Malama Pupukea-Waimea Contested Case Petition

1. MiLAIVT PUPUKtrA-WAIMEA
501 (c) (3) non-profit organization
P.O. Box 1BB
HaÌe'iwa, Hawai'i 96172
Telephone: (B0B) 3BB-3825
E-mail: SaveSharksCoveßgmail.com
:ii:,;, ,!" tl 2ü.l?
¡ï liríriiÈ¿ü ii,Il! i,i::ìl'iì[.['f å*{fl;
Docket No. :
PETTTION FOR A CONTESTED CASE
HEARING ON APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU/ DEPARTMENT OF'
PLANN]NG AND PERMITT]NG TO
ISSUE SPBCTAL MANAGEMENT AREA
M]NOR PERMIT 2OI1 /SMA_21 FOR
THtr HANAPOHAKU LLC *SIIARK/ S
COVE DEVELOPMENT,,; CERT]FICATE
OF SERVICE
tË t'Ì il' ll IrT ilì
BEFORE CTTY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
DEPARTMENT OF' PLANNING AND PERM]TTING
STATE OF HAWAI /I
In the Matter
for Contested
of the Petition
Case Hearing of
MLANil PUPUKEA_WATMtrA
of SpeciaJ- Management Area
(*SMA") Minor Permit Approval
for HANAPOI-IAKU LLC (2OI1lSUe-
2I), Located at: (1) 59-172
Kamehameha Highwây, Hale'iwa,
Hawai 'i 96'l 12 , TMK No . 5- 9-
011:068; (2) 59-106 Kamehameha
Highway, Hale ' Lv'ra, Hawai 'i
96'772, TMK No. 5-9-011: 069; and
(3) 59-053 Pahoe Road,
Hafe'iwa, Hawai'i 96112, TMK
No" 5-9-011:070
iì
ij

2. PETITTON FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARTNG ON APPEÀI FROM THE
DECTSTON OF THE PLANNTNG DTRECTOR/ CrTY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
DEPARTMENT OF PI,ANNING AND PERMITTING TO ISSUE SPECÏAL
}4ANAGEMENT ÀREA MINOR PERMTT 20]-7 /SM¡'_2L
FOR THE HÄNAPOHAKU LLC SÍ{ARI(/ S CO¡E DEVELOPMENT//
I. INTRODUCTÏON
1. Petitioner Mãlama Pupùkea-Waimea ("Petitioner" or
ReJ-ating to Shoreline Setbacks and the Special Management Area
"MPW") submits this petition, pursuant to section I2-2 of the
DeparLment of Planning and Permitting (*DPP") Part 2 Rules
("Part 2 Rules"), for a contested case hearing on its appeal
2. On August 2, 2OL1, the Planning Director issued SMA
Minor Permit to Applicant G70 Jeff Overton, as agenL for
from the Planning Director's decision to issue Special
Management Area ("SMA-) Minor Permit 2071/SMA-21 for "Shark's
Cove Development
Landowner and Developer Hanapohaku LLC ("Deve1oper") for a
commercial development DPP identifled as "Shark's Cove
Development, " (see 2011 /SMA-21 (attached as Exhibit "A.") ) ,
Iocated on three contiguous parcels owned by the same Developer
at: (1) 59-112 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'ivta, Hawai'i 96112, TMK
No" 5-9-011:068 ("Parcel 68"), (2) 59-106 Kamehameha Highway,
Hale'iwa, Hawai'i 96'772, TMK No. 5-9-011:069 ("Parcel 69") ; and
(3) 59-053 Pahoe Road, Hale'Íwa, Hawai'i 96'712, TMK No " 5-9-
011:070 ("ParceI '/0")
2

3. Statutes (*HRS") Chapter 2054 and Chapter 25, Revised Ordinances
of Honolulu (*ROH"), and therefore is null and void.
'3. For the reasons stated beIow, the'Planning Director's
decision to issue the SMA Minor Permit vio.l-ates Hawai'i Revised
4. Petitioner seeks an order vacating the SMA Minor
Permit, requiring Developer to pay all accumulated fines, and
instructing Developer to submit an appÌication for an SMA Use
Permit ("Major") that demonstrates full compliance with County,
State, and Federaf laws prior to the Planning Director's
approval
ÏÏ. LEGAI PROTECTTONS IN THE SPECTA], MANÀGEMENT AREA
The purpose of the State of Hawai'i Special Management
Area law is "to preserve, protect, and where possible, to
restore the natural resoLrrces of the coastal zone of
Hawaii HRS S 2O5A_2I "
5
6. The purpose of ROH Chapter 25 is "to preserve, protect,
and where possibrle, to restore the naturaf resources of the
coastal zone of Hawaii. Special controls on development within
an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanenL
and to ensure that adequate public access is provided to pubic
Ioss of valuable resources and foreclosure of management options,
owned or used beaches/ recreation areas, âDd natural
ROH Chapter 25-I .2
a
.)
reserves

