d
like to welcome our newest member, Commissioner Unger. Welcome. Thank you for taking the
time to volunteer with us.
For our first application we are looking at a Special Management Area Use Permit request. The
applicant is One Puakō Bay Associates, LLC. The area of this subject application is within the
South Kohala District. More specifically, we are looking in the Puakō area. Just for reference,
running through the middle of the map in a north-south direction, we have Queen Ka‘ahumanu
Highway. You would access the subject property from Puakō Drive. And the subject property is
identified with a black outline, which is a little difficult to see, but you can see it there. The
different colors on the map represent zoning in the area. Just for reference, the yellow is
Single-Family Residential, the purple is Resort zoning, and the light green represents Agricultural
zoning. This is a closer view; again, for reference we have Puakō Beach Drive running in an
east-west direction, the subject properties are identified with a black outline. We also have the
Puakō boat ramp that’s just to the east of the subject properties that provide mauka-makai access to
1
EXHIBIT A
the shoreline, as well as provide beginning of lateral shoreline access. The subject property is
zoned Resort. And again, we have Single-Family Residential in the area, as well as Agricultural
5-Acre zoning in the area.
The State Land Use Boundary Map identifies the subject properties within the Urban State Land
Use Boundary District. You also have, the blue represents Conservations, so quite a bit of
Conservation in this area, and the green represents Agriculture.
The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map identifies the property for Low Density
Urban uses. You’ll see that there is a Medium Density Node where currently there is some
condominiums and the Puakō General Store, as well as more residential units. Prior to 2005 this
was actually a Resort Node, but in 2005 General Plan amendment it was changed to Low Density
Urban.
This is a blowup shot of the South Kohala CDP Map, more specifically for this area in Puakō. The
subject property is actually identified in this particular area. It was previously owned by Puakō Bay
Investors, LLC in which they had received approval for an eight-lot subdivision, and they were
proposing to build eight residential units. Again, we also have the Small Boat Ramp identified on
the map.
This is an aerial photo. Again, for reference Puakō Beach Drive, this was some time ago prior to
landscaping and drainage improvements that were, currently have been done on the property.
You’ll see the nearest dwelling just to the west of the subject property, and you can see the boat
ramp just to the east.
The applicant is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a
seven-lot single-family residential subdivision and related improvements on approximately 6.92
acres of land. The proposed residential lots will range in size from approximately 27,810 to 66,790
square feet. The subdivision improvements proposed are water and drainage improvements,
concrete driveway and retaining wall improvements, landscaping and subsequent development of
one single-family dwelling on each lot. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the irrigation lines
that were allowed temporarily under a previous SMA Minor Permit be allowed to remain
permanently in place.
This is the proposed subdivision layout. Beginning from the east you’ll see Lot 1 and it moves to
Lot 7 towards the west. I’ve colored in the shoreline certification line in red. And there are two
other lines, one in blue and one in green; these represent the 40-foot shoreline setback area, as well
as the proposed 60-foot shoreline setback. There has been a Letter of Map Revision done on this
property to take out portions of the property out of the flood zone and put it into Zone X.
This is a more current aerial photo so you can, again, you have, this is the three lots that are
currently there. You can see that there has been landscaping improvements, as well as drainage
improvements on the subject property. Again for reference, you can see the boat ramp just to the
east.
Here are some site photos. This is at the boat ramp, looking towards the entrance to the lateral
shoreline access. People can park in this general location to be able to get mauka-makai public
access and then be able to access lateral shoreline along the coast there. We’ll just go through these
2
EXHIBIT A
photos. This again is the beginning of the lateral as it moves closer to the subject property. This is
the subject property and the landscaping improvements that have been done, as well as the drainage
improvements. There are some drainage ways, as well as some elevation changes. You can see the
drainage way here that has been put in. This is looking towards the east, towards the boat ramp;
you can see the lateral shoreline access that’s been put in place from previous public access plans
that were required. And again, as it moves to the west, these are the irrigation lines that we were
speaking about previously that the applicant is recommending, requesting that they remain
permanently. And again, looking towards the east from the far west side of the property. These are
photos on Puakō Beach Drive. This is looking east towards the entrance of the boat ramp; one of
the entrances to the lots is just to the left. And this is looking to the west, with the subject property
on the right. These are some of the entrance and the rock walls that have been built. And this is the
third entrance over here.
