Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-11 tsoto911 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of ERIC SOTO (SMA 03-007) was called to order at 9:03 a.m. in the King KamehamehaÓs Kona B - Kamakahonu Ballroom IV, 755660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with First Vice- Chairman Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Florence Kubota Bill Thibadeau Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 23 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: 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 squ 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. FUJIKAWA:The first on the agenda, we have the Applicant, Eric Soto (SMA 03-007), 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. Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members of the st Commission. As you recall, on August 1, this matter was brought for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At that time, we had received a Petition for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing by the Association of Apartment Owners of Sea Village, Inc. During that hearing, the Applicant and the AssociationÓs representative requested that the Commission continue the hearing in order to allow them to sit down and talk about the 1 issues involved in the Petition, issues that the Association had. ItÓs my understanding in talking with the ApplicantÓs representative and the AssociationÓs attorney that negotiations have been going on and discussions have been going on until, and itÓs still going on; and theyÓll be requesting another request for a continuance on this application. Both Mr. Mooers and Mr. Tsukazaki are here to respond to any que regarding the status of the negotiations or discussions. Are there any questions? And staff has no objections to the continuance of this hearing. As additional information, since the last hearing we did receive correspondences and we have distributed them to you. We also received a number of correspondences from other individuals. And this morning we rec of Sea Village, and three made by single-family homeowners, additional information that we also circulated. FUJIKAWA:Okay, we have three people who signed up to testify on this that we have. Any others who would like to testify, please come up forward to sign in on this particular application. Okay, now will the Applicant and/or the representative, please stand up to testify on this. Okay. Could you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Can you tell us your address? MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers and IÓm the representative of the Applicant. My address is P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may proceed. MOOERS:Because of the pending Contested Case, I donÓt think we can really provide any witnesses or have our architect come up to talk about the viewplanes. I will say that I think we are in agreement in principle with the attorney representing the Association of Apartment Owners. WeÓve been going back-and-forth on language and agreement. And it was our hope that we could have accomplished were not. A number of their Board members are on the mainland. It has been difficult to acquire their signatures. But we firmly believe that we will have an agreement in time for the next meeting. I did see some of the material that was passed out today, some rather interesting allegations regarding the project; and I do say I look forward to addressing each and every one of those at some point. But becau Case, I would not be allowed to do that today; but rest assured that I will address each and every concern at the appropriate time. 2 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Staff, do you have any questions of the Applicant? Okay, you want step back; and I have three people who have signed up to testify. Could you kindly come up, Linda Nagai, Brian Haney, Charles Buscemi. Okay, all three of you, could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:And letÓs start off, you on the right side of me. State your name and address? HANEY:My name is Brian Haney. I am a part-time resident of Kona at 72-6002 Alii Drive, No. 1-205. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And then next to you? NAGAI:Linda Nagai. I live at 77-341 Ainanani St., Kailua-Kona. Of course, I do have a home also on 75-6000 Alii Drive, which is ri FUJIKAWA:I see. And, go ahead, thank you. And, you? BUSEMI:My name is Charles Buscemi. IÓm also a resident of Sea V 75-6002 Alii Drive, No. 1-205. FUJIKAWA:Okay. LetÓs start out with the testifying, Brian, and then we go to Linda and Charles. Go ahead. HANEY:That sounds good. Actually, if itÓs okay, I would, IÓd like to just sort of introduce Linda, and IÓll give people a little background and let her go first; and then IÓll go after; and Charles will go the last. FUJIKAWA:Okay, itÓs okay. Go ahead, Linda. HANEY:Thank you. Charlie and I are both owners at Sea Village and we have been working with our Board with very little success in our mind to get some of our concerns about this project heard; and thatÓs part of the reason why weÓre here to speak with you all today. Linda is one of our neighbors, and we were speaking with her this week and discovered some interesting information; and we asked her if she could come with us this morning to share that. So with that, I will turn it over to Linda. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Linda. NAGAI:I was born and raised down there where Sea Village is sitting right now, thatÓs my parentsÓ two-acre lot that they sold back in the Ò70s. And as a little girl, IÓm going to tell my age here, back in the Ò50s, I played along 3 mother would allow me to go with my cousins. And I remember going to this property, this lot, I guess they call it 75-1930, but IÓve always known it as Mrs. ParkerÓs property. And we used to walk along the beach, go fishing and getting those little tsubus and stuff. And weÓd go into the property, which is all bush-grown and whate a grave; and we knew it was a grave because it was rocks all around it, like the old Hawaiian graves, just rocks around it and dirt-filled center. So we would go, and whenever weÓd go through the area we go to the graves and whatever flowers were in Kailua, which didnÓt, like the hibiscus, that we could pick along the way weÓd go and offer flowers as little kids doing that. So I, my parents still own that piece or owned that piece, 75-6000, which is right on the roadside of Alii Drive, which is now mine; and we live there part-time. You know, when we want to get away from the top, we go down to the beach and we go fishing; and we call it our beach home. So we fish, and we fish along the shorelines and we get -. So I get the opihis, and the tsubus, and the aama crabs; and I