Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-17 HUGGETT SMA03-007 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT June 17, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WESLEY AND KELLEY HUGGETT (Formerly ERIC SOTO - SMA 03 007) was called to order at 9:09 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai€i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer Jeffrey McCallC. Kimo Alameda Rene Siracusa AndrewIwashita Allen Salavea William R. Graham Rodney H. Watanabe Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: WESLEY AND KELLEY HUGGETT (Formerly ERIC SOTO - SMA 03 007) Continued hearing on a Special Management Area Use Permit application to allow the construction of a three and one-half story, 45-foot high, 12-unit multi-family residential development and related improvements on approximately 15,203 square feet of land. The property is located on the west (makai) side of Alii Drive, adjacent to and north of the Sea Village Condominium complex, Kahului, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-19:30. GALDONES:Commissioners we are on agenda item number 1. Applicant is Wesley and Kelley Huggett, formerly Eric Soto „ SMA 03-007. This is a continued hearing on a Special Management Area Use Permit application to allow the construction of a three and one-half story, 45-foot high, 12-unit multi-family residential development and related improvements on approximately 15,203 square feet of land. Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning members of the Planning Commission. This application has been pending and has been continued on the Planning Commissions agenda since 2003. All of you are familiar with the basic background information on this particular request. Since the last hearing last month we received 2 correspondences. One EXHIBIT A 1 was from Charles Buscemi and the other from a William and Rebecca Hunt. The Hunts had submitted a letter stating their opposition to the request. Mr. Buscemi had expressed some issues and concerns that he had and I assume that Mr. Buscemi is here to present testimony on this issue. The Planning Director is still recommending approval of this particular request. We submitted to you an amended or revised recommendation and if you look atthe top of the recommendation its dated June 7, 2005. We are recommending approval. And basically what we did was make some changes by incorporatingconcerns or in the recommendation portion addressing the PASH and the Ka Paakaidecisions. Also talking about the biological recognizance of the property and the other historical and cultural resources concerns or issues, we also, as presented at our last meeting added a new condition number 3, which states that a 20- foot wide easement shall be provided for vehicular access and utilities to the project site. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Norman? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No, I just had a couple of specific questions about the recommendations nottheconditionsofapprovalbutyouknow-sinceweoftenadopttheserecommendationsif they go along with something ahead on pages 2 and 3 of the recommendations. And, maybe theyre just more wording issues but you know, it feels to me they do touch on relevant things. Like on the first new paragraph on page 2 about a third of the way down says the revised project will not create significant adverse impacts upon immediately adjacent properties as surrounding properties are zoned and in residential and commercial uses. Because of something being residential and commercial use doesnt necessarily indicate to me that there wont be impacts because of something going on adjacent. So I just was kind of wondering about the logic of a sentence like that, if you had any thoughts about that. HAYASHI:And your question is? GRAHAM:I dont find a logical progression in that sentence. It sounds like the- as surrounding property zoning seems to be the basis for saying theres no significant adverse impacts upon immediately adjacent properties and that doesnt sound very logical to me. HAYASHI:Well this is basically what we are representing that we feel that there is no substantial adverse impact based on what surrounding uses of the area is. Single family residential, the Sunterra office structure and the Sea Village. However if the Commission feels that that is not a finding that they would like to include you are free to delete that particular finding. GRAHAM:Sure and maybe what youre saying- another way is that, this is not a conclusion based upon purely the zoning of adjacent properties. This is more of a summary sentence or something is that correct? HAYASHI:Oh yes, yes. GRAHAM:Okay. And then on, a little farther down the page it talks about the view corridor. So this would be like about 6 lines up from the bottom. And it says there is a better EXHIBIT A 2 unobstructed viewpoint a few hundred feet north of the property. And Im just wondering if, you know if theres an assurance that that better unobstructed viewpoint will remain as such in the future. Is that a viewpoint thats seen right from the road and theres no problem or is that a viewpoint that may go away in the future? HAYASHI:Well, Im trying to- GRAHAM:Okay. HAYASHI:Its been a while since Ive looked at this also so. GRAHAM:Sorry. HAYASHI:Are you referring to the second to the last paragraph that saysthat the viewplanetotheshorelinetowardthepropertyfromKuakiniHighwayandtheQueenKwillnot be impacted? Is that it or? GRAHAM:The one right before that. HAYASHI:There is a better unobstructed view a few hundred Well basically it says that there are other areas that would provide this viewplane from Alii Drive to the shoreline and basically what our- this statement means. GRAHAM:Yeah I understood it as such. My question is, I dont want to be in a musical chair situation wheres this other viewplane in the future. It may no longer be a viewplane. Is that a viewplane thats not going to be interrupted in the future is what Im asking? HAYASHI:As far as that particular area is an open space thats right next to the bay so I think if you-. Thats an area, which is actually in front of a property thats going to be discussed at a future meeting. I think its Kahului landing, I think thats the area that were referring to. GRAHAM:Okay, does that mean like the viewplane makai from the highway there, theres nothing that will come up in the future that may obstruct that. HAYASHI:Thats correct. Yes. Yes. GRAHAM:Good, thank you. And then the third one I had was again on, this ones on the top of page 3 and the first new sentence there it says, again maybe this is a wording thing. The proposed development would not have any adverse impacts to the recreational resources of the area, ‚asƒ the shoreline fronting the property is very rocky. So, I dont know, I mean rocky shorelines are certainly used for recreational resources like fishing and snorkeling and all that so again maybe its the word ‚asƒ in there. It doesnt feel to me that saying the shorelines rocky is sufficient to say well then it wont have any adverse impacts but maybe thats not what youre trying to say. EXHIBIT A 3 HAYASHI:Well basically were saying that this particular area has not historically been used for residential, recreational purposes although the area has been used for fishing purposes. There are other recreational areas in close proximity to the subject property and one of the area is that area by Kahului, I think its Kahului Landing, whichis further north of the subject property that we talked about not having an obstructed- having a unobstructed view from Alii Drive. GRAHAM:Yeah, so then again maybe similar to the first one I brought up then, the word ‚asƒ in the middle is not implying- HAYASHI:Yeah, you know that could be. GRAHAM:Cause or something like that. HAYASHI:Yeah. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Further discussion, any questions of Norman Commissioners? Seeing nonemaywehavetheApplicantorhisrepresentativespleasecomeforward?Mr.Mooerslet me just swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai¡i County Planning Commission? MOOERS:I do. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers could you please state your name and your residence address for the record? MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. My address is Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawai¡i, 96743. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers you having heard the discussion, the background report is still the same but the recommendations have been revised. Do you have any-. First of all do you have copies of them and do you have any comments to them? MOOERS:Yes I do have copies. I do have a couple of comments Id like to address some of Mr. Grahams points. And then Id like an opportunity at the end to, I know there are people to testify today, to address any issues that may be raised. Just in summary I would point out that this is I think the 8th hearing on this project and the hearing is for Special Management Area Use Permit, its not a change of zone application. Regarding Mr. Grahams comments, the first one I think regarding the adverse impacts typically the issue I know when we do an analysis is always is the use consistent with adjoining properties. So in other words, would you be introducing a use thats inconsistent? And in this case since you have a 130-unit condo right next to this project the assumption was that the use would be consistent and it would not be detrimental. I understand thats a pretty wide ranging statement but that was used in the analysis. EXHIBIT A 4 Regarding the viewplane I think Norman adequately addressed it that the viewplane over Kahului Bay is the view that Dr. Terry and this by the way comes directly from Dr. Terrys visual impact analysis, which is an appendix or exhibit to the application. Regarding the recreational resources, there are really 2 issues here, 1 is theres a surf spot known as Tikis out in front of the property and surfers access that from Kahului Bay, its a much easier method to get into the water rather than go out over the rocks. Any fishing that takes place on the shoreline would continue to take place, theres no effort to restrict any lateral access along the shoreline there. Over the last two years a number of issues have been raised Id just like to review them briefly and then if theres any new specific information introduced today, Ill address that. I think the Director has gone through, looked at the appropriate zoning. Hes obviously, weve had a great deal of testimony on this and hes still recommending approval. The easement issue, if you look at your condition number 3 and 12 it requires that the easement be provided and theres been some question about whether or not Vacations Internationale has provided it, will provide it, whatever. Its quite clear that if they do not provide it we dont have a permit, for a numberofreasons,condition3,condition12andalsosewerconditionwhichiscondition number 6. So that the Commission has great assurance that if that easement is somehow not obtained as Vacations Internationale has promised then the permit would not be valid. I will point out, I went back and looked at the last I think 12 SMAs Ive received and I have never had a condition placed on a driveway width within an SMA thats always been an issue thats been addressed at Plan Approval. Im not saying it shouldnt be considered but Im saying that its unusual and we have no problem accepting the 20 feet that came from the Department of Public Works. The next issue was raised was the issue of the burial. The site and the site you realize is a very small site; its less than half an acre was inventoried by Dr. Rechtman and his inventory survey is included. At one of the earlier hearings, Ms. Nagai alleged that there was a burial there, she was aware of during her youth. At that time we scheduled a meeting with Ms. Nagai and the attorney, or excuse me the Archaeologist representing the Sea Village Association Paul Rosenthal and Dr. Rechtman and I, myself went out and the 4 of us walked over the site could find no physical evidence of any burial at that time. Ms. Nagai did indicate that the burial she thought was near the old kiawe tree and so we talked with our architect Mr. Foulk and he assured us that that tree and the burial are going to be within the setback area so that theres no effort to build over a burial. Dr. Rechtman recommended and we concur that a archaeological monitor should be present on the site when theres any ground disruption so that if any sites, whether this site or some other site are discovered that all work would stop and State Historic Preservation Division would be notified and we would comply with whatever conditions they might have. Theres been an issue raised regarding the determination of what the setback should be and I think youll notice in some of the letters you receive theres still some references made to some variance that were requesting and the applicant is not requesting any variance. The applicant just requests that the determination is made by the department and all applications be utilized and that the rules be followed. Those are the issues that have been raised to this point. Im sure that there may be other issues raised in testimony today and I will address them as they are raised. At this time Id like to answer any questions that the Commission may have. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Mr. Mooers? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah I thank you for clarifying those points because when I saw them I was wondering about how come there was no answers to them in our written material. You say EXHIBIT A 5 that the architect has assured you that they were going to be mauka of the alleged burial site. MOOERS:Thats correct. SIRACUSA:Im wondering if that includes the heavy equipment? MOOERS:Yes. SIRACUSA:Will the heavy equipment also avoid that area or are they just talking about the actual building per say? MOOERS:The typically, Im sorry Cory Foulk whos our architect is here, I think maybe hes better prepared to answer that. GALDONES:Mr.Mooers,Imgoingtohavehimswornin.Couldyoupleaseraiseyour right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai¡i County Planning Commission? FOULK:I do. GALDONES:Please state your name and your residence address. FOULK:Dr. William C. Foulk, F-O-U-L-K. 75-5888 Alii Drive B-3, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740. GALDONES:Thank you Dr. you may proceed. FOULK:Okay, as far as the setback area goes, I dont believe that the building is mauka of the proposed or what theyre suggesting might have been the gravesite. Its actually to the south of it. That tree and such are in the side yard setback that were, its a 14-foot side yard setback were using. Now in that area thats a designated flood zone and so were not allowed to amend the grade there. Were not allowed to change the grade substantially. The County of Hawaii Engineering Division mandates that we leave that grave the same because they dont want the water to be deflected by a variation in the grade and knock somebody elses house or some such deal like that. So, were really restricted as far as what we can do with equipment in that area. There will be heavy equipment on the site theres no doubt about that, there will be excavation going on. The Department of Engineering rules require that if any kind of an archaeological feature or artifact is found during excavation, that all work stop until the Department of Land and Natural Resources can come on site and survey and all of that. So those are all rules that are in place that we have to abide by SMA or not I mean thats just the way it is here. Okay. SIRACUSA:Im aware of what youre saying but you didnt answer the question, the question was will there be something done, like the area roped off or something to prevent the heavy equipment from even just driving over the gravesite? EXHIBIT A 6 FOULK:Thats-, I dont know what area we would rope off because nothings been identified there honestly. In 1972 this site was over-excavated by, to a depth of 12-feet below natural grade and those boulders pushed out to sea to help protect Sea Village. Now, when Roper did that in 1972 he substantially altered the grave there, where the gravesite might have been. If you stand on site in that location today, the actual grade is about 4 feet at that location below the adjoining property line, which is just a few feet away. So you can see that the bulldozers have come in there cut down and pushed a substantial amount of material out to sea to protect Sea Village, some time ago and thats according to the architect that was involved with Sea Village at that time Jack Parazette. So to answer the question we are happy to rope it off but we dont know what to rope off, theres, no one has identified anything there. SIRACUSA:I was given to understand that it had something to, it was something in relation to an old kiawe tree that had been cut down. MOOERS:Ms.Nagaihadsaidthatwhenshewasachildthatsherecalledthather father told her there was a grave by the tree. At that time she did not indicate that shed ever seen the grave other than the fact that she knew of it. When we went on site with the 2 archaeologist we could find no physical evidence of, of any grave. There is an old kiawe stump there but again Im not quite sure what we could rope off. I think that the point that we raised at the time was that there may be a burial there because theres history, oral history from Ms. Nagai. And were not disputing that. The problem is, is there or isnt there, you know was the burial disturbed by the bulldozing work done you know in the 70s. And we dont know that. So the solution really is in consultation with our archaeologist is whats the protocol. You know should we start digging to see if we can find this grave? And they both said no. That thats, that is not the protocol. What you do is that you, you dont dig in the area but if theres any ground disruption work that you have a monitor present so if anything is discovered you would stop all work. In this case we may have you know machinery on that site but we will not be able to dig in that site so we should not be disturbing that. But with a monitor there if anything is disturbed you know all work would stop. If you look at condition number 9 its basically what that says. SIRACUSA:Yes and thats a standard condition anyway thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners any further questions of Mr. Mooers? Seeing none. Mr. Mooers we have people from the public who have signed up for testimony so if you could relinquish the chairs please. I have 3 individuals from the public who have signed up to testify on this matter. Charles Buscemi, Brian Haney, A.J. Gallant. Are the individuals here? If they are please come forward. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair. While theyre coming up I just wanted to enter into record this document that was submitted by A. John Gallant. HANEY:Thats from me. HAYASHI:Oh. HANEY:Brian Haney. EXHIBIT A 7 HAYASHI:Oh, Brian Haney Im sorry. And Mr. Gallant also had, has submitted some- GALLANT:DVDs. HAYASHI:DVDs. We dont know whats on this. Thank you. GALDONES:Gentlemen could you please raise your right hand? I would like to have you sworn in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai¡i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Couldyoupleaseeachstateyournamefortherecordandyourresidence address. Please speak into the microphone so we can have you recorded. Thank you. GALLANT:John Gallant. 75-6002 Alii Drive #4213, Kailua-Kona, Hawai¡i 96740. HANEY:Brian Haney, a part time resident of Sea Village. My mainland address is 1000 Bourbon Street #341, New Orleans, Louisiana. BUSCEMI:Charles Buscemi. My mainland address is also 1000 Bourbon Street #341, New Orleans and I live part time here at 75-6002 Alii Drive #1205. GALDONES:Okay thank you gentlemen. Mr. Gallant would you like to start with the testimony? GALLANT:If you dont mind Mr. Haneys feeling a little ill, I was going to let them go first, Ill go last if thats okay. GALDONES:Its okay with me. HANEY:Thank you. I just like to say Aloha to everyone and thank you for listening to us this morning. I apologize, Ive got a cold, Im a little stuffy and it might be hard to understand so I hope thats not a problem. Since I testified before you at the April meeting, I was able to meet face to face with Mr. Huggett and have spoken with him numerous times on the phone. Happy to report that Im looking forward to having him as a neighbor I think hes a really great guy, which is a good thing. We have had a lot of discussions about the project. No physical changes have been proposed to it yet. We did, had some discussions about construction impacts and we have his verbal agreement that those will be minimized and hes going to do try and do some rental income impacts at the Sea Village units. We still have a couple of issues, which Id like to discuss with you today though. One of them has kind of been resolved I think as much maybe as it can the other one, theres still some open issues on it. And I guess Id like to start with the driveway safety first and I think thats the most important issue that were dealing with here today. I think youve received letters from Virginia Isbell our Councilwoman, EXHIBIT A 8 shes currently proposing an ordinance which is going to give Hawai¡i County a ordinance for a minimum driveway width. And youve also, I think Josh Green sent a letter to the Planning Department yesterday also saying that he hopes that well be able to insure the safety of our driveways until that ordinance is put in place. Just to give you a little bit of history on this Ive been working on the driveway ordinance issue since early in 2004. We had really hoped that once the property had been put up for sale that-. And actually I should say it had been put on hold, that we would be able to get a driveway ordinance in place before the project came back in front of you again so we wouldnt have to deal with this. Unfortunately we hit a little roadblock in the Planning Department back in November of last year. They had replied that they thought that it would be better if we waited for this because we needed to wait until there was a bunch of changes being made to the code. I sent them a letter asked them when that might be and what we could do in the interim. I didnt hear anything for 4 months. It took some phone calls and getting Virginia Isbell involved to get things back on track. So we essentially lost 4 months there and thats why were asking you to put on a contingency on this project today. Just to let you knowthatorifyoucould,Idontknowifyouallhavetheslidesuptherebutonthesecondslide there is various driveway recommendations that are in place here. Theres this one here, theres actually 5 different ones. We have the ITE standard, which recommends a 30 foot width for commercial driveways that includes units that are multi-family dwellings with 5 units or more which the proposed project would fall into that category. Thirty feet is recommended and safe. They say however if you get 24 feet in width and you get 20-foot flares that will help you minimize the impact of the decreased width. After that we had the Department of Public Works submitted 2 different plans for the driveway. Their preferred plan called for 24-foot widths with 15-foot flares but they said we could maybe go down to a minimum of 20 feet with 15-foot flares also. The last recommendation is the one thats the condition before you on- today and it calls for a 20-foot easement width, it doesnt mention the pavement width and it also calls for no flares. This would be the least safe of all the options that are on the table right now so we have some concerns about that and we dont feel its sufficient. You might ask, well 2 things Id like to point out real quickly, one is the ITEs minimum recommendation and the DPWs preferred recommendation are very close to each other, twenty four feet slightly different on the flares. Thats- those are where we feel we should be. The other recommendations, youll notice that the Planning Departments condition on there is 33% smaller than the recommended ITE guidelines, dropping from 30 feet down to 20 feet theres no flares on there. The flares are what you need to, if youre going to decrease width you have to add flares to increase the safety. So thats what were looking is to get something thats more in the middle on this put in as a condition. You might ask me why does this matter so much. Id urge people, if you have just a couple of minutes after the meeting and you can drive down Alii Drive theres a place called Lulus Bar and Restaurant right across from Huggo's on the Rocks. Stand there and have your back facing the ocean, theres a driveway on the right hand side of the building. Its 21 feet. It serves a commercial building, it