The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the request for the
seven-lot subdivision, with the related improvements, as well as to deny the request to allow the
irrigation lines to remain permanently. There has been some case law that has popped up that
discourages manipulation of the vegetation line along the shoreline, and so we are trying to prevent
that from occurring; it can manipulate where the location of the certified shoreline can be identified
at.
There are a few matters that I need to attend to. We’ve been working with the applicant to try to
resolve some of the language to several conditions. There has been two correspondence that has
been passed out to the Commissioners: One is, at the top of the correspondence it says “Proposed
Revisions to SMA 14-000057,” and begins with Condition No. 4, but the second correspondence
will replace this Condition 4 as we’ve continued to work on fine-tuning this condition. It also
works with Condition 6, as well as – I believe this is Condition 7, 7 right? Seventeen? Okay. So if
we can take a quick look at those conditions. Condition 4, basically we would replace Condition 4.
The staff and Planning Director have reviewed these conditions and find them acceptable.
Condition 4, what their proposed language does is basically continue to keep all vertical structures
out of the minimum requested setback, shoreline setback of 60 feet; there has been a current
certified shoreline survey that was certified by the State, dated August 1, 2014, which was just over
a month ago, and so the applicant has agreed to hold back any vertical structures, such as, the main
one is the residential structures. There have been house pads already built in place so those pretty
much are located towards the back of the property. The concern was is that between the 60 and 40
feet, they would like to have the ability to have non-vertical structures, such as a pool or any type of
landscaping activities that would occur in that. But the applicant goes on further and states, “This
restriction shall not apply to non-vertical structures such as a swimming pool, provided that in no
event shall any of those type of improvements, including irrigated landscaping, occur within 40 feet
of the certified shoreline.” So it makes it clear that there will be no improvements within the
40-foot shoreline setback, that any improvements there would require review of the Planning
Department and possibly a shoreline setback variance from the Planning Commission.
Looking at Condition 6, the applicant is requesting, in the previous SMA permit that was granted,
there was a concern about having timeshare units – let’s see here, do you have a minute?
(Secretary’s note: Mr. Darrow spoke to the applicant’s representative.) Sorry, I had to get
clarification. So by the bracketed area that is removing the rental units from this restrictive
covenant, it will allow practices of vacation rentals within the single-family dwelling, which is
considered a permitted use at this time within the Residential zoning. The Resort zoning would
3
EXHIBIT A
allow timeshares, but again, based on changes to the General Plan, they are trying to stay away from
allowing resort-type uses in this area.
And then lastly, Condition 17 is just a cleanup. There was a request to form a homeowners
association, but because the subdivision is only seven lots in size, the applicant is requesting rather
than they form a homeowners association and oversee the drainage improvements, they just place a
covenant requiring the landowner to maintain the drainage easement and those drainage
improvements. And again, these have been reviewed by staff and by the Director, and they are
acceptable.
With that, that concludes our presentation. I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you.
BEAUDET: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions of staff?
DARROW: Thank you.
BEAUDET: Okay. With that, would the applicant or their representatives please come forward?
Please raise your right hand as I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter
now before the Planning Commission?
REPRESENTATIVES: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Please state your name, and proceed with your presentation.
FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke.
I’m a planning consultant and here assisting the applicant. My business address is 100 Pauahi
Street, Suite 212, Hilo, Hawai‘i.
HAYES: And my name is Kevin Hayes. I’m the managing member of One Puakō Bay Associates,
LLC.
