Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc10-25-11minutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 25, 2011 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of YOua6 1 was called to order by Chair, Herman Texeira at 9:19 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A -2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Herman Texeira Mr. Jan Kimura Ms. Camilla Matsumoto Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. James Nishida Mr. Hartwell Blake Absent and excused: Mr, Caven Raco Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chair: Good morning, today is October 251' and this is our regular meeting of the Kauai Planning Commission. We do have a quorum, we have one member of the Commission that is excused and absent. We have six members of the Kauai Planning Commission here today. I would like to ask for the approval of the agenda. Ms. Matsumoto: So moved. Mrs Second. Chair: Is there any discussion on the agenda? If not, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve the agenda, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Chair: I would like to have a motion to receive items, Ms. Matsumoto: Move to receive items. Mr. Kimura: Second. Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those apposed, motion carried. On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Jan Kimura, to receive items for the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: Normally at this time we discuss the possibility of adjusting and redoing the agenda in terms of its order. I believe today we are going to stick with the original order. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS County of Kauai. Chair: Could I get a motion? Mr. Kimura: So moved. I am making a motion to appoint Mike as the Director of the Planning Department. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Would you like to say a few words? Mr. Kimura: After discussion on the various options we collectively chose to evaluate Mike first which we did. At the completion of the evaluation process which included his staff and peers the results provided to me that he is capable to do the job. He has also proved over the last ten months that he is capable of handling all the complexities this jab presents. He stepped in and quickly began to work toward assuring a smooth transition on major issues like the transient vacation rentals, General Plan, Transient Accommodation Ordinance: Because of Mike's extensive background and knowledge of these types of localized issues I believe that he is a very good candidate for this position. I am also impressed that Mike has both a law degree and master's degree in Planning and feel that it would be hard to find someone else with those types of credentials. Chair: Commissioners, before I proceed I would like to call on the public and suspend the rules and ask if there is anyone over here wishing to testify on the appointment of Mr. Dahilig as the County Planning Director. Seeing none... Mr. Blake: I would like to make a comment. One thing that I found to be favorable about Mr. Dahilig in addition to everything that Commissioner Kimura has stated is that he lives here and he has lived here for a while. Long enough I feel to bet.ome familiar with what makes Kauai tick and what makes different elements of the community tick. I know that in the discussions that we have had, the numerous discussions that we have had there was a feeling that perhaps we should advertize because the perfect candidate may be out there somewhere. Well that would be nice if that was true, we probably won't ever know but the perfect candidate may not be out there either and all this process would do would be to delay the appointment of a permanent Director. So I believe that he comes with fortunately more street cred. than most other people would come with by virtue of his having been in the County Attorney's Office and his planning background. Chair: I would like to clean this up a little bit. I had previously suspended the rules so I need to call the meeting back to order and then just to discuss the fact that we do have a motion and a second on the floor and that I would like to continue the discussion with the Planning Commission. So anyone else wishing to speak on the appointment of Mr. Dahilig? I would like to make a few comments if I could. I just would like to give some kind of historical background to what transpired in regards to the potential possible appointment of Mr. Dahilig. I am going to review from notes. First, back in early February, 2011, Mr. Dahilig was asked to provide the Commission with a list and timeline of goals and objectives that he intended to accomplish as the interim Director. These programmatic departmental goals were reviewed and accepted by this body if you recall. Second, in September we developed and undertook a confidential written survey of Mike's overall performance with his peers and members of the Planning Department staff and we had an opportunity to review all of the comments made. 