should follow the same guidelines as are in this document. Theres little or no flares on this driveway. Just stand there for 5 minutes, watch the cars come in and out. People slow way down to make the- a very sharp turn into this small driveway. You also notice when people are coming out the other direction a lot of the times the people on Alii Drive will stop. If theyre trying to turn in they have to stop, let the other person come out before they can make the turn to get in. Now you know back in the €70s when there was 700 people in Kona maybe a 20 foot driveway was fine. Were dealing with a completely different problem here today. We have a traffic issue going on and we have these large SUVs and pick-up trucks that EXHIBIT A 9 everybodys driving. We need more space than is provided by these smaller driveways. And so thats why were asking for this movement to get us safer driveways. Also Id like you to think too about that driveway in front of Lulus its 21-feet, its flat graded, its got a decent line of sight and its in a 15 mph zone. Now drive just a little bit further down Alii Drive to where the proposed project is imagine a 20 foot driveway with a sloped grade going down to this property which is below the grade of Alii Drive. It doesnt have a good line of sight and its in a 30-mph zone and its 20 feet instead of 21 feet. And imagine the cars that are going to be turning in around the V.I. office building, which is on a variance and is already too close to the highway. This is not a safe situation. Its not something we feel comfortable with and this is not something where its you know were being greedy because were living at Sea Village. This is a public safety issue and as residents of Sea Village were going to be impacted more than anyone else because our driveway sits just 35 feet away from this one. So, thats basically covers what the problems we have with the driveway are. If you can flip to the next slide, this one shows some photographs of the driveway. And the first top photograph shows the view comingupthedriveway;youcanseethegrade.YoucanseetheV.I.officebuildingontheleft. We have existing problems some of, which are actually proposed to be taken care of already by removing the vegetation on the Sea Village side. Thats part of the agreement that was negotiated between Mr. Soto, the previous owner and the Sea Village Board. The second photograph coming up out of the driveway shows the view into downtown. This is what somebody will see when theyre making their normal left-hand turn to go into town coming out of this driveway. This is a very common turn that people are going to be making and the view is negligible. You have to basically pull your car into the pedestrian and bike lane in order to get a view of whats coming down the highway. We see this as a major issue. There was 2 known accidents that I know of personally in this area already. One of them was a building right down the road very similar to the V.I. building, too close to the road; its got a variance. Its that big tall white building that hangs over the Tiki surf area. Somebody plowed right into the entryway of that about 2 years ago. The car smashed the entire entryway. Fortunately nobody was standing in the entryway so as far as I know at least nobody in the house was hurt. Im not even sure what happened to the driver. I heard the crash while I was sitting on my lanai. The V.I. office building sits in a very similar situation. Its staffed with people 8 hours a day. We have guests that walk across this driveway checking into their condos over at Sea Village. This is going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic going back and forth across this driveway. People situated 8 hours a day right at the mouth of this driveway. If somebody plows into this building the way they plowed into that other building somebodys going to get hurt or somebody could die. Its a real concern. I wanted to point out that the ITE in their guidelines mentions that 12% of all traffic related fatalities happen because of poor driveway design. Seventy people have died on the Big Island in the last 2 years in traffic fatalities, accidents are on the rise and there are 7 or 8 of those by statistical probability that would be due to poor driveway design. We had 7 or 8 people that have died in the last 2 years because of poor driveway design. Now I know that the Planning Departments busy and I was a Transmission Planning Engineer in Silicon Valley during the dot com boom, you got my sympathy guys. You know buildings are dropping out of the air and you gotta figure out a way to serve them. I know its difficult but if you take a day or two and you work on your driveway design and you know some building permit takes a couple of extra days thats a couple of extra bucks out of somebodys pocket because they didnt get their permit quite as fast as they should have. If you dont take the time to work on your driveway design thats 2 or 3 lives per year that youre putting on the line. And when it comes EXHIBIT A 10 down to lives versus money I think I know where the government should be on that. Now the good news on this is that I dont think the solutions are that difficult here. We have met with Mr.- Dr. Foulk and we have discussed this with Mr. Huggett as well and havent made any progress on getting these improvements in but I think that you know based on my discussions with the engineering folks that it doesnt seem like it should be too difficult. And you know, I may be wrong on that but Im definitely open to discussion. Ive spoken with Ki and Ron both down at the Engineering Department and what were looking for is something that meets the ITE standards, 24-feet with 20-foot flares. We think that this is reasonable. It was the DPWs preferred design. This is what they wanted. Theyre our Engineers we pay them money and if they say this is the design that we prefer I say thats the design we should have. If its buildable and its possible we should have it. Now theres going to be about over 4 million dollars spent on this project and Im guessing based on the price of real estate in Hawai¡i that theres going to be a lot of money made on the project as well. All were asking for is a small piece of that money to be spent on the driveway to improve public safety. Thats not that much to ask for. Someofthechangeswerelookingfor,wewantflaresincludedinthatcondition.Wedlike some vegetation changes made. From what I understand the vegetation changes are all on the County right-of-way so you know if we wanted to they could be ripped out at any minute but I mean were trying to be good neighbors here so wed like to work with people on this. And you know it may require some minor concessions from the neighbors. Theyre already talking to the V.I. folks, they need to get additional easements and make modifications to the handicap ramp. These facilities are already being touched. We think that we just need to improve that design a little bit it shouldnt be a major deal. My second little beef here is something that I came across and this was a year and a half ago. I hope its still not true but Im afraid it might be. I tried to get some location specific accident data to find out where the problem spots on Alii Drive were. When I called the police department I was informed that they couldnt give that out to citizens because of concerns about liability arguments. Now that would seem to be unconstitutional to me, thats public information I should be able to get it. Thats neither here nor there I can kind of understand why you wouldnt want lawyers digging around in that stuff but I found out later that the Planners, I spoke to the Planners here on the Big Island and Planners at the State in Hawai¡i and they said they didnt have access to this data. And you know I dont have any proof of that but if thats true thats not good. As somebody who plans an electric system I know- I have to know where the outages and the overloads are or I dont know where to spend my money to fix the problems. So, Im not sure if this is the right venue for that but Id like to think that somebody would get that problem fixed. I know Im taking up a lot of time here so Im going to kind of rush through the issues on the shoreline setback. You know we did have some concerns about the way the shoreline setback issue was handled in this case. Rule 8 and 11 do state that the Planning Commission and Department are charged with protecting the shoreline. Rule 11 states that the setback shall be 40-feet. They do allow a couple of exceptions, the one in this case was when, if a buildable area goes below 50% that they are able to go down to a 20-foot minimum setback. Now, weve kind of worked through this issue with Mr. Huggett and I want to say that you know, they have already made some concessions on the design of the building in the setback and were relatively happy with how that went. So my concern here is not so much with Mr. Huggetts project as it is with the process that we went through and since we dont have a contested case this is sort of my last chance to say anything so Id like to sort of chime in on the way the process worked on this. The 2 problems I have with Rule 11 are the deal with the- problem we ran into with the eroding shorelines. And the other one is in the definition it says EXHIBIT A 11 that the buildable area is calculated using required setbacks but never specifies what the required setbacks actually are. And I just want to point out a couple of quick problems if you can flip to I think its the one after slide number 6 it shows the- an example lot. And, at the top its example property in 2003. Supposing you had this example property here and we have a certified shoreline which is right next to the edge of the property line which is very similar to what was going on with the proposed project and you have a 40-foot setback and that yields a 51% buildable area. Now suppose a couple of years later the shoreline actually erodes 2-feet closer to the shoreline well that pushed your buildable area under 50% and according to the Planning Department Rules that gives you the 20-foot setback. So now your buildable area increases. The shoreline erodes 2 feet closer to the property but your buildable area goes from 51 to 60% so that increases the profit on the building. Thats actually good news for the developer. Unfortunately it moves a building 20-feet closer to a shoreline thats eroding; that doesnt make any sense if were trying to protect the shoreline. And also in Rule 8 and Rule 11 theres discussion about flooding and tsunami issues. So here we have a property thats got an eroding shoreline problem andweremovingthebuildingclosertothewater.Imsorrythatjustdoesntmakeanysenseto me. I think, I would prefer to see this as if somebody goes below 50% the setback should be adjusted so that they can maintain 50%. We should never go lower than 50% but somebody shouldnt get a bonus because the shoreline eroded. Its not good for the public and its not good for their neighbors. Theres a similar situation, I wont spend any time on it but it deals with the fact that the required setbacks for a one-story building and a three-story building are different. So a one-story building if you use the required setbacks for a one-story, that may be greater than 50% in a one-story building but have a 40-foot setback. Yet when you increase the height of the building now the setbacks and the sideyard get bigger, the buildable area goes below 50% now you end up with a 3-story building that goes on the water where a one-story building would have a 40-foot setback. Its just a confusion because nobody says what the required setbacks that are used for the calculation are. I cant say which ones better but I would think that if a one-story building isnt going to be on the water then the 3-story building shouldn't either because the view impacts and the impacts on the shoreline are going to be greater. I do want to point out as Commissioner Graham had mentioned before you know there is some discussion about you know there arent any impacts on the neighboring properties. You know we realize that Mr. Huggett has done his best to minimize this and we do appreciate that. I do just want to show on the next slide that there is a photograph that shows the view from the end units at Sea Village. And as you can see from this map up here you know and Ive talked to Dr. Foulk and I had to agree with him on this one. When they designed