2007-02-15 twaikoloadevco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GALDONES: A question to Mr. Yuen: If what Mr. Iwashita suggested is incorporated in the recommendation, does this apply only to the Applicant or does that also apply to all of the other golf courses that have the same kind of activity along the coast line? C. YUEN: Well, there is no way to separate out the monitoring; the monitoring is done for the resort as a whole. So I think that’s why you have these two attorneys in front of you – one representing this particular Applicant and the other representing the resort as a whole – because the resort, Waikoloa Development, does the monitoring, not necessarily the Applicant for this project within Waikoloa Resort. They are both involved because the SMA Permit covers the resort as a whole. But if you amend the condition for the water quality monitoring, it’s something that applies to the project as a whole. And from the standpoint of the County doesn’t care who bears the expense, you know, how it’s allocated within a particular resort, and I don’t know how internally a resort like that allocates – whether they make the different applicants or the different sub-entities contribute, or whether they just cover it as part of their services that are involved in the resort. But there isn’t a way to separate this out, because this is a golf course that covers a large area mauka of the existing development. The only exception would be there may be some kinds of wells that get monitored on site. But if you are talking about the coastal water quality, you have to go out in a boat and take it or from the shore, and there is no way to separate out what’s caused by two new golf courses or from something else that’s going on. GALDONES: Thank you. GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner? WATANABE: Mr. Chair, I believe we are at an impasse because for one thing we only have six Commissioners here. It’s obvious to me we are going to have two no votes; we need five to carry on. We also have disagreement amongst the applicants; if we are going to increase the monitor requirements, one of them respectfully withdraws their request for the extension, the other is willing to proceed. And I’m not sure I agree that a resort has to be responsible for the monitoring of animal lives, sediments, and to what extent that is the responsibility of the resort as opposed to the state. So you know, I think we are arguing a much broader issue here. I would suggest that we call for a vote because I don’t expect it to pass anyway; we don’t have the votes. So why continue this discussion that I’m not sure is all that germane to this particular Application. GRAHAM: Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner Rho? RHO: Can I just elaborate on Mr. Watanabe’s comment? And I guess the reason I asked about this way out of compliance for those ponds and the response is basically nobody is responsible for compliance and nobody is responsible for governing the ponds. In the popular or the common folk like me – I consider myself as average person – my understanding was that the ponds were doing fine and in fact improving. And I based it on just maybe one article that I read in a plane flying over to Oahu and back. And I think the resorts have a responsibility, and I get the impression that they take that seriously in preserving water quality, etc. etc. But on the other hand, because we don’t have any enforcement power – I’m not talking about the Commission itself, I’m talking about statewide, as described by the person testifying – it’s like asking the fox to guard the hen house. So I don’t care how many requirements you placed on the resort or the developer, if we then ask the developer to give us a report, because we have no funds or no EXHIBIT C 19