Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-19 twaikoloadevco PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT January 19, 2007 WAIKOLOA DEVELOPMENT A regularly advertised hearing on the application of COMPANY (SMA USE PERMIT NO. 25) was called to order at 10:16 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones William Graham Alvin Rho Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Jeffrey McCall Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (SMA USE PERMIT NO. 25) Request for amendment to Condition No. 12 (completion of the Waikoloa Homesites Venture Golf Course) of Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit No. 25, which allowed the overall development of the Waikoloa Resort at Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-9-7:1-9, 11, 14, 17, 19-21, 26, 30-38; 6-9-8:1-31; 6-9-9:1-14; 6-9-10:1, 34; and 6-9-11:1-26. GRAHAM: Our next item on the agenda is New Business. Applicant is Waikoloa Development Company, and this is in regard to SMA Use Permit No. 25. And it’s a request for an amendment to Condition 12 of the Use Permit, and on our agenda there is a list of lots of TMKs involved. But the basic content is a time extension for completion of the Waikoloa Homesites Venture golf course. If you have anyone here today who wishes to testify as public on this matter, please stop over at the table and get your name down, so we can hear you. Meantime, Jeff, could you give us explanation, please? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, if I can direct your attention to the location map. The area of this application is within the Waikoloa area. This is within the South Kohala District of Hawaii. More specifically, we are looking in the area where the Hilton Waikoloa Resort is located, as well as we have the Marriott Hotel, and other hotels and multiple family residential units are located, as well as the King’s Golf Course and the Waikoloa Beach Golf Course. For reference, this white line moving in a north-south direction is Queen Kaahumanu. This line running in an east-west direction is the Waikoloa Beach Road. The area of this particular request is located with the red dot. It’s going to be a Parcel 2, which is a large parcel that’s on the north side of the property running along the boundary of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. EXHIBIT C 1 The applicant in this case, Waikoloa Development Company, is requesting a six-year time extension to Condition 12 of Special Management Area Use Permit No. 25. Condition 12 has to do with the construction deadline to complete this particular golf course that we are looking at in this area. Originally, Special Management Area Use Permit No. 25 was approved in February 1977 to allow 3,000 hotel rooms, as well as 3,430 multiple family residential units, 2 golf courses and related recreational, commercial and support facilities on the property. There have been several amendments; in 1985, they had an amendment to allow the Hilton, or the Hyatt Regency Hotel which I believe now is the Hilton Waikoloa. Additionally they allowed two additional golf courses on the property. One of those golf courses is what we are looking at today. This particular golf course has come in for administrative time extensions, as well as in 1991 they had asked for a six-year time extension from the Planning Commission. As such, they will need to come back to the Planning Commission each time that they need an additional time extension. So again this request is for additional six years to complete this No. 3 golf course on the property. Since the Background and the Recommendation have been distributed to the Commissioners, we have received two comment letters: One from the Department of Transportation, one from the Department of Environmental Management. We’ve also received a letter from attorney William Yuen, representative for the applicant, further explaining the reasons for the time extension. This was dated January 10, and hopefully the Commission was able to get a copy of that. As well as recently we received a letter of opposition from Philip Manela; he resides at Unit 902 in the Waikoloa Colony Villas, which is located roughly in this particular area here in the resort complex. The Planning Director has added several conditions to the Permit: Conditions 24 to 26. These are relating to an integrated golf course management plan. The Planning Director is recommending that this amendment request for a six-year time extension to Condition 12 of SMA 25 be approved by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Jeff, I think it looks to me like your map up there is both the Mauna Lani and the Waikoloa place. Could you kind of show us what’s what as far as the Waikoloa Beach Course and the Waikoloa King’s Course, which are both in existence now, and then exactly where this third course would be and where maybe a fourth course might be, if there is a permit for two more? HAYASHI: I guess I’m more familiar since I’m the golfer of the group. This is the Waikoloa Beach Drive going towards the resort, and the Waikoloa Beach Golf Course is generally in this configuration.The King’s Course would be located in this particular area; that would be in close proximity to the Mauna Lani Resort. The two other proposed golf courses would be in this area here and the Waikoloa Homesites Venture’s golf course, which is the subject of this request, would be in this general configuration. GRAHAM: Okay, thanks. And since