still continue to do that there. And when I was at Sea Village one day going through them to go f telling me about this building thatÓs coming up, thatÓs -. The first thing that had come out of my mouth is what about the grave? And they said what grave? And I says, well, there was a grave there. Unless someone removed the grave, it should remember, my Dad passed away in 1994 and prior to his death, I k the former owners and he always told her, you should intern that grave, take that grave away from there. She says, no, I want that grave, I want that grave on my property. So, you know, Dad has lived there since, what, Ò40s, I guess. And, so, we all knew about the grave. Whose grave it was, we donÓt know. In the Ò50s, it looked like a very old grave. So, you know, there were the Hawaiian families living there year around. So it could be a child, it could be an adult, we donÓt know; but just out of respect as a child we did that. And till today, we do go fishing in that area. And IÓm just afraid that if we, if you put something like that up there, itÓs going to take away -. Right now, as I went to their condo yesterday for the first time and looked out, the area is already graded. So, and I went to look to see where the grave was Òcause I could kind of remember where it was, the big kiawe tree is gone, itÓs chopped. Its stump is like, it was so big, and I says thatÓs where the grave was. So I walked down to it but I couldnÓt find that the ground has been graded. So I donÓt know if theyÓre still there, or they graded over it, or it could be under those big boulders, Òcause itÓs very nearby. But if theyÓre going to build there and do beaches and different things, then thatÓs going to take away from people using the shoreline. And there are a lot of people besides myself I see down there getting their opihis and different things from the sea that we still like to do here in HawaiÒi. FUJIKAWA:Is there any question from the Commissioners to this testifier? Go ahead, Mr. Graham. 4 GRAHAM:Thank you. Linda, given that what youÓre saying the area has already being graded, the kiawe tree is gone, thatÓs all stuff that has happened already, as a Planning Commission, what do you think, what would you like to see happen now as far as the grave, just that single issue, and what is reasonable? NAGAI:Well, if itÓs graded, it has been graded, there should be something still there or if itÓs under those big rocks, it may still be there, you know. ÒCause theyÓre boulders, I mean, not great big boulders but, you know, when you grade, you throw rocks. So they kind of threw rocks or, rocks are going down to the beach; Òcause the rocks that are on the shoreline, itÓs not natural. ItÓs not what was there years ago, it all has been changed. GRAHAM:Meaning then that the Applicant should make whatever effort is necessary to identify whether the grave is still there and what has become of it? NAGAI:I would hope so. Because that would be, I mean, if that w grave, I will want someone to pay a little more respect than just throw me under the dirt and just get rid of me. GRAHAM:Thanks. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Who else had a question? Commissioner Kubota, go ahead. KUBOTA:Yes, I just wanted to point out that in our report, the Background Report that we got, that the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Department, Division, has already cleared the land of any historic, what do they call it, historic preservation. It has gone through the Historic Preservation review thoroughly and they feel that, and to quote them, ÐThus we believe that no historic properties would be affected by this undertaking.Ñ So, you know, we have an agency that went through the study telling us that; and thatÓs recorded in, because of the previous grubbing and grading and grubbing that has taken care, taken place before this project ever was conceived. I guess, thatÓs what theyÓre referring to. HANEY:Could I make -? FUJIKAWA:Just a minute, youÓll be called. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. Just for my clarification, when you refer t Mrs. ParkerÓs parcel, was that the parcel that is the subject of NAGAI:Yeah. There was one parcel that was split, I guess, when they divorced years ago. So there was a Mr. Parker and a Mrs. Parker; and her parcel had the little gravesite. His parcel did not and -. 5 SPRINGER:Thank you. Just if I may make a comment with regard to Commissioner KubotaÓs referring us to the agency letter and also to Dr. RechtmanÓs letter. I donÓt see any reference to interviews conducted with knowledgeable people in the area. Clearly, thereÓs reference to studies based on the physical remains that may have been on the property. But perhaps the testifierÓs bringing to our attention an oversight and perhaps some investigation with regard to interviewing informants may be useful. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners? Okay. You may proceed. HANEY:I will go ahead and speak next. Again, my name is Brian H and IÓm also a licensed top professional engineer, and I specialize in system planning for major utilities. So itÓs kind of a special pleasure for me to talk to the Planning Commission because planning is something that I take very seriously. I sent out this presentation which I would like to go through if everybody had a chance to receive that. On the second slide, thereÓs a map which shows the parcels in this area. IÓm sure most people are very familiar with this, but I provided thi complicated situation. What we have here is Parcel No. 30 which should be marked Soto. ItÓs the one that ends in 30, thatÓs sort of right in the middle. ThatÓs where the proposed development is going in. Just north of there, Parcel 32, belongs to Mr. Michael Kniss. We have Parcel 12, which recently had some transactions take place. Mr. Soto now owns half of that property, the other half is owned by Mr. Kniss. So they share that jointly and they both use that for access to their properties or will use it for acces We also have Parcel No. 38, which is now run by Sun Terra Resorts. ItÓs a very long, skinny parcel which runs along Alii Drive; and they use it for what they call the Long House, which is an old building thatÓs actually a little bit too close to the road, but weÓll talk about that later. Just south of there, we have Parcel 37, which is a little sliver of land which is registered right now to Ms. Lilly Ako, who, according to the obituary I found on the internet, passed away three years ago and another man, Shigeru Oda. WasnÓt really, we could have tracked down any of the descendants of these people -. We donÓt really know whoÓs, owns that property. And then, of course, to the south, we have Parcel 3, which belongs to Sea Village. On the next slide, we kind of detailed the area a little bit. This is also a very congested area, and this is not a surprise to anybody who has driven down Alii Drive lately. ThereÓs a lot of development going on there and, you know, we canÓt stop change. But, as planners, one thing we can do is we can direct it and make sure that itÓs done properly and safely. 