4. -l . "Development'/' in the Special Management Area without
contest that the "Shark's Cove Development" is development.
an SMA. permit is unLawful. HRS S 205A-26. Developer does not
B. An SMA Minor Permit may be lawfully issued by the
Planning Director onJ-y when "the valuatron is not in
excess of $500,000, and which has no substantial adverse
envíronmental or ecological effect, taking into account
potentiaJ- cumul-atíve ef fects HRS S 205A-22
9. DPP's review of Developer's inadequate application,
valuations, revisions, modificatlons, and failure to correct
misleading and inaccurate information violates HRS Chapter 205A
and ROH Chapter 25.
10. DPP has an affirmative duty to thoroughly review
permit applications and to make determinations consistent with
the purposes of HRS Chapter 205A and ROH Chapter 25. In issuing
ii-s decision on the SMA Mínor Permit, DPP failed to uphold these
duties and specifically failed to conduct an independent
valuation and take into account pot.ent-ial cumulative impacts;
therefore the determinations were based on erroneous findings of
material fact or were otherwise arbitrary and capricrous
]II " PET]TIONER
11 " Petitioner Mãlama Pupùkea-Waimea rs a 501 (c) (3) non-
profit organizaLíon registered to do business in the State of
Hawaí'i" Petrti-oner's mailing address is P.O" Box 1BB, FIale'iwa,
4

5. based North Shore non-profit, formed in 2005, to "replenish and
sustain the natural and culturaf resources of the Pupùkea and
Hawai'i 96112. Petitioner's phone number 1s (B0B)'3BB-3825, and
email is SaveSharksCoveGgmail-. com. Petitioner is a volunteer-
Waimea ahupua'a for present and future generatrons through
active community stewardship, education, and partnerships. "
More information about Petitioner is available at
72. For the past twelve years, Petitioner, through its
volunteer members, has maintained a weekly presence at the
Pupùkea Beach Park and the Pùpúkea Marine Life Conservation
District (*MLCD"), which are across the two-lane Kamehameha
Highway from and virtualfy adjacenL to the properties that are
the subj ect of the chal-Ienged SMA Minor Permit.
13. MPW members have stewarded and monítored the health of
the Pupukea Beach Park/ MLCD/ and Special Management Area
Members have worked tirelessly to increase the knowledge of and
have provided thousands of volunteer hours as well as over half
wr^rw "
p:.,pi:}.,eawai:nea " OIq.
a million dollars (in qrants, donations/ and in-kind services)
beach, shoreline, and park clean ups, biological and human use
monitoring, in water fish counts, limu identrficatjon studres,
support for the ecological vafues, rules, and user impacts amongi
the community, youth, visitors, and users" MPW and its members
for improvements, oversight, educational programs and outreach,
5

6. water qual-ity testing, invasive species renLovatr and coastaf
restoration. MPW afso documents and reports rule violations to
the State Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR")
Divlsion of Conservation and Resources Enforcement ("DOCARE")
through our Makai Watch volunteers. MPW is a certified member
of the DLNR-DOCARE Makai Vrlatch program.
14. MPVü has many board, staff, advísory board, and
volunteer members who are residents of the Pùpukea/Sunset Beach
community and who are frequent users of the Shark's Cove area/
incl-uding Púpttkea Beach Park and Pùpùkea MLCD, for recreatron,
research/ ecological, and educational- purposes, including
specifically its board members who are long-time residents of
the area, Denise Antolini, Roberts (Bob) Leinau, John Cutting,
Jim Parsons/ and Laura Parsons¡ âs well as staff members Maxx
Elizabeth Phitlips and Jenny Yagodich, and advisory board member
Palakiko Yagodich, whose family uses the area for traditional
and cultural practrces.
15. Petitioner MPW and its members are specifically,
personally, and adversely affected by the "Shark's Cove
Development" and its adverse impacts on the Special Management
Area and therefore MPW has legal standing to bring this petition.
16. In addition, Petitioner also has standing because it
suffered procedural injury when DPP erroneously treated the
requiring only an SMA Minor Permrt,"Shark's Cove Development" AS
6