Sea Village, they set us up to have our views impacted. Those end units are almost 80-feet back from the water because of the shape of the shoreline and the diagonal property line. So those units were, you know I understand how theres not much you can do for them but those views will be severely impacted. The viewplane on this slide is one that I was provided by Dr. Foulk several years ago and its a little bit out of date I apologize for that. But it does capture essentially whats going to happen is those people on the end will lose their entire view of the Tiki surfing area. This is the Spanglers the folks who had their contested case denied. I hope you can understand why they might be a little upset that they had this major impact to their unit and they didnt even get a chance to you know be represented on that. With all that said, were happy that those, that you know theyve done their best that they can on the setback issue. We do have some problems with the process and hope that that will be corrected. In summary you know there were a lot of concerns that we have with this project and after working through these issues with Mr. Huggett were really down to the EXHIBIT A 12 driveway as the key issue. And, its not an us versus them thing, this is a public safety issue that needs to be addressed and you know theres one of my favorite prayers is the serenity prayer which says you know God give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. And we are never going to stop people from wanting to come to this island. Its a beautiful place and people will always want to come here. We cant stop them we cant change that. But the one thing we can change though is the way we design our roads and our driveways. We can make sure that its done safely and I hope that the Commissioners today will have the courage and the wisdom to help us modify that condition so that we will get that driveway that we need in there. And I did attach I dont think all of you might have gotten a copy of it but some proposed language for that condition that would change it and the key changes are it should say 24-foot width. It should also say 24-foot flares and- 20-foot flares, Im sorry and the- it should designate the pavement width not the easement width. So, thank you for listening. GALDONES:CommissionersanyquestionsofMr.Haney?CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Yesitismyunderstandingthatitisnotwithinourprovincetochange those shoreline setback rules and I can see where youre coming from on the points that you raise. I would like to ask the Director would that be something that the County, would have to be addressed by the County Council. YUEN:No thats an Administrative Rule of the Planning Commission. I actually agree with what hes saying, there is a quirk in the rules that when you get below 50% coverage, when the shoreline setback and the other setbacks prevent you push you below a 50% useable area on your lot you then jump from a 40-foot shoreline setback to a 20-foot shoreline setback rather than it being graduated in. It could be, the simplest way would be to say you know take 5- foot increments until you get to 50% rather than having to do a separate calculation each time and ending up with say a 36.8-foot shoreline setback. But it is a quirk in the rules. On this point and on the question of the driveway rule, which although the driveway is primarily a Department of Public Works issue as far as being a lead agency on it, Id have to say I cant make any promises about the Planning Department doing anything in the near future on it because of the press of other projects that were working on. SIRACUSA:Does that last statement refer to the driveway or the shoreline setback issue? YUEN:Both. GALDONES:Any further questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Id wanted to ask the Planning Director just to follow-up to Commissioner Siracusas one since you brought up the driveway and this testifier was saying that the DPW did recommend the flares and all and in our conditions we dont have the flares can you explain why that wasnt put in the conditions? YUEN:This being an SMA permit wed rather work on that at the time of Plan EXHIBIT A 13 Approval. In Plan Approval theres a condition that says that existing traffic movements shall not be hindered or obstructed. So we try to work on these at Plan Approval. I dont know what is possible with respect to the flares. I believe that some accommodation could be made in the Alii Drive right-of-way but we would prefer not to put that as a condition of the SMA permit. GALDONES:Seeing no further questions. Mr. Buscemi. BUSCEMI:Good morning Commissioners. I wanted to say thank you for hearing my concerns. I havent seen many of you before. I testified here I guess about 2-years ago on the, I believe it was on the Soto project and there were different Commissioners at the time. I just wanted to say before I testify that some of my neighbors have heard comments about how we are, how the Sea Village folks are professional complainers, professional project stoppers etc. And I just wanted to say you know were not getting paid for this stuff I mean were not professionals. And weve both, both Brian and I have flown here on our own dime from New Orleanstwiceeach.Spentquiteabitofmoneyandtimeonthat.Thefactofthematteristhat th you know Mr. Mooers said and hes right you know this is the 8 time weve been here for this permit and I guess my question is why are we still sitting here with this permit. There are some issues that were brought up years ago that still have not been addressed and iftheyd be addressed Id certainly promise to stop showing up. In any case Im sure you all know that Mr. Haney has done a lot of work on the driveway and I appreciate all the work hes done and other people at Sea Village do. And I wanted to say that theres still a few other issues. It will take less time than Mr. Haney took but Id like to bring them up as this is probably our last chance to say anything since our contested cases were denied and I understand that from now on everything will be done in the Planning Department offices. These issues for the most part, these first2issuesdonthavetodospecificallywithMr.Huggettsproject.Ihaveaquestionforthe Planning Department I guess, now that our contested cases are denied we know now that if a building is conceived in 2002, its not built and its resurrected in 2005 that the neighbors of the project dont get a contested case. Okay. Suppose this project fails. Suppose its resurrected 5 years from now, do the people that live there in 2010 get a contested case? How about 2025? There are probably people who havent even been born yet that might have concerns about this project if its going to be- if the permit is going to be transferred from one owner to another at infinitum. I think this is an issue that the Planning Department needs to address and I think that the Commissioners would probably agree with me that this is a serious flaw. In fact if this SMA permit approval, if its approved were to be appealed I think the court would seriously consider that argument. Issue 2 in my little handout here is the Planning Department recommendation th that you have in front of you and Im going on the March 29 one now because I havent really th had time to look at the June 7 one but it contains false information. And it contains false information about the easement which is really one of the most important conditions that there are. I think its on page 2 or page 5. It says by letter dated January 13, 2005 Vacation Internationale has granted the applicants an additional minimum 4-foot wide easement for vehicular access and utilities for the project. I havent seen todays version but does that still say that? SIRACUSA:Yeah. BUSCEMI:Thats not true. And you know frankly Im not sure why this keeps EXHIBIT A 14 coming up because this has been talked about several times. V.I. wrote a letter that says that they would grant an easement, they have still not given the easement and I mean I have nothing against Mr. Huggett. I like the guy. He seems like a very nice person. Dr. Foulk has come and hes met with us on several occasions and I appreciate that. But can the Planning Commissioners be asked to vote on an approval that has such an obvious error in it? Okay. Let me talk about the potential shoreline gravesite thats issue 3 and all were asking for here is that a monitor be on site when the digging starts. Now, I dont know exactly whats meant by you know if something is found that the County will be notified immediately I think thats one of the conditions and maybe thats a standard condition but. There has been a ongoing discrepancy with whether or not the gravesite first of all is there and second of all is going to be inside the building footprint. Ms. Nagai herself spoke to me on the phone on Monday. Shes on Oahu babysitting her grandchildren. She asked me to speak on her behalf. We heard what Mr. Mooers said this morning and what Dr. Foulk said about how the tree is in the sideyard setback. And that may very well be but Ms. Nagai says an shes always said that the gravesite is south of the stumpandatthesamedistancefromtheshoreline.Now,southofthestumpisnotinthe sideyard setback. And you know the building footprint as it was explained to us by Dr. Foulk may very well encompass the gravesite. So we would ask that a condition be added that an archaeological monitor be required to be present prior to and during groundbreaking activities and that he be independent, a County employee I suppose not an architect hired by the project. I think thats a conflict of interest that should probably be taken care of. Now its not to say that I dont trust Mr. Huggetts architect but there have been discrepancies archaeologist, I dont, its not to say that I dont trust him but there have been discrepancies all along with where this gravesite may or may not be and I think it would just be better to have an independent third party person there. You know this is just for Ms. Nagai and her family and honestly it just respects her wishes and Im just speaking for her on this one. Issue 4, the driveway safety Mr. Haneys already spoken about that. You know the County has no standard for minimum driveway width and its a key safety issue. Theres not going to be anymore public hearings after this if the SMA permit is approved today and there would be no chances for us to speak so we think that a condition should be added to the application that the driveway meet the Department of Public Works recommendation or the minimum ITE recommendation both of which call for 24-feet wide one is 15-foot flares one is 20-foot flares. In any case a 20-foot wide driveway with no flares is not recommended by any engineering department. Of all the options we have for the driveway the one thats in the application is the least safe and you know if I can be so bold as to say that I think that on designing something that has to do with public safety we ought to be doing the engineering and following the engineers recommendations and then have the project meet the engineering recommendations. We are not to be going down and looking at the property and saying well what can they fit in. You know and in some ways I think thats probably why the flares arent in the application condition. So we do respectfully ask that a new condition or condition 3 be modified to require a driveway that is consistent with the ITEs minimum recommendation. This is also a driveway that will be consistent with the proposed ordinance by Virginia Isbell and is also for the most part consistent with the DPWs preferred recommendation. Finally, you know if you decide not to change the driveway design well you know thats your prerogative I suppose. I just want to say that we already know that the County Police withhold public information on traffic accidents to the public and we already know that a proposed driveway ordinance based on nationally recognized guidelines is about ready to be passed or at lease brought up for a vote after it sat around for quite some time at the Planning EXHIBIT A 15 Department. DPW and ITE recommendations are so far being ignored by the Planning Commission or by the Planning Department I guess in this case with this, the Planning Department recommendation. If an injury or a fatal accident occurs at that location after the DPWs recommendations have been ignored you know I think well all have blood on our hands and Im really not sure what kind of liability the whole County is accepting by doing that. And as a taxpayer certainly I would rather not see the County accept that liability. So in closing I think we have maybe a request for the Commissioners today to consider 4 options for this application. The first one is to approve it as it is. There are I believe basis for appeal here and if this is the last time you know were going to come before the Commission then its possible that an appeal would be filed if that was the case. The second is to deny the application as it stands. And I think theres 2 options that are compromises and Mr. Haney talked about these in length and probably the best one is to change condition 3 to include the DPW recommendations. We really do think that there is room there to do this. There is already going to be some dismantling of structures in the area. Theres already going to be some vegetation cut down and wed really liketoworkwiththedeveloperandwiththeDPWtoputasafedrivewayin.Thefourth possible option is just to continue the hearing again. Well like Mr. Mooers said weve been here 8 times already. If it could be continued and we could work out those details in the next month with the developer I think everybodys concerns will have been addressed. I just have this last little thing to say and I want to thank the people of Hawai¡i for showing me aloha spirit. I think aloha spirit invites everyone to come here. Ive been told well wheres your aloha spirit why are you being so mean to this guy and that started with Soto and not with Huggett. Well you know the aloha spirit I think it works both ways and it means that people who want to join the community can do so but they need to respect the rights and the safety of the people that are already here. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Mr. Buscemi? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Several things Im trying to remember all the points you made when I wanted to say something. Yeah, for your information in the new revision of the recommendations on page 6 starting with line 1, 2, 3, 4, 56. Sixth line from the top and this is underscored because its a ramsayered version recommends that an archaeological monitor be present prior to ground disturbing activities in the effected area on the parcel. So it would appear that that concern of yours is already incorporated. BUSCEMI:Could I ask if that would be a Hawai¡i County monitor or would that be? SIRACUSA:It does not specify. Usually I believe that those monitors are from the DLNR Historic Preservation. Would the Director address that please? YUEN:Historic Preservation has standards for who can be an archaeological monitor. We do not have any such persons on staff. So they are people that are retained by private parties however DLNR does specify what qualifications they have. SIRACUSA:Thank you. The second point that I wanted to make had to do with that, what you kept referring to condition number 3 but theres also condition number 12, which says comply with all applicable State, excuse me, County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations EXHIBIT A 16 and requirements. So it would seem to me that this would deal with any requirements that were put forward by DPW. BUSCEMI:Well, the DPW hasnt put forward any requirements. Theyve put forward recommendations. SIRACUSA:I thought that you said that- BUSCEMI:No. SIRACUSA:That they had. That they were recommending. BUSCEMI:They have recommended yes. The DPW have recommended a 24-foot wide driveway with 15-foot, Im sorry a 20-foot wide I believe driveway with 15-foot flares but thiscouldeasilybeignoredlaterononcethepublicinputisnolonger. SIRACUSA:Excuseme,areyousayingthattheresadifferencebetweena recommendation and a requirement then. BUSCEMI:Absolutely. SIRACUSA:Okay. And, well maybe we should ask Ki Emler to clarify that point for us but the Director had already said that that sort of thing would be dealt with at Final Plan Approval. Is that correct Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Yes, I did want to clarify something on your previous comments. SIRACUSA:Please. YUEN:We are not requiring a monitor be present. That was a statement in Dr. Rechtmans report. Thats not a condition of our current requirements and the reason is that we had a statement from DLNR State Historic Preservation division that they believed that all sites had been destroyed by previous grading and grubbing on the property. Hence we are not; the Departments recommendation does not include that a monitor be present. BUSCEMI:Could I say something about the previous grading? Its obvious that some grading was done right at the shoreline because theres kind of a steep down slope there but Ms. Nagais recollection is that the gravesite was south of the tree. Now the stump is still there so obviously that wasnt graded. The tree couldnt have grown 10 feet below ground level. Where the stump is is the original ground level prior to grading and so in the location where she things that the gravesite is it has not been graded previously. Or if it has its been only minor and that point was also included in a letter from the architect that Sea Village employed. Im sorry archaeologist Mr. Rosenthal couple of years ago. SIRACUSA:Director Yuen since Dr. Rechtman has made this recommendation would you be adverse to adding that in as a condition to- say add it to number 9. EXHIBIT A 17 YUEN:I have no problem if the Commission wants to add that as part- as an amendment to number 9. SIRACUSA:And then there was one other thing an that was the question of the tense about the granting of the minimum 4-foot wide easement. The question on page 5 of the recommendations, line 8 from the bottom that you pointed out about Vacation Internationale has granted an additional minimum. And youre saying that, they have not. Could we get that point clarified once and for all here or if they havent actually done the granting can we change the tense on that? Or what do we do? HAYASHI:Ill respond to that. SIRACUSA:Thank you Norman. HAYASHI:They have not yet granted the easement. They intend to grant the easementandthereforewecanmakethatchangetoourfindings.Thattheyintendtograntan easement. SIRACUSA:Then I would recommend that we change the tensing or the wording saying that Vacation Internationale has indicated that they intend to rather than put it as though it were a fait accompli which it is not and then throws everything else into question by virtue of being not exactly accurate. BUSCEMI:Well I thank you for that and frankly Im a little surprised but thats really good news if that is what the Commission is going to vote on and honestly the driveway issue is perhaps the most important issue remaining and I think on the last page of Mr. Haneys packet we have written what we would like as a proposed change to condition 3 for the driveway. And that is a 24-foot wide paved driveway with 20-foot flares shall be provided for vehicular access. That is the ITEs minimum recommendation and it is very close to the DPWs stated recommendation and frankly if the current application is voted on the way it is I really dont have all that much confidence that when the project goes in that were not going to have a 20- foot driveway with no flares. I mean you know a recommendation is a recommendation but its not a requirement. And this is our last- our last potential to bring these things up unless an appeal is made and frankly nobody wants that. And so I would we could take care of that situation before that. And finally you know to Cory Foulk and Mr. Huggett I appreciate everything that you, all the time you spent with us and listening to our concerns. And I think we all understood that the driveway was something we really werent prepared to compromise over at least at this point. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Im wondering if Mr. Mooers or his architect would care to comment on this business of the driveway flare and if theyre willing to make some accommodations for public safety? EXHIBIT A 18 GALDONES:They will be, Commissioner Siracusa they will called upon later on to rebut these statements that was made by the testifier. SIRACUSA:Thank you Ill hold the question. GALDONES:Thank you. Seeing no questions of Mr. Buscemi, Mr. Gallant? GALLANT:Thank you. You going to have to wait a minute to find out about the secret DVD here. Im going to jump off my notes and address something that I heard earlier in this meeting. The applicants representatives were talking about the potential gravesite, talking about the lady that remembers it as a child, the description from the father. And, I wrote down a direct quote. He said, ‚Were not disputing thatƒ when he was talking about the grave and the location that she remembers it in. Were not disputing that. When the representatives were asked if they could rope off the area they were at a loss because they dont know what to rope off theydontknowwhereitsat.Littleconflictingthere,howtheygoingtoavoidit,iftheydont even know where its at. To my prepared testimony this is the second time that Ive ever provided testimony to the Planning Commission. First time was some years ago when Vacation Internationale who at the time was Sunterra applied for a variance permit to be able to occupy the building theyre in now which is adjacent to Sea Village. I testified in support of that variance because I believed it was Sunterra Vacation Internationale. I believed they would be good neighbors and I believed it was for the betterment of my neighborhood and I testified as such. This case Ive got issues with. The primary one for me is the driveway safety and we get to the DVD. Yesterday I took a radar gun and parked a little bit south of the Sea Village complex with the radar pointing towards town and then had a video camera right behind the radar gun so you see the speed and then you see the road, you see the cars. So you what the, the speeding and things that are going on. Rather than have, the DVD is a little under 16 minutes, rather than have that displayed here just to look at a bunch of numbers Im just going to testify as to whats in here and then if this continues beyond this meeting obviously youll be able to view it at your leisure. Theres no sound on it. The speed display youll see it about mid screen on the right side of the screen. Im going to explain the setup a little bit so youll understand when you do watch it. The radar was pointing diagonally if Alii Drive is like this, it was little bit diagonal. And it picks up, what it does is it sends out a beam reflects off the cars and bounces back and then the gun computer determines what the speed was based on that. It reads the speed in both directions and so sometimes youre going to see the speed is going to flip flop real quick like maybe 35-28-35-28. What its doing is reading alternately the cars in each lane its going back and forth. Im not a certified radar operator. This is not a you know for court or police purposes Im not saying that these speeds are exact but its enough to give you a good idea. Basically youre going to see 2 scenarios. One is a lot of people that are speeding anywhere from slightly over 30 up to the fastest one I taped and this is just in one consecutive 16-minute period. The fastest one I taped was 49; there were 2 or 3 of those. I had one at 50 right before, maybe 2 minutes before I had the camera running so I didnt get that on tape. But there are over a half a dozen vehicles coming around that corner doing an excess of 40 miles an hour. Some of them as much as 49 miles an hour. Speed limit there is 30. Okay, what you end up having is a lot of traffic is in the maybe 35 to 38 range. Lets take 33 as the speed. Three miles an hour over the speed limit must not sound like much. Three miles an hour out of 30 miles an hour is 10%. Now its starting to sound a little bit bigger. 10% maybe doesnt sound like a whole lot. EXHIBIT A 19 Who wants to take a 10% cut in pay today? 