Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-16 TAINALOA.1 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 16, 2004 AINALOA DEVELOPMENT A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CORPORATION (SPP NO. 827/UP NO. 106) was called to order at 10:24 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom Î Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Vice Chair Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT AND EXCUSED:Fred Galdones Bill GrahamFlorence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: AINALOA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SPP NO. 827/UP NO. 106) a.Request for a 5-year time extension to Condition 2 (secure plan approval) of Special Permit No. 827, which allowed an expanded golf clubhouse, recreational facilities, and related improvements on 7+ acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. b.Request for a 5-year time extension to Condition 3 (secure plan approval), deletion of Condition 6 (intersection improvements), amend Condition 7 (roadway improvement), and Condition 9 (community benefit progra Permit No. 106, which allowed the development of an 18-hole golf related improvements on 200 acres of land zoned Agricultural (A-1a). The property is located along Ainaloa Boulevard at the extreme northwestern (mauka) end of Ainaloa Subdivision, approximately 3.7 miles from Keaau, Puna, TMK: 1-6-04:21 and 57. FUJIKAWA:Now we go to Item No. 5. The applicant is Ainaloa Development Corporation (SPP NO. 827/UP NO. 106). TheyÓre requesting for (a) a 5-year time extension of Condition 2 (secure plan approval) of Special Permit No. 827, which allowed an expanded golf clubhouse, recreational facilities and related improvements on EXHIBIT C 7+ acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District; and (b) request for a 5-year time extension to Condition 3 (secure plan approval), deletion of Condition 6 (intersection improvements), amend Condition 7 (roadway improvement), and Condition 9 (community benefit program) of Use Permit No. 106, which allowed the development of an 18-hole golf course and related improvements on 200 acres of land zoned Agricultural (A-1a). Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Back i November of 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit establishment of a golf course on 200 acres of land situated within the Ainaola Subdivision. FULKS:Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, point of order concerning imprope notification -. NOMURA:Please use the microphone. FULKS:You should have received this letter from Hawaiian Acres, from Hawaiian Acres Community Association, if not I have a copy. The they werenÓt notified in a timely manner -. FUJIKAWA:Let me proceed with the staff hearing first, and then IÓll call you on the stand on this matter, okay? FULKS:Okay. FUJIKAWA:At that time, youÓll be giving me your name and address, information that weÓll need. Thank you. Go ahead, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I was interrupted, also, as part of the, the Applicant has requested a Special Permit for use of the golf course clubhouse for other activities and that would, to have some evening banquet as well as to construct a swimming pool and other kinds of recreational facilities on a 7-acre portion of the property, which is situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Since that time, and there were several conditions imposed as part of this, the Use Permit application as well as the Special Permit application. The Applicant had received numerous, a number of time extensions to comply with the conditi Permit as well as the Special Permit. The Applicant is now requesting that the Commission grant another time extension for the Special Permit and the Use Permit application; and that would be Condition 2 of Use Permit No. 106 and Condition 3 of the Special Permit. The Applicant is also requesting that certain other conditions be amended or deleted for Use Permit 106. And this would be Condition No. 6 which required that the Applicant provide improvements to the intersection with Ainaloa Boulevard. Just as a matter of 2 orientation, this is the Ainaloa Subdivision. This is the Hawaiian Acres Subdivision adjacent to the subject property. We also have the Orchidland Estates Subdivision, that would be this subdivision, and that also abuts the subject property. This would be the Keaau-Pahoa Road, Highway 130. This would be in the Keaau direction and this would be the Pahoa direction. Across the street from the Ainaloa Subdivision is the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. Ainaloa Boulevard goes in this direction, in the mauka-makai direction, based on the orientation of this particular map. As I indicated earlier, Condition 6 of the Use Permit require that certain improvements be made at the intersection of Ainaloa Boulevard and Highway 130. Since the improvements were recently completed by the State Department of Transportation as part of the improvements to Highway 130, the Applicant is requesting that that particular condition be deleted. Also, the Applicant is requesting that Condition 7 of Use Permit 106 be amended. And Condition 7 of the Permit required that Ainaloa Boulevard be imp dedicable standards. The Applicant is requesting that that particular condition be amended. Also, Condition 9 of the Use Permit stipulated that there were certain community benefits that needed to be provided; and one of the requirements was to provide a water tanker and asphalt paver to the Ainaloa Subdivision Association. Since this application was, request was submitted for a time extension, we did receive a request for, or a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing by Mr. Ole Fulks. We also received numerous correspondences, one from Councilman Bob Jacobson requesting that this particular request not be granted until, unless the Applicant honor all of the Planning Director YuenÓs recommendation. We also received a correspondence from Councilman Gary Safarik, who is recommending or requesting that this, the request by the Applicant be approved. And we also received correspondences from the Ainaloa Community AssociationÓs attorney, as well as from the Hawaiian Acres Community Association representative, who is Jack Russell Brauher. With that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the staffÓs recommendation. We did provide you with the initial staffÓs recommendation. And that went out prior to the receipt of the Contested Case Hearing request, so that is being withheld at this particular time. FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. Any questions, Commissioners, to the not, will the Applicant or the ApplicantÓs representative, please step forward. And for those of you who are going to testify on this behalf, will you sign in, please. Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:I do. 3 FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Please state your name and address? FUKE:Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commissio My name is Sidney Fuke, IÓm a planning consultant. IÓm here assisting and representing Ainaloa Development Corporation, the Petitioner. FUJIKAWA:Did you receive the Planning DepartmentÓs Background Report? FUKE:Yes, I did. And we did receive it, a copy was also presented to the Applicant. We also received the Planning DirectorÓs Recommendation. But we understand that in light of the contested case filing, request for standing at any rate, the Recommendation may be a little bit premature, but we have receiv FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may proceed. FUKE:Inasmuch as you do have a pending request for standing on a contested case request, IÓd like to kind of depart a little bit and not so much talk about the substance of what has been requested as much as maybe more just making some general comments and observations. And this is kind of partially driven by a meeting that I had earlier this week with the Mayor and some of his staff members, and perhaps like a public editorial that appeared in the West Hawaii Today. Specifically, I would kind of like to compare or liken this project, or what weÓre asking for, and expectations with when you have like a holiday gathering, or just kind of gathering at your place or someone, you know, at someoneÓs home. Well, IÓve noticed like in my personal situation already, whenever we have gatherings at our place or when we get invited out, none of the guests come in empty-handed. They always bring something. out that itÓs like a potluck where everybody shares. And when you bring over a plate and then the plate is left at the personÓs home, you know, you end up washing the plate; and when you return the plate, itÓs never empty. ItÓs always maybe a small bag of cookies, or crack seed, or whatever have you. ItÓs more as a token of appreciation. ItÓs this kind of value, itÓs a value of sharing, trying not to take advantage of your host or your guest, itÓs a value of appreciation. And maybe itÓs an Asian value, maybe itÓs a Hawaiian value; but in either case, maybe itÓs just basic. I just donÓt know. But itÓs a value that I, and I think so many of us, kind of cherish and grew up with. ItÓs kind of like with that same idea that Ainaloa Development Corporation wishes to do, you know, with this project. Ainaloa Development Corporation would like to share as much as it reasonably can with the community. In terms of employment, they see this project as generating at least 50 full- and part-time positions, wanting to give area residents priority in terms of employment opportunities. It provides recreational benefits. There are provisions for reasonable access to the facilities, preferred access to golf rates, so on, and so forth. And, also, finally, in terms of what the Applicant is specifically requesting, you know, itÓs infrastructure improvements, itÓs water system, providing a standpipe for potable and firefighting purposes for the general community, and then, also, roadway improvements, which is really like the crux of what the Applicant is asking. 4 Now whether these kinds of things that the Applicant is requesting, you know, fits this Ðrational nexusÑ theory is not really like the concern of the Applicant. It reflects, I think, an attitude on the part of the developer or the Applicant to want to share as much as possible some of the benefits or rewards of this project with the broader community. At the same time, we all know that you cannot share what you donÓt have. And, at this point in time, making in excess of $3 million of roadway improve Boulevard is something that the Applicant does not have. In the past, it possibly could have with the, you know, membership program considered by many o of companies. Memberships were being sold from anywhere from $8 and, you know, you had all this so-called Ðexcess fundsÑ that could possibly be thrown into the general community pot and make these improvements. And itÓs along that line that decision-makers way back when in the late Ò80s and early Ò90s had exacted in some counties, you know, 120 million dollars of impact fees, so on an theyÓve ever realized any of those, you know, still remains to be seen; and, secondly, whether any of those Ðexactions,Ñ you know, fit the rational nexus kind of legal theories still remains to be questionable. Ainaloa Boulevard is shared not only by the Applicant but itÓs shared by well over 3,000 lot owners in that area, back in 1992 when the traffic impact study for the project was prepared. And the traffic impact to be generated by the project change, you know, so IÓm just using those kind of statistics, and then the projected volume of traffic during that time was 50 in the morning and 70 Now if you assume that not using the full 3,000 but to just assume like 1,000 trips to be generated by the Ainaloa Subdivision itself, the amount of traffic that would generated by this project, you know, in relation to the total, you know, 1,000 trip generation by others, you know, represents less than 5 or 7 percent. Now if you assume the full 3,000 lots that, you know, that have legal access to Ainaloa Boulevard, then what you have is really like this projectÓs