Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-03 TKOA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of KOA VENTURES, LLC (SMA 03-011) was called to order at 10:52 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Ali`i Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT AND EXCUSED:Earl Fujikawa Bill GrahamJeffrey McCall Florence Kubota Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 35 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KOA VENTURES, LLC (SMA 03-011) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of a 4-story, 32-unit condominium building and related improvements. The property is makai side of Alii Drive, between the Casa De Emdeko condominium Kona Isle condominium complex, Puapuaa, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: GALDONES:We are on agenda item No. 3. Applicant is Koa Ventures, LLC (SMA 03-011). This is a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of a 4-story, 32-unit condominium building and related improvements. Jeff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may direct your attention to the location map, to get our bearings, this is Alii Drive here in the North Kona area. This is north, towards north Kohala. This is south towards South Kona. The area that weÓre looking at is identified in red on this parcel. County zoning is Multi-Family-1.5. This project is actually located in between Casa De Emdeko and Kona Isle condominium project. These renderings here, 3-D renderings, kind of give you an idea of where weÓre looking at. On your left will be Casa De Emdeko, on your right will be the Kona Isle EXHIBIT A Condominium project, and the middle is the 3-D rendering on the photos that are up on the wall. The Applicant in this case is Koa Ventures, LLC. TheyÓve submitted an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow a 32-unit condominium complex consisting of one 4-story building and related improvements on approximately 1.172 acres of land. This is located along the makai side of Alii Drive, again, as I said earlier, in between Casa De Emdeko and Kona Isle condominium project. Just a little background on this parcel. On May 7, 1981, Special Management Area Use Permit No. 155 was approved to allow the construction of a 25-unit condominium complex and related improvements. There were several time extensions granted for this project, but ultimately it was revoked with the submittal of SMA Use Permit No. 297. SMA Permit No. 297 was approved on April 11, 1990 for a 34-unit complex and related improvements. This is, well, was revoked by the Planning Director, correction, was in, revocation was initiated by the Planning Director and approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2001 because the project was not completed in a timely fashion. The project site identified here on the site plan is a narrow, rectangular lot. The actual width is 100 feet and the length is approximately 549 feet. The 4-story complex, 32 units, is identified here in red, parking area is identified here closer to the Alii Drive area. In green, you will see the 40-foot shoreline setback area; and, in yellow, this is the identified grant of easement for public access, as well as public access parking. The Planning Director, the Planning Department has received three letters of objection. ItÓs my understanding that one had come in yesterday or the day before. I just want to make sure that you folks got a copy of that, the latest letter that should have been handed out to you this morning. The Planning Director is recommending approval, that this request be approved with conditions by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Jeff? DARROW:Oh, IÓm sorry. May I -? GALDONES:Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW:We had a request to add to several conditions in this, if I may go through these really quickly. The Planning Department is recomm We are requesting that to Condition 9, we are adding that ÐA paved shoulder along the entire frontage of the property extending to the right-of-way shall be provided meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.Ñ This will be added to the end of Condition 9. 2 We are adding a new Condition No. 10, and that states: ÐAny vehicular security gate shall be located a minimum of 45 feet from the Alii Drive pavement. Further, a turn-around on the Alii Drive side of the gate shall be provided.Ñ With the addition of the new Condition No. 10, the subsequent conditions will change from 10 to 11, 11 to 12 and so forth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:IÓm wondering, Jeff, if you could just help me find in the materials if thereÓs a schematic of the proposed extended left-hand turn lane? DARROW:Okay, I donÓt have -. Let me see if I can find that within the application. We did, we were able to take some pictures of the area like in, trying to get those. Could you see the left-turn lane there on the photos? Okay. There should be one more photo as well kind of showing right in front of the project area. The request in the conditions is that this left-turn lane be extended. It is in front of the project area but it does appear to need to be extended a little further to be able to adequately provide for that area. SPRINGER:Given that there are condominium units on either side of it, will this extension in any way enhance or degrade access from the con be extended in front of? DARROW:If itÓs okay, if I could defer this question to our representative from Public Works. GALDONES:Ki, please? EMLER:I believe the question was would the extension of the, the proposed extension of the left-hand turn lane be a problem for the existing