7. thereby improperly avoiding a formal publiC hearing and proper
environmenta-l- review of the substantial adverse impacts and
potential mitigation.
substantive and procedural- due process for the "Shark's Cove
Development" has improperly shifted the burden of proof from the
Developer to the community to assess and mitigate the
environmental and cumulative impacts of this development in the
Specíal Management Area. This procedural- injury and improper
placement of the burden on the community violates the spirit and
letter of the laws protecting Hawai'i/ s precious shoreline
resources including HRS 205A, ROH Ch . 25, the public 1-rust
doctríne, and the precautionary principle
IV. BACKGROUND
18. Developer purchased Parcels 68, 69, and 70 on June 26,
2014.
fl . Moreover, the DPP's lack of compliance with required
19. Beginning in late 2014 or early 2015, Developer
undertook unpermitted development including, but not Iinited to,
adding nine stationary food trucks, constructing at least two
unpermitted decks enclosing stationary food trucks, an
unpermitted wooden deck addition to an existing structure,
unpermitted plumping improvements/ unpermítted electrical and
water connections/ unperÍLitted fences, and unpermitted grubbing
7
and grading.

8. 20. This development was done with no 'building permits and
no SMA permits, and resulted in numerous violat-ions
2I. This development has increased traffic and pedestrian
congiestion, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and created litter,
restroor,n over-usage problems in the Special Management Area,
adversely affecting Petítioner's and the community's access to
and use of the Pupùkea Beach Park and the Pupukea MLCD. Only
after community viqilance, monitoring, and complaints to
regulatory agencies and elected officials did Developer make any
parkinq, erosion, resource over-use, potentlal poJ-Ìution, and
effort to reduce the impact of its activities. However, these
of spillover litter from eaterÍes at the "Shark's Cove
amount of trash removed in 2016 increased to I,617 pounds. As
signíficant problems persist
22" This development has, for example, increased Iitter
found in the Pupukea Beach Park and the Pùpùkea MLCD as a result
Development. " Members have been findinq more and more rubbish
in the Special Management Area from various food trucks and have
observed patrons walking over wlth food debris and leaving it on
g,round" fn 2014, prior to increased commerclal operations at
the "Shark's Cove Developmentr " Petitioners removed 763 pounds
of trash from the Pùpükea Beach Park and the Pupukea MLCD. In
2015, after Developer's increaserl commer:cial operations,
Petitioners removed approximately 1,500 pounds of trash" The
B

9. its tenants' and their customers' trash, Petítioner removed
I,686 pounds of trash (annualized, roughly 2,200 pounds/Year)
from Pùptrkea Beach Park and the Pùpùkea MLCD.
23. Between February 2015 and November 2015, DeveÌoper
j-ntentionally segmented the "Shark's Cove Development" by
submitting three separate SMA Minor Permit applications for one
unified development, thereby depriving DPP's Planning Director
and staff of complete and accurate information.
24. Between March 2015 and January 2016, the Planning
Director issued three similar SMA Minor Permits to the same
Applicant Gregory A. Quinn, âs agent for the same Landowner and
Developer Hanapohaku LLC for a single unified commercial
development-the "Project" DPP identified, at the tíme¡ âs
"sharks Cove Commerclal Developmerrt," see Jan 5, 2016 Director's
öf'September TB, 2011, despite efforts by Developer to contain
review meeting (attached as trxhibit "8"), located on three
Hawai'i 96112, TMK No" 5-9-011:069 ("Parcel 69"), see 2075/SMA-
41 (attached as trxhibit "E"); and (3) 59-063 Pahoe Road,
contiguous parcels owned by the same Developer at: (1) 59-112
Kamehameha Highway and 59-1 124 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'íwa,
Hawai'i 96-112, TMK No. 5-9-011:068 (*Parcel 68") , eâô 20L5/ SMA_
6I (attached as Exhibit "C"), superseding 2OI5/ SMA-B (attached
as Exhibit "D"); (2) 59-116 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'iwa,
9