impact represents less than 2 percent. Ainaloa Boulevard is a 20-foot paved roadway with 2- to 4-foot shoulders. True, itÓs not built to County dedicable standards. But if you look at todayÓs dedicable standard and you look at lot of these public roads that we have in this area, Waianuenue Avenue, Kaumana Drive and you know, youÓll find that they do not meet ÐCounty dedicable st nevertheless traversable. Now if you use the fair share calculation and you assume that the cost to bring Ainaloa Boulevard nevertheless to what today would consider like County dedicable standard, you may be talking on an average like a million dollars a mile or roughly like 3-1/2 miles, I mean, of roadway improvements at a cost of $3 million to $4 mi share is based upon, you know, the 5 percent traffic impact; and if you translate that, then it would amount to like about $150,000 to maybe no more than $20 share aspect of this project, you know, to improving Ainaloa Boulevard would amount to. If you put in the full 3,000 lots, on the other hand, the fair share contribution comes out only like about $60,000. 5 But notwithstanding that, what the Applicant is proposing, based upon his overall, you know, financial, the feasibility of the project, is willing to contribute a million dollars which would represent about 33 percent of the cost for the $3 million roadway improvements. And this would represent maybe 6 times, or 600 percent of its fair share, or possibly 18 times if you look at the full 3,000 lots in that area, you know, represent about 18 times more than its so-called like fair share. The question then is really like, is it fair to have this one developer or one person, one lot owner, be responsible for 100 percent of the roadway improvement cost? And my sense of fairness tells me that itÓs not fair. To use, getting back again to the party, you know, the party example I cited earlier, itÓs like, you know, asking someone to be responsible, you know, when and itÓs asking like someone to say like, okay, we have a potluck but you, you bring everything and everybody else does not bring. I think that everyone should share in the responsibilities and obligations. You know, all the beneficiaries should share and assume some measure of responsibilities and obligations in whatever they in turn reap. Notwithstanding the so-called fairness or the equity issue, the Applicant is still willing, as I noted earlier, to provide much more than its share. And with that, IÓll just kind of open up myself to questions. But more than that, you know, again, because the contested case request has been made, weÓd like to reserve more substantive jud FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. Any questions, Commissioners to the ApplicantÓs representative? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Sidney, I was talking to Norman a little earlier and he s when the original request went through in Ó92, there was a regular community meeting out there and all these things were all agreed to. I was just wondering if you have made, in the recent time frame discussions with those in the community, to see if, in fact, the somewhat reduced set of road improvements youÓre proposing are something that the community feels that is a benefit they want to get and they would go for that? FUKE:Yes, IÓve had a number of meetings with the Ainaloa Community Association. The meeting prior to the initial issuance of the permit was conducted, you know, largely with the Ainaloa Community Association. So that, again, was continued. I had met with the Board in October, November, and then December. of the Board today who will be presenting, I guess, the BoardÓs position at this time. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? If not, we do have four people signed up. The representative, please step back for a minute. We have four people signed up to testify and the gentleman who came up, is your name Jack Russell? FULKS:Ole -. 6 FUJIKAWA:Ole. Anyway, we have the four people. Please step forward to testify. You may sit in the back and -. FUKE:You want to do the Contested Case Hearing Standing first or -? FUJIKAWA:Can we? OÓTOOLE:We can do it either way, but we have to take the public testimony. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, letÓs hear from the public first. Okay, Philip B step forward? Ole Fulks, James Bunten, Burton, Gary Safarik. And any others who are testifying on this application havenÓt signed in yet, please sign up. Okay. Will all of you please raise you right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. LetÓs start off with Philip Brazier. Pleas name and address, please. BRAZIER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Philip Brazier; and represent the Ainaloa Community Association as vice president. And I am here this morning to request an extension of two months of the issuance of the permit in order to allow us to do a survey and mailing to our 3,300 membership to get a more realistic understanding of what the complete membership wants, rather than let the directors of the Board be the sole decision-makers. We feel that it would be better to have a mailing to the membership; and speaking with Mr. Fuke, he agrees that this is the way we probably should go. So I request two months extension to allow us to do the mailing. So, thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier, Mr. Brazier? If not, letÓs hear from Mr. James Bunten? BUNTEN:Yes, thank you. IÓm James Bunten. FUJIKAWA:Your address, please. st BUNTEN:My address is Alii Street, the very top between 41 and the top that borders on the golf course in Orchid -. FUJIKAWA:You have a number on it? BUNTEN:Excuse me? FUJIKAWA:Address number? 7 BUNTEN:I donÓt have a, no, an address number. I got my tax map number. Would that suffice? IÓve got my letter that you sent me in the mail. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. BUNTEN:Okay. IÓll point out my two lots. If this is Alii Street here, which I assume it is, and this is the new proposed golf course, I have two lots approximately in the middle of this Par 5 third hole that runs along the back there. One of my lots, the lot I live on, itÓs the southern-most lot there. ItÓs approximately in the middle of that Par 5 third hole on this proposed golf course. And I have two acres bulldozed behind my house that has, is a small farm growing on it. And I have over 100 fruit trees, and IÓve got probably maybe an acre of organically-grown pineapple there. And I have, my other lot is for future farming. ItÓs raw land at the moment. But my con worried about chemical runoff from the golf course onto my farm, FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, to the testifier? Thank you. Next, we have Gary Safarik. State your name and address, please. SAFARIK:My name is Gary Safarik, and I reside at, in the Ainaloa Subdivision. My mailing address is 25 Aupuni, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. I represent District 5, Puna Makai, on the Hawaii County Council. Mr. Chairman, may I also make a correction, if I could, for the record on your map? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. SAFARIK:With all due respect to you, Norman, the map appears to incorrect insomuch as that it does not identify the Tiki Gardens Subdivision that also abuts in this area here with the Ainaloa Boulevard. So that they are also a community that we need to identify that has a vested interest in this issue. First, IÓd like to start off with my mentioned support that I do have a communication that I have submitted to this body, but I think that I wonÓt read that. IÓll let you folks look at that and identify it for yourself. But what IÓm here to do today, basically, is to lend my support, based on some historical data that IÓm going to provide for you. But before I begin, I would like to say that, from time-to-time, the Ainaloa Association and myself have come down on opposite sides of the fence for one reason or another. Today, I think weÓre coming down on the same side of the fence i like to see a deferral so that we can allow the community to speak to this issue with a mailing, or whatever mechanism that would be appropriate that we may look at as a voice of that community. So from that perspective, Mr. Chairman, IÓd like to make that public statement. 8 The rationale for my support of this project is that in the Puna region, District 5, weÓre one of the poorest underserved regions in this community. Our recreational opportunities are slim to none. I want to identify for this body that in the Puna region in District 5, in any County playground or State playground that can be identified, there is not one piece of recreational equipment for the youth. IÓll state it again, there is not one piece of recreational equipment on any of our State or County parks in the District 5, Puna Makai region. With this itÓs said that, the opportunities that a golf course, a tennis court and a swimming pool would afford our citizens, not only in Ainaloa, but the greater Puna Makai region, I think, goes without being said, the infrastructure opportunities and improvements that this project would afford the Ainaloa community. But more than community of improving the roadway system but, also, when you look at this roadway and you look at the historic value of the Ainaloa Boulevard, which is commonly called the Puna Emergency Access Road, this road affords the people in the excess of 20,000 people, an alternate route out of the Puna region if there is a disaster or if there is a blockage of Highway 130. This artery is very important to us. So important that in 1997 this County applied for a Federal grant and received $1.8 million of Federal taxpayers funds to resurface that entire roadway system, along with the roadway system that it connects with Road 8. With those monies, this County purchased a connector lot that would connect Hawaiian Acres and the Ainaloa Subdivision, correction, Ainaloa Boulevard so that these two roadways could connect and provide for an alternate route out of Puna, or a route for the people in Hawaiian Acres to have the opportunity to go into the makai region where a lot of people work, a lot of people bring their children to school, a lot of people have baby-sitting and child care issues. My feeling is that this roadway system allows our communities to operate as one. WeÓre not looking at being divisive here. WeÓre looking at trying to provide for all the communities so that we have access to the services, as well as having emergency access up and down, mauka and makai. The public safety issue that weÓre dealing with in that roadway system goes without being said. Our firefighting capabilities would be greatly enhanced if we had the opportunity to have a well at that location which ultimately could provide us with another tool, another weapon, if you will, in our firefighting arsenal, which during the drought seasons in the Puna Makai and Upper Puna regions becomes very challenged. Historically, this road has been a private road; and, historically, the Ainaloa community has tried to provide an access through this roadway system. But been challenged as a community from a liability issue where people are traveling on this roadway system, and I may add itÓs a private roadway system at this particular time. Although that can be debated, once the County spends $1.8 million in resurfacing that road, I think that this County has liability whether we want to admit it or not, my opinion only. 9 With that, I think that what weÓre looking at here is a communit improvements. That roadway system is not up to what we classify as dedicable standards. However, it does provide a paved access through Ainaloa and connecting with the Hawaiian Acres Subdivision which, in essence, connects Highway 11 with Highway 130, a very important route between Upper and Lower Puna, and a very important route if Highway 130 is ever blocked as it has been in the past for various reasons. So, Mr. Chairman and Members of the esteemed Commission, I ask y souls on this one, because youÓre going to hear testimony that says that thereÓs various issues that would provide a rationale to block this approval. But I submit to you