facilities on Alii Drive. SPRINGER:Or would it enhance ingress and egress from the -? EMLER:I donÓt believe there is a facility across the street, directly across the street, unless, is it Alii-, perhaps Alii Laniis across the street; but the turn lane already serves Aliilani. As far as any to the south, Kona Isle may be affected. ItÓs the only one I could think of. And weÓd have to take a look at whatever plans are submitted and determine that at that time. SPRINGER:So in the bottom photo of the photos that were passed out to us, it looks as though the present turn lane narrows down in front of Kona Isle. So IÓm wondering if itÓs extended, will that be of benefit or detriment to the -, or just donÓt have enough information yet? EMLER:I donÓt have enough information to make that determination 3 SPRINGER:Okay. And, also, may I continue, sir? GALDONES:Yes. SPRINGER:In one of the letters that we received expressing concern, there was, to address, of provision for fire access, and it appeared to the letter writer that Casa De Emdeko and its fire lane will be utilized by the Applicant in event of a fire. Could I have a comment on that, please? EMLER:I donÓt believe that question is for Public Works. SPRINGER:Thanks, Ki. Jeff? DARROW:Well, it will have to be looked at by the Fire Department and, you know, at that time they will, the Fire Department will address those issues regarding the use of the lane. But I donÓt think IÓm qualified to answer that as well; but I know that it does go through a review of the Fire Department. SPRINGER:Thank you. I guess, I would wonder then if there isnÓt sufficient room, Òcause itÓs a narrow parcel, what provision is there for access by the fire company? YUEN:As a general rule, if there isnÓt good, there isnÓt good en access for a multi-family building like this, the Fire Departmen alternative of sprinklers in the building. SPRINGER:Thank you. YUEN:Otherwise, they canÓt get a building permit, one or the other. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:IÓd like to ask Commissioner Springer if she would refer me to that reference that you were just making. I missed that. SPRINGER:Exhibit H. IÓm sorry, Mrs. Kubota, I didnÓt -. KUBOTA:I thought I read things carefully and I didnÓt see any reference -. ItÓs interesting, thatÓs why IÓd like to -. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, thatÓs not it, either. KUBOTA:ThatÓs not it, okay. 4 DARROW:It was a later letter that was submitted by Thomas Lied, an exhibit. It was submitted after this had come to you, so it should be one of your last -. KUBOTA:By whom? DARROW:Thomas L-i-e-d, and it references No. 7, ÐThere appears to be no fire control access -.Ñ SPRINGER:Yes. Thanks, Jeff. DARROW:ItÓs a letter dated October 1, 2003. KUBOTA:IÓm not familiar with that. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Jeff? If not, will the applicant or representative, please come forward. Excuse me, procedural matters I need to take up. Jeff, there was a letter submitted by owner as Sabrina Dreier. IÓm not sure if I missed that, I think you had mentioned there was another one. They were asking to, they were asking for standing in a contested case -. st DARROW:Correct. We had received this on October 1, which was after the time it could be applied for a contested case, as well as there was no filing fee that was applied for, that was submitted along with the contested case application. GALDONES:So it does not meet the requirement for eligibility? DARROW:Correct. GALDONES:Commissioners? Mr. or Mrs. Dreier present? In view of their absence, Commissioners, as youÓve heard from Jeff, the petition does not meet the requirement for standing in a contested case hearing. The Chair is prepared to entertain a motion that the petitioner not be granted standing for a contested case hearing. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Is that, do we do this? If the Applicant does not meet t requirements, do we take a motion, do we take a vote on it or do, theyÓre automatically denied standing because of that? OÓTOOLE:Well, I think the request is made to the Commission and Commission should deny it rather than staff. KUBOTA:Okay. All right. Then I move that the Petition for Stan Contested Case hearing, on behalf of Werner and Sabrina Dreier be denied. And do I need to state the reasons for it? GALDONES:Yes. 5 KUBOTA:The petition being incomplete. OÓTOOLE:And untimely. KUBOTA:And the timeliness was, the requirement for timeliness wa met. SPRINGER:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Springer that the petition by Werner and Sabrina Dreier for standing in a contested case hearing be denied because it did not meet the requirements and, also, with regard to timeliness. Discussion? None. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. GALDONES:Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? OLIVER:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address? OLIVER:My name is Rick Oliver. My address is P.O. Box 391104, Keauhou. IÓm the owner, one of the owners. GALDONES:Sir? CONVENTZ:Klaus D. Conventz. IÓm the ApplicantÓs representative, and my mailing address is P.O. Box 2308, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745. GALDONES:Thank you. Have you folks received a copy of the Backg Report and the Recommendation? CONVENTZ:Yes, sir. GALDONES:Are there any comments to it? CONVENTZ:Except that after I received from the Water Department one more letter confirming that we were short seven commitments for water, for seven apartments, and that has been taken care of and was paid for; and itÓs, the last letter you received from the Department of Water Supply certifies that fact. 6 GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Oliver or Klaus? CONVENTZ:Mr. Chairman, I believe that our traffic engineers are in the room. We never met them in person, therefore I donÓt know who it is. Mr. Harold Sugiyama (sic), you might answer our questions regarding fire lanes and turn-off. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:With regard to the earlier question regarding the extension of the left-hand turn lane and any impact that it might have on neighboring properties, do you have any comments? GALDONES:Mr. Sugiyama, if youÓre going to testify, then may I swear you in first? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter County Planning Commission? YAMAMOTO:Yes. GALDONES:Could you state your name and your residence address? SUGIYAMA:My name is Warren Yamamoto with M&E Pacific, 1001 Bisho Street, Pauahi Towers, Suite 500, Honolulu, Hawaii. GALDONES:Mr. Yamamoto, you heard the question? YAMAMOTO:Yes, I did. GALDONES:Could you respond to it, please. YAMAMOTO:I believe that extending the left-turn lane to the south will not have an effect on the adjoining projects. On the mauka side, you have Alii Lani. That has a driveway across from the Casa De Emdeko driveway, and they donÓt have a driveway south of that. And the other driveway for the project south is further away, also. So right now they donÓt have the benefit of using the left-turn lane; and if this is extended, they still would not have the opportunity to make use of the left-turn lane. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of the applicants? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Do you have any comments on the fire access? YAMAMOTO:No. 7 SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Okay. If thereÓs no further questions, is there anyone from the public here to testify on this subject matter? Mr. Tyler, please step forward. Are there anybody else besides Mr. Tyler? TYLER:Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and staff. GALDONES:Mr. Tyler, may I swear you in, please? TYLER:You may. GALDONES:Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? TYLER:I do. GALDONES:Mr. Tyler, you name and your residence address, please, may proceed. TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Curtis Tyler. I come to you this morning representing m address is 73-4325 Laka Place, Kailua-Kona 96740. IÓve had a chance to review the Background Report and Recommendation for this project; and I thank the Planning DepartmentÓs staff for providing those to my office. I have a few comments IÓd like to make and, just items for your consideration today in your deliberations on SMA Permit 03-011. I was very pleased to see that thereÓs a condition to continue to enforce the 10-foot wide public access, along with at least three parking places. I note that in the Background Report on the description of the subject property, that with respect to setbacks, that the rear setback, which is the shoreline setback, will be 40 feet. In looking at the renderings of the project, the two-dimensional renderings, I note that thereÓs a pool in one of the renderings that is at the front of the building. I donÓt, I cannot see it on the plot plan; and I want to know if that pool is within the 40-foot setback. I realize that the restriction is no buildings in the 40-foot setback. But IÓm quite familiar with this area, having lived down there or spent a lot of my youth in that area, and anything built close to the shoreline there is going to be subject to be completely demolished or certainly damaged. And this County has heard from long-time residents, long before I was sitting at tables like this, about these dangerous -. And theyÓve been ignored time after time after time. And the classic example is the Kona Surf and Racquet Club which every time thereÓs a big surf, you know, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars wor 8 The application indicates that this project, this subject property, excuse me, is in the flood zones, in particular Zones AE and VE, that means flooding from makai as well as mauka. I can tell you from my personal experience that there is flooding from mauka there; and I know also from my personal experience thereÓs flooding from makai. So I would pay particular attention to this and insert conditions, whatever they need to be, to ensure that thereÓs no building within these zones. It says theyÓll conform to Chapter 27 of the County Code. But I would urge you to preclude any building in the flood areas, most especially from makai, because this is guaranteed to create property damage, perhaps lawsuits and maybe loss of life. So I would caution you to be very, very careful about that. As I say, I see one rendering of the pool, in the vertical, but I donÓt see anything in the horizontal regime there, that is the plot plan. So, perhaps, in this case, because of the inundation zone, you may wish to have larger setbacks. IÓm unclear from looking at the FIRM maps exactly how far the inundation is. But if it extends beyond 40 feet, I would urge you to pay particular attention to that inasmuch as youÓre the final arbiters of this, so that the future owners of either the units and/or the, and the common areas, itÓs projected to be a condominium, will not suffer damage or, in fact, maybe file any litigation as a result of allowing building in these areas. LetÓs see, in the Background Report, description of the property, No. 20 on page 4, talks about recreational and visual resources. As we all know, this is now within the SMA but subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act. And in that description it says, ÐThe proposed development will not substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from Kuakini Highway, which is the nearest state highway to the coast.