10. 2OI5/SMA-24 (attached as trxhibit rrprr¡ .1
25. The inadequate applications, revisions, modifications,
and failure to correct misleadinq and inaccurate information led
to the illegal segmentation of the permitting process vlolating
HRS S 2054 and ROH Chapter 25
26. On March 9, 2076l MPW filed a petition for a
consolidated contested case hearing on appeal from the decisions
of the Planning Director, City and County of Honolulu,
Department of Planning and Permitting to issue three Special
Management Area Minor permits for the Hanapohaku LLC "sharks
Cove Commercial Development." See Case No. 2016/GEN-4. This
contested case and Developer's Petition To Intervene are still
pending.
Hale'îvta, Hawài r i '96'lï2, TMK No. 5-9-011:070 ("Parcel J0") , see
21. On April 6, 20f6l over one hundred community members
attended the North Shore Neighborhood Board Special Meeting for
the Hanapohaku LLC "Sharks Cove Commercial Development" at
I¡rlaimea Valley. At this meetinq, Developer, represented by co-
owner Andrew D. Yani, repeatedly apologized and promised to
withdraw all three SMA Minor permits.
28. On May 2, 2016, in response to Developer/s request to
withdraw the three SMA minor permits, DPP revoked all three
t Some of these
2, supra.
addresses appear to have changed" See Paragraph
10

11. permits (201'5/SMA-'24, '2O"I5/SM|A-4'l
, and 2015/ SMA-61), ordering
that aIl development authorized by these approvals be removed,
that the area be "restored to its pre-approval conditionr " and
"Ia]ny outstanding violations associated with those approvals
must be resolved (i. e., grading, etc. ) See DPP May 2, 2016
letter (attached as Exhiblt G//)
29. On May 3I, 2016, Developer applied for another SMA
Minor Permit 2016/SMA-36 for modifications of and additions to
the commercial structures orÌ Parcel 68, including converting the
dentist's office and prefabricated container buildinqs into a
commercial kitchen and correcting of existing violations. See
2016/Sl4l-36 Application File (attached as trxhibit "H") .
30. Developer's May 23, 2016 val-uation for SMA Minor
Permit 2016/SMA-36 states that the cost of converting the
dentist's offrce into a "commercial kitchen" would total $49,005
(commercial kitchen interior, Ç26,505 and commercíaf kitchen
addition, ç22,500) . In addition, Developer states the cost of a
related contarner conrmlssary building as $25,000. See 2016/SMA-
36 Application File (Exhibit H//) (J.Uno & Assoc. Inc. cost
anal-ysis at p" t3l.)
Major SMA Use permit, which would require an Environmental
31" On July 13, 2016l DPP rejected SMA Minor Permit
2076/SMA-36, stating that the appropriate remedlz for the
outstanding víolations and future development was to obtain a
11

12. Assessment. See'2076/SM?'-'36 Application'!-iIe'(Exh'ib'rt'"H"'),
also August 29, 2076, letter from DPP to Senator Riviere
(attached as Exhibít "f").
32. Despite DPP's rejection of 20L6/SMA-36, Developer
proceeded to illegally construct the "commercial kitchen" and
made a number of other unpermitted site improvements. See
2Or1 / SMA-21 (trxhibit A//
) at 3- 4 .
33. On January 23, 2011 / DPP issued a Notice of Vlolation
("NOV") to Developer for "[m]ul-tiple violations in Special
Management Area without a Special Management Area (SUa¡ permit
Structures íncluding food trucks, shipping containers, loading
trucks, septic tanks, wooden decks and stairs, tents, eating
areas with tables and benches, signs and sheds, temporary
toilets, fences, walls, parking areas and all other structures
which have not been permitted must be removed" Grading has been
undertaken without the required permit. Commercial actiwities
which lack a SMA permit must cease correct all of the
violations cited above and restore the síte to the original
conditíons allowed by approved permíts." See 2016INOV-12-I31
(attached as Exhibit "J") (emphasis added)
34. In response, Developer took no action to cure the
violations in the NOV.
35" On February 2J, 2071 / DPP issued a Notice of Order
(*NOO" ) t-o Develope:: f or "mul.tiple violations j-n Special
1aIL