that half a loaf is better than no loaf. And what weÓre looking at is a $3 million road improvement requirement to improve AinaloaÓs 3.7 miles of roadway. The deve $1 million to provide for improvements along that roadway. I have polled my colleagues, and I think that one of my colleagues sitting in this room today agrees with me that that should be a County roadway. We somehow should find a way to provide for that being a public access route. We will wo the Ainaloa Association to do that in the future. But for today if we impose the restrictions of the original approval of this Special Use Permit that was offered in 1992, I think, in essence, whatÓs going to happen is the developer will walk. And if they walk, that means that that roadway system -. And let me explain to you another thing, that in the Puna region, weÓre the fastest-growing district in the State of Hawaii. Whether we have the infrastructure or the roadway systems or not, the people will move into that district because itÓs a beautiful place to live, number one. IÓve lived in that subdivision for 20 years. It also affords, itÓs a very affordable place to build a home, to raise your children, to provide for agricultural activities. But I think that, at this particular juncture, this roadway system also has been entangled in other issues that may convolute the decisions of this Board. Please try to identify that if this developer walks, the County of Hawaii will then be saddled with the respons -, IÓm sorry, the Ainaloa residents will be saddled with the responsibility of improving that roadway. The Ainaloa residents will be responsible for improving that roadway which is being used now by the greater population of Upper and Lower Puna. I donÓt thatÓs fair to us in Ainaloa. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of this Commission, I speak in support of this endeavor. And I would hope that if there are any questions or any feelings that may, at this particular time, lead you to believe that this may not be a good project, I make myself available for any of those questions. Thank you, sir. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, to the testifier? If not, Commissioners, the person whoÓve, Ole Fulks, heÓs the person who filed the Contested Case application; and I would like to hear his testimony after I hear from everyone else. I do have Julie Jacobson, who signed in. And is there any other people who signed in to 10 testify on this application? You three may, except Ole -. You may sit there, Ole, and the rest of you may sit down. Julie, I havenÓt sworn you in yet. Can you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? JACOBSON:I do. FUJIKAWA:Please state your name and address? JACOBSON:My name is Julie Hedgecock Jacobson. IÓm known as Juli Jacobson, and my address is Post Office Box 900, Kurtistown, mai address, 16-1672 Opeapea Street, Hawaiian Acres. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may proceed with your testimony. JACOBSON:Okay. Thank you very much. IÓm first going to read into the record the letter from the Hawaiian Acres Community Association; and this letter was drafted by our president, Jack Russell Brauher and then at our Board meeting this past Sunday it was approved by unanimous vote of the members. So IÓll read that first and then IÓve just a couple of my own comments. ÐAs representatives of the owners, and as owners, of the collectively owned Hawaiian Acres road lot [TMK 1-6-13-081:6213], the Hawaiian Acres Communi AssociationÈwe contend that the Planning Commission hearing for a time extension and modification of Ainaloa Development Corporations Use PermitÈand Special PermitÈbe declined.Ñ I didnÓt read those numbers in there, just to make it simpler, but theyÓre in the written draft. ÐIt is Hawaiian Acres Community AssociationÓs contention, that because Hawaiian AcresÈprovides transportation access via the Puna Emergency Access RoadÈ, we would have legal standing that would require notification to all owners of TMK 1-6-13- 081:6213. This is the opinion of the Hawaii County Planning Director Chris Yuen per the discussion that took place by telephone with Hawaiian Acres Community Association th President Jack Russell Brauher on Jan. 5, 2004. ÐAt the time of the initial approval given to the Ainaloa Development Corporation in 1992 for these permits, Hawaiian Acres did not provide access. CountyÈacquired TMK 1-6-045-073-5472,Ñ these are our road lots, Ðfor the purpose of connectingÑ Hawaiian Acres, the connector lot, and Hawaiian, excuse me, ÐAinaloa and Hawaiian Acres to create the Puna Emergency Access Road. The impact that Ainaloa Development CorporationÓs golf course project will have on the PEAR and other Hawaiian Acres roads, and the Hawaiian Acres community is real and definite. It is unfortunate that the developers have not recognized these facts. 11 ItÓs equally unfortunate that Hawaiian Acres only became aware of the proposed Planning Commission hearing during the first week of Jan. 2004. Had Hawaiian Acres been given adequate and proper notice, Hawaiian Acres Board members could have taken up the business of discussing the possibility of contesting the pending application to extend and modify in a timely manner. However, such was not the that the Hawaiian Acres Board meeting of January 11, 2004 took p before the hearing, thus rendering us incapable of meeting the one week requirements for a Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearings. ÐIt is therefore our position that any hearing on this issue without our inclusion be determined invalid and improper. ÐFurther, we respectfully request the Planning Commission either defer this matter until Hawaiian Acres has been included in the discussions, as has Ainaloa, or vote no on the Ainaloa Development CorporationÓs request for time extension and modification of their proposed project.