6 What we have here on the other side of the, the mauka side of the road, we have the Kona Hawaiian Village and the Kona Sea Ridge developments, both very large developments with driveways that have been put in. The driveway thatÓs for Kona Sea Ridge right now is actually being used for construction equipment. IÓm not sure if thatÓs going to become a permanent driveway for their latest phase or not, but we do have a lot of large cranes and trucks going in and out of there; and itÓs almost directly across from the Sea Village entrance. If youÓll notice, if you go up the road a little bit, about 35 feet, youÓll come to the next driveway, which is currently used by Mr. Kniss for access to his property and would be used by the proposed several developments as well. Continuing down the road, we have the Kona Tiki Hotel. They have a separate driveway for their unit which is on the other side of the bridge. This area, just to kind of further complicate matters, is a 30-mile per hour speed area. ItÓs, weÓre lucky if people do that in this area. We have no turning lanes on this area. If you go down the road apiece, down at Casa De Emdeko, very nicely big, wide driveways. We do not have that here. This is a two-lane road with lots of traffic, and some other problems weÓll discuss later. This is a popular surfing spot right here. I think itÓs called TikiÓs or, thatÓs in Kahului Bay, and thereÓs a lot of young people, which is kind of a beginner surferÓs spot. We have kids on bikes with surfboards on the back, a lot of teenage drivers, thatÓs kind of dangerous. We also have driveways that are very close together and we have a lot of private drives in between them as well and a lot of fast-moving traffic. ThereÓs also a bridge down there which the pedestrian lane narrows when you get to the bridge. So we have pedestrians that are very close to the traffic at that point, and there has been several accidents down there which weÓll discuss later. Basically, our issue here or one of the main issues, at least my main issue as an engineer, is safety. And IÓm not the only one who has mentioned this. ThereÓs a letter from the Department of Public Works, Mr. Galen Kuba, there are letters from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, all addressing the fact that there are concerns about the driveway that will be used for this unit and the size of the development that it. Like I mentioned before, the Sun Terra Office has been grandfathered in. ItÓs probably too close to the road. If it had to be built over again today, it probably wouldnÓt be built that way. Unfortunately, I guess fortunately for them, maybe, they just remodeled it; and, so itÓs brand spanking new and it will be used for quite awhile, I would assume. This building causes a limited line of sight, and weÓll look at some photos later, when you come out of the driveway or if youÓre a pedestrian or cyclist using the lane on that side of the road. A wider driveway has been recommended by the Department of Public Works. 7 They requested a 20-foot minimum and, also, a 24-foot preferred width for this driveway. The 24 feet, I got my tape measure out yesterday, will take you just about from the Sea Village property line with a little bit of setback, which is required, over basically to the edge of the Sun Terra Building. ThatÓs a pretty squeezed-in dri IÓll show you some photos of that later. Other issues here are congested parking due to the number of units. WeÓre basically, it states in the application itself that this is the maximum number of units that can be put on this piece of land, and they also state that theyÓre putting in the minimum number of parking lots or parking spots. So, you know, if somebody has a party, thereÓs some special event or something, to me that sounds like you have people parking on the road. That doesnÓt sound like good planning. We also have an issue about access for garbage trucks. The garbage trucks need to be able to get into this building. How are they going to do that with the Sun Terra Office sitting right on the side of the road. TheyÓre going to be slowing way down, making very short turns. If somebody doesnÓt cut it right, they may be backing up into Alii Drive, theyÓll try it again. This is something that needs to be considered and needs to be addressed. We also have rapid development down here, as I said; and it is making driving down here kind of a dangerous activity. I hope to have a traffic accident history today from the Police Department. It wonÓt be ready till next week but I will forward that to you when I get it. What I do know is I witnessed two accidents myself last year. One of them I was sitting on my lanai when I heard this loud bang. I didnÓt run down to gawk or anything, but I heard all the police sirens and the fire engines racing down Alii Drive to get to it. The next morning I went out to take a little stroll and the house four doors down from us had the whole front of the house bashed in, took off the entire entryway to the house. Hopefully, nobody was in there. I donÓt know what happened to the driver in this accident, but it was not a pretty sight and caused a lot of property damage. The second accident was a little more disturbing. Strolling home one evening from town, walking down the road, again, hear boom, bang, second time in th whatÓs going on here? I walked up, there was a mother standing on the side of the road with her two-year old daughter bleeding profusely from the head and sheÓs yelling, ÐSave my daughter, save my daughter. Somebody call 911.