I think the ‘91 permit allowed up to two further golf courses and we are only talking about one golf course here, what is the status of the additional golf course? EXHIBIT C 2 DARROW: Before the fourth golf course can proceed, the third golf course has to meet certain conditions, so the fourth golf course is actually waiting for the third golf course to be constructed before it can begin construction. GRAHAM: And there are no time constraints on the fourth golf course other than to wait for the third one. Is that correct? DARROW: The applicant may be able to go into more detail, but I believe that’s correct. GRAHAM: Thank you. Do we have any other questions for Jeff from the Planning Commission? All right then. I see the applicant has come forward so we can proceed. I’ll first swear you in. Could you raise your right hand, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission today? APPLICANTS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. BAIL: May I introduce myself? GRAHAM: Yes, please introduce yourself and go ahead with whatever presentation you’d like to make. BAIL: Sure. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Lisa Bail. I’m an attorney with Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, here for Waikoloa Development Company. With me in the audience is the company representative, Eleanor Mirikitani. I am prepared to answer questions you have about the general nature of SMA 25, which is held by Waikoloa Development Company, which is the reason why we are presenting this request to the Commission. However, with me at the table for this hearing is Bill Yuen, attorney for Waikoloa Homesites Venture to answer specific questions you may have about the golf course or the reasons for the request being made. GRAHAM: Yes, but I also like you to give your address for the record, if you would. BAIL: Certainly. My office address is 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 1800, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. GRAHAM: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Bail at this point? Thank you, but you can stay there, though. Mr. Yuen, if you would also give your name and address, then your presentation. W. YUEN: My name is William Yuen. My address is 1001 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. I am the attorney for Waikoloa Homesites Venture. I am also a Corporate Officer and Director of Elleair Housing, Inc., which is a partner of Waikoloa Homesites Venture. Waikoloa Homesites Venture is the owner of Lot 1 of File Plan 2013 and the site of the proposed golf course. EXHIBIT C 3 A brief statement: Since the County of Hawaii Planning Commission granted the last time th extension until April 5 of this year to complete construction of the golf course, we have experienced the resurgence in the resort real estate market in Hawaii. Nevertheless, there are several reasons for Waikoloa Homesites Venture not yet being able to complete construction of this course. First, Waikoloa Homesites Venture believes there is still sufficient capacity in West Hawaii resort golf courses to support the current level of golf play. Second, completing the construction of this course requires a significant commitment of the financial resources of Elleair’s parent company. The parent company’s lenders are not yet in the position to fund the necessary funds that is going to take to complete this major project, and Elleair and Waikoloa Homesites Venture are thus forced to continue to defer completion of the golf course. I just want to note that Waikoloa Homesites Venture has made a substantial investment in this Waikoloa property over fifteen years ago. As the Planning Department’s staff recommendation states, Waikoloa Homesites Venture contributed a one and half million dollar installment of the community benefit assessment to the County of Hawaii upon receipt of Final Plan Approval for the golf course in 1993. We anticipate that the 6-year time extension will afford sufficient time to obtain the necessary funding to complete construction of the golf course. And we are prepared to accept the County’s recommended integrated golf course management conditions as a condition of the extension. With me in the audience are Mr. Masashi Yano and Ms. Kazuyo Sugiyama of Elleair, and we are prepared to answer any questions that the Commission may have. GRAHAM: Commissioners? Mr. Yuen, when I read this material, I first read your th letter of January 10, and it struck me as very forthright and I appreciated it. But then when I got back and was reading the background report, which has, you know, like the history of this from 1993 when the first time extension was requested, and then there was another one I think in 1997 and then another one in 2001. When I read what the reasons for the requests for the time extensions were, each time they sound almost word for word exactly what you are saying now: Market conditions don’t support it at this time, so we need a time extension, which we expect will be adequate for us, and then we also don’t have the financing available. So I kind of keep reading the same thing over and over, and it almost feels like a form letter. So I guess, you know, we generally as a Commission do approve time extensions, because if circumstances haven’t changed whatever decision was made to do it, we want to honor that. But it seems to me this has been going on for many years and we hear the same thing, and -, anyway. So, that sort of raised