Ñ Did anyone think about Alii Drive? Talking about coastal resources, scenic resources, if someone can show me that a 42, average height of 42.5 feet on the shoreline is not, does not have any, does not interfere or detract from the line of sight towards the sea, I would be very, very surprised. Now we all know in driving along Alii Drive that the line of sight towards the sea has been closely interfered with or detracted from; and IÓm not suggesting that that in and of itself is a reason for you not to approve this. Of course, I just want to note that that statement, while correct from Kuakini Highway, has no bearing whatsoever to those driving along Alii Drive. And IÓm wondering why. And just because Kuakini is the upper reach of the SMA, why is that Alii is not listed there? Furthermore, the next one, 21, talks about cultural resources and it says, ÐNo valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the property and there is no evidence of any traditional customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site.Ñ I would note that, I believe itÓs in the grant of easement recorded that part of the reason for this is to comply with the traditional or customary gathering in that area; and I can assure you thereÓs a lot of it for limu, for fishing, for family recreation. So we see this phrase quite often. And I think itÓs, there may not be traditional and customary gathering of fauna or 9 flora on, or resources on the property per se; but the property acts as a conduit to allow it. So, as I said earlier, IÓm please with the mauka-mauka access. The Background Report contains, just a technical item, the Background Report contains numerous responses by Mr. Conventz, as a consulting representative, numerous responses to numbers of memos and statements. And I, theyÓre not immediately adjacent to one another, and so I canÓt tell if all of those comments are contained in the document. If, to the extent that theyÓre not, itÓs very difficult for any member of the public, including myself, to follow exactly what they were responding to because theyÓre, you know, theyÓre very short, as they should be, responses. But I donÓt know what they are. So, if IÓm mistaken there, I apologize but I didnÓt see the juxta position. Normally, when the Council gets the Background Report, thereÓs a comment from an ag then immediately following thereafter is the letter from the consultant. And I didnÓt see that in this case so I had a hard time following that. And I may have, you know, I may not, because IÓm used to that I didnÓt see it there. The last comment I want to make pertains to, again, to the Coastal Zone Management Act. And this comment will come as no surprise to you because youÓve heard it from me on a number of occasions. The Recommendation from the Director page 2, that ÐThe proposed development will not have an adverse impact on coastal recreational or visual resources to the shoreline and coastal ecosystems.Ñ That may be true, but it may not be true. And to my way of thinking, it will be true if there is no runoff, whether itÓd be sedimentation from surface runoff or from other non-point source pollution, in particular drywells. And inasmuch as this is directly adjacent to the shoreline and AA waters, I would again ask that there be a specific condition that to the extent there are any drywells or other kinds of on-site runoff m they be connected to the sewer system, as will this project, which IÓm very glad to see. ÒCause some properties makai of Alii Drive are not. So I applaud the applicant for that. But the use of drywells so close to the shore should be eliminated. And if anyone has any questions about the impacts relating to that, I would again refer you, for the record, to the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order in the TSA case pertaining to a rezoning, excuse me, a land use reclassification before the Land Use Commission, I believe it was early last year, relating to impacts on the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park and some of the concerns that the Land Use Commission had. As we all know, the TSA project is quite, is probably a hundred times the distance from the shoreline as this project is. And I believe that covers it. Dr. Rosendahl has noted that the two sites which he identified in 1989 are possible clearing mounds. I would urge that caution be taken in this area, especially along the shoreline because there have been, adjacent properties have, there have been numerous burials found on adjacent properties. And so I just caution the applicant to have a monitor there to ensure that no iwi kupuna or other cultural resources are disturbed in any way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. IÓd be happy to answer any questions. 10 GALDONES:Commissioners, any question of Mr. Tyler? Thank you. Jeff, as far as the five-foot setback, one of the maps indicate that there should not be anything built within the 40-foot setback. DARROW:Correct. I believe this same rendering is the maps that are located in the application. This green line here is identifying the shoreline setback area. So it comes towards the mauka and then it takes a jog towards makai. And in that area where it does the jog towards makai is where this spa pool is located, so it is identified in the representation of the applicant as being outside of the shoreline setback area. GALDONES:And Mr. Tyler had mentioned something about, in the Bac Report, No. 20, it mentions Kuakini Highway but nothing on Alii. DARROW:If I can refer to the HawaiÒi Revised Statutes, Section 205-A-26, Special Management Area Guidelines, the criteria that we approve or disapprove Special Management Area Permits, Section 3, Subsection D states that ÐAny development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of site toward the sea from the State highway nearest the coast.