FUKE: So your staff’s report is, you know, it’s like, leaves us very little to say; it was very
comprehensive. And we really appreciate the time and energy that the staff has put into this
application. I know it has been somewhat complicated or convoluted because there has been a
series of activities, you know, attendant to this property. The applicant reviewed all of the proposed
conditions, as well as the proposed amendments, and are very satisfied with that. He also
understands the reason why the Director is recommending the denial of creating, no, retaining the
irrigation lines within the 40-foot shoreline setback area. Just by way of background on that issue,
there was a Minor SMA Permit issued associated with this project to put irrigated landscaping
system in that area, but it was with the understanding that that be temporary until such time that,
you know, the vegetation kind of took place. So the applicant wanted to retain that. On the other
hand, as the staff has indicated, there has been some growing concern raised by the State and
different agencies regarding artificially-created type of landscaping within the shoreline, which
could compromise the natural shoreline processes. So that’s the reason why they did not, the staff
did not want to have any permanent irrigation system within the setback area, and the applicant
understands that and would accept that.
4
EXHIBIT A
As the staff noted, like, you know, the applicant purchased the property in 2011, and over the last
two or three years have made some significant improvements on the property. They made some
drainage improvements on the west end, or the Kona end, of the property, and so much so that now
the CLOMR, or the FEMA map was amended, you know, from a Zone AO to basically expanded
the area for Zone X. And as a result of all of these improvements that it made more possible the
property to be developed, you know, rather than just having three existing lots, but to use the three
existing lots that you see right there, you know, to just kind of like draw straight lines down, right
down the road. And so with that, the proposal right now would be to have like a seven-lot
subdivision, and the kind of improvements that are anticipated associated with this current
application would be essentially with installation of the necessary water meters to service each of
the proposed lots, as well as having maybe some minor mauka-makai type of improvements like
fencing, you know, to clearly demarcate the properties, you know, from one another. The water has
always been an issue in the Puakō area, and fortunately, the applicant has made some tentative
arrangements with Mauka Kea Properties; Mauna Kea Properties own considerable amount of
unused water in that area and which, the system also services the Puakō area. So we are just kind of
waiting for confirmation from the Water Commission in terms of having the water system, the
water allocation, transferred from the Mauna Kea System to this particular property. We’ve had
several meetings with the staff, the Water Department, and I think it’s noted in the staff’s
background report, as well as the memo from the Water Department; I think it clearly indicates that
subject to getting, you know, the necessary paperwork done, the transfer will be effectuated.
As far as the wastewater system, what, you know, we understand what the State’s concerns were,
you know, so the applicant of its own volition, and also as indicated by the staff’s proposed
condition, that rather than a standard septic system, they are going to go in with a higher system
that’s called an anaerobic system where the solids are separated. And I do have some handouts later
that I’ll pass out, if the Commissioners are interested, which discuss a little bit more in detail this
whole concept of an anaerobic system. In conjunction with the original eight-lot SMA application,
there were like extensive studies done, and one of the studies done, you know, related to the impact
for an eight-lot subdivision relative to wastewater system and irrigation onto the nearshore coastal
water, and it was studies done by Dr. Steven Dollar who is a marine biologist, and also Dr. Tom
Nance. And so they evaluated it, and their basic conclusion was that, you know, the impact should
be minimal. But in spite of that, the applicant, in recognition that he doesn’t want to pollute the bay
any more than necessary because it compromises the value of his property in being developed for
residential uses, and so they have elected on their own, you know, to go with an anaerobic system.
There was a coastal access plan that was approved in the initial SMA permit, although the initial
SMA permit is no longer valid; nevertheless, the applicant did conduct, or implemented the, had an
approved public access plan prepared and went ahead and already implemented it. And so as the
staff’s presentation showed, you know, you can see a lot of the improvements made, and if you
recall, there was a small little like a retaining wall, and that point is really essentially where the
40-foot setback line is. And beyond that point would be essentially creating a wide area for the
public to use, you know, to get lateral movements along and across the property.
The proposed conditions, I think, was explained quite well by the staff both in terms of the added
restrictions, added revisions that we have proposed. And so with that, if there are any questions that
the Commissioners may have, you know, we would be more than willing to respond.