my ears a little bit, and I just wonder if you have any comment you like to make about that. W. YUEN: Mr. Chairman, I guess speaking from my experience of practicing law in this state and the recent experience dating back to the Japanese bubble of the late 1980s, Elleair is one of the few companies that I’ve been associated with and know that bought a property near the top of the bubble and is still here in Hawaii and doing business. And, I mean, I think all of you who’ve been in this Commission any length of time are familiar with the number of companies that bought land in the bubble or shortly after and are out of business, no longer with us. And, you know, I can say that it has not been easy for this company, a Japan company, to continue to survive here. But this company has survived in Hawaii for fifteen years, and continues to desire to make a follow-through on its commitments to build the golf course. It may EXHIBIT C 4 sound stock to you, but that’s about all I can say to support that this company does continue to have those intentions and is still around to have those intentions. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Do we have any other questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I’m glad you pointed that out. I don’t know if you could answer this question; I’m not even sure if it’s a fair question. But, you know, other developers that had issues, you know, fell delinquent in their property taxes, etc.? Is that the situation with Elleair, or are they to your knowledge current? W. YUEN: To my knowledge, they are current. WATANABE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Are there any other questions? Mr. Torigoe, could I ask you for some sense on a time extension request like this? What, from the legal frame work, what we as Commissioners should consider as necessary to grant it, or what we as Commissioners should consider as perhaps adequate or sufficient to choose to not grant it? What are the laws of criteria we should be using? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real generally, your Rule 9-11, G. 1. basically says that when a time extension request is made, the applicant shall set forth in writing the length of time requested and the reasons for the time extension. And the notice and hearing are basically the same as when you have an initial request for an SMA Permit. So the way the Planning Director has basically set it out is whether the request isn’t semi contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning Code or the original reasons for the granting of the Special Permit No. 25. As you’ve noted, the Permit was granted in the first place. So basically you are looking at whether something has changed that would weigh against allowing the extension to allow the Permit to be paid out as it was originally intended. And bearing in mind the guidelines are set forth in HRS 205A-26, and that the purpose of the SMA Permit and the criteria of the Permit are basically environmental in nature so -. And of course each case has to be taken on its own merits. I don’t know if the Staff would have anything to add to that. GRAHAM: Jeff or Norman, do you have anything to add to that or -? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I have a comment, but you know our Rules preclude Commissioners from testifying, so I would prefer to make the comment when we are in deliberation, rather than -. But it lends to this extended time period that we are talking about. GRAHAM: Okay. Yes, Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: I have a question I believe to the applicant just about the integrated golf course management plan that the Director is recommending and you have accepted. On the previous golf courses that were put together, is it the same owners that put the first golf courses together? EXHIBIT C 5 BAIL: Perhaps I can address that. Waikoloa Development Company has developed the first two golf courses, which have been subject to other requirements contained in the Permit itself, some of which were duplicates of the new conditions imposed in the new golf course management plan condition for this new course. MCCALL: I would assume that these conditions are probably somewhat more stringent than what was put forth with the first golf courses. Were they done, what, twenty years ago? BAIL: Yeah, I think some of the conditions were actually more stringent. For example, there were conditions imposed on Waikoloa to monitor water quality in the entire area and make periodic reporting to the Department of Health, and that is done on an on-going basis. And other management practice controls are implemented at the golf courses there: Native plantings to promote native species and landscape areas around the golf courses. So there is a whole series of criteria that have already been applied to the first courses that the Commission found when the original permit was granted, allowing those first two courses satisfied all of the Special Management Area rules and environmental concerns contained in the rules. MCCALL: I guess what I’m getting at, you may or may not be able to answer, is that in your opinion, would this -, with a new integrated golf course management plan, would that be more protective of the environment than what was done in the first courses, or is that something, you know, -? BAIL: I haven’t gone through to compare, so I don’t want to comment about whether it’s more stringent or not. But I think the point is that