Ñ So thatÓs the gist of this and we had a discussion. And I just want to kind of put it in this frame work. Though there are different opinions about the, having the PEAR open as a public road, this is not controversial in our community. There was a coming around to a complete understanding of the people present at that meeting about this. And some may vary about even the ultimate disposition of the project, but everyone agreed that it seemed like we shouldnÓt make this extension and we shouldnÓt le for these kinds of improvements, and the idea that we are as much affected by this as the surrounding areas. And IÓm going to take off my community association hat and say that I feel this way, and this was also brought up by several people at the meeting, that the whole idea should be reconsidered whether a golf course is, if it does harm communiti tremendous problems with water runoff, with destroying a forested area, continual clearing, and affect some people on water catchment. And then, you know, a lot of us question whether the practicality of it is being something that the residents in our area, even if it were open to public golfing, given the really dire poverty and increasing poverty of the Puna area, that it wouldnÓt probably be something that the majority of the community could afford even at what would be the most practical, affordable rates that they could offer. So thatÓs my sense of it as an individual. And thank you so much; and IÓve provided the one letter with the original signature from Jack Russell Brauher. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay, thanks, Julie. Commissioners, any question to the testifier? Go ahead, Director Yuen? YUEN:I would like to make a comment because IÓm quoted in this l and not accurately quoted; and I need to explain what I did and didnÓt say to Mr. Brauher. In response to a question from Mr. Brauher about whether, because of the fact that the 12 PEAR, the Hawaiian Acres Road, may provide access to the site, if the community, if the Hawaiian Community Association asked for standing in a contested case hearing, I said that in my view they would have, they should be given standing in a contested case hearing, although this would, the decision on this would be up to the Planning Commission. The second part of the sentence where he quotes me is not accura did not say that the owners of the Hawaiian Acres road lot need to be given notice. This is a different question. IÓm not sure whether the road lot comes with, first of all, whether the road lot itself comes within 500 feet of the surrounding property. However, even if it did, itÓs my understanding that the road lot is owned in common by the 4,000 or so lot owners of Hawaiian Acres. In those circumstances, the Planning Department has not required notice to multiple owners in the subdivisions where there are thousands or hundreds of owners of road lots even when the Special Permit application or Use Permit application adjoins, actually adjoins the road lot. We havenÓt required that notice be given to all owners of the road lot. We have required notice when you have a road lot thatÓs owned by a few people being served by the road. So I need to clarify that as a point. I did not talk to them about whether notice would be required to the owners of the road lot. JACOBSON:If I could make one quick statement. Thank you for tha clarification. And even at the time of the letter I questioned that we shouldnÓt be putting your views in here. However, the Board members felt strongly that that was, and I tried, you know, was accurate according to our president. So, I actually, if I had my preference would have left out statements from you to that regard. But, thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Okay, great. Any other questions, Commissioners, to the testifier or the Planning Director? If not, are there any other people in the audience who would want to testify on this particular application who have not yet signed in? If not, thank you, Julie. Go ahead, you may testify. You want to state your FULKS:Yes, my name is Ole Fulks and I live in Orchidland Subdivision, lot adjoining the proposed development, actually, two lots above Jim Bunten, who testified earlier. I also own a lot in Ainaloa and I own a house in Hawaiian Acres. As has already been said, Hawaiian Acres lot owners own the roadways in common. So I essentially am an owner of the Hawaiian Acres portion of the PEAR or the Puna Community Access Road. I have a document here dated September 26, 2003 to the Planning Yuen from the developers, Ainaloa Development Corporation. Under Justification of Request on page 6, thereÓs, this is letter b., Infrastructure and Community Development or Community Benefits Request, 1, Adequacy of Infrastructure. Second paragraph reads, ÐRelative to Ainaloa Boulevard, the County recently improved this road to provide a connection to the Hawaiian Acres Subdivision and beyond. While portions of this road may still not comport to current County dedicable standards, it 20-plus feet with 4-foot grassed shoulders. This level of improvement is generally 13 comparable or better than many public roads on the island.Ñ Wel talking of the PEAR, the Puna Community Access Road. And the Hawaiian Acres portion which is now, this is the big change since the permit was granted. The biggest change I see is that this PEAR road has gone in. And so now Hawaiian Acres is an access to the development, in fact. They claim itÓs not a legal access but, in fact, it is an access. And this statement is not true as far as the Ainaloa, I Acres portion of that roadway. There are no shoulders whatsoever and the lanes are only 8 feet wide. And the community association in Hawaiian Acres and a lot of the residents feel that itÓs not really a safe road. Still, although we thank the County very much for their improvements in this, it has made it much, much better than it used to be, but I think it needs to, I think weÓd like to see it, weÓd like to see it as a 20-foot pavement width and 4- foot grassed shoulders before a commercial development is using that road. ItÓs going to bring a substantial lot more traffic, we feel, through the subdivision. And then on the permit, letÓs see, Condition 5, yeah, Condition 5 states in part, ÐThe Applicant shall provide all off-site roadway improvements as may be required by and meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.