10% sounds more now. Thats only at 33. Okay as you go up to 36 miles an hour remember when youre watching this thats 20% faster than the speed limit. And to put it in perspective just for purposes of discussion if a car was coming around that corner at 60 and the reason I picked 60 is cause its double the limit. Anybody trying to exit this proposed driveway is almost certainly going to be hit. If a car comes around that corner at 60 cause you just simply cant see them, theres nowhere for anybody to go. So with a doubling of the speed limit youre pretty much increasing your odds 100% that youre going to have an accident. Okay so, the 10 or the 20 or the 30% or the 50% in between I think its a higher percentage. If its a 10% increase in the speed, its more than a 10% increase in the safety factor, the possibility of having an accident is my point there. Other times youre going to see theres a lot of congestion on the road, which is basically just a lot of cars with not enough space to be able to pull out. The majority of turns from that driveway are going to be left turns towards town. And you just, when you have the congestion you dont have enough time to get out and youve got it coming from both ways and sometimes youll have a mixture where youll have congestiononewayandspeederstheotherwayorviceversa.Itsarealproblem.Ivelivedfull time at Sea Village for about 3 years now. In that time it has gotten considerably harder to leave the Sea Village driveway which is much safer than the proposed ones. Its further from the curve. You have a little bit more line of sight. Its getting really hard certain times of day to get out of there. In talking with neighbors other owners as they pop in everybody feels the same. Some people are actually turning right; driving a ways then turning left turning around just to get out of the driveway. Its a serious problem and Im hoping my testimony will convey that because I know you havent had time to view the DVD. I apologize that, for that. Its common knowledge a few days ago in the paper I read an article that the Hawai¡i Police Department is down 70 positions right now. Its not the Huggetts fault that these people are speeding, okay I feel sorry for them. I dont want to see an accident and I very sincerely believe that theyre- its not a matter of if its only a matter of when. Watch this thing and youll see. My basic belief is that actually the owners of the property have very substantial rights thats my personal belief. If there was nothing else involved obviously then their rights prevail. Other people that are adjoining have rights in the situation and so it tends to take away some of the Huggetts project here. The view is nothing that affects me at all Im on the end of building 4 complete other end of the complex. I have viewed the area though and I do see where its going to impact the view on a lot of the units of building 1 of Sea Village. So I disagree that theyll be a negligible impact on the view. Youre still going to be able to see the water but youre not going to be able to see the sunset a lot of times. Youre not going to be able to see town. Maybe not the cruise ships. You know the things that are beautiful to look at from my lanai so. Thats not an issue for me cause its not there but on behalf of the neighbors that will be in those condos just like to throw that out. I dont know this is a touchy subject Im not sure if this is pertinent or not so Ill bring it up and you can decide. The access to the project of course it would have to be to the driveway, which right not is on the V.I. property so theyd have to give the easement. The, when the Vacation Internationale moved to the building theyre in, locally its called the long house cause it kind of sits parallel to the road instead of perpendicular. Theyre on a variance themselves and it seems like theyre close to the roadway. I dont recall what the purpose for their variance was. I remember I wrote a letter in support of it but I think that would be something to see is if that building is already obstructing the plane of view for this driveway. If thats what the issue was that its closer and Im not sure that could effect the driveway. Given the fact that the, a lot of the views from the lanais of building 1 are going to be blocked, at least the prime portion of the EXHIBIT A 20 views, I then look at it and a lot of those units are primarily owned by Vacation Internationale the ones that are going to be blocked. So, I start thinking okay the, this project wants to use their driveway, use easement for the utilities, the sewers so on and so forth. V.I. intends to grant an easement, which is going to block the view of several of their units. I understand the, and have not verified this, Ive been told that the project originally started as 6 units and then got expanded to 12. Im curious as to and this would have to come obviously from the Commission if you feel its important. Im curious as to whether Vacation Internationale has a financial interest in this project and if so why its not up front. If theyre going to block the views of several of their units. Allow driveway access, parking, theres parking problems already. Theres a parking issue actually going on at the Sea Village where all of the parking spots are deeded. But the Sea Village some time ago decided to ignore that and to make the statement that parking- theres no reserved parking its all first come first serve. In fact all of those parking spots next door are deeded and right now some V.I. all their personnel park in empty spots. Were in the process of having the Sea Village revert to the spot, parking spots because theyre owned by the condo theyrenotcommonstheyredeededwiththecondo.So,V.I.isgoingtohaveasubstantial parking problem when thats put into effect because they have no where on their own property especially with this addition going on. Basically I really feel sincerely sorry for the Huggetts because theyve got this land thats been drug out of for so long. You know I put myself in their position and I think man deny it, pass it, something. Lets get it going. But, I see 2 scenarios there in my mind that I would look at as if, if I was making this decision. One is that they fully were aware of these problems, they knew that the burial site was an issue, they knew the driveway was an issue, they knew the view was an issue. Okay either they were aware of all these problems and they decided to go ahead and take their chances, its a risk or if they werent fully aware of all of these problems then that strikes me as being just like the situation with Mr. Buscemi and Haney where the Sea Village had a contested case, they dropped it. These guys wanted to get in but it was too late at that point because they didnt get in initially. Well, if the Huggetts did not know of these major problems then they need to deal with the Sotos. Just you know same scenario. So to close up I guess the DVD will show you that theres a considerable amount of speeding even in just a 16-minute period. Other time there a lot of congestion. Theres a few spots where theres nothing happening for maybe 10 or 15 seconds. Those spots are pretty rare out of 16 minutes and Ill entertain any questions. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Mr. Gallant? Okay, gentlemen thank you very much. GALLANT:For the record I also did provide the Huggetts representative with a copy of the DVD so they have access to it and can see it to right away. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Mooers, Dr.? Mr. Mooers and Doc I will give you the opportunity to address the concerns that were raised in the discussion. MOOERS:Ill ask Dr. Foulk if hell respond to Mr. Haneys comments regarding the driveway issues and the flares, etc. FOULK:Okay. We all agree that the driveway issue is very important. I dont- Im going to address the stuff here, I really believe that this is not the right forum for this and I know EXHIBIT A 21 that the resources in this community are pretty well taxed and as a member, a long time member of this community I dont believe with bringing stuff into the wrong forum to work on it. Well have to work on this with the Department of Public Works, at length but going through it you know the 24-foot driveway width would be a terrific thing to achieve. Were trying to achieve an easement from V.I. to allow us the most width possible in that area. To attain a 24-foot driveway width with a 15-foot flare on each side would require Vacation Internationale to cut 38 feet off of their existing building. I dont expect them to go along with any kind of an easement agreement thats going to mandate demolishing half of their building to allow us access to this site. Hopefully the Department of Public Works will be able to accommodate. It looks to me about a 12-foot flare in the right of way and were required to achieve a 20-foot driveway width right now. If we can get 24 that would be terrific. I really would be surprised if V.I. came up with the idea that we could tear down half their building to improve this section. As a resident, not a representative of this project I have lived within 500-feet of this for 26 years. I currently live within 500-feet of this. I have two adult children that own properties within 500 feet of this sothisisanabsoluteconcernthetrafficandstuff.Mr.Gallantsspeedissueisthesinglebiggest concern I have and we are trying to get the speed limit changed to 15 miles an hour in that area. Thats very important. Driveway width or not, speed is important. Again none of this is an SMA issue though and all of this will be addressed with the Department of Public Works. We have to. They wont sign it off until we meet not only their requirements but their interpretation of their requirements. With the shoreline I think Brian said that our shoreline is eroding and thats not correct not on this side anyway. This side is all rock. So the shoreline isnt migrating inland on this particular side. Buildable area is- I agree with Chris you know this is kind of a difficulty in the rule as far as how they calculate the 50% buildable area. I know that to me a buildable space is a 3 dimensional space its not a 2 dimensional space. Attached to the zoning rd there is a height limit that defines the 3 dimension of that space. So if youre going to tax somebody on a property based on their right to build then youre not only mandating a footprint area but youre also mandating a height. And if you determine that they cant build to that height you shouldnt be taxing them on it. And so personally I believe that the further, the taller it is the further away it should be. You know thats kind of a standard rule. The higher it is the further away from the road it should be, the further away from the shoreline. Thats not the way this readsanditsnotthewayitscalculated.Onthisparticularsiteeveryincrementalsetbackfor height takes about 1200 square feet of buildable area out of the site. So, by going up 3 stories we lose3600squarefeetofbuildableareawhichisaddedintothosestoriessothatsarulethat were going by. Were just following the code; were not doing anything there, no exemptions, no exceptions. Driveways. I've misspoke, I didnt realize that Bob Rechtmans, that the recommendation for a monitor was just a recommendation from Rechtman, I thought that was a condition that we have a monitor on site. So speaking for Mr. Huggett here we had always planned on having an archaeologist on site. I didnt realize that that wasnt a condition so if you guys want to make that a condition thats, thats great. I mean thats terrific. Statistically 7 to 8 people were killed in driveway accidents on this island, statistically thats more or less correct. Its a little less than that. Actually none have been killed. I would again rather see a wider driveway there than what we have. This isnt our property so its difficult for us to come in here and say hey were going to do something we have agreements with these other people. Positive issues on this particular project that we havent been able to bring up. Im an adjunct Professor of Environmental Science thats what the Dr.s about. So Im like Mr. Water Quality, Im Mr. Shoreline. On all projects going in these days were required to filter the runoff before it enters EXHIBIT A 22 the ground. All the injection wells and all of that stuff have to be filtered. This particular project we have a 12 inch open drain line coming from Sea Village that dumps onto this property that were going to be required to filter the effluent from that line before it enters the ground water. As a swimmer and a surfer Im all in favor of that. I think thats terrific. Weve met with PASH and come up with an agreement to get a nice public access to the shoreline, which doesnt exist on this side at this time. We have to upgrade the water service in this area for fire and pressure reasons by tying at the 8-inch line that ends at the top of the hill to the existing 6-inch main. That