13. lvlanagement'Area (Slta1 without an SMA'Use Permit." D'PP ordered
Developer to pay a fine of ç2,000.00 by March 30, 2011 and to
correct violations by March 74, 2011, after which a $500.00
Permit 2011/SMA-I4 "to allow (retain) [sic ?] exísting
daily flne would be assessed until the corrections were
completed. See ZOI]/NOO- O 0Z (attached as Exhibit K//
)
36. Developer did not comply with the NOO and continued
unpermitted development and commerciaL activities on the site.
31 . On April 1"9, 207J, while the MPW contested case was
stayed by agreement, Developer applied for yet another SMA Minor
did not demonstrate that the Project is eligible for a minor SM-A
commercial activities including food trucks, after-the-fact
grading and grubbing, construction of a parking J-ot,
installation of an j-ndividual wastewater system, and the
establishment of outdoor, covered eating and drinking areas. "
See 2011lSue-14 Apptication Fl1e (attached as Exhibit L//) at 1
38. On May 16, 2071 / DPP rejected SMA Minor Permit
2O71ISMA-14 as incompleLe, finding "that application materials
Permit" in part because the value of the food trucks was not
included. *ff the food trucks leave the site each day, the
application should specify that, and the walue of the trucks
will not need to be added Lo the total Project wal-uation. If, oh
the other hand, the food trucks will reqularly remal-n an place
for days aL a time or cannot move at all, the walue of the
13

14. trücks must be included ín the'Project valuation. In síte visits
last year, w€were led to believe that the trucks do not rnove on
a daily basls, and in fact rarely move at all. If this is the
case, the application should clearly say so. If the new proposal
involves daily movement of the trucks, the application should
indicate where they will be parked every eweníng." See
2011 /SMA-14 Application File (Exhiblt *L") (emphasis added) at 1-
2
existing[,] retail and eating estab'lishments on the site, and to
authorize site improvements" such as: clearing; gradÍng; fiÌl;
landscapírg; gravel cover; parking LoL/ sidewalk; ATU wastewater
the-fact SMA Minor Permit to allow newl, I and partially retain
system; chain link fence; trash enclosure; water Iines; and
39. On May 23, 2011, Developer re-applied for an "after-
electrical lines. Developer estimated the total valuation for
4
the development at $351,908. See 2071 /SMA-21 (Exhibit A//) at
See 2011 /Sve-21 Apptication File (Exhibit *M") . DPP approved
40. Despite DPP's unambiguous directive of May 76, 20I'/,
the valuation made no mention of the existing unpermitted food
trucks that regularJ-y remain in place for days at a time; and
did not mention the already in-place complete commercial kitchen.
a
plan submit-ted by Developer that included fjve food trucks, Lhe
value of which should have been included in the cost valuation
14

15. because, according to 'DPP, '"their use is considered
'development' for the purposes of Chapter 25, ROH"" 2011/SMA-21
2011) for SMA permit 2011 /S'IA-21 incomplete, but it is also
inadequate and misleading. The valuation inexplicably reduces
the cost of muftíple items already installed on site. for
(trxhibit A//
) at 6
41. Not only is the Developer's valuation (dated May 22,
example, oD April 16, 20IJ, Item 7, "Temp. Erosion Control
Exhibit "M") .
42" On Augrust 2, 20L1, the Planning Director approved SMA
2011 /SUa-l¿ Application File (Exhibit "L"). However¡ or May 22,
Measures, In Place Complete" was valued at $9,500.00. See
2OI1, Item L, "Temp. Erosion Control Measures, fû Place
Complet-e" was reduced by sixty-one percent without explanation
to $3,696.00. See 2071 /sYt?'-Zt Applicatlon FiIe (attached as
(Exhibit "4") at 1. There is no indication that DPP conducted a
Minor Permit 2011 /SMA-21 based on her determination that the
Project "has a stated valuation of less than $500,000, and will
have no significant ef fect on SMA resources." See 2011 /SNIA-2I
thorough and independent review of the "stated valuation."
43 " The permit approval also vÍolated HRS Chapter 2054-
26(2) (a) and ROII Chapter 25-3 "2 (b) (1) because it noL contain any
findings regardinq existing or potential cumulative impacts, or
indicate that such impacts had l¡een considered. For example,
l5

16. alone indirect, potential, and cumulative impacts. See
2011/SMA-21 (Exhibit "A") at 4. To the contrary, Dpp improperly
punted any analysis of trafflc impacts to later stages of the
âlthouÇh DPP acknowledge'd that the "Project generates traffic
congestion, " and "creates problems with vehicufar and pedestrian
safety, " DPP díd not analyze these existing direct impacts, let
permitting process/ see 2011 /SI4A-2I (Exhibit A//) at J,
notwlthstanding that traffic impacts are environmental impacts
that must be considered at the SMA stage.
44. In another indication of its underestimation of the
rmpacts/ DPP acknowledges DeveJ-oper's estimate that "each food
truck serves an average of 300 to 400 customers per day." See
2011 /SMA-2I (Exhíbit A//) at 6. This means that the total
estimated number of customers to the site is 2,000/day, or
60,000/month, or 720,0OO/year. The impacts of attractlng this
large number of customers to the site are nowhere anal-yzed by
DPP "
"compliance with the Unilateral Agreement (Ue¡ executed pursuant
45. DPP also failed to conduct an adequate analysis of
to the provrsions of the original zone change of this site to
20f1 /sua-21 (Exhibrt A) at 1 " DPP mentions only one of several
aspects of l-he UA and rgnored the Kamehemeha Highwalz
improvements requì red under the uA to address traffrc impacts
the B-1 Neighborl-rood Business District (Ordinance No " 1B-J6) ."
16