Ñ I think this perhaps pertains to what I just said here. And No. 6, the developers are asking, or saying, well, the Keaau-Pahoa Road has already been channelized now by the State so they wonÓt need to do that. And, well, another concern I have is on the PEAR, the County connecting lot has become a dumping place for a lot of, people dump cars there, rubbish or whatnot because itÓs a secluded area and they can get away with it, essentially. And Ainaloa, Hawaiian Acres, you know, both communities donÓt like this situation of the dumping, and the golf course isnÓt going to like it either. One solution that I have for that partial solution is in lieu of the channelization, IÓd like to see a park developed there so that thereÓs community activity happening there; and I donÓt know just what this park would consist of. I mean, IÓve thought of a pavilion, and basketball court, and a fenced keiki play area. But, anyway, all thatÓs open to discussion. But if a County park could be situated there, thereÓd be community activity and thereÓd be some regular maintenance; and this might take care of that trash dumping problem. One other little thing here, I think itÓs pretty manini but on Condition No. 12, when part of it states further, well, and itÓs stating ÐFurther, top soil material hauling traffic shall be restricted to the calculated non-peak hours;Ñ and I would ask that the word ÐdaylightÑ be inserted in there. ItÓs just kind of a no-brainer but Ðnon-peak daylight hours.Ñ You know, we donÓt want them hauling all night. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fulks, can you focus on why you want standing on this? FULKS:Pardon? 14 FUJIKAWA:Can you focus on why you want the standing on this hearing, in this case? FULKS:ItÓs mainly because of, my number one issue here that the infrastructure, the roadway through Hawaiian Acres is not adequate. And I, or we would like to see it brought up to a standard that is adequate. WeÓd like to see this 4-foot grassy shoulders and the 10-foot lanes, the 20-foot paved roadway, or at least, or brought up to County dedicable standards, whatever they may be. FUJIKAWA:Ms. Jacobson, you have a question? JACOBSON:Well, I was thinking of a fact, what I consider a fact that relates to your question that I was hoping Mr. Fulks would say, and if any of you disagree with the facts go ahead. But itÓs that unlike Hawaiian Acres, as Mr. Yuen explained, weÓre looking at based on being undivided interest in the road. His is distinctly different from that because itÓs his own lot, his own Orchidland lot that is, shares the border with the properties. So just that legal matter of a fact that -. What that means to you all IÓm not going to comment on, but I want you to understand that distinction between his standing versus Hawaiian AcresÓ standing. So thank you for -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Good. Are you, do you have any more to testify, Mr. Fulks? FULKS:No, I think IÓve covered my -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions with any of the testifiers? Commissioner Springer, go ahead. SPRINGER:I have a question of the testifiers with the procedure? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. With the Planning Director? SPRINGER:We have to have at least a couple of requests to continue, to defer this discussion. Do we need to make a decision of the contested case today regardless, or may we continue or defer this before we make a decision on the standing? OÓTOOLE:I would prefer to see it decided even if, you know, itÓs held in abeyance for discussions, or whatever, similar to this morningÓs thing. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Fulks, you are the one requesting standing for a contested case hearing here. Could you tell us real explicitly where your property is in regards to the petitionerÓs property, and also whether you use that Ainaloa Boulevard yourself on a regular basis? 15 FUJIKAWA:Go ahead up to the map and point it out to the staff, and staff will hand you the microphone and the pointer. FULKS:Okay. This is the proposed development; and my lot is, le st this would be 41 Street. My lot is approximately here. FUJIKAWA:Here would be on the right side of the development? FULKS:Yes. GRAHAM:And it borders the development. ThereÓs not intervening lots, is that correct? FULKS:That is correct. GRAHAM:Thank you. And do you use Ainaloa Boulevard yourself at all or is that not your access way? FULKS:I do use Ainaloa. As I stated earlier, I own a lot also in Ainaloa Subdivision. I also own a lot in Hawaiian Acres out somewhere in this area; and often, you know, IÓll be driving through here. Sometimes IÓll be visit sometimes IÓll be visiting my lot here. GRAHAM:Thank you. FULKS:Yes, I do use that somewhat regularly. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Commissioners, to any of the testifiers? If not, testifiers, you may sit -. You have any questions, Ms. Jacobson? JACOBSON:Well, I have one very quick statement that relates to the question you asked Ole Fulks a fact about it. That because there are no legal accesses from, directly from, although there are many roads that almost connect from Orchidland to Hawaiian Acres, anyone who would want to travel on a road, well, (a) that a normal vehicle could travel and (b) they wouldnÓt be illegally trespassing to do so, would need to go down to Highway 130, or, not necessarily, they would need to get back on Ainaloa Boulevard, or else go all the way to Highway 11 and enter from Highway 11 to go to Hawaiian Acres. So the only way from Ainaloa, Orchidland, Tiki Gardens, practically speaking, without going many times further out of your way would be Ainaloa Boulevard; and many of us do have family and friends and need to go between the two, and school buses need to go between the two; and many, many people need that, given the thousands of people that live in all those subdivisions. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. 