5
EXHIBIT A
HAYES: If I might add, I want to compliment Bethany Morrison and Larry Brown of staff for their
work on creating what is effectively a public park out in front of our property on the State land.
With their cooperation and leadership, we were able to create a much better place for the public to
not only pass through but to congregate in front of this property, and I just want to compliment them
for that.
The second thing, when Sidney mentioned that we made arrangements with Mauna Kea for the
water units and they’ll transfer water units to the site, I want to make sure you don’t read into that;
we are not buying water units from Mauna Kea. Because that could be interpreted that way. We
have bought another site, I am the owner of another site within Mauna Kea that has excess water
capacity, and we are moving the water capacity, which is part of the same water system, the
Lalamilo Water System, and moving it to the Puakō Site. And also in exchange for that, we are
going to be diminishing the demand for water on the Mauna Kea site. So that’s overall, we are
creating a public benefit by reducing the overall demand for water out of the water system that
services the Puakō community.
The third thing I would mention is that, you know, our lots are, even though we are subdividing it to
seven lots, these lots are an average size of greater than two times that of the typical lot in Puakō.
And if you, I would welcome, there is a homeowners’ association in Puakō, Peter Hackstedde is
here as the president of the homeowners’ association, very familiar with our project; if you want to
solicit feedback from a citizen who is directly impacted by our site, we welcome you to please
solicit his comments.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any comments or questions of the applicant? Thank you. I have
listed here one individual from the public for public testimony. I would like to call you, Peter
Hackstedde. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on
this matter now before the Planning Commission?
HACKSTEDDE: Yes.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Please state your name and where you reside.
HACKSTEDDE: My name is Peter Hackstedde, and I’m president of the Puakō Community
Association. And I live in Puakō at No. 157, Puakō.
BEAUDET: Thank you.
HACKSTEDDE: And we’ve gone over this project before. It’s been through over the years a lot of
different hands, and this is probably the nicest thing it’s turned out that we’ve had. Working with
this developer has been great, and everything that he said so far, he has kept up. For this it’s a
beautiful site from what it used to be. The drainage has been fixed; that was one of our big things
that we were looking at because we had a flood go through there once, and they, it’s pretty much,
we figured all that out and had that remedied. But it’s just a, it’s a great site and an asset to Puakō.
And like he said, our main thing was the seven lots was fine because it’s twice the size of any of the
other homeowner lots down there. And not having timeshares in there is the only other thing that
we would look at. It’s, you know, so it’s part of the neighborhood. Thank you.
BEAUDET: Thank you, sir. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier?
6
EXHIBIT A
KANUHA: Mr. Chairman?
BEAUDET: Yes.
KANUHA: I had a question, actually, I had some clarification for the applicant, not, no question
for the testifier. Sidney, you know, before revisiting your proposed language to Condition No. 4,
and, as you know, and the Commissioners may not know, the reason we use a setback of a
minimum of 60 feet is primarily in instances where a certified shoreline survey, or a shoreline
survey that’s been submitted for certification, has not yet been submitted; because a minimum
setback, the standard setback from a certified shoreline survey is 40 feet, in cases where a survey is
pending but has not yet been approved, our standard practice has been to ask for another 20 feet
pending receipt of the certified shoreline survey. In this case, there is a certified survey, I guess,
st
dated July 2011, and there is one that’s pending dated August 1, is that correct, Sid?
FUKE: We got an email from, and which I passed onto the staff, and I’m sorry that I didn’t provide
this earlier to your staff, Mr. Director, but the State, the email from the surveyor indicated as
follows: “The State certified the shoreline at One Puakō effective date August 1, 2014.” The
shoreline is the same as the original, which is, the original being the 2011 certification, and that, the
updated survey map is that survey map, which was made part of this application.
KANUHA: Okay, that helps answer a couple of questions, because a concern for the applicant, if I
was the applicant, is that once we put a date in there, right, the survey is only good for a year. So if
the language was based on a certified survey, you know, then you are not tied to a specific date.