'Thirdly we just completed a thorough review of the current status of Mr. Dahilig's progress in accomplishing his department goals and found that he is doing an admirable job in moving the programs and projects forward. And four, the Commission conducted its own independent evaluation of Mr. Dahilig's accomplishments and performance over the past nine months based on the peer and staff reviews of Mike's performance relative to his department's goals and objectives. I believe that the Commission established an objective and comprehensive process to review and evaluate Mr. Dahilig's performance. And I would like to say that we had a very healthy discussion on this, I think our discussion was thorough and complete as could be. And so therefore now we have a solid foundation to move ahead in considering his appointment as the Planning Director. So with Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 2 that in mind, again, any other Commissioners wish to comment on the appointment of Mr. Dahilig? Ms. Matsumoto: I would like to echo everyone's sentiments as well and I also have been very impressed with Mr. Dahilig's transitioning all of us forward. And I like the way he works with his staff. I think he is very inclusive, validates everyone's expertise which I think is very valuable for the County of Kauai. I feel I have seen his staff grow professionally and I have also appreciated the service that he has provided us. He is very prompt. Our materials, we receive our materials faster. All things considered, when he stepped in from the time he did to today a l9t has been accomplished and I look forward to working with him. Chair: Anyone else wishing to...? Mr. Katayama: Mr. Chair, there were several statements where the qualities were articulated by the members of this staff or Commission and also sort of a chronology of the history of the evolvement. But I think one important factor that has not been mentioned is the current Director's management philosophy which I think is very important to what the County needs looking forward as we handle these complex problems. It is probably a timing issue of when Mr. Dahilig came into the Commission and came on board but certainly his management style, his philosophy on handling the department moving forward is appropriate for this County as well. Chair: Thank you. At this time I would like to call for the question. Could we have roll call please. On motion made by Jain Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to appoint Mr. Michael Dahilig as Planning Director, motion carried unanimously by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Kimura, Katayama, Matsumoto, Nishida, Blake, Texeira Noes: None Absent: Raco Not Voting: None Mr. Kimura: Mr. Chair, can we take a five minute break? Commission recessed at 9:29 a.m. Meeting was called back to order at 9:39 a.m. Commissioner James Nishida and Wayne Katayama were excused for the day. -1 -0 Chair: I am calling the meeting back to order. I would to respectfully acknowledge our new Planning Director and congratulate them on behalf of the Planning Commission, Mr. Dahilig: Just to say something short, the disciple Luke wrote is his gospel "to whom much is given, much is expected and to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be required ". I am sincerely humbled this morning to accept the Commission's appointment of permanent Planning Director and I truly appreciate the gravity of this decision given the context of time, sweat equity, deliberation and meditation by each of the Commissioners. Kauai is a unique place with heavy challenges as we face the heart of the 21" Century. The community's commitment to its island home materialized in open discourse in how we grow and I respect that as an admirable virtue. We need to grow Kauai responsibly and land use planning is the first line of defense in protecting this island way of life. I commit to this creed in every action I take in this position and will do so knowing I am standing on the shoulders of many who have faith in me and my staff to fulfill this critical mission. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 K I pledge to work with integrity and strive to excellence as the Planning Department pushes forward. There are many people to thank and I will take that opportunity one on one after this meeting however today I thank the Commission for its trust and look forward to doing great things together, mahalo. Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to mention we lost two other members of the Kauai Planning Commission, they are also excused and absent so right now our quorum is down to four. COMMUNICATION (NONE) SUBDIVISION Mr. Kimura: Subdivision Committee members present, myself and Cammie Matsumoto. General Business, none, communications, none, unfinished business, none, new business, tentative subdivision action, S- 2012 -01, Florence S. Togioka, et. al., TMK 1 -3- 010:070, approved 2 -0. Final subdivision action, S- 2011 -15, County of Kauai Department of Parks and Recreation, TMK 1 4- 008:020, approved 2 -0. Tentative subdivision extension request, 5 -2009- 12, The K61oa Early School, Koloa Hongwanji Mission, TMK 2 -8- 004:056, approved 2 4 Chair: Thank you, is there a second? Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve subdivision committee report, motion ea rried unanimously by voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Zoninjz Amendment ZA- 2012 -2 to amend Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987 (as amended) to allow solar energy facilities as generally permitted uses and structures within the Agriculture Zoning; Districts, subject to requirements and standards set forth in the prd�osed draft bill. County of Kaua `i :Planning Department. rHearing closed 9/27/11.1 Supplemental Staff Report No. 1 pertaining to o this matter. Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read supplemental staff report (on file). Chair: Thank you, at this point I would life to call on the public if anyone is wishing to testify on this proposed ordinance? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments by the Commission for staff? I would like to ask a question. As mentioned by you that it was asked if the aircraft traffic patterns and the department has solicited comments from the Airports Division and you await those comments so how can we act on this without comments from the Department of Transportation? Staff* It is not required. The Department of Transportation Airports Division's comments aren't required for you folks to take action. And secondly the department being brought to the attention that the Airports Division may have a concern over these facilities was really through communications with other agencies. And specifically trying to get a response verbally from the Department of Transportation Airports Division., we didn't get any, and we have not received any official comments. Given that, the department would say that the time allotted for agency comment has really been exhausted at this point and we are recommending that you take action on this if you are willing today. If any comments are received from the Department of Transportation subsequent to taking action we will of course forward that over to the County Council because they will be doing the review of the draft bill its self. Mr. Kimura: So let me get this straight. They had concerns but they have no comments? PIanning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Staff: No. We had been notified from other agencies that there was a potential for concern. We haven't actually received verbal or written notification from DOT Airports that they do have a concern. Mr. Kimura: Thank you. Chair: Going back to that, does the department have any concerns about having the solar projects in or around the airport and its impact on the flights that are coming in and going out of the airport? Staff: We haven't received any communication from Airports Division or FAA for previously permitted facilities that are also within agricultural lands. There was recently a facility permitted near the base and they had discussions with their flight crews and there didn't seem to be any problem with them over there as well. Given the facilities within the State I believe there is one on the Big Island located near an airport. Chair: They have no Staf£ We haven't received any communication as such. So for previously permitted facilities we haven't been apprised of any concern nor for this one officially from DOT. But like I said if any communication or discussion is transmitted to the department concerning airports and the solar facilities that will immediately transmitted over to Council if this body chooses to take action today. Chair: Anyone else? Ms. Matsumoto: Could you explain the numbers in the draft? 'You have not more than 10% and 20 acres of land. Staff: The land classification deals with land classification A through E which generally for agriculture A is going to be the higher ranking soil and E is going to be the Iower ranking soils. So the D and E, what we are proposing is that it be automatically outright permitted on those soils, period. Concerning B or C soils which are a little bit higher classification or a little bit higher quality of soil concerning agriculture it allows for either 20 acres of that land mass or 10 %, whichever is less. So in the event that you have a property that has over 200 acres of B or C soils you could get up to 20 acres. If it is larger than that the 10% would equate the 20 acres and that is as much as you could go up to. If it is smaller than 200 acres the land mass of B or C soils is smaller than 200 acres then obviously that 10% is going to be as much as you can cover because say if you have a 100 acre land mass of B or C soils only 10 acres would be allowed because it is the 10% so whichever is less, the 10% or the 20 acres. It essentially allows for certain outcroppings of a solar facility to go in that soil classification but generally speaking it is directing it more to the lower classification of soils. Chair: I have a question. Does that mean that the County is going to be limiting the size of the proposed solar projects that are coming forward? Staff. It would be limiting the size of how much C. And if they wanted to go above and beyond that then this body for a Use Permit approval. But in D or E soils would be no limiting with the exception of those require] are established for the agricultural zoning district. could go in the land classification B or essentially they would have to come to it would be outright permitted and there nents of setback and lot coverage that Chair: So let me get a clarification, on the B, C, or lower classified lands there is no 10% rule? In other words you could have... Staff: For D or E? Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 5 Chair: Yes, for D or E lands you could have a greater increase in the amount of acres that can be used for solar project? Staff. Correct, Chair: There being no further questions could we have a motion? Mr. Blake: Move to accept the additional findings submitted by the department. Chair: I'm sorry Hartwell, before we go forward could we have your conclusion? You read it and the recommendation? Staff Yes, the recommendation is just for an approval of the proposed draft bill which has been attached to the staff report. The public hearing has been closed. Chair: Do I need to formally acknowledge that the public hearing has been closed? Not really, I'm sorry Hartwell. Mr. Blake: Move to accept the additional findings submitted by the department. Chair: Is there a second? Mr. Kimura: Second, Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Jan Kimura, to accept Supplemental Staff Report No. l., motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: We have accepted the findings, do we need to...? We need a formal approval of this. Ms. Matsumoto: Move to accept the additional findings. Mr. Jung. Actually the accept the additional findings there needs to be an action motion on whether or not to approve or deny or modify the actual ZA. Ms. Matsumoto: Move to approve the ZA- 2412 -21 Mr. Blake: Second. Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to approve Supplemental Staff Report No. l., motion carried unanimously by voice vote. located on Kahuna Road, approx. 1200 ft. from the Kahuna Road and Piliamoo Road intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key 4- 6- 004 :00$ and affecting _a portion of 6.122 acres = Francesco Garri Garri oli & Daisy Lee. Director's Report received 9/27/17., hears closed 10/11%11.1 7 Staff Planner Kaaina Hull: The Commission has received the supplement to the D'irector's report, and because much of the additional findings are reiterated in the evaluation, at the Commission's discretion staff would request to read on from the revaluation and conclusion (on file). Planning Commission Minutes October 2S, 2011 ro Chair: Thank you Mr. Hull. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Hull? Mr. Blake: Is this facility close to or border the stream? Staff Not to my knowledge. The applicant can further discuss that bpt not to my knowledge. Chair: I asked that the last time and they informed me that it wasn't bordering the stream. Am I correct? When they come up we can direct that to them, anybody else? If not, thank you, I would like to call on the applicant and the applicant's representative. Mr. Jonathan Chun: Good morning, Jonathan Chun on behalf of the applicant and the applicant Mr. Garripoli is sitting next to me. We would also like to congratulate the new Planning Director on his appointment. Now we don't have to put "acting" or "interim" in front of his name, congratulations. In answer to the first question, the Kapa`a Stream is across the street from this property. Actually there is another intervening property before Kapa`a Stream and then there is the street Kahuna Road and then there is our property and then the gazebo is about 300 or more than 300 feet from the road its self also. So the actual site of the wellness center, the gazebo structure, is at a minimum I believe of 500 feet or so from Kapa`a Stream. I think the fire hydrant was about 400 and something feel which is across the street from Kahuna Road so it is a considerable distance from the stream its self. Mr. Blake: Public Works noted any drainage problem? Mr. Chun: The original subdivision was planned and laid out, Public Works outlined a no -build drainage setback area which is noted I believe on the map that was supplied in the application, and the gazebo is built outside of that setback area. This is specifically for drainage issues. Mr. Blake: So there are no structures for improvements contemplated for the drainage area? Mr. Chun: No, it is prohibited to be built within that area so there are no structures in that area. Staff. And just to clarify Commissioner the actual application is for a use. The only physical structures that could possibly be put in are those required by the Fire Department and other agencies. The applicants themselves are not proposing for any physical structures. Mr. Chun: Correct, the applicant has reviewed the ad4itional findings and recommendations done by the department and in general we agree with all of them. Just to update the department we have been meeting with the Fire Department and Water Department in regard to. the fire hydrant issue. I think they are going to be meeting together because both departments need to be involved, we will be tapping into the waterline owned by the Water Department so the meetings are being; scheduled with them. I would like to request however on behalf of the applicant that on condition No. 6 in regard to the Fire requirements I would like to see if we could have a little bit more flexibility or request some flexibility from the department. The reason is there are other ways that we are discussing with the Fire Department to meet their requirements, one of the common ones is to put a sprinkler system within the gazebo its self and the department has been accepting that as an alternative to fire hydrants and that is another alternative that can be used. We are in discussion with them, I think the applicant is talking with them about both of these requirements and they have to find out which ones are the most cost effective way to do it. So we would like to request a little bit more flexibility with working with the Fire Department on that. We have no problems with representing that or putting it as a condition that we will meet all the requirements of the Fire Department prior to operation it is just that there are some flexibilities involved with the Fire Department in terms of choosing which one they would Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 