Ñ And IÓm wal going, my gosh, this is terrible, this is one of the worst things IÓve ever seen in my life. I sat down with this woman, we tried to do some first-aid. Somebody got a cell phone out, we called the police, and they got down there, and she was okay. But it was a scary situation, really scared; and I donÓt want to see that happen again, especially in front of my building. If we could flip to the next page, there are some photos on there that show the situation that weÓre dealing with. Photo No. 1 is the view coming out of the driveway. This is the 8 current driveway as it exists today. ThereÓs the handicap ramp over there. By the way, the easement on this, some people say 16 feet. The way I measured it, it could be 15 feet, itÓs somewhere in there. I donÓt want to nit-pick on that. So far as we know right now, the application states they have a 20-foot easement. In my speaking with our Board and the other concerned parties, Sun Terra, namely, there have been no other easements granted. So the application as it stands is currently incorrect. One other thing you might notice here is, this car, we put a compact economy car up here the other day, and you canÓt fit two of them on the existing driveway, so I know theyÓre hoping to expand this. But getting garbage trucks, SUVÓs, pickup trucks down this little area, itÓs a scary situation for me. Photo No. 2 shows the dead-end view with the Sea Village driveway on the left. And the driveway for the proposed project starts immediately on the right edge of that hedge there. This is what they call, I guess, parallel adjacent driveways, has a whole special set of problems that go with it. You can just imagine you have two people trying to pull out onto this busy road, this one, and the new driveway is going to the right, the one on the other driveway is going to the left, theyÓre looking for a spot to get in because cars are whizzing by both ways, they both pull out the same time, bang, you have an accident. Again, we have no turn lanes here either. So this is really a bad, itÓs a bad setup, almost as it is today; and weÓre trying to make it worse, which is what scares me. Three and four show you the line-of-sight views. No. 3 is for pedestrians and cyclists coming down the road. Cars will be coming up from behind those over there on the right, wouldnÓt want my child riding a bike down there. And on going the other direction, thatÓs the view out the driverÓs side window of what it looks like when youÓre coming out of the driveway. ItÓs a little scary. With all that said, I donÓt want to take up too much more of your time; but I did read through the Hawaii General Plan and was happy to see a section about natural beauty in there. ItÓs something I took very strongly about. This island is one of the most beautiful spots in the world; and IÓve traveled around a bit and never seen any place like it. I did take some photos here. No. 1 is from the shoreline. This is wh down there look at in the morning, and while doing their fishing they have a beautiful view of Hualalai. When the sun comes up over it, raise over the top of it, itÓs just gorgeous. And I noticed in the Plan that there were references to landmarks being blocked, such as Mauna Kea. So I would assume that Hualalai and Mauna Kea would both be considered landmarks. And I also noticed, too, that this is Mr. SotoÓs property and, you know, he has the right to develop that, and he has the right to build that. And, you know, as a property owner, I know how that is, and, you know, I totally support his right to do that. But I do think that we can be a little bit considerate about things; and perhaps we donÓt have to make the absolute maximum amount of money on a project. I do know that when I first heard of this project last year, it was a two-story, six-unit building, which I had absolutely no 9 problem with, that probably would not block out at least the top of this view. IÓm not sure what changed between then and now, but I hope to learn more about that later. No. 2 shows some surfers enjoying Kahalui Bay, and No. 4 shows some locals fishing down on the rocky shorelines. The application says that this area is not used for recreation because itÓs too rocky. IÓm not sure where the developers are from but I see lots of people do a lot of things on rocky shorelines around here. ThatÓs very common. No. 3 is something where I want to talk about preserving coastal views. This is what our coastline looks like today. ItÓs natural lava rock. Lava rock, lava rock walls, and blue water, and occasionally somebody like Mr. Kniss here would put a green lawn behind it, sort of looks like the Hulihee Palace, sort of, that idea. ItÓs a very natural look here in Kona; and itÓs something that I think is, you wonÓt find anywhere else in the world. This is what our community looks like. The proposed development thatÓs going in is calling for fake trucked-in sand beaches and palm trees planted right on the edge. That hits me right here; IÓm sorry, but it does. ThatÓs not what this is supposed to look like; and I hope that weÓll get to work with the developers and that they will be reasonable. I honestly blame my Board more than the developers on this thing for not getting our concerns out. But I hope that we can all work together on this and make something that will serve Mr. SotoÓs needs, that will also be nice for our community and weÓll get something, people who are f to look at. In conclusion, I just want to wrap up by saying that, you know, I want to ask the Commission to please protect our shoreline views and our natural beauty with whatever power you have. ThatÓs something that once itÓs gone, you canÓt get it back. I also would like to ask you protect our gravesites and historical sites. IÓm not sure what weÓll find here. You know, there maybe nothing, who knows. Maybe it was taken care of, maybe somebody else saw it, or maybe it wasnÓt, maybe we need to archeological study and find out, well, whatÓs here, maybe there is a gravesite here. And it could be protected, and it could be incorporated into the development, and it could make it a very pretty addition to the new development. ThereÓs definitely room for negotiation on these things. Also, and the last thing, and this is the most important thing, is please protect public safety. I do not want to walk out and see two dead people laying in front of my house because somebody needed six extra units in their condo. ThatÓs not right. And IÓm, you know, I apologize IÓm getting a little touchy here; but thatÓs, IÓm very heartfelt about that. IÓm a businessman and an engineer, and itÓs my job to maximize p comes down to safety and being respectful to my neighbors, I do hope that you wonÓt either. Thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners to this testifier? If not, go ahead, Charles. YouÓre testifying? 