17. The permit approval does not contain any mentlon of the required
road improvements nor any analysís of traffic impacts and
congestion resulting from the "Shark's Cove Development
2OI1 / SMA-2I (Exhibit "4" ) at 2
See
46. DPP also failed to mention or address the outstandinq
flnes assessed against Developer for illegal development in the
SMA as described in DPP's own NOV and NOO. Given the history of
this developer violatlng DPP/ s orders, payment in full of the
fines, now approaching $100,000, shoufd have been a condition of
the SMA Minor Permit. See NOV and NOO (Exhibits J// and "K")
V THE PI,ANNTNG DIRECTOR/ S DECISION TO APPROVE THE SMA MTNOR
PERM]T FOR THE *SHARK'
'
CO/E DEVELOPMENT" VIOI,ATED HRS S
2O5A AND ROH CHAPTER 25.
4'7 . The Planning Director erroneoltsly approved the SMA
Minor Permit for the "Shark's Cove Development" Iocated on the
North Shore of O'ahu on Parcels 68, 69, and 70 because the
requirements for an SMA Minor Permit were not met "
48. No SII4A permlt, including an SMA Minor Permit, may be
issued unless it is first found that
adverse environmental or ecological effect/ HRS S 2054-
26 (2 ) (A) ; and
(b) The development is consistent with the ob-jectives,
policies and guidelines of Chapter 205A, HRS S 2054-
26(2) (B) "
(a) The development will not have any substantíal-
T7

18. 49. The'Planning'Director may not issue an SMA Minor
Permlt for a development unless it meets all of the tests set
out above and the valuation of the development is not in excess
of $500,000.00.
50. The Planning Dírector's decision to issue SMA Minor
Permit 2071 /SMA-ZL to "al-low new and partialty retain existing
retail and eating estab,lishments on the site, and to authorize
site improvements including girading, paved parking, outdoor
seating, wastewater management, storm water retention, and
various other improvements" violated the Part 2 Rufes and HRS S
decision of the Planning Director to issue the SMA Minor Permit
9I-L4, and a petitlon for a contested case hearing regarding the
2OI1 / SMA-2r (Exhibit "A" ) .
analyze the conditions of Lhe existing Unilateral Agreement, (5)
51 " The Planning Director's decision was arbitrary and
capricious, and contrary to law, because she negilected to: (1)
consider alI available material facts, (2) properJ-y investigate
the val-uation of the Project, (3) analyze obvious direct,
lndirect, potential and cumulative impacts prior to approval, (4)
is proper under section 12-II (a) of the Part 2 Rules. See
require the payment of fines directly related to the subject
matter of the SMA Minor Permit, and (6) require an SMA Use
Permit, in vrolatron of HRS S 205A and ROH Chapter 25
1B

19. 52. The 'Pa'rt' 2 Rules provide'for an appeal' of the decision
of the Planning Dlrector to issue SMA minor permits in section
I2-2 (a) :
Any person who is specif ically, pe,rsonally, and
adversely affected by an action of the director may request
a hearing to appeal any part or requirement of the action,
Chapter S I2-Z (a) .
q? This appeal is timely filed within thirty (30)
reversed or vacated.
published in the Office of Environmental Quality Control Notice
pay all accumufated fines, and apply for an SMA Use Permit.
on August 23, 2011. See
'i'Ild"Þdi, at 11.
54. The SMA Minor Permit is invalid and void. The
Developer should be required to correct al-I pending violations,
calendar days after notice of SMA Minor Permit 2011 /SlqA-21 was
55. Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition
to set out in more detail the reasons why the Planning
Director's decisron to issue the SMA Minor Permit must be
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, Se ember 22, 2
Ie
d
An
I
ffi¡a1a1 PÚPÚKEA-WAIMEA
ent
19