2005-04-22 tHuggett (fka Soto SMA 03-007)2

Home

Zone Management and to Rule No. 9 of the Planning Commission relating to the SMA. There are a number of conditions. The issues raised primarily related to an easement. The property presently has a 16 foot wide access to the highway and Public Works had made a comment previously and this became the source of the requirement or the suggestion that an easement be granted to 20 feet. So that grew out of a comment made by the Department of Public Works. At that time, we went into a series of negotiations with the AOAO that had filed the Contested Case and had come to an agreement on some basic concepts. When Mr. Huggett acquired the property or prior to acquiring the property he had extensive conversations with the representatives of Vacation Internationale to make sure that such an easement would be granted. And youll notice in your file there is a letter of intent to grant that 4 foot easement. I think the obvious question is why is that a letter of intent instead of the easement itself? And the answer is relatively simple. The attorneys have advised us that if the condition is granted or if this SMA is granted there would be conditions of approval some that are being proposed and some that may go out in discussions today. And its important that any negotiation of an easement that Mr. Huggett has withVacationsInternationaleshouldincorporateanyofthoseconditionswithit.Soitisclear that if the SMA is granted it is contingent upon the acquiring this easement as pointed out in this Condition Number 5 and Conditions 2 and 11. Condition 5 says that the Applicant shall connect to the existing sewer line on Alii Drive. Thats not possible unless we have that easement. So its very clear to the Applicant that this easement must be granted in order to proceed. Condition 2 states that the construction basically this is Plan Approval that has to meet with the approval of Public Works and then Condition 11 states that we must comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws. So anything to do with the adequacy of that access for either utilities or vehicular access must be approved by these various agencies. There was issue raised of a burial. Dr. Rechtman did a survey of the site and found no resources on the site, no historic resources on the site. If youve seen it its been severely disturbed by developments on both sides and its a relatively small parcel. At a hearing Ms. Nagai did make an allegation that she recalls in her youth that there had been a burial on that site. We scheduled a meeting with the representative of the AOAO, their archaeologist Dr. Rosendahl and Dr. Rechtman and we made a site visit. We could not discover evidence of a burial on site. The area that Ms. Nagai indicated that there might be a burial, where she recalls a burial is outside of our building envelope and will be before or in front of any buildings that would be constructed. It was my understanding at the time that its policy of the Burial Council not to go digging looking for burials. So that if there is no evidence of the burial that we would simply assume that there could be one there and that there would be no ground disruption. If any ground disruption would be to take place in that area we would have a monitor on site. Its not the intention of this Applicant and he does not have any plans for that area for construction. And if youll notice Condition 8 which is your standard archaeological condition that it indicates that should any remains be encountered that all work would stop and we would have to seek a work concurage from State Historic Preservation Division. The next issue is the shoreline setback issue. Im glad that Mr. Hayashi pointed out that we are not requesting a variance. We have no hardship standard. There are Rules and the Rules apply to this particular lot are 20 feet. The Applicant is asking only to be treated like any other applicant in this case. No variance is being requested. 5 EXHIBIT B