10 BUSCEMI:Good morning to all the members of the Commission and thank you very much for allowing me to speak in front of you today. IÓll try and be brief. I know you have a long day. I have submitted to the Commission letters that I have received from about three dozen owners of single-family homes adjacent to this proposed property Sea Village. Please read the letters. People have faxed these past several weeks. So I apologize for my voice being a little bad. IÓve been speaking with them almost constantly for the past five days. I have about six points that IÓd like to go through before I wrap up. You heard Mr. Haney talk about the application claiming a 20-foot easement in a location where the Applicant really only has a 16-foot easement at present. The application, the way itÓs stated in the application, itÓs erroneous; and I hope the Board realizes that. You also have in your possession the letters from the DPW and the KTSC that suggest that for such a large project, the driveway needs to be at least 20 feet wide, potentially 24 feet wide. The DPW also asked for pedestrian footpaths and for flares out to Alii Drive so that large trucks, especially, can slow down on their way coming around the sharp corner. ThereÓs currently no way that a 20-foot or 24-foot driveway with flares could be accommodated in this space. This is a very popular surfing location, as Mr. Haney said. We have lots of foot traffic, thereÓs not very good parking in the area. And just yesterday the police were out there trying to get people to move their cars because they park alongside Alii Drive and go surfing. The application also talks about sewer lines as required in Section 8 of the Hawaii County General Plan and discusses running lines from Alii Drive to the property. However, there is concern that thereÓs currently no easement for any sewer lines to go from Alii Drive to Parcel No. 30. I have spoken to Mr. Michael Kniss, he owns the single-family house next door to the Soto property, and he told me that when he built his house two years ago, he was told that there was no legal way for him to put sewer lines across Parcel 37; and his legal counsel told him to try to find another way to put his sewer lines, which he eventually found. My fourth point is potentially the most important point and that concerns the archaeological assessment thatÓs contained in the application. This is Exhibit B. It discusses extensive grading of the property; and it also says that absolutely no archeological sites were found on the property. Well, local residents that IÓve talked to remember that part of the property was graded, they believe, by Mr. Soto without the proper permits. The part of the property that Mr. Soto graded does not contain the graves that Ms. Nagai talked about, in fact. The graves that Ms. Nagai talked about is further down near the shoreline, and it potentially has boulders on top of it; but it has not been bulldozed. 11 I would suggest that the new information that weÓve heard from Ms. Nagai cast extreme doubt on the value of the Exhibit B and would ask that the Board order a new assessment based on the new information that weÓve h I asked Ms. Nagai if she wouldnÓt mind viewing the grave site that she spoke about with me a couple days ago; and we went there. And it took her couple extra seconds to locate the gravesite because she was trying to place it in relation to that huge old kiawe tree that she remembers when she was a girl. Unfortunately, the tree was cut down and is no longer there, so it took her a little longer to find the gravesite. But local residents remember watching backhoes come in and tear down the tree, strip off all the branches and cart away all the wood. Well, Exhibit A, the botanical assessment in the application that you have says that an analysis was performed, and that thereÓs no native species on the land, and thereÓs really nothing there worth saving. Well, unfortunately, that might be true now. But the owners in this area are concerned that what happened to the tree might end up happening to other things other property. We ask that you please uphold the historical sites element, which is Section 4 of the plan that says that the goals of the plan are to protect and enhance the sites and buildings of cultural importance to HawaiÒi. Please do whatever you can to stop any further grading or improvements of the land until the site is investigated. The application envisions a fake beach on the shoreline complete with trucked-in sand. Now, we live on that Kahului Bay and we watch the way the swells come in every year. And everybody here probably knows what happens in the wintertime, large beaches lose their sand. Well, this man-made beach is going to lose its sand. WhereÓs the sand going to go? ItÓs going to be dumped down onto the coral thatÓs lying in Kahului Bay just offshore. This is going to damage wild life and coral, and the environment, and is in direct conflict with Section 3 of the Hawaii County General Plan, Environmental Quality Element. I urge you to uphold that particular part of the Count I have just one more issue and then I will finish up. The application states that this is a moderate density project. In fact, the land is 15,203 square feet. And if you do the math and you divide it by 1,250 square feet per unit, youÓll find that the maximum theoretical units on the land that could built is 12.16. Well, 12 units is being proposed. I donÓt see how that meets with the applicationÓs statement that this is moderate density. It seems to me thatÓs the highest possible density that can go in there. And as youÓve heard of the traffic concerns here, we would ask that some modifications at least, if not the entire application, be looked at. I heard Mr. Mooers a few minutes ago talk about how the Sea Village Board has been attempting to negotiate with the Applicant a Memorandum of Understanding, and that he thinks that because the Sea Village Board Members are on the mainland itÓs difficult to reach them and so thatÓs maybe perhaps why they havenÓt signed the letter. IÓve been in contact with the Sea Village Board Members several times a day this week, IÓve spoken to many of them. In fact, just last night one of the Board Members told me that Ðthe negotiations are dead in the water.Ñ 12 I plan to wrap up here. I was handed a sketch of the proposed development on my way in. Someone asked me to please draw your attention to the fact that Unit 1, the way itÓs drawn is within 28 feet of the property line. No one has actually done the shoreline investigation in this location and thereÓs no real-drawn high water mark or shoreline setback line drawn here. So weÓre curious as to whether Mr. Soto knows exactly that 28 feet 11 inches is the setback required in that location. WeÓve been asking, Sea Village has been asking for a larger setback to please try to alleviate some of the views from the neighbors here. Well, mahalo. On behalf of myself and my neighbors, the 30-or-so letters that you have, I, again, thank you. YouÓve heard Ms. Nagai talk about the ancient Hawaiian burial site on the parcel. YouÓve heard Mr. Haney discuss inadequate easements, failure to meet traffic and safety concerns of the DPW and the KTSC. Easements are mis-represented in the application as it stands now. YouÓve heard me discuss the potential lack of a sewage easement and youÓve also heard us recall the memories of witness happened to that tree, and now youÓve been asked to sign off on archeological and botanical surveys. Well, along with the letters from my neighbors and the facts that we have submitted to you today both verbally and in paper form, we feel that you have heard enough to reject this application; and we hope that you will do so. Mahalo. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any question to this testifier? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I wanted to ask Mr. Hayashi regarding what you folks said. Two of you I know spoke of trucked-in sand and what could become of the sand, and I wasnÓt aware of this from what I read. And it would seem that -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I -. GRAHAM:Excuse me? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. GRAHAM:It would seem that if the sand was to be put in along the shoreline, there would need to be a shoreline setback variance and things like that involved for this. IÓm just wondering if thatÓs accurately depicting what is being proposed, Norman, or -. HAYASHI:Yeah, I donÓt recall seeing anything in the petition that would reflect the creation of a sandy beach. I may be wrong, I may have missed that. But I just conferred with Phyllis, also, that, you know, and we concur that we didnÓt see anything in the petition that states that there would be sand imported on the property to create a beach. 13 GRAHAM:Okay, fine. Maybe, well, later when Mr. Mooers comes back he can respond to that. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. HANEY:Thank you. I just wanted to answer your question. I was the people who said that I saw it in the application, which I could show you in a later point in time. ItÓs a sketch and it might be preliminary so IÓm just, unfortunately, like I said, you know, IÓm not blaming the developer for this. Our Board has not been able to get us any information at all. We have not seen any viewplane drawings, weÓve seen next to nothing. What I had to go on is what is on the application. What weÓre actually referring to is theyÓre like sandboxes that go on the end of the swimming pool area. They jut out from the edge of the swimming pool. It looks like thereÓs sand in there with palm trees coming out of it. ThatÓs the nearest thing we can tell. I hope that that wouldnÓt be allowed. Maybe I saw it wrong on the drawing but it sure looked like that to me, so -. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I have a question of the Planning Director. You know, IÓve heard in testimony by these people here that the kiawe, old historic kiawe tree was chopped down, the gravesite was there, and so forth. And yet we have, on the other hand, contrary reports in our background by consultants that were hired by the Applicant. My question now is how much, how much obligation is the Applicant under to provide for these kinds of concerns that the testifiers here bring forth to us? And they are legitimate concerns. But the owner is under what kind of an obligation to satisfy these concerns that they bring up, how much do they have to do over and beyond hiring a consultant to do archeological work and accepting or not accepting their reports? Over and beyond that, how much, how far do we have to go, the Applicants have to go to acquiesce development can take place, other than going through the proper channels of getting permits and following the rules and regs of the County for development? How much more do they have to give? FUJIKAWA:Planning Director Chris Yuen, go ahead. YUEN:Well, first I want to hear what the Applicant has to say about the information about the burials. Because burials is a very sensitive issue. If we left it, if they said we donÓt know anything, we would ask him to make a tho into, try figure out what has happened here because, you know, this being that there was a burial and thereÓs no physical sign of it anymore. It may be that the Applicant has no idea of what happened, that the property was in its present condition before they bought it. And then I think we would say that if anybody, if it appears that at some time in the past the burial has been removed, then they would not be expected to do anything further. FUJIKAWA:Does that answer your question? 14 KUBOTA:Yeah. What about cutting down the tree that seems to have been a criminal act on their part, you know, the old historic, not monkeypod but kiawe tree that was on the land that is now not there kind of thing? Does the Applicant have to go through acquiring permission to do things like that or is it part of his right to do it if he chooses to do so without getting permission from everybody else? YUEN:They wouldnÓt have to get permission to cut a kiawe tree. KUBOTA:So if they wanted to, unfortunately, but surely they had the right do it? YUEN:To cut down the kiawe tree on their property, yes. KUBOTA:In this particular case, thatÓs, is that what happened? BUSCEMI:Yes, that is apparently what happened. I guess my concern is not necessarily that it was illegal to cut down a kiawe tree. IÓm asking the Board, the Commission to recognize that the Applicant seems to have somewhat of a lack of will to follow not just the law of the General Plan but the spirit of the General Plan, which also includes plenty of information talking about natural resources, scenic views and the like. FUJIKAWA:Thank you, Charles. Are there other questions to this testifier from the Commissioners? Does the Planning Director have any comments on these testifiers, on their concerns? YUEN:No, not right now. FUJIKAWA:Not right now. Okay, thank you. Staff, youÓre okay? HAYASHI:Yes. FUJIKAWA:If not, can you testifiers please step back and have the ApplicantÓs representative, please step forward. Okay, Mr. Mooers, you heard the testifiers. Before I proceed, is there any other people in the audience who would like to testify on this particular application? I have one gentleman back there. Before I get you back, Mr. Mooers, go ahe the person that raise his hand, could you come forward, please? I want you to sign up with the staff. HereÓs the paper. Staff, any -. Thank you. Okay, this gentlemanÓs name is Lunakanawai -. HAUANIO:Lunakanawai Haunio, Mr. Chair. 