the Special Management Area rules themselves require compliance with conditions that protect the environment. Those were scrutinized in detail in the series of hearings and before the Land Use Commission to be sure that the environment would be adequately protected with the construction of these golf courses. So I think at the time the original permit was granted, those issues were addressed. I don’t know what the genesis is of this new golf course management plan requirement. This is the first time I’m seeing it, and like I said I haven’t gone back to do a line-by-line comparison of those old requirements versus the new ones. MCCALL: Thank you. W. YUEN: I think in summary from Waikoloa Homesites Ventures’ prospective, we believe that the Health Department regulations and other regulations presently in place adequately cover these requirements. But it’s the Planning Commission’s discretion to impose conditions, so we are not going to oppose it on that basis. GRAHAM: Commissioners? Taking a cue from Commissioner Watanabe, I certainly don’t want to testify either on this, but I feel like I should at least flesh out what my concerns are and why I’m, you know, belaboring the point that I have or might want to say. I think from what Mr. Torigoe said, if in fact the conditions for granting the original permit still exist today, then presumably it’s reasonable to extend the permit. And the issue I think that most concerns me in West Hawaii in general is that condition of the ocean. And like back before 1980, before the first Sheraton was built down there, I frequented EXHIBIT C 6 that area and so I’m aware of the water quality and all that, and since that time we did have the ciguatera issue arise. And perhaps contributing to ciguatera and also contributing to stress on the coral reefs are nutrients coming into the groundwater. Sort of the interplay with the nutrients coming into the groundwater on the land which tend to form a growth of algae in the water, and then the herbivore fish, especially the surgeon fish, tend to feed on those algae, so there is like a little balance there. As long as the nutrients are not excessive and the algae growth is not out of hand at all, then the herbivores cut it back and the whole system functions. And I think when the original permit was granted, the sense was that that could continue to take place. We do have on Maui near Maalaea real problems with algae growing. We have off Waikiki problems with algae sort of taking over and harming the reef. And so my concern at this point is, since 1977 we have like 30 years of experience with water quality that has been monitored and all, but we don’t have that information before us here today. Because Waikoloa is in fact a bay - it’s an embayment - so you don’t have the flushing of the nutrients that you would have on an open ocean exposure. I feel like the nutrient problem could be an issue, and the new golf course adding fertilizer, watering and all that, adding more nutrients to the ground water could potentially be problematic. And so my concern is, you know, I think there has been a lot of evidence accumulated since 1977 on water quality just in that area through the monitoring programs and all. And so I feel like in my own capacity as a Commissioner I’d like to know where we stand and what is the current condition of the ocean in that regard before I say, well, it’s okay to do another golf course, add more nutrients, and that I would still feel confident that exchange of algae growth from nutrients and grazing by the fishes and other marine life can stay in balance; I don’t know that yet. So that’s my own personal concern at this point; and if either of you like to make comment on that, I would be happy to hear. BAIL: Yeah, I would like to acknowledge your concern, and assure you that the Department of Health does regulate water quality and has a whole system of regulation. The way this has been addressed in the permit is to require in Condition 20 that the use of pesticides and herbicides in conjunction with all phases of operation shall conform with the applicable regulations of appropriate government agencies. So there has to be compliance not only with laws applicable to the use of FIFRA and OSHArequirements for the use of pesticides, but also with the Department of Health’s water quality standards. Also imposed under the original permit was the requirement to comply with the Department of Health guidelines applicable to new golf course development. And if the future is a concern, there is a general requirement in Paragraph 27 requiring compliance with all other applicable laws, including requirements of other departments. So, were the Department of Health to revisit its policy on pesticide use and impose a requirement, this provision of the permit would be applicable to that. So we do have an agency overseeing this concern, which has been getting the monitoring results for a period of time. I’m sorry I don’t have those monitoring results with me today and I cannot summarize them for you. To my knowledge there is not a concern that has risen to date, but like I said I don’t have them with me and I haven’t -, I’m not prepared to summarize the results of the water quality monitoring that has already been done. My understanding is that it is to continue and be ongoing, and the purpose of that is to address this very issue with concern of runoff and an impact on the environment. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Yuen? EXHIBIT C 7 W. YUEN: I can’t speak to this bay or this golf course or the existing golf courses here. I can say that I have worked extensively with Dr. Steven Dollar who has studied the effects of golf course and resort development throughout the islands. And it is his general conclusion that the construction of ocean front resorts and golf courses does not have a negative effect on the near shore ocean water quality. In some cases that you don’t have here where a golf course and resort replace sugar or pineapple cultivation, the resort construction actually improves near shore ocean water quality. Obviously in this case there was no plantation agriculture in Waikoloa, but it’s his general conclusion that this kind of development does not have a negative effect on ocean water quality. GRAHAM: All right, thank you for the comments. I’m also very familiar with Mr. Dollar’s work in the past. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I just thought, you know, when you brought up the point, that it seems to me just a general kind of thing, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the laws that you talk about as far as the Department of Health, runoff, and maintaining studies and all of that on water quality, that all of those apply to Waikiki, to Maalaea Bay, and to these areas that Commissioner Graham is indicating. I think general knowledge of these problems with the adverse changes, what we perceive as adverse changes on the reef, so and it’s not -. I think what Commissioner Graham is asking for is not just water quality but some assessment of the quality of the reef, and not just the water, and to see that we have that information in order to assess whether or not, again, you know, there has been a change or impact on the reef, and then judge evidences as to whether or not the change is tied to the development that has occurred or not, right? So he is bringing up a point that is different so -. And I’m not sure exactly how to address it, but that’s how I perceive what Commissioner Graham is bringing up and, you know, it is a concern. My son and his friends, they like to go diving and all of that, and so you know, right now the pristine places are not near these developments, where they would like to go. But historically, you know, Waikoloa these places have been or used to be the pristine places, so I think it’s a legitimate concern that we should give some consideration. But I’m not exactly sure how it can be addressed. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Go ahead, ma’am. BAIL: In response to the comment, the ocean water monitoring that’s done is being done to address these very concerns looking at the runoff impacts to the water. I understand your concern impacts to the reef is different from that. My concern would be if you begin looking at impacts to the reef, and we already know there are no impacts to the water from the water quality monitoring that’s being done, then what you are looking at are impacts from something other than golf course, which is not the issue that we are here for today. So I think you want to look at, you know, why were these conditions imposed back in the original permit to look at runoff from golf course, and what is the real reason you are looking at something different other than the pesticides and golf course runoff to look at the reef itself. GRAHAM: Okay, I might just add that in the last kind of a groundwater study we had, which was done for a Kona project, an SMA project, within the last year, we got all the water quality information put there and there’s also written in there the assessment that the levels prior to doing anything, meaning the current levels, were already greatly elevated over the natural levels due to land base human activities, is what we got from the assessment. So I mean it’s certainly quite likely that we are going to have a similar situation here at Anaehoomalu. And the EXHIBIT C 8 question is whether the current levels are such that we need to be worried about additional, you know, nutrients added onto them. I know Commissioner Iwashita said it’s not real clear where we go from here with this concern. My sense is that, you know, I wouldn’t personally ask that you do a marine resource study on the bay at this time. But what I would sure like to see is all these water quality monitoring that’s going on over the years that’s going to the Department of Health. I don’t see that; maybe the Department of Health sees it, but it’s not generally seen. What I guess I would prefer is that we continue this application, and that when you come back to us, you bring in a history just in this area of what the different monitoring stations have come up with with water quality and any marine studies that have been done in this area, and not ask you for anything new but just to provide us the information that’s already there on the record. And if we can see that over time there has been no adverse impact, then I think we can probably assume that in the future there won’t be either. But if we can see any pattern that might have us concerned, I feel like we should really address that and be aware of it. So that’s my personal sense as a Commissioner, not as Chairman here or anything. BAIL: Essentially what you’ve just said is that exactly the same as what’s contained in Condition 14 of the permit. And that requires the ground and ocean water quality monitoring and mitigation plan to be developed; the plan should