7 have to use rather than fire hydrants and/or sprinklers. Also and one small, small issue or question on the five year period for the permit which we have agreed to and we have no problems with that, maybe we should be more specific, either five years from the date of issuance of the permit or five years from the start of operation. That way it would be clear as to when we have to apply for the extension. Chair: Could the staff comment on that? Staff. Concerning the specific date that would be advisable. I think that is really the Commission's discretion if they want the date of operation or date of issuance of the permits. Mr. Kimura: I think it should be the date of issue. Staff: And secondly concerning the applicant's concerns over condition No. 6 and the Fire Department's required improvements, generally the department doesn't get really specific in their recommended conditions for approval and doesn't generally advise for a specific condition of approval concerning other agencies as those other agencies generally require those during building permit review. When we initially accepted the application we were under the impression that a building permit would not be necessary and as such when those situations arise we try to work with the departments a little bit more closely in order to condition the zoning permits in line with their requirements as they are not going to be able to essentially impose them during building permit review. However being that a building permit is going to be required the department is open to somewhat relaxing the conditions so that they can work with the respective agencies, in this case the Department of Water and the Fire Department, in order to resolve their requirements. Ultimately the concern is that in working with the Fire Department if the Fire Department requires other conditions or facilities such as instead of a fire hydrant they require a sprinkler system they can meet that. However it is in the conditions of approval they actually have to come back to the Planning Commission to have that re- reviewed and reassessed and it is essentially to reduce the risk of that. So the department does have a proposed language change to condition No. 6. Mr. Kimura: Can we leave that to the discretion of the Fire Department? Staff: Yes, so essentially what the condition would be amended to state is that prior to operation the applicant shall insiall all those improvements required by the Fire Department. Once said improvements have been made the department shall verify with the Fire Department that they adequately meet the Fire Department's requirements. I Chair: So that would be at the end of 6; that would be that last paragraph, where would you place that? Staf£ It would remove essentially all of condition No. 6 and replace it with the language as read. Chair: Is that acceptable to the Commissioners? And is the applicant acceptable to that? Mr. Chun: That is acceptable, we intend to meet any requirement that the Fire Department would want. The only thing we are asking for is flexibility to work with their requirements. And also just to inform the Commission the applicant is in compliance with condition No 9, in fact as noted in our application the applicant has installed a photovoltaic systems for alternative energy to power the facilities on that property. So even before this condition was imposed it has been using alternative energy projects on the property right now. Mr. Blake: On Rage 2 of supplement No. 1 to the Planning Director's Report, the Department of Health recommends against approval until it has received information on existing wastewater systems. And on page 4, No. 7, there is sort of a reiteration of that stating the prior to operation the Planning Department... demonstrate to the Planning Department that they have met Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 E all the Department of Health, Wastewater Division, conditions for approval. Is that still an issue? Staff That would essentially be as we discussed with Fire that they would resolve the with the Department of Health both at their building permit level and we would also require that they obtain documentation from the Department of Health and submit that to the Planning Department prior to the commencing operation. Mr. Blake: So their recommendation against approval is really of no substance? Staff: Their recommendation of approval is concerning specifically operating it as a commercial facility with what they have on record as the septic system and so they just need to essentially update that septic system to be able to serve commercial needs. Mr. Churl: If I may Mr. Chair, it is our understanding that the Department of Health does not have a current design and Iocati n of the septic system that was constructed on the property. That is being resolved right now with Aqua Engineering who actually designed and installed the original septic system. And I just got a copy of a plan that Aqua Engineering had prepared for this system so apparently there was just a miscommunication between Aqua Engineers and the Department of Health in terms of the location and design of the septic system. So we are working with them right now so in terms in their condition we agree that the Department of Health needs to have that information in their hands prior to operations and iwe are working with resolving that conflict or miscommunication. Staff