And that’s, I guess, the concern you had for the first date, which actually would have been, you
know, the survey would not have been any good, 2011, right, because the one-year time frame has
passed. Okay, so if that’s the case, or is your proposed language, what does it read? “August 1,
2014 unofficially approved ….” It’s either approved or it’s not, right?
FUKE: Well, the reason why, Mr. Director, is that I don’t have a map that shows, you know, the
stamp; all I have is just like a series of email. And the reason why the, well, according to the
surveyor, he said like, you know, it’s like having items recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances;
you submit, and sometimes it takes long time to actually get it officially, you know, stamp on the
map. And so this has been like over two months already, and he still hasn’t received an officially
stamped map. And that’s the reason why when I drafted it, I said “the unofficially approved,” and
added by like “in its absence,” because just in the unlikely event that the State said, no, this is not
the one we are going to use. But I think that’s very unlikely. But just to provide adequate
protection on all of the parties, I had deliberately drafted the language accordingly.
KANUHA: Okay. Would you accept “pending” in lieu of “unofficially approved?”
FUKE: That’s fine.
KANUHA: Okay, I think that makes it, a lot clearer for everybody. So that sentence will read, “All
vertical structures shall be set back a minimum of sixty feet from the August 1, 2014 pending
certified shoreline or, in its absence, an updated certification prior to the issuance of any land
disturbance activities.” Now, the second part of your proposed language is a little different from the
language you proposed previously. Was there a reason for that?
7
EXHIBIT A
FUKE: Yes, as a result of like a, you know, a series of discussions with your staff, and thinking
about it further, and just to make it really clear, this language came about, you know, just to make it
clear that, you know, within the 60-foot, you know, because the 60-foot setback is, although there
was this certification, shoreline certification issue, but not withstanding, you know, whether it was
certified or not certified, assuming it was going to be, it’s certified now, that the applicant on his
own was already planning on not having any vertical structures 60 feet from the certified shoreline,
you know, so that’s one point. So, but between the 60 and up to the 40-foot setback line, then
non-vertical structures, such as maybe like, you know, some encroachment of the swimming pool,
some landscaping, irrigated landscaping, you know, within that area would occur; none of it would
occur makai of the 40-foot setback line. So the idea was to just make the particular point clear.
KANUHA: Okay, you know, I understand the first part. The second component is “non-vertical
structures.” I think you’ve got to be really, you know, it’s just unfortunate because the way Rule 9
reads, the definition of a structure “means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, road,
pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and
distribution line.” Normally, we wouldn’t think of those as structures, but we run into permits
where there was a prohibition on structures and because it was just a general definition of structure
in the project, they couldn’t put a road in because technically, you know, that was a structure. So I
think what I wanted to let you know is that unless it’s specifically, what you intend to do is
specifically defined in the condition, then if it falls into this general category of a structure, then it
wouldn’t be, yeah; so you’ve almost got to think about specifically what may or may not be done
there because otherwise, you know, it could be something that would not be covered under the
provision. The condition here right now is a swimming pool, irrigated landscaping, so those are
clear. But in your previous wording you had, “landscaping, irrigation lines, and the like.” You
know, I just want to make sure that you don’t inadvertently propose language that you think would
allow you to do certain things, but the rule wouldn’t, yeah?
FUKE: That boxes you in. Appreciate it. Yeah, we are on, you know, the intent was, you know,
just looking at it like in a commonsense way and not in a technical definition, as you pointed out,
but I can see the issue that you pointed out that, you know, when you look at it or staff looks at it,
then they make reference to structures as defined by Rule 9. So but the intent again was just to say
that, you know, if you want to build your patio or, you know, like a roofing or whatever, that
penetrates the 60-foot line, then you cannot, I mean that was the intent. But on the other hand, if
you want to put in like a non-vertical structure, such as like a swimming pool, and a swimming pool
obviously you might need to have like a pumping, so you are going to have like the line that is
going to go in, so that’s the related improvements associated with those kinds of the non-vertical
aspect. So the idea was to exempt all of these non-vertical type of structures, anything above
ground. And the reason being is that by having non-vertical structures, you know, basically 60 feet,
you know, from the certified shoreline, it creates a greater sense of, like, ambiance, you know, for
the public as they traverse laterally along the shoreline. That was the intent.