16 JACOBSON:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, you have heard from the testifiers and also there is some of the written testimonies that were presented to you. You testifiers may sit down right now. Will the ApplicantÓs representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke, you have heard the testimonies from these people. Any questions? FUKE:Just a couple of comments, I guess, like first, in relation to Mr. Ole FulksÓ testimony, just to provide some clarification, you know, I guess in response to Commissioner GrahamÓs one. ItÓs my understanding that Mr. Fulks, his residence is in Orchidland Subdivision and his property abuts the Ainaloa Development CorporationÓs property. He does, however, have properties that he owns in both Hawaiian Acres and as well as in Ainaloa, but his residence is in Orchidland Subdivision. Orchidland Subdivision does not have any direct access to Ainaloa Boulevard. As Julie had indicated, you have to get back down to the main highway and get back out again. With respect to his request for a contested case hearing, inasmuch as he is a property owner, I think that our hands are kind of tied. We would hope that, you know, we could avoid going through the more laborious and possibly costly contested case hearing. I did have discussions with Mr. Fulks yesterday. There were a number of lot-related issues, his property-related issues that I think are resolvable. With respect to the request of trying to provide greater improvements to the Hawaiian Acres roadway, if that is the residual issue, then, I think that really would be, from the ApplicantÓs standpoint, not really workable, you know, in terms of arriving at a mutual agre things that he did request, I think, are accommodatable. I would like to also note that in relation to what Mr. Bunten had indicated, I think that his concerns are very well taken. And the Applicant, you know, inasmuch as the tentative plan calls for having his potable wells constructed on the property, would have to be very mindful of the, not having anything on the property that would degrade the quality of the well. The Commissioners just recently went through the Kohanaiki SMA approvals which had some rather stringent conditions relating to golf course, you know, because of the sensitivity of the properties relative to the coastal properties and archaeological resources. If the Commission, during the course of the contested case hearing or otherwise, deem that itÓs appropriate to Ðcrank upÑ the requirements for golf course development or golf course management system, comparable to what was considered for the Kohanaiki project, then the Applicant would certainly want to consider that. And, lastly, what Mr. Brazier of the Ainaloa Community Association had noted that they wanted to have like a two-months continuance so as to enable all affected property owners, you know, to give their sense on or their position relative to what has been proposed, you know, we have no objection. But going back again to what your Deputy Corporation Counsel has advised, we would request that at least the contested case hearing portion be determined that, you know, it is necessary. And, hopefully, if it can be 17 avoided like your Planning Director indicated, if you can avoid it before the hearings officer is actually paid, then, you know, that really would be the best of both worlds. But if you cannot, then possibly we can then get started in March. FUJIKAWA:Great. FULKS:Mr. Chairman, may I just correct one statement that Sidney made. th He was in error. Orchidland roadways do connect directly to Ainaloa Boulevard; 37, thth 36, 35, all connect directly to Ainaloa Boulevard so that -. FUKE:Oh, okay. FULKS:Orchidland does not have to go onto the highway, minor point but -. FUKE:Okay, I stand corrected. FULKS:I think Sidney wasnÓt aware of that. FUKE:Yeah, thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. Mr. Fuke, are you completed? FUKE:Correct. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, do you have any questions with the ApplicantÓs representative at this time? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. I was wondering regarding Mr. FukeÓs comments on perhaps extending discussions at this time, IÓm wondering if Mr. Fulks is intent on standing by this application for standing in a contested case? FULKS:Yes, I am. SPRINGER:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any other questions? Commissioners, you have question with the Director or anybody? None? Do I hear which way you want to do, what you care to do so? MCCALL:I move that we grant standing to Ole Fulks in this matter. SPRINGER:Second. 18 FUJIKAWA:It was, motion was made by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Springer that this, grant standing on this application. Do we have any questions? No questions? Go ahead? HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair, motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Mr. Fuke, so youÓre now aware of happening? FUKE:Correct. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Thank you for the testifiers. In the meant you want to do with the hearings officer, Director? YUEN:The Commission should take a vote on whether they want to have a hearings officer, whether they want to handle it themselves, or if any Commissioners want to volunteer to be the hearings officer. 19 FUJIKAWA:Commissioners? McCall? MCCALL:I would move that we ask the Director to hire a hearings officer to hear this. FUJIKAWA:Is that a motion? MCCALL:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Do I hear a second? MINA:Second. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner McCall and seconded b Commissioner Mina that a hearings officer be hired through, by the Director. Go ahead, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:On our second approval for the contested case hearing today, are we still within the budget? YUEN:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Okay, any other questions? Roll call, staff? HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? 20 GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Nora James, Transcriber 21