15 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Could you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? HAUANIO:Yes, sir. FUJIKAWA:State your name and your address, please? HAUANIO:My name Is Lunakanawai Haunio. You can contact me at Po Office Box 522, Kealakekua, HawaiÒi 96750. FUJIKAWA:Okay. You may proceed with your testimony. HAUANIO:Mahalo, Mr. Chair and aloha mai o, County Council Members. I donÓt like to put my back to people so kalamai if I stand up. A PUBLIC:Aloha. HAUANIO:I just, I wanted to give a little observation within the last week, and I heard briefly Mr. YuenÓs interpretation of Aunty Florence question. I think there has been, you know, over a decade of Hawaiian people that came out of the, how you say, the plantation mindset, yeah, and are coming forth to reclaim what they believe is a fundamental vested interest in their home called HawaiÒi. You know, itÓs like everybody forget who or where they live anymore. And they catch the plane, they come to Kona International Airport, they think they when land in California State or Alabama State. Well, interestingly, for those of you who are not aware of this, you have arrived on the lands known as the islands of HawaiÒi. These lands have laws that are deep-rooted prior to November 25, 1892; and that you can find in Hawaii Revised Statutes 1-1. It basically states that anyone who has this vested interest of traditional and customary rights, the law depicted it yesterday as you must have been asserted those rights continuously up to this date in order for it to have any legitimacy. Well, that was that decision or that mindset, and the Supreme Court of HawaiÒi is taking a little detour. Civil rights movement by the black community occurred in 1961 in America. In HawaiÒi, in 1861, thereÓs this case of this white boy as a fisherman on this boat. He complained that heÓs being paid less than one Hawaiian, one kanaka, so he when sue because he couldnÓt get that corrected. Our Supreme Court of HawaiÒi ruled that he has to be paid the same wages and cannot discriminate because of the color of his skin. That was in 1861, a hundred years before American Civil Rights movement. Now the significance of this story is the old mindset, the old plantation mindset of HawaiÒi. Like Mr. Yuen elaborated the kiawe tree, well, thereÓs no law. I beg to differ because there is a law is called malama ka aina, okay? If you donÓt know what that is, then itÓs about time we start learning. The decision of the Hokulia case is not that all developers now got to pack their bags and leave like todayÓs newspaper article says. No, 16 we, the Hawaiian people told you, you should have done it right in the first place. It was all of your undermining, your arrogance, your belligerence, that is what caused your situation today with the Hokulia case. Now, again, the Hawaiian community comes out with a kokua. I donÓt think warning is appropriate anymore, but kokua, malama ka aina. If the Hawaiian come out and say, eh, you know, thatÓs significant to me, then as a developer, more so, as a government agency who is supposed to protect, Ðthe State of Hawaii shall protect traditional and customary rights.Ñ It doesnÓt say Ðmay,Ñ it says Ðshall.Ñ So if one Hawaiian come up, whether itÓs one brown Hawaiian like me, one pake Hawaiian, one white Hawaiian, or black Hawaiian, if they come up and they say, ÐItÓs significant to me,Ñ this State, as well as this County Director, shall protect those traditional and customary rights. You have to deal with it. If not, well, maybe if you take, instead of took, what now, 13 years in the Hokulia case, eh, maybe it might take two years. All IÓm saying is this, we live in the year 2003, we have this mechanism in our society, itÓs called the internet, itÓs called networking. Information is available to all of us and we shouldnÓt be inundated with paper. ThatÓs killing our trees, that takes away oxygen from our lives, all of our lives. If we cannot breathe oxygen, weÓre breathing carbon dioxide. ThatÓs why weÓre having problems disseminating right from wrong Òcause weÓre not getting oxygen in our brains, Òcause weÓre killing our trees. Okay? So my recommendation to our developers is you look at your bottom line, how much is it going to cost you to develop in HawaiÒi, you times it by three; and thatÓs a management decision, that is not a political one. And the County has to protect all of us HawaiiansÓ rights, whether they like it or not. Aunty Flo, you brought up an excellent question. I appreciate your manao of clarification, and I implore you to continue your search of clarification. Mahalo, you all. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners to this testifier? None. If not, go ahead. Thank you very much. And the ApplicantÓs representative, you may proceed. MOOERS:I donÓt want to get into a point-by-point discussion of all the issues because I think that it wouldnÓt be appropriate at this time because there still potentially could be a Contested Case Hearing. And IÓm sure the Intervenors would like to cross- examine some of the things that I might allege or say, so -. I do want to address a couple of the direct questions that were asked and hopefully thatÓll clarify. The first thing regarding the burial. My client acquired the property about two-and-a- half, three years ago. My client has not disturbed the site a bit, has not moved a rock, did not cut a tree, did not grade a burial. That site has been heavily graded and it was heavily graded at the time the Kona Sea Village was developed. They took fill material from this site to build up that site. ThatÓs why the shoreline, if you look at the rubble, is not a natural looking shoreline. My client has not disturbed the shoreline, has not disturbed the site, has not disturbed the burial, has not a cut a tree. All r 17 Now, in order to file this application, we were required to have an archaeological inventory survey, which was done, and Mr. Rechtman or Dr. Rechtman did that report. Given the information that was provided today, we certainly will Dr. Rechtman speak with Ms. Nagai and see if they can identify, in fact, if there is a burial there and address it accordingly. But thereÓs no evidence on the site that that is the case at this time, and that has been reviewed by an archaeologist and by the State Historic Preservation Division. Secondly, the issue of the beach. There is a certified shoreline for this property. All right? The issue of the beach, we had no intention of creating an artificial beach. We are not going to do anything in that shoreline setback area. If we did, weÓd have to come in and get Army Corp. permits, we have to do a number of things. I unfortunate misnomer that in the landscape plan, within, outside of the shoreline setback area but around the pool was shown a landscape feature that says Ðbeach.Ñ Anything done in the shoreline setback area would require approval by the Planning Department as part of the Plan Approval process, whether itÓs a lawn as the next door neighbor has planted, whether itÓs a sandbox, whether itÓs a coconut palm. All of that would need to be removed, excuse me, be approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Department in consultation on that Plan Approval process. But we have no intention of creating a beach, trucking in tons of sand, dumping it on the reef. It was never part of the application, not now, not in the future. I guess, the last point I would make is that Mr. Buscemi made some comment that the negotiations were Ðdead in the water.