Ñ So we look at the criteria of line of site from the nearest State highway. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions or any comments? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:With regard to the 40-foot setback, is that based on what is known of Ðseasonal high surf inundationÑ or is that sort of a formulaic value thatÓs supplied to these applications? DARROW:We had recently received a, well, a shoreline certification was conducted and was approved on December 23, 2002; and so this certification verifies where the 40-foot setback is. SPRINGER:But the shoreline setback is not based on storm, seasonal storm surf, which is what I believe that Curtis Tyler was referring to YUEN:The shoreline is supposed to be based on the seasonally hig the highest annually recurring surf, excluding storm waves or tsunamis. So ideally you would sit there, say, run a video camera for a year and the highest point that the waves reach would be the shoreline, unless those waves resulted from an identified storm by a hurricane passing nearby, or tsunami, or some other kind of unusual event. In practice, a private surveyor goes out and determines the shoreline. The State Surveyor is given an opportunity, and the public actually is given an opportunity, to challenge that. Private surveyors often use some substitute for where the water would go, such as a debris line or vegetation line to establish a shoreline. The 40 feet beyond that is a standard formula and 11 is not affected by any kind of unusual conditions. So the shoreline determination itself should incorporate seasonal surf. But the 40-foot setback beyond the shoreline is island- wide; and there are some properties where you go in 20 feet beca property or the size of the property with respect to other setbacks. But in this, but as a standard itÓs 40 feet. Now as far as tsunami and other kinds of unusual runoff, the way to work, thatÓs supposed to be handled by the FIRM Maps, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which establish the tsunami inundation zone. And those would vary in width along the shoreline depending on past experience of tsunamis and storm surge and, also, particularly with the topography. If the area is really low lying, like in parts of Hilo, the tsunami inundation line may be very far in. If itÓs high cliff at Hamakua, for example, thereÓs none at all. And in this part of the Kailua-Kona area, we may have a small map from the Department of Public Works that shows the inundation line. And I canÓt, we have to scale it out to see how far it goes until theyÓre building -. Under the conditions as theyÓre written, the building would have to be elevated where itÓs built over that inundation line. ThatÓs the standard under Chapter 27, HawaiÒi, the County Flood Control Statute. It doesnÓt generally prohibit building in flood zones. It merely requires elevation of the buildings. SPRINGER:So, then, Mr. Director, in the illustration, the computer-generated graphic that you have in front of you, might that affect the configuration or the front of building as we see it? ItÓs under the microphone. YUEN:It might. IÓm not sure, as I say, where the tsunami inundation line is. And thereÓs different rules for this. It may be that they can -. IÓm not sure that the, it may be that the building, that having a wall, and I canÓt tell how high it is to a habitable floor. It may be that, I donÓt know whether this design would work or not under the tsunami inundation. SPRINGER:One more question, Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:With regard to Mr. TylerÓs comments, in particular with regard to, I guess, the standard set for us in the TSA case, do you have an connecting runoff abatement to sewage, the sewer line? YUEN:IÓd like to hear if Public Works has any comment about that GALDONES:Ki? EMLER:The question was regarding connection to sewer line? SPRINGER:Yes. 12 EMLER:Was that storm sewer or were you talking about sanitary sewer? SPRINGER:IÓm referring to Mr. TylerÓs comments. And he drew our attention to the TSA case and the discussion there about mitigation of runoff. And perhaps if we could recall, Mr. Tyler, just for the purposes of clarifying what he was referring to, that could help get an answer to the question. EMLER:Okay. The general method for disposal of storm water woul providing drywells. But in this case, normally, theyÓre going to use a shallow type design in private property, which is just basically a hole in the ground with a grade over it. SPRINGER:Given the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order in the TSA case, is there any problem raised here, by that sort of treatment? EMLER:Well, the Department of Health is the agency that regulate goes into injection wells. And, in this case, if they use a shallow design, it falls under the guidelines for an injection well. In other words, I believe their rule is that if it is wider than it is deep, itÓs not considered an injection well and, therefore, they donÓt have to comply with injection well requirements. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? Thank you, Ki. IÓm not sure that I have the expertise to evaluate the answer and, against the question that Mr. Tyler asked. But, instinctively, that raises a concern for me. And I would ask then the Director, does the Department of Health review and comment on this portion of an application? YUEN:I think they do. If I would make a general comment on this, this is not a, this is a situation that should be, if itÓs a problem, it should be dealt with systematically rather than on a particular application. What weÓre talking about here is when it rains water will go over the parking lot and pick up little bits of oil that are on the surface and then go into, if the disposal is done, as on all other properties on Alii Drive, which is why I say it should be done systematically. It will go into the drywell some place and then, which does not extend down to the water table. The idea, I think, its justification for the present system is that little particles of the oil get filtered out by the lava rock before reaching the groundwater and then the ocean. The only, as a practical matter what was done in TSA is that thereÓs now a catch filter, thereÓll be catch filters installed at the inlets to the drywell. And the County is doing an experimental project really to look at the catch filters and see how much junk and what kind of material actually gets caught in them, and prevent it from being washed into the lava. It doesnÓt tell us what happens whether or not, whether that material really had gone through the lava or not and not into the groundwater. But we will be able, after reviewing this, to find out what winds up in the catch filter. If we talk about putting this into the sewer system, let me remind everyone that the sewer system goes into a pipe that gets pumped to the CountyÓs wastewater treatment plant at 13 Kealakehe. And when itÓs done, which does absolutely nothing for oil, I believe, and after itÓs done, the wastewater treatment plant will remove some of the algae feeding nutrients that are contained in the wastewater, not all of them, but they remove a percentage of the nitrogen, for example. And after itÓs done in the wastewater treatment plant, itÓs pumped out through a pipe into a big hole in the ground; and then it settles down into lava, and it flows out to the sea. So I donÓt know that thatÓs a great solution either. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I have to follow-up on the another one of Mr. TylerÓs comments regarding the visual resources. And I think he addressed it to Jeffm, and Jeff spoke of why Kuakini Highway was used for evaluating visual resources. That being a State highway, I think the inference there was because Alii Drive is a County road that maybe Alii DriveÓs, the visual impact on Alii DriveÓs views is not specifically cited in the shoreline management process. That seems kind of out of spirit, at least, of what weÓre trying to do with shoreline management protection site. Maybe weÓll address it to Corporation Counsel or Planning Director whether that is, in fact, true that we should not be considering in the SMA permits the views from Alii Drive. YUEN:No. You should be considering it. ItÓs not as specific a, thereÓs something in the SMA guidelines about views to and along the shoreline. But there is a more specific section that Jeff cited about really trying to avoid blocking views from the State highway. But the views from Alii Drive and views along the shoreline are also a part of our review in the SMA. GRAHAM:Thank you. I have one other question. The overall sense IÓm gathering which is some what in line with one of the letters we received, is that there is an attempt to sort of like cram a lot into a very small place he our position, certainly not my background, to try to micro-manage the details of a design of something like this. However, since from the plan we have on the wall which, as Mr. Tyler said, doesnÓt seem to indicate any pool and cabana and all that Jeff later pointed out to us where that is, it doesnÓt seem like much room for that. Also, one of the letters we received said that the intention was to construct a sort of a visual barrier wall between that and the next property over. It just seems to me like thereÓs hardly room to get that to happen along with setbacks and everything like that. So I was wondering if the applicant or with your aid, Jeff, maybe you could give us a little sense for how big that pool is and what the setbacks are from the adjoining proper and the same with the cabanas, so we can really at least understand how all that is going to fit in there and whether there is any barrier thatÓs going to be constructed regarding the next property. CONVENTZ:We actually comply fully with the setback regulation size which requires 8-foot for the first story plus two for each additional story. We have four stories, 14 so that makes it 8, plus 3 times 2 is 14 feet. The wall line will, of the building will be on both sides at least 14 feet from the boundary as required by law. Actually, we did not intend to build a huge wall to cut off the neighborÓs view on the Isle property. ItÓs rather the other way around. ItÓs a little privacy wall actually. WeÓre always under the regulation of the, what the Zoning Code allows, Chapter 25, as a separation privacy wall for the one bathing there. ItÓs not necessarily nice for the neighboring property if some people scantily clad hop around; and so it benefits, a certain privacy wall. I agree with you, it should not be overdone, it should not be huge, it should not be a building wall. It should be really what it is meant to be, a privacy wall from both sides; and it has actually nothing to do with infringing on the view to the ocean, for inst GRAHAM:Could you also, just in, for the rest of my question, indicate what the size of that pool will be and