allows the Department of Water Supply to service some of their existing facilities. They can take one off line and have the other one keep the pressure up while theyre maintaining it. Thats better for the whole community. We are going to- whatever we do with this driveway its going to be better than it is right now. And the whole nature of the burial whether its there or not has generated a substantial amount of additional archaeological study and research in this area which is always good. So, thank you. MOOERS:Ijustinsummarywouldliketomakecoupleofstatements.YeahI certainly applaud the work that Mr. Haneys done regarding the driveway safety issue but I really maintain this is not an SMA issue and this is not a forum where we should be discussing it. Im not an engineer; I dont know how many of you are. But for us to adopt a width and a radius you know I mean the more sounds better but I have no idea what the implications are. I really believe the appropriate venue for this discussion is in the Plan Approval process where our architects and our engineers sit down with the Countys engineers and determine whats appropriate. If the County wants to adopt ordinances thats great. If Ms. Isbell is going to draft an ordinance of improving or changing the ordinance I think thats great. We are required under the proposed conditions that we have to comply with all State, County, Federal rules and regulations. So we would be required to comply. I just have a very difficult time to sit here today and to figure if we can determine what the appropriate width and radiuses are. I agree with Dr. Foulk I think that this is not the venue for that discussion. I think weve made every good faith effort regarding the burial to either identify where its located and what the appropriate treatments been. Weve never tried to dispute Ms. Nagais word. But even Ms. Nagai on the site could not identify where the burial was. Theres no physical evidence of any burial on the site and thats not to say its not there we just dont know. So the issue that I- we didnt dispute or I did not dispute the burial being there is very true. Were not disputing Ms. Nagais recollection or her fathers recollection but we simply dont know where it is and we have not been able to locate it. I think the proposed conditions and the suggestion that was made about having a monitor on site is a good faith effort to make sure that anything that could be there or would be there would be treated appropriately. And we have no problem with the addition of that condition regarding the monitor. Mr. Chairman if you or the Commissioner have any other questions were happy to answer. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Commissioners any questions of the applicants? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:So first of all you would not object to an addition to condition number 9, which would sort of enshrine the recommendation of Dr. Rechtman regarding a monitor? MOOERS:We have no problem with that recommendation. EXHIBIT A 23 SIRACUSA:Okay, and then you- Im looking at condition number 3 and wondering if it could be reworded just to say a minimum 20-foot wide easement. That way if you can get more youre not precluded. MOOERS:I have no problem with that. SIRACUSA:And, say with, possibly with flares if recommended by the Department of Public Works which also leaves it open end. If they say yes, then you do it. MOOERS:We have no problem. Typically in the SMAs line that Ive reviewed, theyll say the access shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. So if you want to say a minimum of 20-foot wide easement meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works that would be somewhat consistent with previous conditions. SIRACUSA:Okay thank you. Im wondering how my fellow Commissioners would feelaboutthose2additions,changes? GALDONES:Commissionersarethereanyotherdiscussionsoranyquestionsofthe Applicants? Or further discussion on this application? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:My question would be to the Director. With that amendment or proposed amendment to number 3 would you have any objection to that? YUEN:I dont have, I think the addition of minimum is good for clarification. The second part, I prefer that we just use the standard language that we have that says to follow all State, County regulations and so forth. Because it appears to put the Department of Public Works in the position of making a judgement call on the adequacy of the driveway. They may feel that if they were given there, if it was up to them to approve this or not based on a 20-foot driveway they might say no, we want a 24-foot driveway. I do not think that we have the power to put that condition on this SMA permit for a 12-unit condominium building. So what Im saying is that we shouldnt make a- Im concerned that the wording that was just said makes it sound like Department of Public Works is supposed to make an independent decision later on whether 20-feet is enough. And I dont think thats what was meant but I think it could be read that way. WATANABE:In other words, youre concerned that Public Works would feel like the liability or the onus is all on them and then they would complete back up. YUEN:Right, right. Whereas what we are saying is that there is a minimum 20- foot driveway width and the actual connection with Alii Drive has to be worked out between the Department of Public Works and the Applicant with what is best and most feasible given the limitations on the right-of-way that theyre going to be able to acquire. So I would just prefer to say to change the wording to minimum 20 feet on 3 and then leave the rest the same. EXHIBIT A 24 SIRACUSA:Im wondering if then if you would be willing to suggest a new wording that would take all that? Be simple but take all that into consideration. YUEN:Well I think its covered by number 12. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. This is a question for the architect I guess Dr., is it possible to your understanding to have a 30-foot wide driveway no flares? FOULK:Well, right now the long house the building thats owned by V.I. is 8-feet from that roadway remnant that were talking about. The front door of it is 8-feet from the remnant. The remnant is 16-feet wide. So if we achieve 24-feet it will mean that the driveway would go right exactly to their front door, which we would have to seal off and move to the side ordosomethinglikethat.InmydiscussionswithV.I.outinWashingtoninDecemberthey suggested that they were going to give us a program for what their requirements for that space was and if we could meet the program by, in less space they would allow us to renovate the front part of that building. Which means we could take 4-feet off of it or 6-feet or something like that. To sit here and say that sure V.I. would be happy with taking 8-feet or 12-feet or something off of their building Id be speaking out of turn. You know theres just no way I can say that they would be okay with that or not. So again I wish that I didnt have to be wishy washy about this but were going to try and get the most width we can. Its better for our project too you know its better for us to have a nice clean landscaped defined entry onto Alii Drive than it is to have you know a substandard roadway. You know which is whats there now. And whats there now is servicing Sea Village, V.I. and another 2 residences on that adjoining parcel. So theres about the same traffic load right now as there would be with our building you know. IWASHITA:Im trying to clarify in my mind. So what, my impression is that the southern edge of that easement is fixed point and the only way to widen it is to go north and take away some of the building is that correct? FOULK:Yes, we spent a year trying to negotiate part of the southern, the southern little tag there. Were restrained at the 12-foot mark, which would give us a total width of 28- feet, by a beautiful Banyan tree thats there and we want to preserve that tree. But also we need a quorum approval, we need a majority approval from the Sea Village Board for them to grant us an easement on that side of the property, which means we would have to get 80 or 90 Sea Village owners together to approve that. And after a year of attempting that we just determined that that was not going to happen, its just not going to happen. IWASHITA:So bottom-line the maximum it appears practically speaking negotiating with V.I. would be a 24-foot, 28-foot? FOULK:I think that 28 is absolutely, no 24-feet is a possibility without modifying their building substantially. Beyond that we would have to modify their building, which we believe that were going to end up having to do anyway but. As with all of this stuff you know this is part of why we dont bring this into like an SMA forum because then theres a fire hydrant EXHIBIT A 25 on Alii Drive and the fire hydrant needs to be relocated. And that needs to be relocated out of the flares and then thats going to mandate a different size water line an so suddenly we have huge amounts of complexity that come into here into whats already a complex process, the SMA process. And thats why we tend to do this at the engineering department where we can all sit down with our textbooks and sit down and go through all of this stuff. How is HELCO going to get in there, how is the sewer going to get out of there, all of these things. You know, what are the grades, whats going to happen to the runoff, what about cyclists, what about the handicapped, all of those things have to be addressed and they could go on for years in that forum much less this one. IWASHITA:I need some clarification about, if we say its 20 or 24 whatever it is right, then the process as I understand it from the safety point of view but we basically say Public Works you take care of that and I guess my question to you Mr. Director is the comment that you made sounds like if Public Works says well it cant be done for less than 24 so were not going todoittheydonthavethatprerogative.Ifwesay20theyhavetodosomethingwith20. YUEN:Right.IdontbelievePublicWorkshastheauthorityto,underthecurrent standards, to deny them coming into Alii Drive at 20-feet. And to say we dont have a current standard that says that they have to acquire more property from people whose property they dont control or dont build the project. If you adopted a driveway, if you adopted a minimum driveway standard and it was an absolute requirement it could have that effect. And thats one of the complications of doing that is that you have properties that have certain zoning and that youre, you may end up in effect taking away the zoning that people have if you adopt that kind of a driveway standard as an absolute requirement versus being a guideline for new construction where-. And let me give you the difference here you know you may you adopt an engineering guideline. You may have a piece of property that is zoned commercial and has a hundred feet of frontage and it still has to have a driveway and you should have a standard for how that driveway goes in. And the ITE, so the standards tell you that. And whats desirable and how you should build it and if there are no problems you go ahead and make them do it. You do, but then you encounter these situations like we have here where theres old zoning and for whatever reason when the zoning was granted the access is substandard. There are quite few situations like this in Kailua Kona. You only see the ones that come in for SMA permits. There are a lot of them, there are situations that they dont need an SMA permit, theyre not in the SMA and these things are dealt with and worked on strictly at an Administrative level for the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department at Plan Approval. Im concerned about; we discussed the 20-foot minimum with the Applicant before putting it as a condition. They didnt have a problem with it. Theyre committed to achieving that 20-foot minimum. Im concerned about putting in a condition that they dont know that they can achieve because of the limits in what were allowed to consider on the SMA permits stage. Weve had this discussion a few times before and I dont want to say and I wont say that traffic is never an SMA issue. There are circumstances where traffic flow or control can rise to an SMA issue if it interferes with public access to the shoreline. If they didnt have the ability to evacuate this building for example in a tsunami, a