Ñ I would just defer to counsel representative of the Association. The Association was the party that was granted standing or is requesting standing and theyÓre the ones that filed for a Contested Case. So theyÓre the parties that we have to deal with. If the Association does not represent all of the owners, I donÓt think thatÓs the ApplicantÓs responsibility. IÓll be happy to address each of these concerns. I know that they are heartfelt and I know they have issues. Unfortunately, I think most of these issues are borne out of an ignorance of what the project is; and weÓll be, and I do look forward to addressing each one of these concerns point-by-point at the appropriate time. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners to this ApplicantÓs representative? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Mr. Mooers, when you spoke with regard of the gravesite, that you would have, the doctor who did the archeological -. MOOERS:Dr. Rechtman, yes. GRAHAM:Yeah, contact Ms. Nagai with regard to that -. MOOERS:Yes, I will. 18 GRAHAM;Could you take a little bit more responsibility than what that sounds like to me in the sense of, that more than contact will be done. I mean, I certainly presume that sheÓs being truthful, and she said it was there, so, could you kind of involve, to the extent that you know that itÓd be looked at -? MOOERS:Well, what I think IÓm trying to say is that weÓve been put on notice that thereÓs people who believe thereÓs a burial on the site. Whether itÓs there now or not, we donÓt know; and thatÓs what we need to find out. And Dr. Rechtman to contact her and to try to do a site visit and see if he can explore the fact that there is or is not a burial that remains on the property today. GRAHAM:Fine, thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any other question, Commissioners? I have a question with you, Mr. Mooers. On the Background Report, page 4 on the Police Department, ÐThe Applicant has failed to include sufficient information dealing with the access to Alii Drive.Ñ Can you explain to me on that? MOOERS:Certainly. There is no requirement in the SMA to provide access information like that. ThatÓs not part of the SMA approval process, which weÓve discussed before. The driveway access, again, will be part of the Plan Approval and the Director has the responsibility to make sure that that access is adequate for the site, including the comments that were made by the Department of Public Works. But if you look at the criteria in the application, the SMA, thereÓs not a section in there that really discusses traffic or for you to discuss, you know, any of those issues because itÓs not a criteria for granting a Special Management Area Permit. ItÓs a criteria for granting zoning. But all these issues of traffic and stuff are not discussed in the application because they are not SMA issues. FUJIKAWA:ThatÓs right. Thank you very much. Any other question from the Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I donÓt know if this is appropriate to discuss this with the impending Contested Case; but if I am re-missed, then please let me know. My question is, there have been some reference to the easement as presented in our Background Report as being erroneous. I would like to have that issue clarified. And in conjunction with that, I have this, I received this letter from a Mr., I guess, itÓs a Mr. Mike Kniss about ownership of the area that is to be expanded, that is driveway, and that issue is in question. And I would like to know where we are on this issue. May I address it now or do I have to wait until we determine where this case is going to go? FUJIKAWA:Mr. Mooers, can you answer that concern of Commissioner Kubota? 19 MOOERS:I can answer part of that. But I really believe thatÓs going to be a key issue if thereÓs a Contested Case Hearing, so I donÓt think itÓs appropriate for me to respond to all of it. We have been in contact with Mr. Kniss. I would point out that Mr. Kniss owns 50 percent of the property and, of an easement portion that will gain access to the site; but the Sotos own the other 50 percent and do have access rights. But that may be a legal issue that we need to discuss, so I think itÓs probably more appropriate to discuss that at a time when the attorneys are here. KUBOTA:Thank you. IÓll accept that. What about the easement figures being erroneous? MOOERS:We recognize that in order for this project to occur, weÓve got to have a 20-foot easement. KUBOTA:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Mooers, thank you very much. Staff, you have any, no questions? HAYASHI:No. FUJIKAWA:That is fine. Great. ItÓs going to be a continued hearing. Do I hear a motion from the Commissioners to, on this matter of continue? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 03-007, be continued to a later date. Do you want to specifically name the date or what are we doing? Do we have a date? MINA:Second. FUJIKAWA:Staff? HAYASHI:It all depends on when the Applicant and the Association can resolve their issues and, you know -. KUBOTA:So shall we just leave it open then? Then I recommend that we continue it to a later date as -. HAYASHI:Later date, open? KUBOTA:Yeah. FUJIKAWA:The ApplicantÓs representative, do you want to do it on the next meeting? 20 MOOERS:Yes. If we canÓt resolve our differences with the Association by the next meeting then we would move to, move forward with the Contested Case. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Is that okay, staff? Can you -? WhatÓs the sch HAYASHI:We do have a very heavy agenda for that day, but we can put it on rd the agenda. That would be October 3. FUJIKAWA:Do you think we could, possibly? HAYASHI:Well, we do have enough time to publicize it in the pape FUJIKAWA:Okay, see what you can work out; and in the meantime se rdrd the 3? Is that 3 of October? If not, we will inform you of the change. KUBOTA:Excuse me. My motion was not to insert that date. But are you going to just do it? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, you want to go ahead? rd KUBOTA:Are you going to insert the date of October 3? rd FUJIKAWA:Yeah, weÓre going to look forward as the 3 of October; and if not, if the staff canÓt do it then theyÓll inform us of another date. Is that okay? KUBOTA:So be it. FUJIKAWA:ItÓs seconded by Commissioner Mina. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to be sure that the continuance would rd be to October 3. Is that correct? rd FUJIKAWA:October 3, okay? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. 21 HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries with 6 votes. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Thank you very much. Representative for th rd Applicant, so itÓd be on the 3 of October. MOOERS:Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 22