KANUHA: I’m just mentioning this because we’ve run into this before, you know, where a
condition was set where no structures could be allowed within a certain area, and the next thing you
know, transmission lines, telephone lines, you know, a pipe, those kinds of things become
prohibited.
8
EXHIBIT A
FUKE: So under that basis, like the way it’s currently written, do you feel like it may cover it,
because it says like, “This restriction,” in terms of the setback restriction, “shall not apply to
non-vertical structures such as a swimming pool,” etc.? So any other -.
KANUHA: No, it doesn’t say, “swimming pool, etc.”; it says, “swimming pool.”
FUKE: “Such as a swimming pool.”
KANUHA: Yeah.
HAYES: How about swimming pool and landscaping improvements?
KANUHA: Sid, if you want, maybe, Mr. Chairman, do you want to take a couple of minutes and
let them contemplate what they might want to consider?
BEAUDET: I’ll agree to that.
(Secretary’s note: Messrs. Fuke and Hayes had a brief discussion.)
BEAUDET: Okay, back on the record.
FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the Director pointing it out, because otherwise I think we
would have been boxing, unwillingly boxing ourselves in the corner. So in discussing it with the
applicant, the only thing he said, you know, he would like to see have done between the 40 and the
60-foot setback area would be the swimming pool, possible swimming pool, landscaping, irrigation
line and their corresponding underground utility lines. So under that basis, the section then can be
read, “This restriction shall not apply to non-vertical structures such as a swimming pool,
landscaping irrigation line and their corresponding underground utility lines, provided that in no
event shall any of these improvements occur within 40 feet of the certified shoreline.”
KANUHA: That works for us, if it works for you.
FUKE: Thank you very much.
HAYES: Thank you, sir.
KANUHA: You can understand what we are talking about, yeah? We hate to see you come back
because the definition is so broad that it covers things that normally we wouldn’t consider to be
structures.
BEAUDET: Any more questions or comments from the Commission? I passed one item and I
forgot to ask if there was any more individuals from the public who would like to testify at this
time. Okay, with that, Commissioners, I need a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioners?
NOBRIGA: I make a motion to close.
BEAUDET: Second?
9
EXHIBIT A
UNGER: Second.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Okay, Commissioners, a motion for action? Can I get a motion for
action?
NOBRIGA: I’ll make a motion.
BEAUDET: Commissioner Nobriga.
NOBRIGA: Proposed revisions to SMA 14-00057, I approve, make a motion to approve the
changes in SMA 14-000057, One Puakō Bay Associates, LLC, allowing the changes to the
conditions.
KAHOLO: Second.
BEAUDET: Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Nobriga and seconded by Commissioner
Kaholo. Any discussion or comments?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can just make sure we are all clear on the condition
changes. I’ll just go through those before we vote on the motion. Condition 4, with the changes
that have been spoken about, will read, “All vertical structures shall be setback a minimum of 60
feet from the August 1, 2014 pending certified shoreline or, in its absence, an updated certification
prior to the issuance of any land disturbance permit. This restriction shall not apply to non-vertical
structures such as a swimming pool, landscaping and irrigation lines,” correct?
FUKE: And their corresponding underground utility lines.
DARROW: “And corresponding underground utility lines, provided that in no event shall any of
those types of improvements occur within 40 feet of the certified shoreline.” Okay. Condition 6
and Condition 17 will remain the same as stated within the applicant’s submittal. With that, we’ll
take the roll call. Commissioner Nobriga?
NOBRIGA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo?
KAHOLO: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Unger?
UNGER: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman?
10
EXHIBIT A
BEAUDET: Aye.
DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero.
FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
HAYES: Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you for your service to the county.
The discussion ended at 10:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
11
EXHIBIT A