warning kind of situation, that would be an SMA issue. But we are talking here, scale is very important and we are talking here about a 12-unit condominium, which will have a 20- foot wide driveway quite adequate for 2 cars to pass. Typical expectation on usage of that driveway would be a car every 5 or 10 minutes. EXHIBIT A 26 GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I have a question for the Dr.. You seem to have indicated that you have been working with the neighbors on the what is that the north side? FOULK:Weve worked with neighbors on both sides. Sea Village is on the south and Vacation Internationales on the north. WATANABE:So then am I right in assuming that if we were to go ahead and approve this project and the people of Sea Village who are really concerned about the driveway they might be more apt to provide you with an easement there? FOULK: Well WATANABE:Which would allow you to make a more substantial driveway? FOULK:What Sea Village has, what we negotiated with Sea Village and what they didagreetodowastoallowustoputa4-footwidepedestrianwalkwayonthesouth-side.This 4-foot wide pedestrian walkway isnt included in the 20-foot right-of-way that were talking about for the cars. This is a pedestrian only, its a sidewalk an elevated sidewalk with a curb and a low wall behind it. So that gives us the net effect of having a 24-foot right-of-way there for cars and people. As far as Sea Village coming back and saying hey well give you 8-feet instead of the 4-feet for the, 4 for road and 4 for sidewalk weve spent years on this already and I dont see it happening. WATANABE:But physically its possible? FOULK:Physically 8-feet on that side is possible, beyond that I think the tree would be endangered thats there. WATANABE:Okay, okay thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I dont want to keep blabbering this point but Im going to ask the Planning Director one more thing in this regard. Basically I guess the way I feel is when I listen to all thats gone forth it seems like it is probably somewhat of an unsafe situation. And, but on the other hand I feel like the Planning Director is every bit as much concerned about safety as I am and probably knows more about the specifics of that place so hes feeling I believe that it is safe enough to merit his recommendation. And so Im just kind of trying to square what the difference is and one thing that kind of came out a little bit from the last comment in regard to Commission Iwashita was a little thing kind of got in my head. Is the Planning Director kind of feeling that since these applicants own a piece of property thats zoned appropriately for multi- family that they should be able, they have a right to do a multi-family there as long as we make EXHIBIT A 27 all the reasonable things we can do for safety or is he one to say if it cant be done safely he would recommend against it even though in this case he didnt. YUEN:Its, we are dealing with the handle of an SMA permit. The SMA law lists things that we can use to deny the permit or make conditions on the approval of the permit. Theres a list of these things and one; things are there, things like water quality, public recreation, public views to and along the shoreline. Traffic per say is not stated as an SMA consideration and there is a case where the Planning Commissions denial of an SMA permit because of traffic impacts was overturned by the intermediate court of appeals. And in that case the County conceded that the traffic problem, though there was a traffic problem, didnt create an environmental or ecological issue in the SMA. When weve talked about this before weve noted that the SMA law does talk about public access. It does talk about public safety and thats why a minute ago talking about, answering this question from Commissioner Iwashita I mentioned a project whose affect was so severe that it would detrimentally effect public access totheshore.Orifyouwerentabletoevacuatetheprojectthatwouldbethekindofthingthat falls under the SMA permit. So, that being the case given that this is a request for a 12-unit project on the safety issue I would remark that we dont have a situation where theres some unusual sight distance problem. Theres hazards that are in common with other properties on Alii Drive. Were talking about a situation where you do, you have a 20-foot driveway which is wide enough for 2 cars. Its a typical; the typical urban street has an 11-foot wide lane just for perspective. A typical car is about 5-1/2 to 6 feet wide. Its wide enough to pass 2 cars. You will, people will, the flares make it easier to turn in and out, you can turn in and out more quickly. But, and it would be certainly desirable to have flares. I cannot say that in this circumstance it rises to the level that would justify us to put a condition on that would effectively be something that they might not be able to meet and it effectively, could effectively make the permit nullified or kill the permit because of that concern over not being, have flares or not having a wider or less or not having a wider driveway. So, Im not just sitting here. Its a little different than a change of zone application. A change of zone you have a very wide, you have essentially unlimited range of issues to consider and its, you dont have this list of things that says you consider these things and dont- and you dont get to consider other things that might make sense and I have to say this for general public. The general public comes in and theres a hearing on this application and naturally they expect us to deal with the full range of possible issues however this- we are constrained by the fact that this is an SMA permit application. So its not that Im sitting here and deciding I would like a 12-unit condominium in this particular location. We are dealing with the fact that they are zoned for a 12-unit condominium. The only, the hurdle that theyre here is the SMA permit. If there were a problem with affecting the water quality as a result of this we could recommend denial and the Commission would be justified in recommending in denying it. There are other issues if it had a negative impact on public recreation affected something that was a, say there was a popular public swimming beach in front of it, we could deny on that basis. But on to, you have to understand that to make a condition that they acquire more property from adjoining private owners to make a wider driveway is not something within their control and thus a condition like that could effectively, could, it could be like saying no you cant do this. And I dont think that thats within the range of choices that we have as a Commission on this particular project. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT A 28 WATANABE:On the other hand though you dont Mr. Director wouldnt you agree that assuming we were to approve this project and if the people of Sea Village were genuinely concerned about the width of that driveway that they would probably go back to the table and make that a possibility? But you know in making that a condition might allow the people of Sea Village to vote against it for other reasons like not wanting the project right? So if we just went ahead and approved it as is with that 20-foot minimum and if they were genuinely concerned about the safety then it behooves them to talk about that easement. Get back to the table talk about that easement. YUEN:Its- I would not want to put a condition in that forces them to go back to the table with the adjoining property owner. What theyve done is good because it allows people a way to walk in and out without getting in the 20-feet of the driveway. Youre, I think youre correct in what youre suggesting that if you put a condition that requires them to get another 4- feetfromSeaVillasforexamplethat,andtheyhavetogobacktotheSeaVillasownersitwould be apparent to the Sea Villas owners that simply by rejecting that they can not have the project happen at all in its current design and that may be what the owners- that may be the most desirable thing for those owners at least some of them. WATANABE:Actually Im not proposing making any further changes Im just suggesting that I think the solution assuming we were to approve it would become evident with that approval and things will work themselves out. So I dont think its going to be as large an issue once we approve it. I think the solution probably is there because as I understand it physically it is possible to achieve a wider easement than has been proposed without disturbing anything. So I kind of tend to think that this issue of driveway safety may go away with the approval. YUEN:Thats possible but I dont know. GALDONES:Any further discussions? Any further questions? Otherwise there being no further discussions or any questions of the applicants from the Commissioners. Commissioners there is a recommendation from the Department to approve and there also has been some discussion regarding making an amendment to condition number 3 and also to condition number 9. Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:In the matter of Wesley and Kelley Huggett, SMA Use Permit 03-007 I move that we approve based on the, with the amendments to item 9 and item 3, based on the Directors recommendations. GALDONES:Do I hear a second? MCCALL:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner McCall that the application by Wesley and Kelley Huggett, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 03-008 be approved by the Planning Commission with the amendments EXHIBIT A 29 to condition number 3 that it would read as a minimum 24-foot and on condition number 9 that the monitor be present. Discussion? WATANABE:Excuse me I believe the amendment the amendment was to 20-feet, minimum 20-feet am I right on that? I dont think it was 24? GALDONES:Its just the insertion of the word minimum. WATANABE:Oh okay, okay. GALDONES:Along with the background report and the revised recommendations are part of the acceptance of the SMA permit. Further discussion from the Commissioners? Hearing no discussion, Norman? HAYASHI:ThankyouMr.Chair.BeforeItaketheroll-callvotewewereaskedby legal counsel yesterday to poll the Commissioners as to whether, since this was a multiple meeting situation, to poll the Commissioners if they had reviewed the entire record before taking the vote. GALDONES:Proceed Norman. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yes Ive reviewed the entire, I believe I saw the first Soto application but I have all the information and reviewed it. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Yes. EXHIBIT A 30 HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Yes. HAYASHI:Thank you. With that Ill take the vote and that is to-. IWASHITA:Excuse me. I have a clarification. HAYASHI:Yes. IWASHITA:Your question is as to all thats been presented in the last several, the current hearing, its not the old proceeding right? HAYASHI:That would be the hearings that, all of theinformation that was provided toyoupriortotoday.ThepacketthatwasprovidedtotheCommission. IWASHITA:Imjustconcernedabouttheoldstufffrom2003cause,whatwas provided from the current set of hearings with Mr. Huggett right? HAYASHI:No, Im referring to the documents that were provided even the previous meetings and some of those were provided to you by the Staff. IWASHITA:Right in this Huggett application not the Soto? HAYASHI:That includes the Soto application. IWASHITA:Maybe Im just misunderstanding. HAYASHI:When Mr. Huggett, we brought this back to you, we had provided with you copies of the previous minutes of the hearings that were under the previous application which was Eric Soto. IWASHITA:Okay. Ive seen that. Okay, I just was concerned that it didnt include. HAYASHI:Okay, thank you. Yes. I believe Staff had provided you with all of the documentation. We just wanted to put that on the record. Okay with that- take the roll call and this is to approve with amendments to conditions 3 and 9. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? EXHIBIT A 31 SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:ChairGaldones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr.Chairmotioncarrieswith6ayevotesand1nay. GALDONES:ThankyouNorman.Mr.Mooersyouwillbeinformedinwritingof todays actions. MOOERS:Thank you Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Thank you. This discussion ended at 11:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawai€i Secretary EXHIBIT A 32