be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department in consultation with the Department of Health prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or prior to any land preparation activity being conducted. So that has already been done certainly to the extent the monitoring results exist. We are happy to create a new summary and submit those to the Planning Department to the extent that has not already been done. I don’t know if they are transmitted to you on an on-going basis, but we would be happy to provide you a copy of the results that we have. GRAHAM: Yeah, I feel like you speak to Condition 20, but that will take place after the Planning Commission has presumably granted an SMA permit and sort of exercised its authority. But our authority is really to ensure that there are no adverse consequences. So if the information is already available for us to make our decision on, I would sure like to have that information before we make that decision, not have it passed to the Planning Director after we’ve made some decision. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understood your last comment to mean that you are willing to provide that information to us as Commissioner Graham indicated, in order for us to consider it and review it before making our decision about this extension, is that correct? BAIL: Well, I’m sure Mr. Yuen would like an answer today for his clients to be able to go home with. But if it’s a matter of providing information that we already have to the Commission, so you can feel confident in making a decision, I’m certainly happy to provide those documents to you. IWASHITA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Yuen? EXHIBIT C 9 W. YUEN: I guess my concern is that what’s before the Commission today is a request for an extension for the first of two golf courses that have already been permitted; it’s not the original decision as to whether or not to permit the construction of two additional golf courses. And it frankly troubles me to feel that the Commission might be considering that it could perhaps revoke the already issued permit to construct two golf courses. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Actually, that was kind of going to be my point. Because theoretically the golf courses are already permitted, if they can’t develop it, they could sell it right now to someone else who would then develop it within the timeframes that are already allowed and without the new Conditions 24 and 25. I think what we are deciding on is more the time factor. I share your concerns because I enjoy the ocean also, but at the same time I think your concerns about water quality would be actually more prudent in the areas where the golf courses already exist. Whereas you have natural filtration for the proposed golf courses that are significantly inland from the ocean, and theoretically would filter out a lot of these nutrients, pesticides, etc. So I think if there is any significant damage that is going to be done to the environment, it’s going to be more from golf courses along the shoreline than one that’s way up inland close to the Queen K. Highway. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point of procedure. I think I’ll feel more comfortable if we just stick to our questioning of the applicants, and then move into deliberation when the time comes, and then check if there is any testimony as well. So if you can get back on track with the procedural activities of this hearing, I’ll feel more comfortable with that. GRAHAM: Thank you for the reminder. If you don’t mind then, if either of you have no more to say right now, then we can check again for public testimony. Then we can go on to our own discussions; and then if we have any questions or whatever for you, we can just call you at that time, if that would be all right. W. YUEN: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to testify on this matter that hasn’t signed up? Cause I don’t have anyone on record. All right, seeing that there is none, it’s before the Commission now. Do we have any further comments or questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Earlier I stated that I didn’t want to testify, you know, so -. And I too had some concerns when I saw the long history of extensions, you know. But then we have to put this all in context; and we tend to think in context just simply of the United States. And what we have to remember is that if the financing is coming from Japan, Japan had been in dire straights up until only recently, and in fact that that period of economic stress lasted for a period of something like ten years, significant economic stress. That might in addition help to explain why, you know, it’s kind of repetitive: We don’t have the financing yet, maybe it’s not quite EXHIBIT C 10 ready. I think another thing that the applicant did not point out to us is that what’s working against them also at this point is that construction is booming; and so even if they want to build it right now, it would be a little bit difficult, hard to get labor, I think we are all aware of that. And certainly it would add to the cost at this point in time, which would, you know, then make that venture probably economically unfeasible at this point simply because of our own conditions, you know. Within the United States we’ve had a boom, and so we got American dollars coming in the area investing and that’s soaking up all of our resources, and that’s why labor costs are what they are now. And that was my only comment as far as -, I mean, to justify why we had this long string of events. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Yeah, I wanted to talk to the -, discussion about time limits. I mean time limits are generally put on SMA applications, etc. and I think for a valid reason, because conditions change. It is understandable that the applicant may not be able to do what they say for various reasons, you know, financial reasons, business reasons. But I don’t think they should feel that we will automatically give extensions because conditions can change. And this is a good example of where conditions to the environment could change; and if we can see that, say, the ocean environment has started to degrade, we may need -, I’m not saying that we would deny this application, but that we might need to make more stringent requirements. We can’t go back and change the requirements that we made for things that have already gone on, but we could make more stringent requirements for these or any new development, so that there will be no further degradation of the environment. I think that has been done before. To an extent that is being done here but it’s been done here -. We aren’t being given the information that the integrated golf course management plan is going to be, you know -. We don’t have the information that there is either degradation in environment or not, and I think we need more information, it seems to me. You know, Director Yuen has said several times, when we come for extensions, that extensions are not automatic, that in effect when an extension comes, it is like a new application and it should be looked at as a new application; new terms, new conditions can be imposed at that time and, you know, I think that should be a reasonable request. So I would say that in my opinion I think we need more information before -, at least I feel I need more information before I can make a comfortable decision on this matter. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really don’t have any serious problems with the financial reasons, the necessity to request for the extension and the history, and you know, I’ll characterize it as practical. Maybe not, but, you know, this is a long standing project that has been approved from a long time ago and it has had several extensions, a couple extensions. However, as a Commission in reality we need to deal -. We are still talking about complying with Chapter 205 as the Counsel indicated earlier; and so you know, when these extensions come up, I agree with Commissioner McCall that it’s time to reassess what the conditions are. If the conditions haven’t changed, then it’s sort of -, you know, as far as an extension is concerned, I’ll be inclined to grant it, you know. Obviously the conditions, the actual physical conditions, haven’t changed. But the concerns raised by the Chair I think are legitimate, and we need to have information. And if the information is, you know, basically that the bay and the surrounding waters are not the Missouri River from forty years ago, and it’s not in great degradation and not threatened or changed adversely, I don’t think any of -, personally I EXHIBIT C 11 wouldn’t have a problem with granting the extension. But if there has been a change in the water quality, there has been a change in the reef conditions, and then we have to, you know, we don’t want to take action that would compound that matter. So I think that, if anything, that we have to seriously consider the conditions upon which the extension will be granted, so that further degradation wouldn’t take place. And you know we need to -. Science has change, right? I mean the science from ten, fifteen years ago is not the science that we have today. So we need to consider all of those factors, I think. And as these extensions they are designed there. This is Special Management Area, you know, it’s our law to protect the environment so we need to, and it’s our responsibility to enforce that law. And I believe continuance of this matter to allow time to get the information that we requested is an appropriate action. GRAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes? ALAMEDA: Thank you. This is a real short comment. I think for the applicant, you know, that’s the risk you take. The discussion that we have now is kind of the risk you take by not complying with the timelines, previous timelines. So I think it’s a fair question that the Commissioners has asked of the applicant, and I too would be in favor of continuing this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Thank you. I might say that what I was looking for as far as new material would be, not that you reproduce everything that has been written about what’s going on in the ocean and in this area since 1977 with the original permit, but that maybe you give us a bibliography telling us exactly what studies have been done, so that the Planning Department or anyone here could find it, and that you just give us the specific detail studies that you feel are most relevant to what we are dealing with today, which to me would include the conditions back when this permit was originally granted and current conditions. And then if you choose to summarize on that, that’s certainly up to you, too. But that’s what I was thinking. Thank you. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m ready to entertain a motion. Do we need to call the applicant back up? GRAHAM: I don’t think so at this time. Yes, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to suggest also that I think it’s a good idea to address your concerns regarding getting information about whether there have been some changes that have occurred, and what the existing information tells us about the current impacts and the likely impacts of the new course. And I also suggest that it would probably be helpful if the applicants could look at the proposed conditions, you know, apparently they weren’t really familiar with the proposed conditions or the reasons why they are there. But it may be that those conditions will help mitigate whatever impacts are shown by the existing information, or if there are other conditions that they could also suggest that would help to mitigate any apparent impacts. That’s basically your responsibility, is, you know, to take a look EXHIBIT C 12 at what kind of impacts may be occurring environmentally, and also whether there is possible mitigation of impacts. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think the point is well taken. So then in addition to just giving us the information about the current situation and the history getting here, you will be addressing the specific requirements that would go with this permit and how they might address any issues that come up for you. Would either of the applicants like to come forward at this time before we finish our motion? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Is that okay with you, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: No, I just had a question about the timing of -, you know, because we are continuing this matter, whether we have -, what the time frame that we have to work in and if that needs to be addressed. GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: I think under your Rule 9-11, F., you have 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing in which to make a decision, or a longer period as can be agreed to by the applicant. Your hearing is on-going, so I think you are okay. GRAHAM: Thank you. BAIL: Thank you. I’ve heard and understand the discussion. I have verified with my client that we do submit our water quality monitoring results to the Department on an on- going basis. But, I think, to make it easy for the Commissioners, what we can do is provide the bibliography on summary of relevant data that you request. We have already been required to submit a mitigation plan for water quality, and we are happy to summarize that for you and provide it to you as well. So we understand your request and we are happy to get the information. I just want to give you the assurance that we have been giving it all along to the Department as this has been expected of us. GRAHAM: Fine, thank you. And if others, like the University or whatever, have done studies in this same area, I would also appreciate you put a little diligence to find out what other studies might have been done, so you can include those. BAIL: We would be happy to. GRAHAM: Thank you. W. YUEN: Is there any other information that you are going to require? GRAHAM: I think I explained my concern on what I need. Any other Commissioners have any further they would like to add? Commissioner McCall? EXHIBIT C 13 MCCALL: Maybe just that -. We don’t have any information on if there is any degradation in environment. But if there is some, you know, especially we are talking about golf courses here, there are a lot of golf course experts, you know. We had a proposal a year or so ago that was, you know, they had like -. The Audubon Society has their different levels of gold and platinum and whatever, levels of, that are protection for the environment. But anyway there are experts out there that you might be able to use to say, hey, you know, there is some degradation but our experts are saying that if we build the golf course to this standard, whatever, there will be no more degradation in environment or, you know, will be improve them or whatever. But I think we need some more information from you that -. I mean if it comes out that everything is clean, we got no worries, then maybe you got no worries, either. But if there is something happening, we want to know about it and we would like you to come and tell us, you know, what you can do about it to make sure that we can keep these things as good as they are, so -. BAIL: My understanding is that the data does not show a problem. But if there is something indicated, we would be certainly happy to provide you additional information. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the applicant Waikoloa Development Company, SMA Use Permit No. 25, be continued to our next Kona meeting. GRAHAM: Is there second? MCCALL: Second. GRAHAM: Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner McCall. Do you have any further discussion? I think the intent of the motion is so that the applicant can provide the additional information for the next meeting that we’ve already discussed here. ALAMEDA: That’s correct. GRAHAM: And I presume that if there is any reason you would need to extend beyond the next Kona meeting, you can just let the Planning Department know. W. YUEN: When is the next Kona meeting? th HAYASHI: February 15. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. EXHIBIT C 14 DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes to continue to the next Kona meeting, five to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 15