what the distance of setback from the building and from the property line the pool will be? CONVENTZ:In count, all improvements on the entire property, no m in count or above, are outside the 40-foot setback shoreline setback line; and in count pool, under the Zoning ordinance, it can be built towards the boundary actually with a zero setback, but only an in count pool which that will be, as proposed. ItÓs not in the shoreline setback, so please only IÓm talking about only the side setback -. GRAHAM:Yes, I understand that. CONVENTZ:In full compliance with the Zoning ordinance. GRAHAM:And I donÓt doubt your compliance. But just for our bett understanding of how itÓs going to be, could you tell me what the size of the planned pool is and, in fact, is there going to be zero setback from the property line, or what the setback might be? CONVENTZ:Not exactly zero but close to zero, yes. ItÓs in the proposal. We are possibly open to some minor adjustments, but the pool is here, actually not in an exact dimensions into this. What it is is a preliminary, which is about, according to the -. ItÓs about 15 to 17 feet maximum width because itÓs irregular and itÓs about 35 feet length; and on the mauka end, it is about 14 feet width. So it is not, gigantic pool here. GRAHAM:Yes, I understand that and thank you. Also, on that same matter, the word ÐbeachÑ was written there and, I think, where the, within the shoreline setback. And IÓm presuming that was just sort of a rough use of the word, and thereÓs no intention to bring in any sand in and or make any changes in that way? CONVENTZ:No, no, not at all. Only to point it out. DoesnÓt mean that. We tried everything. And we are aware that Chris Yuen and other division chiefs would be after us like hell if we would. 15 GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of the Applicants? TYLER:Mr. Chair, may I just clarify this, you went off, item tha referring to, just for the record? GALDONES:Yes, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Very briefly. As you know, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, IÓve come -. Curtis Tyler, here again, sir. IÓve come before you speaking about the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, which is in excess of a 100-page document. I have before me today, as I have, I ca Decision and Order in this case. And Commissioner Springer was asking some questions and I would refer you to page 107, paragraph, the section titled, ÐStorm and Surface Water Runoff.Ñ It begins with paragraph No. 2-A and continues through paragraph No. 2-H; and then thereÓs another section and thatÓs on page 110. ThereÓs another one called ÐPollution Prevention.Ñ Indeed, this Decision and Order applies to an industrial area, quite removed from the shoreline. However, Director Yuen talked about oil. ItÓs not oil thatÓs the concern so much as it is the phosphates and the nitrogen dissolved in the water that creates significant problems for traditional and customary gathering, because of the damage to the eco-system. So I would suggest that if you donÓt do anything else, that you put some language to the, somewhat like this, and IÓm reading from No. 2-B, from a Decision and Order. ÐPrior to the occupancy of any part of the petitionary, the petitionary shall engineer, construct or acquire to be constructed and maintain surface water/storm water that ensure no State water quality standards will be violated.Ñ And 2-C, ÐNo injection wells shall be constructed as an element of a surface water/storm water containment system in the petitionary, unless prior to the start of any construction appropriate requirements of HAR, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-23, are satisfied and the Hawaii State Department of Health issues a UICÑ (thatÓs an Underground Injection Control) ÐPermit. Contaminants shall be monitored and removed with the best efforts prior to entering the injection wells.Ñ No. 2-D says, ÐIf a large void, such as a lava tube or solution cavity is encountered during drawing where the drill rod drops more than three feet, measures shall be taken to prevent migration of the injected fluids,Ñ in this case, the Koloko-Honokohau National Park, in this case, the shoreline, Ðto the satisfaction of the Hawaii State Department of Health.Ñ As Mr. Emler pointed out, indeed, theyÓre the enforcing body. And then thereÓs a 2-E further on and F regarding injection wells; I wonÓt, you can look those up yourself. The reason IÓm continually bringing this before you with respect to projects near the shoreline is because the County of HawaiÒi does not have any rules and regulations with respect to, and policies with respect to non-point source pollution. They have only and former Director, Mr. Lee, so indicated to the Council when he was queried by me during an open session. I spoke of this to Mr. McClure at his confirmation hearing, Director 16 McClure, and I suggested to him that this ought to be one of his top priorities. Because once, as pointed out in the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of La is negatively impacted, the chances of it, itÓs a cascade effect, and the chances for reparations is too late already. So IÓm not coming here singling out these folks. IÓve come before you on numerous occasions with the same concern. And Director Yuen says, ÐWell, you have to do it in systematical way.