Commissioner, what this essentially goes back to is like we stated with the Fire Department, initially when this permit was received we were under the impression that a building permit would riot be necessary and as such the respective agencies really don't have, even though they may Have requirements, they don't have authority of standing to impose those requirements. They have no building permit to sign off on so to speak. But since then it has been revealed that indeed a building permit will be required and as such. I Jo go back, the Planning Department recommends during the zoning permit approval that we act in somewhat of a clearing house and we impose those requirements to protect the health, safety, and welfare of those living and residing in the area. Now that it has been revealed that a building permit is needed and that the respective agencies particularly the Fire Department and the Department of Health do have a manner in which to impose their conditions that they will not sign off on the permit until their requirements are installed a bit more leeway can be given to let them act one on one with the applicant. Chair: Is everyone satisfied with the comments? Thank you, nobody has any other comments, anyone from the public wishing to comment, seeing none, thank you. Mr. Garripoli: Thank you guys so much for all your help and support with all this. I got so many people on my speed dial now, Water, Fire, and Aqua Engineers, some of them are offering me jobs so maybe next time I come back maybe I will have employment in one of those places too. But really it has been a good process, to be pond with all this is educational at best and it is really great that we do all this so thank you. Chair: Commissioners could we have a motion? Mr. Blake: Move to accept supplement No. I to the Planning Director's report on item Z- IV,2012 -5, Use Permit U- 2012 -5, Special Permit SP- 2412 45, TMK 2- 3 -2:54 Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye ... you Vranted to make a comment? Staff Just to clarify, I think we might want to reiterate or reestablish those amendments. Mr. Juna: Well that motion was just to accept. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 N Chair: Now we can go forward. Mr. Juna: Commissioners, just as a reminder if there is a going to be a motion and then you want to amend the staff report then you have to make individual motions to amend conditions. Chair: Before we go back to the full motion. So with that in mind is there a motion to amend any of the recommendations? Mr. Kimura: I want to make a motion to amend... Mr. Jung: Commissioners there has to be a main motion first before you have to start amending. Chair: My fault, let's have a main motion then. Mr. Kimura: Make a motion to approve. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Now we can have our discussion and amendments. Mr. Kimura: I want to make an amendment on recommendation No. 6 as read by staff. Chair: Could you read that again please? Staff "Prior to operation the applicant shall install all those improvements required by the Fire Department. Once said improvements have been made the Planning Department shall verify with the Fire Department that they adequately meet the Fire Department's requirements." Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Any discussion on the amended motion, if not all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to amend condition No. 6, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: Any other conditions we wish to amend? Mr. Dahilia: Mr. Chair, we would also recommend amending item No. 4 to state that subject permits shall be temporary for an initial period of five years from issuance. Chair: Okay, is that clearly understood? We need a motion for that to amend condition No. 4 as read by the Planning Director. Ms. Matsumoto: So moved. Mr. Kimura: Second, Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and secoiaided by Jan Kimura, to amend condition No. 4, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: Any other conditions we need to amend? If not can we go back to the full motion and we already have a first and second on that motion, any discussion on that motion to approve, if not all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 r On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve staff recommendation as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. PUBLIC t'EARING (NONE) NEW BUSINESS For Acceptance,into Record — Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled for Public Hearing 11/$111, Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2012 -1 Use Permit U- 2012 -6 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2012 -6 to construct and operate a reg ase interceptor, 2 wastewater pumps and connections in Po`ipu, located at the intersection of Hoone Road and Hoowili Road further identified as Tax Map Keys 2-8-017:001. 007, 011.023. & 15 and affecting nortions of approx. 26.5 acres = Leilani CoW. Director's Report Pertaininiz to this matter. s On 'Motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to accept Director's Report into record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. For Acceptance and Finalization — Direct'or's Report for Shoreline Setback Activity Determination. (NONE). ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:23 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 11 Respectfully Submitted. Lani Agoot Commission Support Clerk