Ñ Well, every one of these that gets passed, the cumulative impact is going to be that some day we wonÓt enjoy what we enjoy today; and thatÓs my point, with no offense intended or hope taken. I think itÓs just really important. YouÓre the last arbiters of this. I canÓt do any more than come to you here. I canÓt take care of it at the Council level now. You are the ones that are granting the SMA. The whole premise of the SMA permit is to protect the Coastal Zone Management Area and, in particular, the SMA which is even more discreet, and an important area nearer to the coastline. So thatÓs the reason I keep bringing this forward; and I will continue to do so until we have some way of addressing this. It has to be taken care of. You know, when I go to the mainland to National Association of C meetings, throughout the nation people just canÓt believe that we allow drywells next to the shore. They canÓt believe we have cesspools next to the shore. They thought this was paradise. Well, it wonÓt be paradise anymore if we continue to allow these kinds of things to be injected into the near-shore waters, which is where theyÓre going to go. You know, whether itÓs 4 feet high, 10 feet wide, whatever it is, where do you think the water goes? It flows by gravity and it goes right into the ocean. So I urge you, please, to pay attention to this. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I wonder if the Director has any response to Mr. TylerÓs comments, and especially if he could address the recommendation, rather than addressing specifically this case the notion of addressing the issue systematically. Do you have any guidance for us? YUEN:What we have before, we have a one-and-a-half acre SMA permit application here. And even cumulatively, looking at, say, Kailua-Kona over a period of a decade, youÓre still talking about, if theyÓre done on a case-by-case basis, youÓre still talking about an area where thereÓs, the whole area is highly developed using these kinds of disposal, this kind of a disposal system. If this isnÓt good enough and there is a better solution, it should be implemented, that should be implemented, there should be a law passed that requires that to be done on a more general and wider scale. The authority that handles this right now is the State Department of Health. The County could also pass an ordinance, if the County wanted to handle storm water runoff differently. But I donÓt think it should be done on a permit-by-permit level, particularly on a rather small project in an already highly developed area. If weÓre talking about a large project in a relatively undeveloped area, then I could see taking a more, taking a look at it on a, on the whole of that project, but not on an individual project on Alii Drive. 17 SPRINGER:I appreciate the DirectorÓs comments with regard to thi application in particular. When youÓre talking about a County ordinance addressing this matter, would that be a matter for our Council to take up? YUEN:The Council could. As any other ordinance, I think that they would want to have professional advice in making an ordinance like that. Currently, there are things being done that are like this. And the Council did authorize a study thatÓs being done by the Department of Health, I mean, IÓm sorry, the Department of Public Works has let out a contract to revise the grading ordinance, just to give an example of this sort of thing. ItÓs currently going on. So there is progress being made in updating the requirement, our codes. Specifically on injection wells, there isnÓt anything being done. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions, comments? Otherwise, is there anyone else from the public who wishes to testify on this subject matter? Mr. Klaus, there were two additions that were read by Jeff, addition to Condition No. 9 and there was a new No. 10 -. CONVENTZ:Yes. GALDONES:Do you have any comments on those? CONVENTZ:Only that we can comply, yes. GALDONES:Okay, Commissioners, this comes with the recommendation to approve this SMA 03-011. What is the wishes of the Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that SMA 03-011 be approved by the Planning Commission, along with the Findings and Recommendations and conditions, as amended, as follows: On Condition No. 9, a statement regarding a paved shoulder, I didnÓt get all of the verbiage on that but I think staff has it; and a new 10 regarding the vehicular security gate and so forth; and the subsequent conditions being renumbered, following the new addition of No. 10. GALDONES:Do I hear a second to the motion? SMITH:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Smith that Koa Ventures, LLCÓs Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 03-011) be approved, along with the amendments to Condition 18 of No., of a new No. 10, and renumbering the subsequent other conditions, along with the Background Report, Findings and the Recommendation. Discussion? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I appreciate the comments by Mr. Tyler and Director Yue response to them. That discussion though leaves me in somewhat of a quandary if, indeed, any runoff is put into the sewer and the sewer goes through the normal treatment process and runs about in the ocean anyway. It seems the canandrom greater than can be addressed by this particular application. IÓm inclined to vote in favor of the motion but I do have reservations with regard to the water quality issue rais you. GALDONES:Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Springer. Th well taken. Any further discussion? Jeff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. DARROW:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Aye. 19 DARROW:Motion passes. GALDONES:Thank you, Jeff. You will be informed in writing of todayÓs actions. CONVENTZ:Thank you very much. GALDONES:YouÓre welcome. The discussion ended at 10:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 20